Saturday, May 21, 2011

The Betrayal Unmasked by Paul Schnee:

Excellent commentary from ACT supporter, Paul Schnee

Once, when trying to describe Richard Wagner's music to a friend Mark Twain said it was better than it sounds. No such claim can be made for the miserable speech given yesterday on the Middle East by Barack Obama. Displaying all the confidence of his inability and beaming his wisdom towards us he confirmed in the starkest terms why his long held prejudices, cloaked as a foreign policy, have made his Oval Office not only the graveyard for any peace and justice in the Middle East but also the incubator for the next great conflict there. Obama's intentions towards Israel have never been good but yesterday he proved just how hostile he is to the Jewish state of Israel. By suggesting that Israel should return to the indefensible armistice lines of 1967 he is deliberately creating a situation whereby Israel could easily be cut in half in any future Arab attack upon her. One of the most perverse forms of anti-Semitism is to expect Jews to die meekly but despite just enough rhetoric to make it sound as if he is an honest broker this is just what Obama has in mind. If this were not the case he would not propose such a suicidal arrangement and he would have condemned the recent alliance between Hamas, an internationally recognised terrorist organization dedicated to Israel's destruction, and the so called Palestinian Authority which is just the PLO masquerading as a government. Furthermore, he would have condemned the identical Al Queda, Hamas, Hizbollah and Palestinian Authority rhetoric of Jew-hatred and incitment to violence which has greatly increased during his administration. This increase is due to their perception that when the president of the United States demonstrates a cold reluctance to impose any penalties for bad behaviour and keeps making demands on Israel he shows he is actually entirely sympathetic to their cause even if he is unable to actually come out and say so in public.

However, we do not need Obama to publicly declare his support for a group of Islamic fascists whose undiminished goal is the extinction of Israel and the destruction of the West in order to prove his predilictions. All we need to do is to look at the anti-Israel appointees in his administration and others with whom he has surrounded himself: Samantha Powers, Susan Rice, Valerie Jarrett, George Soros, Rashid Khalidi, Bill Ayres, Jeremiah Wright, Chuck Hagel, Hannah Rosenthal, Charles Freeman and J Street et al to name a few.

It is disturbing in the extreme to witness an American president enthusiastically endorse the propaganda of that enormous, well-oiled, contraption of distortion, the Palestinian Myth Machine to the extent that the only liberal democracy in the Middle East and America's strongest ally in the region is regarded with contempt and thinly disguised hostility in favor of genocidal enemies who will never be satisfied with "land for peace" but only with Israel's annihilation and the murder of as many Jews as possible. Yesterday, Obama brought this awful spectre closer to a reality. His speech was a shameful act in a career of shameful acts and a form of reckless selfishness to which our history affords no parallel. It deranged what should be all of our strategic and proper calculations in the region.

The Palestinian/Israel conflict is actually a highly deceptive misnomer since all there has ever been is an Arab war against Israel. This war, in the form of massacres and pogroms, was going on in the Middle East for decades long before the establishment of modern day Israel in 1948. Even during World War II the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Amin al-Husanyi, allied himself with Hitler and was active in recruting Arabs for the Waffen SS. To assert that the current conflict is as a result of Israel's creation in 1948 is to misrepresent and mischaracterise the root of the problem namely doctrinally inspired Arab hatred of Jews...period. Grasp that and you will have grasped the very heart of the matter. This simple fact should be obvious even to the slowest of minds yet it continues to elude Barack Obama. Clearly, a degree from Harvard is not sufficient proof of brilliance.

Perhaps Obama's speech will have a sobering effect upon the 78% of Jews who cast their ballot for him in 2008. Then their reason was overpowered by their imagination when their Judaism was subverted by their new religion of liberalism, a constant bewitcher of due diligence. Few had any idea that they were simultaneously handing Adolf Hitler a posthumous victory in his quest for the Final Solution and placing a cuckoo in the nest of democracy. Yesterday's speech now proves it.

Friday, May 20, 2011


David Wilder
May 20, 2011

A number of years ago, also on a Friday afternoon, I wrote an article based upon a visit from American ‘diplomats’ to Hebron. They were supposedly part of an ‘economic team’ in Israel together with American negotiators, pressuring Israel to make concessions to the Arabs. Actually, the men who spoke with me for a couple of hours were clearly spies, who I wrote about and named, undoubtedly working for one of the US spy agencies, the CIA or the like.

Never give up. That’s not only our password. They use it too. The United States still has agents in Israel. And they still try to pump us for information, even here in Hebron. I’ve been working as a liaison with these folks for about fifteen years, and truthfully, I enjoy it. It allows me a chance to strike back, in my own subtle (or not so subtle) way. I don’t lie to them – I have nothing to lie about. But sometimes I have a good time with them. For instance, today, a few hours ago. Of course, today’s topic of conversation is last night’s ‘Obamanation.’ No, I didn’t misspell obamination. I wrote it the right way. This guy’s chutzpa has achieved heights never yet reached by human beings.

Netanyahu is on the way to Ben Gurion airport, leaving Israel for a scheduled meeting with Obama the next morning. Included in the visit are scheduled two major speeches: At AIPAC, the largest Israeli lobby in the United State, and later an address to a joint meeting of Congress, before all American lawmakers,
Congressmen and Senators alike. Big time stuff.

Except that the Israel right isn’t very happy. To the contrary. Bibi’s speech in the Knesset a few days ago didn’t leave anyone who loves Eretz Yisrael feeling too good. Sure, he spoke about holding on to ‘settlement blocks’ but refused to acknowledge Israeli rights to places like Hebron and Kiryat Arba, or Beit El and Shilo or communities housing somewhere between 150,000 to 200,000 Jews. He also hemmed and hawed at our continued civilian communities in the Jordan Valley, talking only about a permanent military presence there. Clearly, the between-the-lines message was direct: I will cut up Eretz Yisrael, destroy communities, abandon holy sites, and expel tens and hundreds of thousands from their homes, in the ‘name of piece.’

Of course, this was all conditional on Fatah’s divorcing Hamas, etc. etc. But we all know what happens when you hold a chocolate candy bar in front of a child. The kid will promise anything, but anything, to bite into the sweet gooey mess, only to promptly forget all his guarantees five minutes later.

Isn’t this the minimum of what we’ve learned from Oslo and Gush Katif?

Obama knows all of this. But it’s not enough. A few hours prior to the journey to America, Bibi gets a call from Hillary, who springs the surprise: Tonight the US will officially call for Israel’s return to the 1967 pre-Six Day war borders. Bibi’s arguments aren’t convincing. So even before the plane takes off, Obama sucker-punches Bibi, and collectively, the State of Israel and Jews around the world, in the gut. Before the discussions begin, prior to Bibi’s speeches, during which he probably would have reiterated, perhaps even upping the ante, in Washington, Obama attempts to throw a knockout punch, under the belt, hoping to leave the Prime Minister and the State of Israel out cold.

This is the president of the United States of America. A street-fighting sucker-puncher from Chicago. Well, what can I say? The Americans voted him in.

Bibi’s reaction was to be expected. Lukewarm at best, demanding ‘assurances’ and exclaiming that the 1967 borders are indefensible.


Assurances? Not too long ago a friend over here asked me if I have US citizenship. Replying positively, he asked if I vote in US presidential elections. I replied of course not. What, I’m going to vote for one of them, only to bear witness later to his undivided attempts to destroy Israel. True, some may be better than others, but I really don’t trust any of them.

We all know what Bibi should have said. This is our land and we are not about to abandon it to people who murder our men, women, children and babies in their sleep, who shoot rockets into our cities, and unequivocally declare their continued desire to erase us from the map.

But he didn’t. And probably won’t. After all, he’s Bibi.

But, a couple of hours ago, when my latest counterpart from the US consulate in Jerusalem called me, asking for my reaction to last night’s Obamanation, I surprised him. I told that, in my opinion, the speech was excellent and I’m very happy Obama made it.

On the other end of the line, total quiet.

I continued: “The speech was great because I believe it will, eventually, lead to the full annexation of Judea, Samaria and the Jordan Valley. After all, when you push people into a corner, and this isn’t just a corner, it’s the corner’s corner, they have no choice but to push themselves out, any way they can. Israel’s reaction, and this is already being discussed in various circles, will be to annex all of Judea and Samaria and the Jordan Valley, as a result of continued pressure to abandon all of it to our sworn enemies.

This is wonderful. I won’t have to argue with people about whether Hebron is or is not a part of the State of Israel. It will be, just as is Jerusalem, a recognized city in the sovereign state of Israel.

And honestly, I’m not sure whether Israel would consider doing so without Obama’s speech and demands. So, I would thank Obama for making such a fine speech for Israel.”

The guy was stunned.

I also asked him if it was true that when Netanyahu arrived at the White House, the US was going to fly, not only an American and Israeli flag, but also a Hamas flag.

He hadn’t heard that rumor.

So much for cynicism. What can be done, immediately? A campaign should begin today: Stand for Bibi, Sit for Obama.

When Bibi arrives at AIPAC, (and also in Congress, but that’s easier to arrange), he must receive a huge, huge, huge welcome, with all delegates there on their feet, applauding for at least 15 minutes. That should be his welcome. Ditto when he finishes. Not because he’s Bibi. But because he is the Prime Minister of the State of Israel, who was sucker-punched by the President of the United States.
Obama is also scheduled to speak at AIPAC. When he arrives, no one should move, stand up or applaud. And that’s the way it should remain, until he finally does them a favor and leaves. Afterwards they should applaud his exit from the room. A standing ovation. To a vacant podium.

The leadership of American Jewry and all those attending AIPAC must make it clear as day. We Jews will not take it in the gut. We know how to fight back.

And, by the way, fear not. We will annex Yehuda and Shomron and the Jordan Valley. No Obamanation is going to stop us from living in our land. Not now, not ever.

"Sharing As Possible"

Arlene Kushner

Once this goes out, there will not be another posting from me for several days, as I shift my focus from the wider world to my private world, and the advent (please G-d may all go well in the next couple of days) of a new grandchild. The greatest of blessings, and the reason for everything I do: those dearly, deeply loved of the next generation.

And yet, as I write, we are in the midst of several things happening. It is only very briefly that I will be able to address them.


What can I say? Obama is from another planet, delusional. Dangerous.

And let us not forget devious. Today Prime Minister Netanyahu is meeting with him in the White House. But BEFORE they had a chance to talk, BEFORE Netanyahu had a chance to give his talk, the president of the United States, a man never to be trusted, had his say. And undercut Israel's position.
In his speech from the State Department last night, he said peace between the Palestinian Arabs and Israel is "more urgent than ever." And, while saying he cannot impose a settlement, proposed what it should look like:

The core, the key, is that he went on record saying that Israel should return to the '67 armistice lines. This in spite of multiple understandings with American administrations that Israel would not be asked to do this.

He suggested that there should be a “full and phased withdrawal” of the IDF to be coordinated with the Palestinians during a transition period with a clear duration and demonstrated security effectiveness.
He would put us on the block, and yet he then has the unmitigated gall to talk about devotion to Israel's security. A transition period? The '67 lines will never be acceptable, can never be secure, but he would have us move in that direction even before other matters are clear. He sees us making that move to entice the Arabs back to the table. He would have us do this BEFORE Jerusalem and refugees are even discussed. Gone is the principle of "everything is decided or nothing is decided."

What particularly galled me is that he admitted that the unity government raises "profound and legitimate questions for Israel” and said, in an other-worldly approach, that the Arabs will have to "provide answers." Right. But in face of these "profound questions" he acknowledges Israel has, he is calling for her to take bold steps towards peace.


He did warn the PA that their projected gambit at the UN won't work. But I wonder if he's going to hold something over Netanyahu's head today -- saying that if he is to veto action in the Security Council, he wants to see concessions from Israel that will bring the PA back to the table to negotiate.

He lamented that talks have stalemated: “Israeli settlement activity continues. Palestinians have walked away from talks.” Notice the order here, the implication being that Israel ought stop building in communities in Judea and Samaria so the PA can return to the table.

And he chastised the PA in other ways, speaking of the need to stop terrorism and weapons smuggling. But NO WHERE does he suggest that Israel cannot move with safety until these safeguards are in place. And NO WHERE does he specifically call on Hamas to demonstrate its peaceful intentions via the Quartet criteria.

At bottom, the Arabs won't be happy with this either, however. Because he will not have been sufficiently one-sided for them. And there lies a saving grace. Because they're not coming back to the table.


Were that I had time for more. What's most important is the response of our prime minister. On coming into the US, Netanyahu responded that:

“Israel believes that for peace to endure between Israelis and Palestinians, the viability of a Palestinian state cannot come at the expense of the viability of the one and only Jewish state.

Israel, he added, received commitments in 2004 from Congress that it would not have to return to the 1967 lines. The pre-1967 lines, Netanyahu said, “are both indefensible and…would leave major Israeli population centers in [Judea and Samaria] beyond those lines. Those commitments also ensure Israel’s well-being as a Jewish state by making clear that Palestinian refugees will settle in a future Palestinian state rather than in Israel.”

Obviously, he'll have a great deal more to say soon.


JINSA points out, by the way, that we should not ignore the fact that Obama, in his speech, pledged assistance to Egypt even before knowing what will transpire there. For JINSA this is the most dangerous element of Obama's talk.


When next I write, may it be for good things.


© Arlene Kushner. This material is produced by Arlene Kushner, functioning as an independent journalist. Permission is granted for it to be reproduced only with proper attribution.

Krauthammer: Obama speech shows he ‘has sympathies everywhere except Israel’

On Thursday, President Barack Obama gave a speech at the State Department in Washington, D.C. which was supposed to offer an indication of what American policy would be in the Middle East as the region was going through great transition. However, coming out of the speech many are questioning the president’s suggestion that Israel should withdrawal to pre-1967 boundaries.

On Thursday’s “Special Report” on the Fox News Channel, syndicated columnist Charles Krauthammer gave a very disparaging review of the president’s proposed policy. His major point of contention: Obama is willing to give away a bargaining chip without getting much in return. What Obama did today is something that no American president has ever done, which is to endorse the return to the 1967 lines which as you said would reduce Israel to a country with a waist eight miles wide,” Krauthammer said. “Now, the reason this is odd is because you’d expect it to be at least in return for something. But the Palestinians in the two-and-a-half years of this administration have not offered them anything as a concession to Israelis. [Palestinian Authority President] Mahmoud Abbas has boycotted the negotiation and then a few weeks ago, he joined in government with Hamas, dedicated to extermination of Israel. In return for all of those and the Israel gestures, Obama makes the biggest concession of the entire Arab-Israeli negotiations in 50 years.”

Krauthammer explained that the problem with this proposal is that it negates prior agreements Israel had made with the U.S. government.

“And second it’s an issue of trust,” he continued. “Whenever Israel negotiates, there’s an asymmetry. It gives away a tangible asset — land in return for promises which are ephemeral. America looks at that and says, ‘Look, we understand and thus we will balance the risk by giving us American assurances that will help you because of the asymmetry in negotiations.’ In 2000 and before, Israel was preparing withdrawal from Gaza and it got explicit written promises from the U.S. government that it would not ask Israel return to the ‘67 lines and it would support Israel holding on to the close-in settlement as a new reality on the ground. But what Obama did today is tear up that agreement. If Israel cannot rely on the assurances of the United States, which is a way to balance the risks it takes and it cannot negotiate it – it has to wonder how much it can trust this American president.”


Read more:

Later in the segment, he said this could lead to other concessions down the line in the name of the peace process. He also explained why the speech indicated that Obama “has sympathies everywhere except Israel.”

“Look, on two points, ‘67 lines he established a new precedent,” Krauthammer said. “This is important. Not kicking of the can. It’s a new can. It’s new policy. Second, this idea of negotiating the borders, Israel giving up all the bargaining chips — once it gives up the ‘67 line, what does it have bargaining chip? Then Israel enters in negotiation over the right of the turn the flooding of Israel with millions of Arabs and destroying Israel demographically as a Jewish state. It’s going to be negligent. It’s not going to have any negotiating chips. And the endorsement — every administration in the past has rejected the so-called right of return. Obama did indirectly. So why didn’t he do it directly? All of these assurances are pointing to a president who has sympathies everywhere except Israel. He is willing to endanger Israel with all of these steps and not postponement of the engagement.”

God Help Us All

Norma Zager

“Even though you can't expect to defeat the absurdity of the world, you must make that attempt. That's morality, that's religion. That's art. That's life.” Phil Ochs

In his speech today Barack Obama said he wants to return Israel to its pre 1967 borders. He then immediately insisted the United States give the Indians back Manhattan Island in return for the $24.00 worth of crap paid by Peter Minuit.

The Hispanic community has already called to tell Obama they insist on the return of California to pre Spanish-American war borders while a slew of lawsuits were filed against the US by Apache, Hopi and numerous other Native American tribes.

President Obama said the idea that countries should keep conquered lands is Un-American and against national values. Despite the fact Israel was attacked by the entire Arab world repeatedly, but beat them down with their army until they had to be pulled off, Obama said the poor Arabs are entitled to their land back. He then called Israel an uncooperative and aggressor nation and also noted that many Jews had the audacity to even fight back when led into the camps to be killed during World War II.

The American President also suggested the US forgive the debts of their Middle Eastern friends, because he bragged, “Americans don’t need the money.”

He said he has also called for a meeting with Donald Trump to discuss donating Trump Towers and Trump Plaza to the Indians for a casino on Fifth Avenue.

Obama said that going to war with other nations and interfering with their inner government workings is wrong and he cannot sanction such behavior.

He was interrupted by a call from Hillary Clinton to secure his permission to increase the use of drones in Afghanistan and send troops into Libya to oust Gaddafi.

He pointed out that his interference in Egypt to overthrow Mubarak and install the Muslim Brotherhood in power had nothing to do with the fact Egypt was Israel’s only friend in the Middle East.

He reiterated how much he loved the Jewish people and would protect Israel, then announced he was appointing Louis Farrakhan Under-Secretary of State for Middle East affairs.

American Jewish leaders were quick to applaud Obama’s appointment saying, “We love him and we know he is looking out for our best interests.”

The American Nazi Party announced they will hold a celebration in Obama’s honor Tuesday and issued the following statement.

“We are certain the President is in line with our ideals as an organization. His stance on the Middle East has brought happiness and a new sense of hope to our cause. The Fuehrer would be so proud.”

Obama is expected to enter discussions next month with British Prime Minister Cameron about the return of the Thirteen Colonies and war reparations to Britain.

The British government said in the spirit of friendship it is returning its conquered lands including the Falkland Islands to their rightful owners.

Legal experts from Harvard University said these land returns could start a new wave of cooperation throughout the world, and then placed armed guards at Harvard’s entrance to protect students from the rioting British outside.

Queen Elizabeth II has filed suit in the name of King George III, her 3rd great grandfather, in the international court in The Hague, alleging he was of unsound mind when he allowed the colonists to take British land.

“My ancestor was not of his right mind and thus a terrible mistake occurred during his reign. We intend to actively seek reparations from the United States and are hopeful our case will prevail. I have had my eye on an estate in Kennebunkport, Maine, for quite a while, but the Royal Wedding was expensive so once the US is returned I can move right in.”

Upon hearing the Queen’s message Obama quipped. “I will play her three games of one on one for the entire east coast.” Reporters in the room broke into uncontrollable fits of laughter and noted the President’s quick wit and great sense of humor.

French President Sarkozy has planned a trip to New Orleans this summer where he intends to investigate legal records of the Louisiana Purchase to ensure the US “didn’t pull a fast one there.”

Meanwhile in California, lawmakers are checking out rumors Arnold signed San Diego over to his mistress and baby mama while in office. Gloria Allred, representing the mistress, sobbed openly as she held the baby mama’s hand.

“This poor woman was only making fifty thousand a year and living a secret. One city in her name is the least Arnold can do to make up for the horrible way she was treated.”

Responding to Obama’s newest plan for Israel, Netanyahu told reporters: “We are looking forward to the next visit by our good friend Barack Obama. We have a special welcome planned for him that is being co-hosted by Mubarak. We can hardly wait until he gets here to show him all the love.”

The series “Postcards from America—Postcards from Israel” by Ari Bussel and Norma Zager is a compilation of articles capturing the essence of life in America and Israel during the first two decades of the 21st Century.

The writers invite readers to view and experience an Israel and her politics through their eyes, Israel visitors rarely discover.

This point—and often—counter-point presentation is sprinkled with humor and sadness and attempts to tackle serious and relevant issues of the day. The series began in 2008, appears both in print in the USA and on numerous websites and is followed regularly by readership from around the world.

© “Postcards from America — Postcards from Israel,” May, 2011


Thursday, May 19, 2011

Fundamentally Freund: God bless Glenn Beck


The ‘Fox News’ personality’s "Restoring Courage" event is as refreshing as it is inspiring, coming as it does when the Jewish state is under siege in the international arena.

In a week filled with drama for Israel and its supporters, there was one event which stands out.

In a Manhattan studio, a popular radio and television host made an announcement on Monday that could be a watershed in the battle for truth.

Speaking to millions of viewers and listeners, Glenn Beck declared that he was organizing “Restoring Courage” – to be held in Jerusalem this August. The aim is simple: to persuade as many people as possible from all faiths that the time has come to show support for Israel and the Jews.

“I believe I’ve been asked to stand – in Jerusalem,” Beck said, noting that “many in the history of man have had the opportunity to stand with the Jewish people. Time and time again they have had the opportunity, and they have failed. I choose to stand and be counted.”

And just what does standing with Israel have to do with courage? Coming as it does when the Jewish state is under siege in the international arena, and is often unfairly portrayed in the mainstream press, Beck’s message is as refreshing as it is inspiring.

He refuses to be cowed by the elites, many of whom have embraced the Palestinian and Arab narrative regarding the Middle East.

Beck sees through their muddled notions of truth and justice, pointing out their bewildering refusal to recognize the threat to Western civilization posed by Islamic extremism.

And that is what makes the “Restoring Courage” event so important. Though many details have yet to be disclosed, it will clearly be far more than just another rally. It promises to be an expression of faith, a call to defy the prevailing notion that Good and Evil are purely subjective terms.

Nowadays, it takes courage – and lots of it – to stand and declare that Israel and the West are right, just and moral, and that our foes are simply wrong.

It takes nerve and daring to challenge ourselves, to heed the voice of God and recognize the righteousness of our cause.

For far too long, Israelis have been battered by criticism and disapproval – so much so that we have begun to internalize it, with many coming to see themselves as the aggressor and occupier.

Slogans such as “a two-state solution” have become standard fare, and anyone opposed to the idea is quickly labeled a reactionary extremist.

Beck’s event offers us all an opportunity to come to our senses.

As he put it, “things in Israel are going to get bad... it’s only a matter of time. They are going to attack the center of our faith – our common faith – and that is Jerusalem. And it won’t be with bullets or bombs.”

The timing of this message could not be more crucial.

THE PALESTINIAN threat to seek UN recognition in September hovers ominously, as does the possibility of a third intifada. Hamas has joined the Palestinian government, and Iran continues working to build nuclear weapons.

Yet despite the turmoil sweeping the Arab world, Israel is under increasing pressure to make additional concessions.

If it succeeds, “Restoring Courage” will be a boon to the beleaguered Jewish state, and provide a much-needed shot in the arm.

In calling on people to join him, Beck is openly invoking crucial values such as faith, reminding us that every person will ultimately be called to account for their actions – and inactions – by the Creator. He has forthrightly reminded humanity that we can’t stand and do nothing in the face of evil. Israel, he made clear, matters.

Now, I know what some of you are probably thinking: Glenn Beck? Isn’t he an eccentric purveyor of conspiracy theories, outlandish assertions and brash conservatism? What can Israel and the Jewish people possibly gain from his backing? The answer is: quite a lot.

You don’t have to agree with Beck on everything, or even much at all, to see the inherent and overwhelming value in his latest initiative.

For a country that doesn’t have all that many friends out there in the world, Israel should be grateful for those willing to stand behind us, even if they are not necessarily your cup of tea It will be particularly interesting to see how American Jewish organizations react. In the past, various liberal Jewish groups have denounced Beck, with whom they have little in common politically.

How easy it would have been for the television host to say to himself: “After the way some Jews have treated me, why should I speak out for them?” But in rising above the pettiness of his critics, the Fox News personality has taught us all a lesson in not losing sight of what really matters.

As a man of faith, I was especially moved when Beck read on air from the Book of Ruth.

He choked up when he quoted Ruth the Moabite’s appeal to her mother-in-law Naomi: “Where you go I will go, and where you stay I will stay. Your people will be my people, and your God my God.”

This, he said, had helped inspire him to stand with the Jews.

This brings to mind a verse in Genesis (12:3), where God made a promise to Abraham and all of mankind: “I will bless those who bless you, and those who curse you shall be cursed.”

Notice how there is no middle ground. Each person is presented with a clear and unequivocal choice: You either bless Abraham’s descendants, the Jews, or you curse them.

Glenn Beck has courageously chosen to bless them, and to bring Jews, Christians and others together to take a stand.

Here’s hoping that many heed his call.

The writer serves as chairman of Shavei Israel (, a Jerusalem-based organization that assists ‘lost Jews’ seeking to return to the Jewish people.

Pruden dissects Obama, Netanyahu and Useful Idiot American Jews

PRUDEN: A Come-to-Moses moment at hand
By Wesley Pruden
The Washington Times
Friday, May 13, 2011

The State Department, which has never been particularly friendly to Jews, is getting a little cover for its unrelenting deference to the enemies of Israel. The Jews eager to cover for the diplomats are the weak, the naive and, alas, the familiar.

They’re the liberal, mostly Democratic, Jews offended by the “aggressive” Israelis who understand what’s at stake in the Middle East. They’re embarrassed by and resentful of the “righteous Gentiles” eager to help Israel prevent a second Holocaust, this one in the Middle East, rather than to contribute to building another Holocaust museum later. Israel once united the contentious factions of American Jews, but now the mere existence of Israel exacerbates tension between the realists and the deaf, blind dreamers. Nevertheless, a “come-to-Moses” moment is approaching. Mahmoud Abbas, the president of the Palestinian Authority, fresh from his kiss-and-make-up session with the terrorists of Hamas, is coming to New York City in September to press the United Nations to recognize an independent Palestinian State.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu will be in Washington next week to address a joint session of Congress and to meet with President Obama. Maybe they’ll talk about that. The occasion will give Messrs. Obama and Netanyahu, in diplo-speak, “An opportunity for the United States and Israel to review the full range of issues, from Iran to the regional change to the peace process.”

If the past is the usual reliable guide, the White House and the State Department will actually see this as an opportunity to pressure Israel to submit to further accommodation to those who want to “wipe Israel off the map,” in the vow of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the president of Iran and the chief enabler of Hamas.

Mr. Obama himself is all aquiver working on his speech, probably to be delivered next week, eager to speak softly and carry small convictions made of strawberry Jell-O. The Wall Street Journal reports that he will urge Muslims to “reject Islamic militancy in the wake of Osama bin Laden’s death and embrace a new era of relations with the United States.” Ah, if only.

But it’s not just the Jews who get the back of his hand. There hasn’t been a peep out of the White House since a dozen Egyptian Christians were killed and scores injured by violent Muslims last weekend. Christian homes and businesses were trashed and burned. The pope condemned it; Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper condemned it. Nothing from the president, though there’s White House precedent for condemning burning churches. (Bill Clinton once condemned the burning of black churches in Arkansas even when nobody had burned any churches in Arkansas.)

Some American Jews who are fed up with the passivity, or worse, of well-established advocacy groups are splitting to establish new organizations with an appetite for the red meat that is the diet of everyone else in the Middle East. One particular target is the confederation of local Jewish Federations that, no doubt well-meaning, offer aid and comfort to those who mean Israel nothing but ill.

In New York City, writes Jonathan Rosenblum, a columnist for the Jerusalem Post and the Hebrew daily Maariv, a Jewish Federation affiliate on the Upper West Side supports organizations promoting boycott, divestment and sanction of Israel. In Washington, the Federation funds an anti-Jewish theater troupe called Theater J, whose recent offerings include a play about Israelis as modern Nazis. A Southern California chapter contributes money to send students to Israel to be treated to scolding lectures by Hamas speakers.

This Jewish cover for anti-Israel initiatives is no doubt welcomed by Arabists in Foggy Bottom, where skepticism of Jews is part of the established old order. In his biography of Harry S. Truman, David McCullough tells of the fierce and bitter State Department resistance to recognizing the state of Israel at its founding in 1948. “The striped-pants conspirators,” Mr. Truman called the men just below George C. Marshall, the secretary whom the president regarded as something of a saint. “Some White House men … believe that a number of positions taken by career men on this matter were based on anti-Semitism, not diplomacy,” wrote one prominent pundit. Men at the State Department accused the president’s men of being more concerned about Israel than American security.

Six decades later, some things have changed, but not all. One thing that has changed is that there’s no one remotely like Harry S. Truman, a president fully at ease with the true character of the country he leads, in charge at the White House.

• Wesley Pruden is editor emeritus of The Washington Times.

This entry was posted by Jerome S. Kaufman on May 19, 2011.

The UN Vote on a Palestinian State

Herbert London

In September the United Nations will attempt to create a Palestinian state through political mandate. It should be obvious to anyone who has observed UN action in recent years that this is not merely an attempt to justify the political aspirations of Palestinians, but rather to punish Israel. This initiative should be seen against a backdrop of Muslim imperial ambitions.

In fact, Israel is directly on the fault line of Islam’s territorial aims. This tiny nation of six million is the bulwark in the war with jihadists. Facing close to 300 million enemies in nations nearby Israel stands between survival and defeat of the West. Those Israeli eighteen year olds who are sent into battle allow parents in the United States to sleep restfully as their eighteen year olds go off to college. But make no mistake, Israel is the defender of our interests, the first line of defense in “the long war.” This, of course, is a thin reed on which to rest a civilization, but it is a steel reed that time and again has demonstrated its mettle. Many in Europe and a growing population in the United States contend Israel should be abandoned in order to address Muslim grievances. But should this position gain traction, it would not bring solace to the West. It would merely mean our principles have been compromised. A world without Israel would not be a safer place; it would usher in a tide of aggression as Islamists see the West bend to their will. If Israel goes, the fragility of the West will become apparent.

As a consequence, it is time for a wake-up call. Liberty is in the cross-hairs and the defender of that liberty, of our liberty, are the children of Israel. They are our chosen people sacrificing their blood so we may remain immune to the incursions of Islamic imperialism.

It is instructive that Islam is more than a religion; it is a religion qua political movement. Through sharia there are rules for society and for the behavior of every individual. Make no mistake, as presently constituted, Islam is not compatible with democracy. The pillars of democratic capitalism – individual rights, the rule of law, the preservation of private property, equality of women – are simply not part of Islamic tradition.

Like many other religions, Islam conceives of the world through the bifurcated lens of good and evil. Islamic theology has two spheres in perpetual conflict: the House of Islam and the House of War. The House of Islam (dar al-Islam) embraces territory where sharia is the law of the land, while the House of War (dar al-harb) comprises the rest of the world. According to the Koran, the House of Islam is enjoined by Allah to make war upon the House of War until the latter is permanently assimilated into the former. While this war is sometimes hot and sometimes cold, it is permanent until sharia reigns over the globe.

This is what Samuel Huntington understood to mean the conflict of civilizations. Most religions, of course, distinguish between believers and non believers, but Islam goes further drawing a capital distinction between political – legal regimes: those in submission to Islam and those in rebellion. Since the West is largely in rebellion, it is the challenge to be overcome.

That UN vote in September should be understood against this setting. Here is a systematic effort to vanquish western civilization, using the Palestinian question as a tactical instrument. Fifty seven Muslim nations have raised the stakes in this ongoing struggle and if there were ever a time for the western nations to mobilze their influence and assert the Judeo-Christian tradition that is the foundation stone of our way of life, this is it. Israel may be on the front-line in this struggle, but what is in question involves every person in the West. Contributing Editor Herbert London is president of Hudson Institute and professor emeritus of New York University. He is the author of Decade of Denial (Lanham, Maryland: Lexington Books, 2001), America's Secular Challenge (Encounter Books) and Decline and Revival in Higher Education (Transaction).

Reader Comments: Submit Your Comment (0) | Sign Up for FSM Updates!

You can find this online at:

"A Closer Look"

Arlene Kushner

I start today by recommending an article, "Can Obama recognize the 'Nakba' nakba," by Gil Troy:

"President Barack Obama came to town riding on a series of assumptions about the Middle East. But the region's harsh realities have contradicted his fanciful notions...This week's Nakba Day violence revealed that Israel's existence since 1948, not its occupation since 1948, remains the Palestinians' target. Obama must recognize that this "Nakba" nakba -- the Palestinians' catastrophic reading of Israel's founding as a catastrophe -- damages peace prospects. Yet again, Palestinians seem more committed to destroying Israel than building their own state.

"...Yet the Palestinians have snookered the world, seeking a free pass for violence, incitement, delegitimization, extermination and intransigence. World leaders function as the great enables of Palestinian dysfunction, rationalizing Palestinians' political culture of negation and hatred while according them special treatment...(emphasis added) "Every president must make post-inauguration adjustments, replacing outsiders' presumptions with the insiders' perceptions. Obama's Middle East-related rigidity is not some idiosyncratic shortcoming. He is imprisoned in a groupthink reading that is popular and resistant to reality.

"Too many elite Americans mistakenly compare the Palestinians' struggle for statehood with African-Americans' struggle for civil rights...In his Cairo speech, Obama...made the comparison. Condoleezza Rice was more explicit, equating her childhood miseries in the segregated South, while comparing Abbas to Martin Luther King, Jr. (emphasis added)

"Additionally Palestinian propaganda has pushed this comparison for decades...

"The false analogy distorts the story into one of racial oppression, not national conflict. This reading sanctions Palestinian violence, given our abhorrence of racial tyranny. (emphasis added)

"Perpetuating the Nakba treats Israel's very founding as its original sin, like slavery is American's original sin, which had to be undone violently by Civil War. This falsehood also views Palestinians as passive, less responsible players...


"By contrast, recognizing the Palestinian-Israeli conflict as a national conflict -- linked to the Arab-Israeli conflict -- restores balance. It makes Palestinians responsible for their choices. It highlights their power, as part of the broader Arab assault against Israel...

"Restoring historical balance and more accountability would also restore mutuality. Imagine the outrage if Israeli leaders spoke about the Palestinians the way leading Palestinians speak, write, teach, preach and broadcast about Israel. Imagine the scandal if Israel ever proposed anything paralleling the Hamas Charter...Note that this month, while Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu is volunteering new concessions, Abbas is embracing Hamas terrorists.

"Jews' culture of acute self-criticism juxtaposed against the Palestinians' culture of self-righteous condemnation creates absurd imbalances. While Jews, mired in guilt, agonize over how to validate detractors...Palestinians, in their enforced no-criticism zone, feel their biased accusations are justified, yet again dodging responsibility... (emphasis added)

"Obama must affirm that threatening Israel with destruction -- or repeating vile stereotypes about Jews -- is deeply wrong, and only serves to evoke in the minds of Israelis this most painful of [Holocaust] memories while preventing the peace..."

"...Obama should show he means it, by insisting that all parties, especially the Palestinians, end incitement, stop demonizing others, and learn to preserve their own national stories, including tales of woe, without using words that reveal a collective desire to destroy those whose trust you need to achieve peace."


I have shared this article because I consider that it is insightful and offers a helpful perspective on many levels. Having said this, however, I find I must take issue with one point:

There is the implication, particularly as Obama is cited, that threatening Jews with destruction evokes in us a negative response that makes us resistant to working towards peace. Thus, if the Palestinians want peace, they should stop using this language, because otherwise we won't trust them.

This perspective reduces the issue to one of semantics: the Jews are sensitive (perhaps exceedingly so because of their history), so watch your language and how it might affect them.

But no! If we Jews are "sensitive," it's because we know the depths to which mankind is capable of sinking. And if we respond forcefully to talk by Palestinians of destroying us, it is because we know this is more than talk -- but rather a reflection of an intention. Especially is this so as the Palestinian Arabs have an immediate historical link to the Nazis.

It's not a question of the Palestinian Arabs working to clean up their language. Only when the Palestinian Arabs eradicate from their thinking any intent to destroy us -- which will automatically eliminate their need to talk of destroying us -- will we be able to trust them and truly discuss peace.


According to Gil Hoffman, who is a political analyst for the JPost, the "right flank" of the Likud party -- which was initially upset with suggestions in Netanyahu's speech that we might give up parts of Judea and Samaria outside of the main settlement blocs -- was mollified once he explained. He was merely stating what he saw as the consensus in Israel, he told them, not stating his own opinion. Even Minister of Security Affairs, Moshe Ya'alon, said this at a conference: "The prime minister tried in his speech to outline the views of the Israeli consensus."

Just call me dubious. I'm not buying it. Would he talk about making hard sacrifices if he didn't mean it himself?

And I'm not alone here. For Hoffman writes that "a minister in the Inner Security Cabinet, and multiple advisers to Netanyahu, confirmed that when he spoke about keeping the settlements in the blocs, the prime minister did intend to infer that settlements outside the blocs were open for negotiations."

The question here is why members of the Likud on the right are so ready to allow themselves to be pacified.


There was Netanyahu, suggesting that under the right circumstances we might give up areas -- and communities -- in Judea and Samaria that are not part of major settlement blocs. This would have to be seen as a "conciliatory" move on his part -- whether we like his having made this move or not.

Did this make Obama happy? Don't know.

But from the PA we should not have expected anything other than a slap in the face in response. And a slap in the face is what we got.

The Palestinian news agency WAFA today cited Abbas as saying:

"The Israeli government's refusal to stop settlement building and to determine clear references [i.e., a "framework"] for the peace process were the reason that talks have stopped."


Meanwhile Hamas spokesman Mahmoud al-Zahar, cited by Al-Quds, has made it clear that the movement's official stance is one of "resistance" and not negotiations. In fact, he indicated that the Hamas government in Gaza had not given Abbas permission to negotiate with Israel once the unity government is formed. "We do not agree to such negotiations and do not encourage them – just the opposite."


Meetings designed to advance that unity government were held in Cairo yesterday and Monday. The Fatah delegation was headed by Central Committee member Azzam al-Ahmed and the Hamas delegation by vice politburo chief Mousa Abu Marzouk.

According to a statement released by both sides, they discussed how to form the new government, the date for the meeting of the Palestinian Liberation Organization's executive committee and how to address the repercussions of division between the factions. (This last being most interesting and enlightening, I think.)

Additional meetings are to be held in Gaza, Ramallah and then again in Cairo during the coming weeks. in order to select the officials for that unity government. This is where the possibility of "division between the factions" is likely to become most evident: Fatah is advancing Salam Fayyad for another term as prime minister, while Hamas has put forth another name.

Fatah members are arguing that Fayyad will give the new unity government credibility in Europe, and they're not wrong. The Europeans are that prepared to be duped.


The PA, largely out of fear of local unrest in the absence of democratic process, had, some weeks ago, announced that municipal elections would be held on July 9; although it was understood at that time that Hamas would not permit those elections in Gaza. Now the elections have been postponed until October 22, "to provide the proper atmosphere to hold the elections in the entire Palestinian territories" -- that is, in the hopes that a unity government would make it possible for voting to proceed in Gaza too.


The Mavi Marmara, the ship that tried with disastrous results to breach Israel's maritime blockade of Gaza last year, was damaged in its confrontation with Israeli military. The Turkish Islamist organization IHH, identified by Israel as terrorist, was an organizing force in that flotilla fiasco, and is now planning a second go-round at the end of June.

IHH has announced that the Mavi Marmara, which sits in port in Istanbul, has been repaired and is ready to sail. It is being claimed that 10,000 people are seeking to participate in the flotilla.

IHH President Bulent Yildirim declared recently, "Even if we sacrifice shahids (martyrs) for this cause, we will be on the side of justice...We are not afraid, and want to convey the message to Israel that we are coming."

And with this we see the difficulty of what confronts Israel: We are dealing with an enemy that has no regard for life, and is willing to sacrifice life -- via provocation that invites response -- in order to make Israel look bad.

The organizers say that they intend to send $100 million in aid on the flotilla. But this is a PR ruse, for so much is going through the land crossings to Gaza these days that some goods have been shipped out of Gaza via tunnels to the Sinai, where the need is greater.

Israel is always happy to unload material aid at the port in Ashdod, and, after checking it for weaponry and materials that could be used to manufacture weapons, to send it via land to Gaza. No ship, however, will be permitted to directly approach the coast of Gaza, and this is precisely what will be attempted.

The blockade Israel maintains, which is totally legal within international law, is neither idle nor arbitrary -- it is, rather, an attempt to prevent a sworn enemy of Israel from increasing its armaments.


© Arlene Kushner. This material is produced by Arlene Kushner, functioning as an independent journalist. Permission is granted for it to be reproduced only with proper attribution.

Wednesday, May 18, 2011

There are no '1967 borders'

Israel Matzav

So I'll post a little bit while I try to drink enough coffee to get rid of the headache....

I try to be careful to refer to the June 4, 1967 borders as the "1949 armistice lines." For those who didn't understand why, you're about to find out (Hat Tip: Israel Project).

•The Palestinian leadership is fixated on attempting to press foreign governments and the UN to recognize a unilaterally declared Palestinian state within the "1967 borders." Indeed, this campaign appeared to have some initial successes in December 2010 when both Argentina and Brazil decided to recognize a Palestinian state within what they described as the "1967 borders."

•But such borders do not exist and have no basis in history, law, or fact. The only line that ever existed was the 1949 armistice demarcation line, based on the ceasefire lines of the Israeli and Arab armies pending agreement on permanent peace. The 1949 armistice agreements specifically stated that such lines have no political or legal significance and do not prejudice future negotiations on boundaries.
UN Security Council Resolution 242 of 1967 acknowledged the need for negotiation of secure and recognized boundaries. Prominent jurists and UN delegates, including from Brazil and Jordan, acknowledged that the previous lines cannot be considered as international boundaries.

The series of agreements between the PLO and Israel (1993-1999) reaffirm the intention and commitment of the parties to negotiate permanent borders. During all phases of negotiation between Israel and the Palestinians, there was never any determination as to a border based on the 1967 lines.

The PLO leadership solemnly undertook that all issues of permanent status would be resolved only through negotiations between the parties. The 2003 "Road Map" further reiterated the need for negotiations on final borders.

With ongoing and increasing intensity, the Palestinian leadership is fixated on advancing a concerted policy vis-à-vis the international community and public opinion, demanding recognition of what they claim to be the "1967 borders," and acceptance of a unilaterally declared Palestinian state within those borders. Indeed, this campaign appeared to have some initial successes in December 2010 when both Argentina and Brazil decided to recognize a Palestinian state within what they described as the "1967 borders."1

In actual fact, the Palestinian leadership, as well as members of the international community, are well aware that such borders do not exist, nor have they ever existed. They have never figured in any of the international, agreed-upon documentation concerning the Israel-Arab and Israel-Palestinian issues, and have no basis whatsoever, neither in law nor in fact.

There are no provisions in any of the agreements signed between Israel and the Palestinians that require withdrawal to the "1967 borders." There were never any geographic imperatives that sanctify the 1967 lines. Clearly, there could be no legal or political logic to enshrining as an international boundary an inadvertent and coincidental set of ceasefire lines that existed for less than 19 years

While the above is fully evident to the Palestinian leaders who are actively and daily advancing this policy - principally the head of the Palestinian Authority, Mahmoud Abbas, and the head of the Negotiations Department of the Authority, Sa'eb Erekat, both of whom were themselves actively involved in all the stages of negotiation - they nevertheless continue with their fixation to present the concept of the "1967 borders" as an accepted international term-of-art and as an Israeli commitment.

The following is a summary of the background to the 1967 lines as described in the international documentation:

UN Security Council Defines Initial Ceasefire Lines

The term "1967 lines" refers to the line from which Israel military forces moved into the territories at the start of hostilities on June 4, 1967 ("The Six-Day War").

These lines were not based on historical fact, natural geographic formations, demographic considerations, or international agreement. In fact, they had served as the agreed-upon armistice demarcation lines from the termination of the 1948 War of Independence, pursuant to the armistice agreements signed between Israel and its neighbors Egypt, Jordan, Syria, and Lebanon in 1949. These lines remained valid until the outbreak of the 1967 hostilities.

The armistice demarcation line represented nothing more than the forward lines of deployment of the forces on the day a ceasefire was declared, as set out in Security Council Resolution 62 of November 16, 1948, which called for the delineation of permanent armistice demarcation lines beyond which the armed forces of the respective parties will not move. The line was demarcated on the map attached to the armistice agreement with a green marker pen and hence received the name "Green Line."

The Security Council in its resolution stressed the temporary nature of the armistice lines that were to be maintained "during the transition to permanent peace in Palestine," intimating that permanent peace would involve negotiating permanent bilateral borders that would be different from the armistice demarcation lines.2

1949 Armistice Agreements

In fact, the Israel-Jordan Armistice Agreement signed on April 13, 1949, as well as all the other armistice agreements, emphasized the transitional nature of the armistice as "an indispensable step toward the liquidation of armed conflict and the restoration of peace in Palestine." The language of the agreement went to great pains to stress that the armistice lines were of a provisional and non-political nature and were not intended to, and did not constitute international boundaries, and as such do not prejudice the rights, claims, and positions of the parties in the ultimate peace settlement:

"No provision of this Agreement shall in any way prejudice the rights, claims and positions of either Party hereto in the ultimate peaceful settlement of the Palestine question, the provisions of this Agreement being dictated exclusively by military considerations."3

"The basic purpose of the Armistice Demarcation Lines is to delineate the lines beyond which the armed forces of the respective Parties shall not move."4

"The provisions of this article shall not be interpreted as prejudicing, in any sense, an ultimate political settlement between the Parties to this Agreement."5

"The Armistice Demarcation Lines defined in...this Agreement are agreed upon by the Parties without prejudice to future territorial settlements or boundary lines or to claims of either Party relating thereto."6

Subsequent Views on the Transitional Nature of the Lines

Statements from Arab and other sources between 1949 and 1967 confirm the common understanding as to the transitional nature of the lines. During the debate in the Security Council before the outbreak of hostilities in 1967, the Jordanian ambassador stated:

"There is an Armistice Agreement. The Agreement did not fix boundaries; it fixed a demarcation line. The Agreement did not pass judgment on rights political, military or otherwise. Thus I know of no territory; I know of no boundary; I know of a situation frozen by an Armistice Agreement."7

Prof. Mughraby wrote in the Beirut Daily Star:

"Israel is the only State in the world which has no legal boundaries except the natural one the Mediterranean provides. The rest are nothing more than armistice lines, can never be considered political or territorial boundaries."8

President Lyndon Johnson is on record stating:

"The nations of the region have had only fragile and violated truce lines for 20 years. What they now need are recognized boundaries and other arrangements that will give them security against terror, destruction and war."9

In this context, international jurists have also acknowledged the limited effect of the armistice lines:

Elihu Lauterpacht, in his booklet, Jerusalem and the Holy Places, states:

"Each of these agreements...contains a provision that the armistice lines therein laid down shall not prejudice the future political settlement. It would not therefore be accurate to contend that questions of title...depend on the Armistice Agreements. Questions of sovereignty are quite independent of the Armistice Agreements."10

Judge Steven Schwebel, former President of the International Court of Justice, stated in 1994:

"The armistice agreements of 1949 expressly preserved the territorial claims of all parties and did not purport to establish definitive boundaries between them."11

Security Council Resolution 242, 1967

The transitory nature of the 1949 armistice demarcation lines was clearly acknowledged by the Security Council in Resolution 242 of 1967, after the "Six-Day War," which affirmed, in its first paragraph:

"...respect for and acknowledgement of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force."12

There is no call in this resolution for a return to the armistice demarcation lines or to any other line or border. The Security Council specifically dismissed the Arab demand for a text that required Israel to completely return all the territory it occupied during the 1967 conflict. Israel was called upon to withdraw from "territories occupied in the recent conflict," not from "all the territories" or even from "the territories." At the same time, the Council called upon the parties to work together to promote agreement on a peaceful and accepted settlement in accordance with the provisions and principles of the resolution. Clearly this settlement was intended to include the negotiation of secure and recognized boundaries that would replace the armistice demarcation lines, pursuant to the above references in the armistice agreements to the same "ultimate peaceful settlement."

During the Security Council debate on the acceptance of Resolution 242, the representative of Brazil, in accepting the resolution, declared:

"Its acceptance does not imply that borderlines cannot be rectified as a result of an agreement freely concluded among the interested States. We keep constantly in mind that a just and lasting peace in the Middle East has necessarily to be based on secure permanent boundaries freely agreed upon and negotiated by the neighboring States."13

Israel-Palestinian Declaration of Principles, 1993

While this fact has been widely acknowledged in both legal and political literature throughout the years,14 the basic reciprocal undertaking by the Palestinian and Israeli leaderships to negotiate borders between their respective territories was given formal confirmation by Yasser Arafat, his deputy and later replacement Mahmoud Abbas, and Sa'eb Erekat during the groundbreaking "Declaration of Principles on Interim Self-Government Arrangements" (signed inter alia by Abbas) of September 13, 1993, in which the PLO and the Government of Israel acknowledged that the negotiations on the permanent status of the relationship between them would cover:

"...remaining issues, including: Jerusalem, refugees, settlements, security arrangements, borders, relations and cooperation with other neighbors, and other issues of common interest."

On the eve of the signature of the above declaration, Arafat made the solemn commitment in a letter to Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin:

"The PLO commits itself to the Middle East peace process, and to a peaceful resolution of the conflict between the two sides and declares that all outstanding issues relating to permanent status will be resolved through negotiations."15

Clearly, the present, ongoing fixation by Arafat's successor, Mahmoud Abbas, and his chief negotiator, Sa'eb Erekat, in attempting to bypass the agreed-upon negotiating process and achieve unilateral recognition of a Palestinian state within the "1967 borders" runs squarely against Arafat's solemn undertaking in the name of the Palestinian people in 1993.

Israeli-Palestinian Agreements, 1993-1999

The above references to permanent status negotiations on borders and to achieving the aims of Security Council Resolution 242 were repeated in a series of mutually agreed documents entered into between the PLO and the Israel Government.16 Furthermore, with a view to strengthening this commitment, they undertook in the 1995 Interim Agreement not to act unilaterally to change the status of the territories pending outcome of those permanent status negotiations:

"...neither side shall initiate or take any step that will change the status of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip pending the outcome of the permanent status negotiations."17

This undertaking was reiterated by the parties in Article 9 of the 1999 Sharm el Shiekh Memorandum:

"Recognizing the necessity to create a positive environment for the negotiations, neither side shall initiate or take any step that will change the status of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip in accordance with the Interim Agreement."

Throughout all the phases of the negotiations on these various agreements and memoranda between Israel and the Palestinians, and in the texts of these documents, there was never any reference to the 1967 lines as a potential border between the two neighbors, nor was there any reference to any commitment or obligation by Israel to withdraw to the 1967 lines.

Road Map, 2003

Further indication of the non-existence of "1967 borders" and the rejection of any unilateral act by the Palestinians is evident from the terms of the Quartet-initiated "Performance-Based Roadmap to a Permanent Two-State Solution to the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict" of April 30, 2003.18 In this document the parties were expected, in the second and third phases of implementation of the "Road Map" and after election of a responsible Palestinian leadership, to engage in negotiation focusing on the option of creating an independent, viable Palestinian state, initially with "provisional borders." This was intended to serve as a way-station to the permanent settlement that was scheduled for the third stage, where final status borders would be recognized by an international conference convened for that purpose.

Clearly, if and when the parties return to a modus of bona fide negotiation and reach the issue of defining their mutual border, the 1967 line could indeed figure as a point of reference in the negotiations between them, assuming that it answers the criteria set out by the Security Council for a border that will avoid situations of threats of force and violence.

But this can only emanate from a reciprocal and good faith attempt by the parties to act together, and not unilaterally, in determining their own borders, based on their mutual interests as neighbors. Such issues cannot and must not be dictated from outside, whether by the UN or by individual states.

Thus, in light of all the above, the question arises if and when the Palestinian leadership will come to admit the absurdity in attempting to invent "1967 borders" that obviously lack any historical, legal, or factual basis?

Similarly, one may ask when they will see the utter lack of pragmatism and realism in their attempt to dictate to the international community a unilateral Palestinian state in violation of their own commitments, undermining the internationally accepted Middle East peace process as well as internationally recognized and witnessed documents.

* * *

1. For the text of the Argentinean declaration, see The text of the Brazilian declaration may be found at

2. S/RES/62 (1948)S/1080, 16 November 1948.

3. Article II(2),

4. Article IV(2).

5. Article VI(8).

6. Article VI(9).

7. 1345th meeting of the Security Council, May 31, 1967.

8. Beirut Daily Star, May 28, 1967.

9. Department of State Bulletin 33, June 19, 1967.

10. Elihu Lauterpacht, Jerusalem and the Holy Places (London, 1968), p. 45.

11. Justice in International Law, Selected Writings of Judge Stephen M. Schwebel (Cambridge University Press, 1994).

12. UN Security Council Resolution 242, November 22, 1967,

13. S/PV.1382(OR), 22 November 1967. See also Alan Baker, "Recognition of a Palestinian State - Premature,

Legally Invalid, and Undermining any Bona Fide Negotiation Process," Jerusalem Issue Brief, December 9, 2010,,_Legally_Invalid,_and_Undermining_any_Bona_Fide_Negotiation_Process.

14. For example, see Prof. Ruth Lapidoth, "Security Council Resolution 242 at Twenty Five," Israel Law Review, vol. 26, 1992, pp. 295-318. Ministry for Foreign Affairs: The First Fifty Years (Jerusalem, Keter), vol. 4, pp. 840-853 (Hebrew).

15. Exchange of letters between Yasser Arafat and Yitzhak Rabin, July 9, 1993,

16. See, for example, the "Israeli-Palestinian Interim Agreement on the West Bank and the Gaza Strip," Washington, D.C., September 28, 1995, Preamble,; and see the "1999 Sharm el-Sheikh Memorandum on Implementation Timeline of Outstanding Commitments of Agreements Signed and the Resumption of Permanent Status Negotiations," 4 September 1999, Article 1.

17. Article XXXI (7).

18. See

Amb. Alan Baker, Director of the Institute for Contemporary Affairs at the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, is former Legal Adviser to Israel's Foreign Ministry and former Ambassador of Israel to Canada. He is a partner in the law firm of Moshe, Bloomfield, Kobo, Baker & Co. He participated in the negotiation and drafting of the various agreements comprising the Oslo Accords.

And here is the rest of it.

Analysis: Abbas Plan Threatens Israeli Sovereignty

Abbas’ strategy turns Israel into Palestinian state
PA seeks recognition of own state without recognizing Israel
Obama: Peace Talks “More vital than ever”

Abbas with Hamas PM Haniyeh
Washington, May 17 -- Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas’ intention to seek unilateral recognition for a Palestinian state is really a program to hound Israel in international organizations, return it to indefensible borders and flood it with millions of Arab refugees and their descendants. In short, it is a blueprint for the destruction of the Jewish state.

Abbas’ strategy, as outlined in the New York Times May 17, would allow the Palestinians to circumvent negotiations with Israel – negotiations intended to ensure both states can live side by side in peace.

Instead, Abbas would have Israel return to pre-1967 borders that would pose insurmountable threats to the continued existence of Israel as a Jewish state. "Despite the many changes -- or perhaps because of the many changes that have taken place in the region -- it's more vital than ever that both Israelis and Palestinians find a way to get back to the table and begin negotiating a process whereby they can create two states living side by side in peace and security," President Obama told reporters following his meeting Tuesday with Jordan's King Abdullah.

Notably, Abbas’ plan comes on the heels of his alliance with Iran-backed Hamas, a terrorist group that doesn’t accept Israel’s existence, promotes violence and refuses to recognize previous agreements between Israel and the Palestinians. This year alone, Abbas’ new partner and its allies have fired 328 rockets and mortars at Israeli civilians.

Abbas’ plan doesn’t bother to address Hamas’ charter, which advocates murdering Jews and doing away with the peace process: “The hour of judgment shall not come until the Muslims fight the Jews and kill them. Peace initiatives, so-called peaceful solutions, and the international conferences to resolve the Palestinian problem, are all contrary to the beliefs of the Islamic Resistance Movement.”

Indeed, Abbas is seeking unilateral recognition for a Palestinian state when his party’s own charter has yet to recognize Israel. The original 1968 Palestinian Liberation Organization charter called for the “liberation” of Palestine as a “national duty.” In the treaty signed between Israel and PLO Chairman Yasser Arafat in 1993, the official PLO charter was set to be changed to recognize Israel, pending approval of the Palestinian National Council, but in the intervening 18 years, the council has yet to approve that revision.

If Abbas has his way, the so-called right of return would bring an estimated 4.8 million Palestinian refugees and descendants to Israel. Israel currently has just over 7 million people, 20 percent of whom are Arabs; under Abbas’ strategy, Israel’s existence as the only Jewish homeland would come to an end. Abbas would have Israel become yet another Arab state.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu laid bare the true nature of the Palestinian’s plan earlier this week in an address to the Knesset: “Tthe root of this conflict…is, and always has been, [the Palestinians’] refusal to recognize the Jewish state. It is not a conflict over 1967, but over 1948, over the very existence of the State of Israel.”

“The Palestinians regard…the foundation of the State of Israel, their nakba, their catastrophe. But their catastrophe was that they did not have a leadership that was willing to reach a true historic compromise between the Palestinian people and the Jewish people. Regrettably, since then until this day, they have not had a leadership that is prepared to recognize the State of Israel as the national homeland of the Jewish people. That has not happened yet.”

For more on this topic, please click here:¬oc=1¬oc=1

TIP's Peace Talks Media Kit

The Full-Blown Return of Anti-Semitism in Europe

Guy Millière

On April 19, the Corfu synagogue, in Greece, was burned. How many Jews live in Corfu today? One hundred and fifty. How many Jews live in Greece? Eight thousand, or about 0.8% of the population. For some, it seems these figures are still far too high. Two other synagogues were burned in Greece during the past year. Anti-Semitic graffiti on the walls are spreading all over the country.

What happened in Greece is happening everywhere across the European continent.

During the last decade, synagogues were vandalized or set on fire in Poland, Sweden, Hungary, France. Anti-Semitic inscriptions are being drawn on building walls in Paris, Madrid, Amsterdam, London, Berlin and Rome. Jewish cemeteries are being ransacked. Jews are being attacked on the streets of most major cities on the continent. In the Netherlands, the police use « decoy Jews » in order to try arrest the perpetrators red-handed. Jewish schools are being placed under police protection everywhere, and are usually equipped with security gates. Jewish children in public high schools are bullied; when parents complain, they are encouraged to choose another place of learning for their children.

In some cities such as Malmö, Sweden, or Roubaix, France, the persecution suffered by the Jewish community has reached such a degree that people are selling their homes at any price and leaving. Those who stay have the constant feeling that they are risking their lives: they must be extremely streetwise and carry no sign showing who they are. In 1990, approximately 2000 Jewish people lived in Malmö; now there are fewer than 700, and the number is decreasing every year.

Jews now, in fact, have to be streetwise in all European countries: men wearing a skullcap usually hide it under a hat or a cap. Owners of kosher restaurants located on avenues where protests are organized close their facilities before the arrival of the participants -- even if the protest is about wages or retirement age. They know too well that among the demonstrators, there will always be some who will express their rage at the sight of a Jewish name or a star of David on a store front. In Paris, on Labor Day, May 1st, in front of a Jewish café on Avenue of the Republic, several hundred demonstrators stopped and began to boo « Jews » and « Zionists ». A man coming out of the café was assaulted until police officers arrived on the scene.

A few weeks ago in Norway, when Alan Dershowitz was banned from giving lectures on the conflict in the Middle East, the professors who supported the ban used anti-Semitic stereotypes in their remarks. What happened to him is now commonplace. In many universities in Europe, giving lectures on Jewish culture has become risky, and giving lectures on Israel anywhere -- without being clearly « pro-Palestinian » - is even more risky, or impossible: Once the event is announced, the organizers and the lecturers immediately receive explicit death threats by mail or by the internet. The day the lecture takes place, « anti-Zionists » organize violent protests, try to prevent people from entering the hall, and physically attack the lecturers. The only way to avoid this type of situation is to organize the lecture by invitation only, without ads.

After World War II, anti-Semitism seemed to disappear in Europe. It is back, to a very disquieting degree.

Although it is not exactly the same anti-Semitism that in the 1930's, it is not fully different.

It is an anti-Semitism that is widespread in the Muslim population that settled in Europe, and it would be easy to think that it is strictly an Islamic phenomenon, but the anti-Semitism as it exists today in the Muslim world was heavily influenced by the old European anti-Semitism. And what the Muslim immigrants bring with them can easily find resonances in European non-Muslim populations. Copies of fraudulent Protocols of the Elders of Zion in Arabic are sold in Islamic bookstores from one end of the continent to the other,and they also circulate abundantly again in many European languages, under the mantle or via internet.

It is also an anti-Semitism that allows the far right to restate its rejection of « cosmopolitanism » -- an adjective on the European continent that has always been used to point out the Jews -- in a context where, because of the European economic decline, nationalist tensions and isolationism sound more and more seductive. It is an anti-Semitism that the left does not want to fight, because for it, the Muslims are oppressed, and the left is always on the side of those it defines as oppressed, whether or not the oppression is caused by the terrible governance inside those countries, or scapegoated onto someone else. European anti-racist movements say they are very concerned about « Islamophobic racism », but they are totally reluctant to discuss the anti-Semitism in the Muslim populations.

The new, current anti-Semitism now adds on to the old kind, the demonization of the State of Israel. The Islamic view of Israel is now the dominant view of Israel in Europe. The idea that Israel is a « colonial power » that has « robbed » people of their land, and is an « artificial State », even though the Jews have been on that land for three thousand years -- and even though many states in the area, such as Jordan and Libya, and Iraq are even more illegitimate, their borders having been drawn on papre by the British in the 1920s -- is a commonplace among journalists.

Hatred towards Israel is now the most widely shared sentiment among Europeans, whatever their place on the political spectrum. It is now through hatred of Israel, that hatred of Jews as annoying « troublemakers » can again express itself.

European Muslim populations hate Israel and seek its destruction. European non-Muslim people seem think that if Israel did not exist, tensions with Muslims would be less, and they attribute to Israel all the responsibility of the tensions, even though , since most of the Jews have fled from countries in the Middle East, it is now the Christian Copts in Egypt and the Christian Assyrians in Iraq who are being attacked by Islamic mobs. As the Arabic saying goes, "First the Saturday people, then the Sunday people."

As Israel is a Jewish state, European Jews are asked to be « good Europeans », and to disavow Israel. If they refuse, or worse, if they say they still support Israel, they are considered untrustworthy.

In the 1930s, Jews were accused of not being full members of the country where they lived. Today, the same criticism rises in a slightly different form: Jews are accused of the existence of a Jewish state, and are suspected of being too tied to that state to be full members of the country where they live.

More deeply, the Jews of Europe might feel that if they can paint the Jews as evil, then perhaps what their parents and grandparents did to them during World War II was not really so bad after all; you could even say they deserved what they got. As some Scandinavians put it, The Jews killed Christ; at least the Muslims did not do that.

The anti-Semitism of the 1930s led to the Holocaust, which led the Jews to flee to Israel, the only country that would take them in and not let shiploads of fleeing Jews sink at sea. Now, European anti-Semitism accuses the Jews of Israel's existence, and of reminding them of the Holocaust by remembering it themselves. Meanwhile, an increasing number of Europeans seem quite ready for another Holocaust: one that would be the annihilation of Israel.

If sacrificing Israel allowed non-Muslim Europeans to see Muslim anger disappear, they would be willing to make the sacrifice immediately. If, in order to accept the sacrifice with a clear conscience, non-Muslim Europeans have to caricature Israel ignobly, they will -- and do. Anti-Israel cartoons fill European newspapers from London to Spain, and even receive awards. The Israeli army is often compared in European media to the Nazi army. The comparison is fully playing its role: if the Jews are Nazis today, it means that the Europeans did the world a favor in killing six million of them, and that the Europeans are not really guilty.

If Israel can be portrayed as a Nazi state, its destruction is acceptable, maybe even legitimate, maybe even desirable. The fact that Mein Kampf is a bestseller in the Palestinian territories and in most countries of the Muslim world is totally left out, just like the fact that many Jews living in Israel are survivors of the Holocaust committed in Europe sixty five years ago.

A survey conducted last year for the Friederich Ebert Foundation, a German think tank linked to Germany's Social Democratic Party, was eloquent. To the question: « Do you think that Jews abuse their status as victims of Nazism ? » , positive responses reached proportions hardly imaginable: 72.2% in Poland, 48% in Germany, 40.2% in Italy, 32.3% in France. Another question, « Do you understand why people do not like Jews », generated results that must be faced. Number of positive responses: 55.2% in Poland, 48.9% in Germany, 40.2% in Italy. The question was not asked in France. In several polls conducted in Europe over the last decade, Israel was identified as the most dangerous country for world peace, tied with Iran.

The question: « Are you anti-Semitic » was not asked anywhere. I have no doubt that, if asked the question, those who understand that « People do not like Jews, » and who probably do not like them either, would have said that they were not anti-Semitic.

The question, « Do you think that Israel is conducting a war of extermination against the Palestinians », was asked. Positive responses : 63% in Poland, 47.7% in Germany.

Moshe Kantor, president of the European Jewish Congress, called the poll « very disturbing. The governments of Europe, and the European Union," he said, "would do well to wake up to this problem before it is too late, »

"The Prime Minister's Talk"

Arlene Kushner

Prime Minister Netanyahu gave a talk in the Knesset last night, in recognition of the 107th anniversary of the death of Theodore Herzl, father of the Jewish State.


This talk is widely considered to have set the tone for what we can expect when Netanyahu addresses Congress in a few days.

He said much that was good, as he addressed issues of national unity, but made one very serious misstep. A misstep that had been much worried about and anticipated. Portions of that speech (with all emphases added):

"...two days ago at the demonstration in Bil'in [an Arab village that demonstrates ostensibly because of the security fence], the cat was let out of the bag – more precisely, the key was let out of the bag. At the procession in Bil'in, a young girl was walking along holding a large symbolic key. Every Palestinian knows what that key symbolizes. This is not a key to their homes in Bil'in, Ramallah or Nablus. It is the key to our homes in Jaffa, Acre, Haifa and Ramle. My friends, the root of this conflict never was a Palestinian state, or lack thereof. The root of the conflict is, and always has been, their refusal to recognize the Jewish state. It is not a conflict over 1967, but over 1948, over the very existence of the State of Israel. You must have noticed that yesterday's events did not occur on June 5, the anniversary of the Six Day War. They occurred on May 15, the day the State of Israel was established. The Palestinians regard this day, the foundation of the State of Israel, their nakba, their catastrophe. But their catastrophe was that they did not have a leadership that was willing to reach a true historic compromise between the Palestinian people and the Jewish people.

"Regrettably, since then until this day, they have not had a leadership that is prepared to recognize the State of Israel as the national homeland of the Jewish people. That has not happened yet.

"My friends, we must not bury our heads in the sand. We must face reality, as it is, with our eyes wide open. We must stop self-flagellating and blaming ourselves. We must call a spade a spade: the true reason the Palestinians refuse to recognize the State of Israel as the national homeland of the Jewish people...

"I believe that most people are united regarding the standpoints that I will point out.

"First, the people is united in our need to defend the country and its borders. Second, it is united in our need to maintain peace with Egypt and Jordan. Third, it is united faced with the threat of a nuclear Iran.


"I...believe that most people are also united in regard to my viewpoints on the issue that seems to be in dispute, the political process with the Palestinians. The citizens of Israel are much more united than is commonly believed, and much more united than the political parties that are supposed to represent them here in this house. There are consensuses regarding the basic issues:

First, about my demand that the Palestinians recognize the State of Israel as the national homeland of the Jewish people.

Second, about my view, which is shared by many here, that the agreement between us must end the conflict and end the demands from the State of Israel.

Third, that the problem of the Palestinian refugees will be resolved outside of Israel and not within its borders.

Fourth, that a Palestinian state only be established under a peace treaty that will not compromise the safety of Israel. I believe there is agreement on this, and I stress that this state must be demilitarized, with practical security arrangements, including long term IDF presence along the Jordan River.

Fifth, we agree that we must maintain the settlement blocs. Many of us agree that the settlement blocs must remain inside the borders of the State of Israel.

Sixth, that Jerusalem remain the united and sovereign capital of the State of Israel.

These are the principles that guide my path, our path.

I know that a huge majority of people understands that we can only make peace with those who want to make peace with us. Those who wish to obliterate us are no partners for peace. A Palestinian government with half its members declaring daily that they plan to annihilate the Jewish state is not a partner for peace. Those who say, and I am familiar with the saying, that you only make peace with your enemies, must complement the statement with a small but important remark. You only make peace with an enemy, but with an enemy who has decided to make peace.

"...if they choose to recognize the State of Israel and abandon terrorism, they will find a unified people that is willing to make peace and is prepared for peace with concessions, but it must be real peace. That is what we want.

These compromises, by the way, will be hard to make because, no matter what, they are parts of our homeland. It is not a strange land, it is the land of our forefathers, to which we have historic rights as well as security interests.


OK. He said that we don't have a partner for peace -- that they want us destroyed, which is the crux of the matter. The world needs to hear this. Just as it needs to hear that we have stipulations, such as settlement of refugees outside of our borders and a united Jerusalem, and that we have an historic claim to the land.

However, this was not the place to say what territorial compromise we would be willing to make if the situation were to radically change. What is being assumed from this speech -- in which he claims our right to the settlement blocs -- is that he is saying whatever is outside of those blocs would ultimately go to a Palestinian Arab state.

(The exception would be the long term military presence he is demanding in the Jordan Valley, but this is sorely insufficient.)

Now especially, when there is so much pressure on us to surrender all that we are, it is not the job of our prime minister to show how much we might give. To rush to show the world that we'd be willing to make painful sacrifices in the right circumstances.

It is his job to state our case, and our rights, as forcefully as possible. To show the world what painful sacrifices we've already made and what we've gotten in return.

In fact, if there is any assumption of negotiations in the future, it is prudent not to show our hand, in terms of what we "might" do. For then, if that is our opening hand, we are pushed to give even more. It is a far wiser to come to the table from a position of maximalist strength.

In the far distant future -- maybe two or three generations from now -- if there are Palestinian Arabs sincerely wishing to live in peace with us, there will be time enough to discuss what we might, or might not, be willing to concede. Now it is time to communicate a hard-nosed stand that says the land is ours and no concessions will be discussed until Israel is genuinely accepted. Period.


The broad consensus with regard to this talk is that Netanyahu has shifted further left. I wince internally as I write this.

He will now be facing considerable anger from the large number of nationalists within his own party.


It might be argued that Netanyahu, as he makes these theoretic concessions, knows that this is not going to happen because the stipulations -- united Jerusalem, no acceptance of "refugees," etc. etc. -- will never be accepted by the Palestinian Arabs. We will not come to a situation any time soon in which we would be required to make those concessions as a final act at the negotiating table.

Indeed, this is the case. Already PA leaders have declared that Israel is setting conditions that make negotiations impossible (their goal being the UN route in any event).

But this is an insufficient argument at this point. Because Netanyahu has gone on record with a position that can set the stage for what happens in the future.

What is more, there is the danger that pressure might be put on us to demonstrate "good faith" with regard to our willingness to withdraw from some areas by doing so now to encourage "peace talks." The world has a way of forgetting our stipulations and only looking at what we say we might do.


The US is blaming Syria and not Israel for the violence at the Syrian border with Israel on "Nakba day." Said White House Press Secretary Jay Carney:

"We regret the loss of life, and our thoughts are with the families...

"Israel, like all countries, has the right to prevent unauthorized crossings at its borders. Its neighbors have a responsibility to prevent such activity...

"We are also strongly opposed to the Syrian government's involvement in inciting yesterday's protests in the Golan Heights. Such behavior is unacceptable."


An Arab truck driver -- whose name is being withheld -- on Sunday generated carnage with his vehicle on Bar-Lev Street in Tel Aviv, as he crashed into several cars, and then into a bus in the on-coming lane. One person was killed and 17 others injured.

Authorities -- who strongly suspect a terrorist attack but will not label it as such until an investigation is complete -- have him in custody. The mother and the lawyer of the accused are saying it was just a tragic accident, that he lost control of the truck when a tire exploded. There are witnesses, however, who claim that they heard him cry "Allahu Akbar."


Finance Minister Yuval Steinitz has now "explained" that the suspension of funds to the PA was only intended to be a temporary measure, serving as a warning of what would come if a unity government between Hamas and Fatah were actually formed -- in which case there would be no money forthcoming at all, it would all be put in escrow.

My response is to label this a not completely successfully "cover your rear" maneuver.

The family of Gilad Schalit put out a statement that said, "The Schalit family regrets that the Israeli government folded so quickly." In a letter sent to the prime minister in the name of the Schalit family, the question was asked as to whether Gilad's fate was factored into the decision to release funds.


Many of you, especially in the US, already know that the NYTimes has relinquished all efforts to be objective, as it shamelessly seeks the role of advocate for the Palestinian Arabs.

Yesterday, PA President Mahmoud Abbas wrote an op-ed for the Times entitled "The Long Overdue Palestinian State." (With thanks to Bob G. for calling this to my attention.)

It so thoroughly distorts and misrepresents facts, that I must provide at least a brief response here in an effort to separate truth from dangerous falsehood.

Abbas begins:

"SIXTY-THREE years ago, a 13-year-old Palestinian boy was forced to leave his home in the Galilean city of Safed and flee with his family to Syria...That mine."


I have an article in my possession in which Abbas admits that he and his family left Safed voluntarily.

Abbas writes (outrageously):

"It is important to note that the last time the question of Palestinian statehood took center stage at the General Assembly, the question posed to the international community was whether our homeland should be partitioned into two states. In November 1947, the General Assembly made its recommendation and answered in the affirmative. Shortly thereafter, Zionist forces expelled Palestinian Arabs to ensure a decisive Jewish majority in the future state of Israel, and Arab armies intervened."


Let's start with the phrase "our homeland." Palestine is historically a Jewish area. Many of the Arabs who lived in Palestine at the time of Israel's founding had come from different areas within the two years prior, looking for work made possible by Jewish development. We know this in part because UNRWA -- the agency that tends to Palestinian Arab "refugees" -- defines a "refugee" as someone who had lived in Israel for the two years prior to the state's founding (not someone whose traditional homeland was there).

Arabs didn't have to be expelled for there to be a decisive Jewish majority in the future state of Israel: The recommended partition was done on a demographic basis, with a Jewish state recommended for the area with Jewish population. The position of the soon-to-be state of Israel was that Arabs who lived in peace within her borders were welcome. Witness the fact that 20% of Israel's population IS Arab. Arab armies did NOT "intervene." Rather, they attacked the Jews to prevent the formation of their state. The bulk of Arabs who left Israel fled at the instruction of their leaders or out of fear, and not because of expulsion. In the cases where Arabs were driven out it was because they served as a hostile fifth column, seeking to undermine the new state from within, as it fought the Arab armies.

Abbas writes:

"...this September, at the United Nations General Assembly, we will request international recognition of the State of Palestine on the 1967 border and that our state be admitted as a full member of the United Nations."


There is no "1967 border." That line was an armistice line that no longer exists.

The United Nations does NOT recognize the existence of a new state -- only individual states can do this, after the state has declared itself as a political entity. Not every state has the same guidelines for recognition of a new state.

The General Assembly does NOT admit states to membership to the UN. A new state that wishes membership must apply to the Security Council, which then makes a recommendation to the General Assembly.

Abbas writes:

"The State of Palestine intends to be a peace-loving nation, committed to human rights, democracy, the rule of law and the principles of the United Nations Charter. Once admitted to the United Nations, our state stands ready to negotiate all core issues of the conflict with Israel. A key focus of negotiations will be reaching a just solution for Palestinian refugees based on Resolution 194, which the General Assembly passed in 1948."


I doubt that my readers need me to belabor the issue of whether a Palestinian Arab state would be "committed to human rights, democracy and the rule of law." This is a mockery of the reality.

As to a "just solution" for refugees "based on Resolution 194," the General Assembly only makes recommendations -- which have no standing in international law. For six decades the Arabs and their supporters have been misrepresenting the implications of Resolution 194.



Prime Minister Netanyahu responded to Abbas's Times article with anger, accusing Abbas of "distorting known and well-documented historical facts."

"Arab armies assisted by Palestinian forces were those who attacked the Jewish state with the aim of destroying it. There is no mention of this in the article.

"One can deduce that the Palestinian leadership views the establishment of the Palestinian state as a means to continue the conflict rather than end it."


Meanwhile, Obama, after a meeting with Jordan's King Hussein, declared that peace negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian Arabs are more vital than ever. He said that the US has an enormous stake in the outcome, and would continue to seek an "equitable and just solution."

Oh joy.

The only positive here is that if Obama is committed to negotiations, he's likely to veto any issue regarding Palestinian statehood that comes before the Security Council.

© Arlene Kushner. This material is produced by Arlene Kushner, functioning as an independent journalist. Permission is granted for it to be reproduced only with proper attribution.