Abbas: Life In The West Bank Is Swell!

Gee, If Abbas says it, it must be true:

...in the West Bank we have a good reality . . . the people are living a normal life.

Sure they are--as long as the US and Europe are footing the bill.

I guess it depends on your definition of 'normal'.

Technorati Tag: Abbas and West Bank.

Abbas--The Incredible Shrinking Peace Partner

Noah Pollak draws a comparison in The Peace Process and the Princess Bride, when he responds to Jackson Diehl's Friday piece in The Washington Post. Diehl writes:

Until Israel meets his demands, the Palestinian president says, he will refuse to begin negotiations. He won’t even agree to help Obama’s envoy, George J. Mitchell, persuade Arab states to take small confidence-building measures. …

Abbas and his team fully expect that Netanyahu will never agree to the full settlement freeze — if he did, his center-right coalition would almost certainly collapse. So they plan to sit back and watch while U.S. pressure slowly squeezes the Israeli prime minister from office. “It will take a couple of years,” one official breezily predicted. Abbas rejects the notion that he should make any comparable concession — such as recognizing Israel as a Jewish state, which would imply renunciation of any large-scale resettlement of refugees.

Instead, he says, he will remain passive. “I will wait for Hamas to accept international commitments. I will wait for Israel to freeze settlements,” he said.

Pollak notes that in describing Abbas, Diehl is confusing strength and patience with something far simpler:

There should be no mystery about what Abbas is up to. His flippant declaration of passivity is transparently employed because he is powerless. It is his only way of avoiding the embarrassing spectacle of falling flat on his face the moment it comes time for him to take action. So he speaks in grandiose terms about how everyone else must move before he does, when in reality — like Westley — he is paralyzed. Call it the Princess Bride strategy. And it appears that, for the time being at least, he has a willing sponsor in the Obama Administration.

Actually, Obama is much more than merely a sponsor, standing behind Abbas--in point of fact, Obama has decided to run interference for him.

Charles Krauthammer writes:

We have to start understanding that Abbas is an illusion. He is a fiction. He is a ghost. He is a potential president. I could go on, but you get the idea.

I mean, even the presidency he holds is a dubious legality. And it is said of him that he doesn't even control downtown Ramallah where his offices are.

So you’ve got a man who doesn't have anything in his control. And the reason that years of negotiations he held with the previous Israeli leader, Ehud Olmert, went nowhere is because when Olmert offered everything, Abbas had nothing he can offer to back it up.

So, what is it the United States is trying to do? It has to have a peace process in place, otherwise people will wake up and say we don't have a peace process, and that is intolerable. So you create one.

If you see where Obama is going next week, he's going to be in Egypt, in Jordan, and Saudi Arabia. The idea is to create an odd, three-way negotiation in which Israel makes concessions, small concessions, incremental, on the ground, like the lifting of roadblocks, the dismantling of outlying settlements.

And the corresponding concession is not from Abbas, who can't deliver, but from the Arab states — for example, the relaxation of Israel's isolation, trade bans. You could imagine the ping-pong team in Saudi Arabia, although that's rather unlikely, but a gesture on the part of Arabs. So that's what the administration is setting up.

There are some, however, in the administration who believe you can actually have a real settlement in this administration. I think it's an illusion. There's an old adage in the Middle East, "He whom the gods would destroy puts it in his head to solve the Arab-Israeli dispute." [emphasis added]

This amounts little more than political sleight-of-hand, at a time when Obama himself has created great expectations among the Arab world and the Palestinian Arabs. The Palestinian Arabs in particular are being reinforced in their impression that they will have to do very little to get their state.

The question is whether the Arab world is willing to do all the work.

Technorati Tag: Abbas and Obama.

Obama Finds Events In The Middle East Stubbornly Uncooperative

Pity Barack Obama--nothing in the Middle East seems to be going his way.

• Just when Obama could use a easily manipulated Israeli Prime Minister, Netanyahu takes control.
• In Iran, Ahmadinejad is expected to only grow stronger as is the anti-American rhetoric.
• Abbas, leader of the Palestinian Authority (and peace partner with Israel)--technically no longer is since January.
• Hamas shows no indication towards moderation.

And now there are rumors that Hosni Mubarak, whom Obama will meet when he gives his big speech in Cairo, is ill--and that is a problem:

If Mubarak is healthy — and his current absence is merely the consequence of understandable grieving — Obama will probably partner with the regime (human rights be damned) in pushing some variant of the Saudi peace plan as his major Middle Eastern foreign policy project (stopping Iran’s pursuit of nuclear capabilities be damned).

But if Obama finds an unhealthy Mubarak, all bets are off. The administration will have to confront the real possibility of imminent instability within the most populous Arab state — particularly the likelihood of a power struggle among factions within the regime and security forces. It will have to find the right balance between pleasing these regime-based factions and promoting liberal reforms; between promoting liberal reforms and constraining Islamists; and between short-term stability and a long-term push for democratization. Make no mistake: pushing for a smooth, post-Mubarak transition in Egypt could easily become the Obama administration’s top challenge in the Middle East.

For the moment, of course, this is all speculation. This is why Obama’s meeting with Mubarak — and the insight that this encounter will give the administration regarding Mubarak’s physical health — is so crucial. [emphasis added]

Well, Obama did say he wanted to take an active role in the Middle East.

Technorati Tag: Obama and Mubarak.

Iran And The Cuban Missile Crisis

I thought that Victor Davis Hanson's analogy is to the point in discussing Iran's goal in obtaining nuclear arms:

More likely, Iran wishes to break Israel's will - not necessarily by a nuclear strike. Instead, periodic threats from a nuclear theocracy, it may recognize, would do well enough.

Once armed with the bomb, Iran will likely increase the frequency of its now-familiar denial of the Holocaust. In between such well-publicized lunacy, some Iranians such as President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad will periodically threaten to wipe Israel off the map - or promise Armageddon if Israel retaliates against Hamas or Hezbollah.

The net effect would be for half the world's Jews to hear constantly two messages - there was no Holocaust, but there might well be one soon. It would be analogous to the American public reliving the threats of the Cuban Missile Crisis of October 1962 - every day.

Read the whole thing.

Considering how disinterested the world is in preventing Iran from obtaining nuclear arms--and the polls indicating the reaction of Israelis to this apparent inevitability--it appears that Iran will succeed in sending both messages: loud and clear.

Yet Obama thinks creating a second Palestinian state whose creation--never mind its sustainability--is questionable should take precedence.

Empathy is apparently reserved for Supreme Court Justices.

Technorati Tag: Iran.

India: They Love Israel--And They Love Hitler Too!

On the one hand, India has a sympathy for Israel that extends beyond the positive feelings that the US has for Israel:

From India with love
Study on behalf of Foreign Ministry ranks India, US as most pro-Israel countries

The greatest level of sympathy towards Israel can be found in India, according to international study on behalf of the Foreign Ministry, Yedioth Ahronoth reported Friday.

According to the study, which was unprecedented in scope and was undertaken by an international market research company, 58% of Indian respondents showed sympathy to the Jewish State. The United States came in second, with 56% of American respondents sympathizing with Israel.

Read the whole thing.

But if that is true, how do you square that...with this:

An article in London's Daily Telegraph last month reported that sales of Mein Kampf 'are soaring in India where business students regard the genocidal dictator (Hitler) as a management guru' and consider the book to be a 'management guide.'

"Anyone seeking to teach tomorrow's business leaders of India should reject globalisation of hate and racism, not facilitating it," said Rabbi Abraham Cooper, Associate Dean of the Simon Wiesenthal Centre, a leading Jewish NGO at the United Nations.

"Using Mein Kampf as a self-improvement and strategy guide for India's young is an outrage that dishonours six million Jews murdered by the Nazis in the Holocaust and millions of other victims of Adolf Hitler's murderous Third Reich. Honouring and promoting Hitler's white racist ideology mocks the values of the world's largest democracy, and flies in the face of India's noble history of protecting minority peoples, Jews among them" he added.

Read the whole thing.

I have never read Mein Kampf, so I do not know if--or how--it could be possible, but somehow it seems that in India they have succeeded in isolating the hate and evil of Hitler's from the rest of the content.

I guess that would explain how in India they can see what a good book on people management Hitler wrote and ignore not only that he lost the war--but that some of his 'employees' tried to kill him.

Technorati Tag: India and Hitler.

Arlene Kushner On Legal vs. Illegal Settlements

The following excerpt is reposted with permission from Arlene Kushner's mail list ("First Things First", May 27, 2009). 

Email akushner@netvision.net.il to subscribe.
Also check out her website: Arlene From Israel.

The whole business of legal vs. illegal settlements is both complicated and political. Most settlements have had some interaction with some government departments or agencies. They've hooked up water lines, or electric lines, or paved a road, or whatever. There is sanction somewhere along the way. And sometimes that sanction is considerable. But if final papers are not in place, then the settlement can be called "illegal" or "unauthorized."

The region comprised of Judea and Samaria is not governed by Israeli civil law -- civil law was never extended to this area as it was to the Golan and to eastern Jerusalem. (Note: this is not a case of annexing it, but extending the law of Israel to apply.) The region is administered separately under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Defense, and it is the office of the Defense Minister that must sign off on a settlement. Thus Barak's involvement here.

There are instances in which "illegal" settlements have been later declared legal, and there is hope that this might happen now in a handful of instances at least. That can particularly be the case when so-called outposts are really outlying neighborhoods of recognized settlements.

But it can happen in other instances as well. And actually it was explained to me by a lawyer some time ago that many settlements considered authorized today moved through a process this way.

~~~~~~~~~~

There are some charges being made -- by far left groups such as Peace Now and Yesh G'vul -- that some of the settlements are on private Palestinian land. While these charges are not necessarily accurate, where this might be a problem, shifting of the settlement to other land, rather than demolishing it, is a possible resolution.

~~~~~~~~~~

Several political issues complicate this whole matter. The Obama administration is saying that we have certain obligations with regard to settlements stemming from the Road Map for Peace. Introduced by the US, with Quartet sponsorship, in the spring of 2003, it presented a phased plan, with a timeline, for achieving a two-state solution.

You can see the full text here;

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2989783.stm

In the proposed first phase, it says the Government of Israel must "immediately dismantle settlement outposts erected since March 2001" and "freeze all settlement activity (including natural growth of settlements)."

We may not like it. We may hate it. But it says it.

~~~~~~~~~~

But -- wait! -- it's not nearly as simple as Obama would have it.

First there is the question of whether it still applies, as it was envisioned as resulting in a Palestinian state by 2005. Has a post-2005 situation superseded this document?

Unfortunately, our new foreign minister, Avigdor Lieberman, has made it more difficult to make this case, as he declared early on that we should scrap Annapolis and go back to the Road Map. It was clear why he did this: Annapolis was trying to jump past the phased program and get to the end result of a Palestinian state at the beginning. Lieberman was undoubtedly reasoning that under the Road Map the PA had obligations it would not honor and thus we'd not get to that end result.

~~~~~~~~~~

Then there is the very important issue of reciprocity (which Netanyahu has made much of) and the need for the Palestinian Authority to simultaneously fulfill its obligations. We cannot be the only party that "walks the walk."

According to this same Road Map, the Palestinians must "declare an unequivocal end to violence and terrorism and undertake visible efforts on the ground to arrest, disrupt, and restrain individuals and groups conducting and planning violent attacks on Israelis anywhere."

Never mind that Fatah is not exactly clean itself, what about Hamas terrorism, with rockets and mortars still launched (170 since the end of our war in Gaza)? What action will the PA take with regard to this? This is a joke. The PA, which has this obligation, cannot do it.

And there's more: "All official Palestinian institutions [must] end incitement against Israel." This is an even bigger joke than the terrorism issue. Anyone who has seen an analysis of the textbooks produced and utilized by the PA understands what a huge joke it really is.

See my article, "Texts of Hate," for some mind-blowing examples of what PA school kids are taught.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=30231

To comply with this requirement, the PA would have to publish a whole set of adjusted texts. And there's no thought of doing so. Not a glimmer of a suggestion that they must do so.

But WE have to stop building in the settlements? The Road Map calls for "reciprocal steps by the two parties."

It seems to me a very public campaign has to be launched focusing on the inequities of what is demanded of us and of the PA. Most of the world knows about the settlements as an "impediment to peace." Time they knew that there can't be peace when the Palestinian kids are taught to hate us, but that the PA, which is bound to do so under the Road Map, is taking no action in this regard. The PA is always yapping about how we don't want peace because we keep building. Where is the voice of our government saying that clearly the PA doesn't want peace if its youngsters are taught Jihad and Palestine from the river to the sea?

~~~~~~~~~~

And this is not the end to the problems surrounding the demands made of us.

The Sharon government of 2003 did not simply accept the Road Map as is. A set of "14 reservations" was attached and given to the Bush government. It was only after the US government committed to "fully and seriously address[ing]" the issues raised by Israel that the Israeli Cabinet voted to accept the Road Map. Unfortunately, this was naive, for a commitment to address the issues is not a promise that they will ultimately be incorporated into arrangements.

But the government of Israel is on record as having reservations. Some of those reservations:

"...during the process, and as a condition to its continuance. calm will be maintained. The Palestinians will dismantle the existing security organizations and implement security reforms during the course of which new organizations will be formed and act to combat terror, violence and incitement (incitement must cease immediately and the Palestinian Authority must educate for peace). (emphasis added)

"In the first phase of the plan and as a condition for progress to the second phase, the Palestinians will complete the dismantling of terrorist organizations (Hamas. Islamic Jihad. the Popular Front, the Democratic Front Al-Aqsa Brigades and other apparatuses) and their infrastructure... (emphasis added)

"...declared references must be made to Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state and to the waiver of any right of return for Palestinian refugees to the State of Israel."

Additionally, PM Sharon is on record as having objected to the call for a freeze on settlements. It was "impossible," he said to Secretary of State Colin Powell.
"Our finest youth live there. They are already the third generation, contributing to the state and serving in elite army units. They return home and get married, so then they can't build a house and have children?

"What do you want, for a pregnant woman to have an abortion just because she is a settler?"

(You can find this quote here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3020335.stm)

Unfortunately, bewilderingly, this objection, this perception that a freeze is impossible, was not written into the reservations.

~~~~~~~~~~

And one last factor in helping you understand the complexities of this situation:

In April of 2004, PM Sharon met with President Bush and they exchanged letters in the context of the Road Map and the forthcoming "Disengagement." President Bush's letter contained the phrase:

"In light of new realities on the ground, including already existing major Israeli populations centers, it is unrealistic to expect that the outcome of final status negotiations will be a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949..."

This was broadly understood as an acknowledgement by the US that in any final agreement with the Palestinians we would retain major settlement blocs. Dore Gold, head of the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, called it a "significant shift in US policy."

Netanyahu is currently using this to make the case that it had become informal US policy to acknowledge that we will be retaining settlement blocs in any event, and that there is thus no reason for the US to demand that we be restricted in building within those settlements. (Gold, by the way, is a Netanyahu advisor.)

From what I've read, this letter of Bush's is a stumbling block to Obama's demands, a frustration to him as he seeks to move on pressuring us.

Email akushner@netvision.net.il to subscribe to the mail list.
Also check out her website: Arlene From Israel.

Technorati Tag: Israel and Settlements.

"The Israel Lobby -- Missing in Action"

The Israel Lobby -- Missing in Action
by Jonathan Rosenblum
Jeruslalem Post
May 21, 2009


In their 2007 book The Israel Lobby, Professors John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt argued that there exists a loose coalition of groups that attempts to steer American policy in a pro-Israel direction at a high cost to American national interests. Mearsheimer and Walt's definition of pro-Israel was so broad and their sense of how injurious Israel's existence is to America so deep that, in their telling, the "Israel Lobby" is both all-powerful and all-inclusive. Nevertheless, at the center of Mearsheimer and Walt"s "Israel Lobby" are American Jews –– the villainous neo-cons and the pro-Israel lobbying organization AIPAC chief among them.

The sad truth, however, is that if an Israeli Lobby exists, American Jews have failed to enlist. American Jews are demonstrably innocent of putting Israel's interests first, or even high, on their list of concerns –– at least if Israel's interests have anything to do with how they are defined by the overwhelming consensus of Jews living in Israel.

A vast majority of Israeli Jews would be prepared to cede a good deal of the West Bank in return for peace. But the experience of the last fifteen years has convinced them that peace cannot be obtained without a dramatic reformation of Palestinian society. From the standpoint of the Israeli consensus, the Obama administration's obsessive mantra about the necessity of Israel declaring its support for the "two-state solution" is misguided, for it sends the wrong messages to both Israelis and Palestinians.

By focusing on what Israel must do, that mantra ignores what it has already done, and the lessons learned from its past actions. Israeli withdrawals from the West Bank, southern Lebannon, and Gaza, resulted in their becoming launching pads for suicide bombers and rockets aimed at Israeli civilians. Those withdrawals did not even improve Israel's international standing.

The focus on Israel's next step ignores those never taken by the Palestinians –– i.e., moving one iota from any of their positions as of the outset of Oslo. And it conveys the message that nothing is expected of the Palestinians in the future, unlike the Road Map, which made the Palestinians oft-promised end to incitement and terrorism preconditions for further negotiations.

Palestinian statehood, not peace, has become the watchword of American policy. And to that end, the Obama administration has indicated a willingness to impose a solution. National Security Advisor James Jones recently conveyed to a senior European official that "an endgame solution" would be formulated by the U.S., EU, and moderate Arab states, with Israel and the Palestinians relegated to the role of bystanders. On a happy note, he allowed that Israel would "not be thrown under the bus." That same week the chief U.S. arms negotiator called for Israel to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty – a clear break with a forty year understanding between the U.S. and Israel on the issue, and an equally clear indication of how nasty the pressure on Israel might get.

The theory of an imposed solution is that the final contours of a settlement are already well known so it might as well be now. Even if the former proposition were true, the intention of the parties and their ability to perform would still be relevant. The Palestinians cannot run a state – certainly not one that Hamas would not quickly take over – nor do they seek to. Palestinian human rights activist Bassam Eid declared after the Hamas-Fatah civil war in Gaza, "We do not deserve a state." Fatah prefers the present kleptocracy to a state. Statelessness allows Palestinians to attack Israel without being held responsible, as would a state, and to remain the world's favorite mendicants.

Meanwhile the contrast between the Obama administration's urgency with respect to the Palestinian-Israel tract and its lackadaisical approach to Iran's nuclear ambitions could not be starker. The linkage of Iran to progress on the former is backwards. No more than a year likely remains to thwart Iran's nuclear ambitions. Peace will not in that period to a region in which there is still no Palestinian leader who can even recognize Israel's right to be a Jewish state.

The Sunni states fear a nuclear Iran much more than Israel, and they are saying so. They will support an alliance against Iran because it is their interests to do so, as long as they believe America will act decisively and not leave them to Iran's tender mercies.

WHAT HAS BEEN THE RESPONSE OF AMERICAN JEWRY and the vaunted Israel Lobby to the mounting threats to Israel abetted by Washington? Silence. President Obama"s popularity among American Jews remains sky high and rising. Delegates at the recent AIPAC convention dutifully lobbied Congress for the two-state solution. Whom, one wonders, was this feared group lobbying against?

The overwhelming American Jewish support for President Obama demonstrates how far the perspectives of Israeli and American Jews have diverged. For Israeli Jews survival remains the primary desideratum. For American Jews the simulacrum of peace, in the form of a treaty, any treaty, is primary.

For many American Jews, an Israel without peace is misbegotten, not worth the scorn it engenders in The New York Times and on Ivy League campuses. Daniel Gordis records, in his important new book How Israel Can Win a War That May Never End, being asked by an American Jewish friend: "Why has Israel given up hope?" And with no genuine chance for peace, why forge on?"

It is left to Gordis's teenage daughter Talia to set their visitor straight: The purpose of Israel is not to achieve peace with the Arabs, however devoutly such peace might be wished for. Israelis have not given up hope, just hope for peace in the near future.

American Jews remained largely quiescent during the Holocaust, in part because of their adulation of President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, who could do no wrong in their eyes. Stephen Wise, the most influential voice in American Jewry, could not overcome his worship of FDR to challenge the latter's position that nothing could be done to save Jews other than win the War. (David Wyman's The Abandonment of the Jews seeringly details how much could have been done.)

To avoid embarrassing or pressuring the President, Wise sat on a telegram from Gerhard Riegner of the World Jewish Congress in August 1942, detailing plans to exterminate three to four million Jews in German-controlled Europe, until pressured by the Orthodox and Revisionist Zionists to do something.

American Jews are besotted again. This time the object of their affections is President Barack Obama, who has consciously fashioned himself the new FDR. And a little matter like Israel will not cool their ardor. President Obama, like President Clinton before him, has proven that a Democratic president can sell American Jewry any policy to Israel, as long as it is packaged in sufficient expressions of concern for Israel's well-being.

The Israel Lobby of Walt and Mearsheimers febrile imaginations never existed. And never has that been so obvious as today.

For more articles by Jonathan Rosenblum check out Jewish Media Resources

Technorati Tag: Israel and Israel Lobby.

Parents Of Kidnapped IDF Soldier Gilad Shalit To Accompany StandWithUs At The Salute To Israel Parade

From an email:

To march with us, please call 212 398 2524 or email avip@standwithus.com

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE May 27, 2009

CONTACT: Avi Posnick, SWU East Coast Outreach Coordinator 212-398-2524 (o); 516-698-3449 (c)

        
PARENTS OF KIDNAPPED IDF SOLDIER GILAD SHALIT TO ACCOMPANY STANDWITHUS AT THE SALUTE TO ISRAEL PARADE
 
SUNDAY, MAY 31 ALONG FIFTH AVENUE IN NYC FROM 12:45-2PM
 

(May 27--New York) – StandWithUs is honored that the parents of kidnapped IDF soldier Gilad Shalit will accompany us at the annual NYC Salute to Israel Parade on Fifth Avenue this Sunday, May 31,  from 12:45 PM to 2 PM. Gilad was captured almost three years ago in a Hamas cross-border raid and has been held captive since.  No word about his possible release has been given to the public or to his parents, Noam and Aiva Shalit, and Hamas has not permitted the International Committee for the Red Cross to visit him.
 
""Since Gilad’s kidnapping, StandWithUs has been at the forefront of efforts to ensure that he is not forgotten, and that his release remains an urgent public concern," said Avi Posnick, Outreach Coordinator for StandWithUs on the East Coast. StandWithUs has sponsored petitions, distributed postcards, partnered with the United Jewish Communities and the Freethesoldiers.org campaign, and organized rallies calling for Gilad to be set free. The Israel office of StandWithUs has also delivered postcards, in coordination with the Zionist Federation of Great Britain, to Gilad's parents from people all over the world. "We are truly honored to have Noam and Aviva Shalit stand with us at the parade. We will continue to support until Gilad is brought home safely," said Posnick.

 
Avi Posnick and Noam and Aviva Shalit are available for interviews.  Contact Avi at: 212-398-2524 (o); 516-698-3449 (c)
 
StandWithUs, an international, non-profit Israel education organization, hosts speakers and conferences, offers website resources and creates brochures and materials about Israel that are distributed globally. Based in Los Angeles, the organization has offices across the U.S. and in Israel and the UK.  SWU was founded in 2001 in response to the public’s need and desire for mainstream information about the Arab-Israeli conflict. StandWithUsCampus helps college students challenge anti-Israel bias. 

StandWithUs runs several websites with relevant information:

• www.Standwithus.com– the main website
  
• www.standwithuscampus.com– resource for students on campus  
  
• www.TWITTER.com/standwithus
  
• www.LearnIsrael.org - materials for librarians, and teachers and a free, downloadable curriculum for high school teachers
  
• www.stand4facts.org– password-protected site is a database of information on anti-Israel speakers.
  
• www.standwithus.co.il– based in Jerusalem, this details international operations 
  
• www.united4freedom.org - speakers bureau
  

Technorati Tag: Salute To Israel Parade and Gilad Shalit.

"Quality Counts More Than Size"

Quality Counts More Than Size
by Jonathan Rosenblum
The Jerusalem Post
May 14, 2009

Few ideas exercise such superficial appeal as the belief that the major threat to the Jewish people today is our small and ever declining numbers. And few ideas are ultimately more counterproductive and potentially dangerous.

Michael Freund's "Size Counts" (April 21) is the latest example of what is by now a familiar genre in these pages. The bulk of the article consists of depressing statistics about the Jewish people's declining numbers – both in absolute terms and as a percentage of the world's population. On the eve of World War II, for instance, Jews constituted eight of every thousand people in the world; today the figure is two per every thousand.

In part that decline is a consequence of the Holocaust, without which, Hebrew University demographer Sergio Della Pergola estimates, the number of Jews today would be approximately two-and-a-half times its current number. But only partly. In absolute terms, the Jewish population has continued to decline since the Holocaust.

What Freund fails to do, however, is to explain why numbers per se matter.

He asserts that "to live up to our national mission as Jews, we need a much larger and more diverse 'team' at our disposal." Yet he never defines that mission, or explains what he means by a more diverse team, or in what way greater numbers would help us fulfill that mission. At most, he invites us to contemplate the "cultural and spiritual riches" that would have been produced but for the Holocaust. But those cultural and spiritual riches will not be replaced by tracking down every obscure tribe in the world that has an oral tradition that they are one of the Ten Lost Tribes, which is Freund's own pet hobby-horse; doubling our numbers in that fashion will not double our number of Nobel Prize winners.

The only source for our mission, the Torah, informs us explicitly that our mission has nothing to do with our numbers: "Not because you are more numerous than all the peoples did Hashem desire you and choose you, for you are the least numerous of all the peoples" (Deuteronomy 7:7). The promises to the forefathers that their progeny would be numerous are Divine blessings that will follow from our fulfillment of our mission. But it is not our task to bring about those numbers.

Since the mission of the Jewish people is a spiritual one – to bring knowledge of G-d to the world – our criteria for evaluating success or failure are spiritual, not material. In the yeshivos of Europe, they taught that purity, not numbers, is the Jewish standard of measure. From purity numbers can come, but from numbers, quality will never come.

From the time of the mixed multitude that accompanied the Jewish people out of Egypt greater numbers have often been at the expense of our spiritual mission. For that reason, the rabbis of the Talmud forbid conversion altogether in certain periods, and discouraged proselytizing.

THE OBSESSION WITH NUMBERS is based on a confusion between cause and effect. Many of the steps taken as a consequence of that obsession amount to no more than putting ineffectual band-aids on the symptoms, while allowing the disease to rage untreated. Never have American Jews faced fewer obstacles to the practice of their religion or so few threats to life and limb. Yet the number of American Jews has remained unchanged for fifty years, despite the arrival of more than 500,000 Jewish refugees in that period. And of those counted as Jews by the demographers, twenty percent are not halachically Jewish.

Lower rates of marriage and fertility of Jewish women contribute to the demographic stagnation. But by far the biggest contributing factor is intermarriage and drop-outs from the community. Our declining numbers are indeed a source of pain, but the reason is not the numbers themselves but what they tell us: Being Jewish is simply not that important to most Jews today.

The measures taken to address the declining numbers, while ignoring the cause, are, at best, a waste of time and money, and, at worst, only exacerbate the downward spiral. American Jewish Federations are forever announcing new initiatives in Jewish continuity. Such efforts are presumably based on the assumption that it is important that the Jewish people continue to exist.

Yet that is the very question never addressed by any of those continuity efforts: Why is it important that the Jewish people continue to exist? Worse, the nature of those efforts – singles nights, "edgy" magazines aimed at youth who hated Hebrew school – only emphasize the opposite. There is nothing really important about being Jewish. The more desperately we run after young Jews -- no matter how far they stray and whom they marry -- to assure them that they and their children are still members in good standing of the tribe, the more we convince them how worthless that membership is and how unworthy of any sacrifice on their part.

In the words of Jack Wertheimer, provost of the Jewish Theological Seminary and the most trenchant observer of the American Jewish scene, the one message that we are unwilling to give to our children is the one that might make a difference: "Jews have over the millennia willingly and gratefully set themselves apart" – often at great cost in their blood – for a set of "distinctive commandments, beliefs and values."

The most commonly offered solution by those who view numbers as the ultimate desideratum is conversion on easy terms. But that effort has been a costly failure, for again, it only further debases the currency of Judaism. The easier the terms of conversion have become the lower the percentage of non-Jewish spouses opting for it. That is hardly surprising. Why should we expect any large number of gentiles to rush to join a religion that plays no significant role in the eyes of the vast majority born into it?

The only result from lowering the bars to conversion is the loss of any power of the name "Jew" to bind us together. Variable standards of entry mean that those calling themselves Jews no longer share either a common commitment or a shared history.

An op-ed in these pages a few years back argued, "Any religion in the modern world that does not make an effort to welcome, or seek out, new converts, is fated to diminish." That statement is false on its face. Little of the rapid growth of Islam has to do with conversions, though alarming numbers of Europeans are choosing to bet on the "strong horse." (Whatever else one might say of Islam, it definitely plays a significant role in the lives of many of its adherents.) On a happier note, the decline of American Jewry is projected to reverse itself at mid-century due to the growth of Orthodoxy, little of which has to do with conversion.

A better rule than that enunciated by the above-mentioned op-ed might be: A religion whose foundational texts and basic tenets are unknown to most of its members, whose rites and practices are observed by few, and which is of so little significance in its members' lives that well over 50% marry members of other faiths is fated to diminish.

Instead of worrying about the numbers, and wasting time and money on far-fetched quick fixes for declining numbers, it is to those deficits that Michael Freund should direct his well-meaning efforts.

Read more articles by Jonathan Rosenblum at Jewish Media Resources

Technorati Tag: Israel and Jews.

What Makes An Israeli Settlement Illegal?

It's time to explain it clearly.

Rabbi Prof. Daniel Hershkowitz, Minister of Science and head of the Jewish Home party said, “Yes, we must keep the law. But if you look at the outposts, you’ll see that their classification as illegal was made by Talia Sasson [admittedly left-wing author of a report on the outposts for Ariel Sharon’s government in 2005 – ed.], who is not exactly an objective source. Often, the only reason for an outpost’s classification as illegal is not because of the residents themselves, but because of a technical government problem, and there is truly no legal problem at all.”

Interior Minister Eli Yishai: “There must be equal enforcement of the law, but I don’t believe it is right at this time to dismantle outposts. Not every one can do what he wants.”

The two state solution is not a solution by definition--and a settlement is not illegal by definition either.

Technorati Tag: Israel and Settlements.

Israel Has A History Of Being Able To Say 'No' To The US

Since when does the US have carte blanche over Israel?

When Israel Says "NO" to the USA (a Win-Win Proposition),
Yoram Ettinger,
Ynet, May 24, 2009

Critical milestones, in the history of the Israel, occurred while constructive disagreements dominated the relations between the Jewish State and its only significant ally, the USA.

When a junior partner loses the capability to say "No" to a senior partner, then both lose!

US-Israel concurrence is not a prerequisite for the advancement of peace and bilateral strategic cooperation. Israel should strive for a wider agreement with the US, but not at any price. Common ground with the US should not be at the expense of Israel's independent national security policy-making. It should not undermine Israel's control of land, which is critical to its survival.

The superiority of Israel's security considerations over agreement with the US – even at a painful cost to Israel – paved the road to the 1948 establishment of the Jewish State. "Much as Israel desired friendship with the US and full co-operation with it…Israel could not yield at any point which, in its judgment, would threaten its independence or its security…" stated Prime Minister Ben Gurion, when rejecting a brutal US ultimatum to refrain from declaration of independence and to accept a UN Trusteeship. Ben Gurion added that "[The US] would be gravely mistaken if [it] assumed that the threat, or even the use of UN sanctions, would force Israel to yield on issues considered vital to its independence and security…" (My Mission In Israel 1948-1951, James MacDonald, Simon and Shuster, p. 49).

The US ultimatum included a military embargo and a threat of economic sanctions. But, Ben Gurion determined that sovereignty and national security – rather than concurrence with the US – constituted supreme strategic values. He realized that an agreement with the US would be transient, non-binding (according to the US Constitution) and subject to US interpretation, while national security would be a fixture largely controlled by Israel. Ben Gurion's order of national priorities transformed Israel from a sympathy-deserving remnant of the Holocaust to a potential strategic partner.

The 1979 Israel-Egypt peace treaty was initiated by Prime Minister Begin, in defiance of a policy introduced by President Carter and National Security Advisor Brzezinski. While Begin insisted on a direct Jerusalem-Cairo dialogue, which minimized the Palestinian role, Carter and Brzezinski lobbied for an international conference, which would highlight the Palestinian issue. Begin's and Sadat's determination not to allow the peace process to become a hostage in the hands of the Palestinian issue and radical regimes, forced Carter and Brzezinski to abandon their own policy and jump on the bandwagon.

The first Intifadah (1987-1992) escalated US-Israel disagreements, fueled by the US-PLO dialogue. President Bush #41st and Secretary Baker did not waste an opportunity to condemn Prime Minister Shamir as a supposed obstacle to peace and persona non-grata in Washington, DC. However, regional and global challenges, and Shamir's steadfastness in face of internal and external pressure, yielded the dramatic enhancement of US-Israel strategic cooperation: upgrading Israel to "Major Non-NATO Ally," inclusion of Israel in "Star Wars" and US funding of most of the anti-ballistic missile "Arrow" project, expansion of joint military exercises, increasing pre-positioning of US military ammunition and supplies in Israel, upgrading of the port of Haifa for the Sixth Fleet, participation of Israeli defense contractors in Pentagon contracts in Europe, emergency assistance following the 1991 Gulf War, etc.

The US Administration was not at ease with Shamir's demand to stop issuing refugee certificates to Soviet Jews, and to force the USSR to fly Jewish Olim (immigrants) only to Israel. Shamir's readiness to risk disagreement with the US stopped the 95% dropout rate among Jewish Olim and produced a wave of one million Olim to the Jewish State, which has catapulted the country demographically, technologically, medically, culturally and militarily.

In 1967 and in 1981, President Johnson and President Reagan pressured Israel against a unilateral military action against the Egypt-Syria-Jordan axis and Iraq's nuclear reactor. Prime Minister Eshkol and Prime Minister Begin defied US (and global pressure), wrecked the Nasser-led anti-US Arab axis and destroyed Iraq's nuclear project, thus advancing drastically US' and Israel's national security. Eshkol and Begin realized that sovereignty and national security – rather than concurrence with the US – constituted the top strategic values. Will Prime Minister Netanyahu follow in their footsteps, avoiding temptation to transform common ground with the US into the top strategic value?

See also Ettinger's Israel Is Not A Banana Republic

Check out The Ettinger Report

Technorati Tag: Israel and US.

Is Obama Going To Turn Netanyahu's Broad Coalition Against Him? (With Updates)

The whole idea of Netanyahu's coalition was that it would give him a broad base that would allow him to stand up to Obama in presenting Israel's case.

But a broad base brings with it a broader range of interests and agendas too, not only in regards to the two state solution, but in regards to the "settlements" as well--and that brings with it some pitfalls as well.

Aluf Benn already noted last week:

Many people in Washington seemed to be more interested in the life expectancy of the current Israeli government than in Netanyahu's positions. To a large extent, the answer to that will be dependent on Obama: The more he pressures Netanyahu to "stop the settlements," the greater the prime minister's coalition problems. Netanyahu is in a trap: The more he tries to persuade Obama he can provide the diplomatic goods, the quicker his coalition will expire.

The main issue was supposed to be the creation of a second Palestinian state--something that was as dependent on the actions and competencies of the Palestinian Arabs as on the Israelis. Instead, the focus of the Obama administration now seems to be on getting Netanyahu to acquiesce on the settlements--a unilateral issue:

In the administration’s strongest words to date, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said Wednesday that Mr. Obama viewed a freeze of settlement construction as a critical step toward a peace agreement. “He wants to see a stop to settlements — not some settlements, not outposts, not ‘natural growth’ exceptions,” Mrs. Clinton said to reporters after a meeting with the Egyptian foreign minister, Ahmed Aboul Gheit. “That is our position. That is what we have communicated very clearly.”

And if the focus is solely on Netanyahu, so is the pressure--and the danger:

But the tenor of Mrs. Clinton’s comments on Wednesday indicated to some analysts that the Obama administration was unlikely to budge from its position, even at the risk of putting Mr. Netanyahu’s government into jeopardy.

“She is stripping away whatever nuance, or whatever fig leaf, that would have allowed a deeply ideological government to make a settlement deal that is politically acceptable at home,” said Aaron David Miller, a public policy analyst at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. “They’ve concluded, ‘We’re going to force a change in behavior.’ ”

Sure, now Obama is all about change.

Is there any other country that is as subjected--and as susceptible-- to US pressure as Israel?

UPDATE: Jonathan Tobin is thinking along similar lines:

While she is not the first U.S. Secretary of State to make demands of Israel about settlements — Condoleezza Rice did the same thing in the last years of the Bush administration — the comments by the formerly down-the-line pro-Israel Clinton escalated the dispute brewing between the two countries. The question remains, at what point will the same words publicly pass the lips of the president himself, something that never happened during the Bush administration. If it happens during Obama’s speech to the Arab world from Cairo next week, it will undoubtedly be interpreted as a signal of a major rift in the U.S.-Israel alliance.

If so, then Obama must be convinced he will pay no significant political price for slamming Israel, something leftist Jews have been saying all year. It might also mean that he is trying to break the Netanyahu government and hopes for it to be replaced by one more to his liking. [emphasis added]

At the same time, Tobin notes that if this is indeed Obama's intent, Netanyahu and his coalition are not necessarily in trouble:

A lot of the commentary about this possibility, both here and in Israel, seems to take it for granted that Netanyahu will have no choice but to buckle and if he doesn’t, he’s doomed. One should never try to predict what is going to happen in Israeli coalition politics but if that is Obama’s goal, I think he’s being a trifle optimistic. In the Knesset that was just elected the math doesn’t really add up for a left-wing coalition. And as much as Netanyahu knows that maintaining close ties with the United States is a paramount concern for any Israeli government, it simply isn’t true that he must swallow everything Washington sends his way. There will be a price to pay for saying no, but he can do it, especially when it is about something so unreasonable as a demand that no houses be built in places Israel has no intention of giving up.

See also Israel Has A History Of Being Able To Say 'No' To The US

UPDATE II: Elliott Abrams, deputy national security adviser overseeing Near East and North African affairs in the Bush administration, already wrote last month in The Washington Post:

Settlement activity is not diminishing the territory of a future Palestinian entity. In fact, the emphasis on a "settlement freeze" draws attention from the progress that's needed to lay the foundation for full Palestinian self-rule -- building a thriving economy, fighting terrorism through reliable security forces and establishing the rule of law. A "settlement freeze" would not help Palestinians face today's problems or prepare for tomorrow's challenges. The demand for a freeze would have only one quick effect: to create immediate tension between the United States and Israel's new government. That may be precisely why some propose it, but it is also why the Obama administration should reject it. [emphasis added]

So the question remains: Is the Obama administration trying to pick a fight with Netanyahu?

UPDATE III: Powerline also thinks that Obama is trying to pick a fight:

Gone at last is the administration's reluctance to boss other nations through "pre-conditions." When it comes to Israel, Obama is willing to dictate whether parents can build a nearby house for their grown children.

Why is Obama more willing to talk this way to our friends than to our enemies? There are two logical explanations. First, our enemies will throw these kinds of statements back in Obama's face, whereas our friends will listen politely, at a minimum. Second, for Obama Israel is an adversary, whereas Iran, North Korea, Venezuela, etc. are mere annoyances.

I favor both explanations.

A third factor is also at work here, I think (whether or to what extent it is independent of the second can be debated). The U.S. wants to topple the Israeli government. Thus, it sees value in picking a fight with it.

When some criticized that Israel's lack of follow through against Hizbollah and Hamas made it appear weak, who would have thought that would apply also to the US?

Crossposted on Soccer Dad

Technorati Tag: Netanyahu and Israel and Clinton and Settlements.

Looking Beyond A Two State Solution

As I posted earlier (See Likud: The Next Generation), yesterday there was a conference at the Knesset entitled Alternatives to the Two-State Outlook:

The conference, organized by Likud MK Tzipi Hotovely, was purposely timed to coincide with the aftermath of Netanyahu's meeting in Washington with US President Barack Obama, amid speculation ahead of Obama's key speeches to the Muslim world and the quartet next month. The event was intended to send a message that opposition to the creation of a Palestinian state was common among mainstream Israelis and politicians not considered extremist.

Some of the alternatives that were offered to a 2 state solution:

Ya'alon instead suggested educational, economic, political, police and military reforms for the PA, while cooperating with Arab countries on issues like the humanitarian plight of Palestinians who consider themselves refugees. But he said even this could not take place without a responsible and able Palestinian leadership that would recognize Israel as a Jewish state.

One of the most radical suggestions was to do what has been disregarded out of hand for years:

Netanyahu's former bureau chief, Uri Elitzur, surprised people at the event when he said that the best possible option was the annexation of the entire West Bank, despite the danger of Israel eventually becoming a bi-national state. He said that solution was preferable to withdrawing from Judea and Samaria or continuing the current situation.

"While everyone has been saying for years that annexation was the worst option, we have tried everything else, so I think annexation is actually the most right plan," Elitzur said. "I would give citizenship to every Palestinian. There is no difference between Palestinians in Jenin and Sakhnin."

Elitzur, who is currently an editor at the Makor Rishon newspaper, said he did not fear demographic problems, but that Israel first needed to draft a constitution formally enacting that Israel would always remain a Jewish state. He said Israel should start governing and investing throughout the West Bank.

Asked what Netanyahu thought about his plan, Elitzur said that although he was still friends with the prime minister, "Bibi doesn't agree with me, and really no one else does either."

In addition:

Other plans presented at the conference called for a confederation between the West Bank and Jordan, and the extension of the Gaza Strip into the Egyptian-controlled Sinai Desert. Proponents of the ideas included former national security council head Giora Eiland, former Council of Jewish Communities in Judea and Samaria director-general Adi Mintz and an aide to former National Union chairman Benny Elon.

Of course, all of this is merely an intellectual exercise if there is no possibility of putting an alternative solution into effect--and considering the pressure being applied by the US to agree to the establishment of a second Palestinian state, it is difficult to imagine the the Obama administration agreeing to anything else.

Technorati Tag: Two State Solution.

Why Providing US Money To Abbas Is Illegal...Maybe

Itamar Marcus and Barbara Crook of Palestinian Media Watch write in The Jerusalem Post about what Abbas has been using US money for--namely the kinds of things that are prohibited by US law:

The PA chose to name its latest computer center "after the martyr Dalal Mughrabi," who led the most deadly terror attack in the country's history. Her 1978 bus hijacking killed 37 civilians, 12 of them children, including American photographer Gail Rubin. The new center is funded by Abbas's office, which is bolstered by Western aid money. (Al-Ayyam, May 5).

US law prohibits the funding of Palestinian structures that use any portion of their budget to promote terror or honor terrorists. But $200 million of the US's proposed $900m. aid package is earmarked to go directly to the Abbas government, which regularly uses its budget to honor terrorists. In fact, this latest veneration of Mughrabi is not an isolated case, but part of a continuing pattern of honoring terrorists that targets children in particular.

Last summer the PA sponsored "the Dalal Mughrabi football championship" for kids, and a "summer camp named for martyr Dalal Mughrabi... out of honor and admiration for the martyr." It also held a party to honor exemplary students, also named "for the martyr Dalal Mughrabi," under the auspices of Abbas and at which Abbas's representative "reviewed the heroic life of the martyr [Mughrabi] (Al-Hayat al-Jadida, July 23, 24 and August 8, 2008). All these PA-funded activities were to teach kids that a killer of women and children is a role model.

TWO MONTHS AGO, 31 years to the day after the Mughrabi murders, PA TV broadcast a special program celebrating the terror attack, calling the killing of 37 civilians "one of the most important and most prominent special operations... carried out by a team of heroes and led by the heroic fighter Dalal Mughrabi" (PA TV March 11). And its not just Mughrabi who is a Palestinian hero. Despite professions in English by Abbas and other PA leaders that they reject terror, the PA has a long and odious history in Arabic of celebrating terrorists as role models and heroes, often involving US money.

USAID spent $400,000 in 2004 to build the Salakh Khalaf soccer field. After Palestinian Media Watch reported that Khalaf was the head of the Palestinian terror group that murdered 11 Israeli athletes at the Munich Olympics and two American diplomats in Sudan, USAID publicly apologized and said it would demand that the PA change the name. The name was never changed.

In 2002, US money funded renovations of the "Dalal Mughrabi school for girls." After PMW alerted the US State Department to Mughrabi's terrorist past, the funding was cancelled. Within 24 hours, the PA said the name would be changed, and the American money was reinstated. Once the work was completed, however, the school was renamed for the terrorist. It bears Mughrabi's name to this day.

AT A RECENT hearing of the House Appropriations Committee, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton pledged: "We will work only with a Palestinian Authority government that unambiguously and explicitly accepts the Quartet's principles, [including] a commitment to nonviolence." And it's not just Clinton's pledge. US law interprets nonviolence to include not honoring terrorists: "None of the [US]... assistance under the West Bank and Gaza program may be made available for the purpose of recognizing or otherwise honoring individuals who commit, or have committed acts of terrorism" (2008 Foreign Operations Bill Sec. 657.B - C.1). This latest glorification of the terrorist Mughrabi, coming as Congress considers the administration's latest request to fund Abbas, imposes a profound responsibility on Congress. But it also creates a unique opportunity.

Well, theres good news and bad news.

The good news is that what Marcus and Crook have written about the Foreign Operations Bill is correct:

WEST BANK AND GAZA ASSISTANCE

SEC. 657. (a) OVERSIGHT- For fiscal year 2008, 30 days prior to the initial obligation of funds for the bilateral West Bank and Gaza Program, the Secretary of State shall certify to the Committees on Appropriations that procedures have been established to assure the Comptroller General of the United States will have access to appropriate United States financial information in order to review the uses of United States assistance for the Program funded under the heading `Economic Support Fund' for the West Bank and Gaza.

(b) Vetting- Prior to the obligation of funds appropriated by this Act under the heading `Economic Support Fund' for assistance for the West Bank and Gaza, the Secretary of State shall take all appropriate steps to ensure that such assistance is not provided to or through any individual, private or government entity, or educational institution that the Secretary knows or has reason to believe advocates, plans, sponsors, engages in, or has engaged in, terrorist activity nor, with respect to private entities or educational institutions, those that have as a principal officer of the entity's governing board or governing board of trustees any individual that has been determined to be involved in, or advocating terrorist activity or determined to be a member of a designated foreign terrorist organization. The Secretary of State shall, as appropriate, establish procedures specifying the steps to be taken in carrying out this subsection and shall terminate assistance to any individual, entity, or educational institution which she has determined to be involved in or advocating terrorist activity.

(c) PROHIBITION-

(1) None of the funds appropriated under titles II through V of this Act for assistance under the West Bank and Gaza program may be made available for the purpose of recognizing or otherwise honoring individuals who commit, or have committed acts of terrorism.

The problem is--that is for fiscal year 2008.

What about this year?

There is a similar bill for fiscal year 2009

And it does have a similar provision:

(k) WEST BANK AND GAZA-

(1) Of the funds appropriated under the heading `Economic Support Fund' in this Act, $75,000,000 shall be made available for assistance for the West Bank and Gaza.

(2) The terms and conditions of sections 635, 644, 647, 650, 655, 656, 657 (except subsection (f)), and the eighth through twelfth provisos under the heading `Economic Support Fund' of the Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 2008 (division J of Public Law 110-161) shall apply to assistance for the West Bank and Gaza in this Act.

Paragraph 2 makes clear that the provision from the 2008 bill that I quoted is still in effect.

That's the good news.

The bad news--according to GovTrack.us, this bill was never put to a vote and never became law:

Status:

Introduced Jul 18, 2008 Reported by Committee Jul 17, 2008 Voted on in Senate (did not occur) Voted on in House (did not occur) Signed by President (did not occur) This bill never became law. This bill was proposed in a previous session of Congress. Sessions of Congress last two years, and at the end of each session all proposed bills and resolutions that haven't passed are cleared from the books. Members often reintroduce bills that did not come up for debate under a new number in the next session.

Bottom line, without that bill being passed, what is to keep the Obama administration to not only provide millions to Gaza, but also to the PA in the West Bank--regardless of the pro-terrorism uses it is still being put to?

Crossposted on Soccer Dad

Technorati Tag: Abbas and Palestinian Authority.

Sonia Sotomayor vs. Benjamin Cardozo: First Hispanic Supreme Court Justice?

True, she has not been confirmed yet--but still.

From USA Today:

Sonia Sotomayor's Puerto Rican heritage would make her the first Hispanic to serve on the nation's highest court — unless you count Benjamin Cardozo, who was on the court from 1932 to 1938.

Wikipedia gives the details:

Cardozo was born in New York City, the son of Rebecca Washington (née Nathan) and Albert Jacob Cardozo. Both Cardozo's maternal grandparents, Sara Seixas and Isaac Mendes Seixas Nathan, and his paternal grandparents, Ellen Hart and Michael H. Cardozo, were Sephardi Jews; their families immigrated from England before the American Revolution, and were descended from Jews who left the Iberian Peninsula for Holland during the Inquisition. Cardozo family tradition held that their ancestors were Marranos from Portugal, although Cardozo's ancestry has not been firmly traced to Portugal. [emphasis added]

But even assuming that Cardozo's roots go back to Portugal, that apparently may not be enough to give him the title of first Hispanic Supreme Court Justice. The USA today article quotes Cardozo biographer and Harvard Law professor Andrew Kaufman:

The Cardozo family legend is that they came from Portugal, Kaufman says, and the family tree cites their heritage as Sephardic Jews from the Iberian Peninsula. "Many Spanish would deny Portuguese are Hispanic," he says. [emphasis added]

Apparently, this is no small issue.
The Portuguese-American Historical & Research Foundation has issued the following advisory:

To all Portuguese-Americans and/or Portuguese-Canadians:

• Read several definitions of Hispanic first before considering yourselves as Hispanics;

• Hispanic is basically an American term, not used in Europe;

• Even people from Spain are not Hispanics; they are Spanish;

• In Portuguese we use the term "Lusófonos" to describe people of Portuguese descent or culture.

The Wikipedia entry for "Hispanic" indicates that the US simply has not made up its mind:

The U.S. Office of Management and Budget currently defines "Hispanic or Latino" as "a person of Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban, South or Central American, or other Spanish culture or origin, regardless of race". This definition excludes people of Portuguese origins, such as Portuguese Americans or Brazilian Americans. However, they are included in some government agencies' definitions. For example, the U.S. Department of Transportation defines Hispanic to include, "persons of Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban, Dominican, Central or South American, or others Spanish or Portuguese culture or origin, regardless of race." This definition has been adopted by the Small Business Administration as well as many federal, state, and municipal agencies for the purposes of awarding government contracts to minority owned businesses. Still, other government agencies adopt definitions that exclude people from Spain. Some others include people from Brazil, but not Spain or Portugal.

Bottom line, this question is much ado about nothing--which is exactly the point. It is no more relevant that Sotomayor would be the first Hispanic as that she would be the 3rd woman on the Supreme Court. 

The key is Sotomayor's record of accomplishment and competence to serve on the Court.

And there is lots to talk about there.

More at Memeorandum

Technorati Tag: Sonia Sotomayor and Benjamin Cardozo.

If Hamas Says Abbas's Term Has Expired, Why Can't Israel?

Hamas seems to have the law on their side:

Islamic Resistance Movement, Hamas, stated Monday that it does not believe a positive outcome would be achieved during the talks between the Palestinian president, Mahmoud Abbas, and the US president Barack Obama.

Hamas spokesperson, Fawzi Barhoum, stated that Abbas’ term in office had already expired; therefore he cannot sign an agreement with any country, including understandings with the United States and Israel.

“Abbas’ term in office had ended”, the Hamas spokesperson said, “he no longer represents the Palestinian people”. [emphasis added]

On the other hand, Abbas claims that his term cannot end yet, based on a technicality:

Abbas argues that he has the right to remain in office for another year because the law says presidential and parliamentary elections should be held at the same time, the Jerusalem Post reported. Parliamentary elections are set for January 2010.

It would be nice to have that point clarified, rather than have one more element of the Palestinian government reflect incompetence and corruption.

The Palestinian Centre For Human Rights has issued a paper siding with Hamas.

The Fatwa & Legislation Office has issued a paper siding with Abbas.

According to this Q&A about the election [PDF] from the International Foundation for Electoral Systems, the law is with  the PCHR and Hamas:

If the next Palestinian elections were to be regularly scheduled, when should they be held according to the legal framework?

The Palestinian Basic Law and the Elections Law do not provide a clear answer to this, and they are somewhat contradictory. For example, the Presidential term is limited to four years, but the date of the next elections is tied to the Palestinian Legislative Council (PLC) election. The four year limit was introduced into both the Basic and the Elections Law in 2005.

What does the Basic Law actually say?

The amendments to the Basic Law (from August 2005) stipulate that “the term of the presidency of the National Authority shall be four years” (Article 36). Taking into account that President Abbas was elected in January 2005, this means that his presidency will need to be terminated in January 2009 in order to be compliant with the law.

What does the Election Law say?

The Elections Laws (both 2005 and 2007 versions) confirm the four year limit, but they also state that the next Presidential elections will be held at the same time as the PLC elections. As the term for the PLC elections is also four years and the PLC was elected in January 2006, this would mean that the next Presidential and PLC elections will be held in January 2010.

...Which is the correct reading of the legal framework? Which law has supremacy?

Arguably, the Basic Law, as the Basic Law is a “temporary constitution”.

Read the whole thing.

In the short term, there is no reason why Netanyahu cannot tell Obama that at the very least--if Hamas and Fatah cannot get together, Israel wants to be able to negotiate with a recognized leader of the PA.

Crossposted on Soccer Dad

Technorati Tag: Abbas.

For Albright, It Was Xena; For Sotomayor, It's Perry Mason

I've never been to New Zealand before. But one of my role models, Xena, the warrior princess, comes from there.
Madeleine Albright

I think it is generally agreed that Albright in action did not resemble Xena very much. After all, it was a later Secretary of State--Condoleezza Rice--who was nicknamed "The Warrior Princess".

I identify much more with Sonia Sotomayor's role model:

While growing up poor and suffering childhood-onset diabetes, raised by a widowed mother and speaking no English until after her father died when she was 9 years old, she drew her inspiration from reading Nancy Drew detective stories and watching "Perry Mason" on TV. In one "Perry Mason" episode, the prosecutor was overruled by the judge, leading Sotomayor to conclude that the judge was the most important person in the courtroom.

"I thought, what a wonderful occupation to have," Sotomayor told the New York Times in a 1992 interview. "And I made the quantum leap: If that was the prosecutor's job, then the guy who made the decision to dismiss the case was the judge. That was what I was going to be."

I guess it was only a matter of time before Sotomayor made a few more quantum leaps and figured that the most important judge in the judicial system is a Supreme Court Judge.

Perry Mason was always able to get his client off the hook--even if he had to bend the law a little bit in order to do it. What kind of Supreme Court Judge would Perry Mason have made?

We may find out. 

Technorati Tag: Sonia Sotomayor and Perry Mason.

Do They Go Out Of Their Way To Find Anti-Israel Officials? (Updated)

UNESCO and the EU have been very busy.

Last week, Bernard-Henri Levy, French philosopher and writer, posted the following open letter on the Huffington Post:

UNESCO: The Shame of a Disaster Foretold

Here is an open letter I have co-signed along with Elie Wiesel and Claude Lanzmann:

Who declared in April 2001: "Israel has never contributed to Civilization in any era, for it has only ever appropriated the contributions of others" -- and added almost two months later: "the Israeli culture is an inhumane culture; it is an aggressive, racist, pretentious culture based on one simple principle: steal what does not belong to in order to then claim its appropriation"?

Who explained in 1997, and has repeated it since in every way possible, that he was the "archenemy" of all attempts to normalize his country's relations with Israel?

Or who, as recently as 2008, responded to a deputy of the Egyptian parliament who was alarmed that Israeli books could be introduced into the Alexandria Library: "Burn these books; if there are any there, I will myself burn them in front of you"?

Who said in 2001 in the newspaper Ruz-al-Yusuf that Israel was "aided" in its dark intrigues by "the infiltration of Jews into the international media" and by their diabolical ability to "spread lies"?

To whom do we owe these insane declarations, this anthology of hate and error, and this frenzy of conspiracy theories?

To Farouk Hosny, the Egyptian Minister of Culture for the past fifteen years and undoubtedly the next Director General of UNESCO if nothing is done before the May 30 deadline for nominating candidates to stop his apparently unstoppable march to one of the most important posts of cultural responsibility on the planet.

Even worse: the words that we just cited are only a few -- and not even the most nauseating -- of the innumerable declarations of the same tenor that punctuate the career of Mr. Farouk Hosny over the past fifteen years and that, consequently, precede him as he aspires, even today, to a role on a worldwide scale.

Read the whole thing.

Not to be outdone, the EU has their own special envoy to the Middle East:

Marc Otte. He is the EU’s special envoy to the Middle East, and you may agree he is perfect for the job. Here are his words to the Jordan Times:

“Things are changing. Look at Iraq, Lebanon, and other places in the region, [and] you will see that foreign occupation is not legitimate, whether it’s Israel, the U.S. in Iraq, or even NATO forces in Afghanistan.” I ask this question: Is it the official position of the EU that the presence of NATO forces in Afghanistan constitutes illegitimate foreign occupation? (This is to say nothing of the U.S. and its allies in Iraq.) Also, what would Mr. Otte have thought about international forces in France, c. 1944?

His statement, above, is morally, historically, and geopolitically perverse. But there’s more. Otte says,

“Israel wants Syria and Iran not to interfere in Lebanon. Fine, but we also want them to stop the occupation of Palestinian lands . . .”

First, I’m not sure I believe that Otte is sincere about “Fine.” Second, who decided that the disputed territories were “Palestinian lands”? How about Jaffa, Haifa, and Tel Aviv? A lot of people consider those “Palestinian lands,” too. Furthermore, Otte equates Syrian and Iranian designs on Lebanon to Israel’s occupation of the West Bank and Gaza (and Israel is now out of Gaza, to the immense sorrow of Gaza). Think about that historically, morally, etc., and you will again conclude, I suspect: perverse.

Read the whole thing.

Shame and perversity.

Far too much of the latter, and not nearly enough sense of the former.

There is nothing Israel can do about Otte, but it had been protesting Hosny's appointment--till now:

As part of a secret agreement, reached during their May 11 meeting in Sharm el-Sheikh, Netanyahu promised Mubarak that Israel would cease the international campaign it has waged against Hosni's appointment during the past year. It is still unclear whether Netanyahu, who is known for his insistence on the principle of quid pro quo in Israel's relations with the Arab world, received something from the Egyptian leader in return.

If Netanyahu has, he isn't telling. 

This is the sort of thing we would have expected from Olmert--except that Olmert would be talking it up and explaining why it was a necessary and wonderful thing.

UPDATE: In Putting Our Faith in the UN Cesspool, Jonathan Tobin adds:

But already in office and far higher up in the Byzantine labyrinth of UN bureaucracies is another ideologue and hater: Miguel d’Escoto Brockmann, president of the United Nations General Assembly. A hardcore Sandinista veteran of Nicaragua’s nightmarish past, d’Escoto has already provoked concern in the United States for his open hostility to the state of Israel. Now, the New York Times has reported on his plans for using the UN as a platform for institutionalizing his socialist dogmas.

Yup, the list just keeps on growing.

Technorati Tag: Farouk Hosny and Marc Otte.

Some Advice To Obama In Advance Of His Cairo Speech

From Victor Davis Hanson:

Obama should remember that the U.S. has given well over $70 billion in aggregate aid to the Palestinians, Jordanians, and Egyptians. We have tried to save the Afghans from Russian communism and again are pouring money into the country. Kuwait now exists thanks to the U.S. We alone chided the Russians on its flattening of Grozny, and bombed a Christian European country to save Muslims in Kosovo and Bosnia when others could not or would not. We tried to save starving Muslims in Somalia, and the record goes on — including the sacrifice made on behalf of Iraqi democracy — and is sterling in comparison to the very unapologetic way China, India, or Russia has dealt with Muslims at home and abroad. No need, then, for yet another apology or “I was only three months old” distancing — or so we hope.

Read the whole thing.

Yeah, hope springs eternal.

Technorati Tag: Obama.

From YU: Shavuot To-Go 5769

Individual Articles download

• Cantor Bernard Beer - "Liturgical and Musical Aspects of Shavuot"
• Rabbi Reuven Brand - "The Wellness of Bread: The Achievement of Shavuot"
• Rabbi Joshua Flug - "A Walking Sefer Torah"
• Rabbi Avrohom Gordimer - "Eating Dairy on Shavuos"
• Rabbi David Horwitz - "The Heart of the Matter"
• Mrs. Rivka Kahan - "The Transmission of Torah MiSinai"
• Rabbi Menachem Leibtag - "A Revolution at Revelation: The Connection Between Shavuot & Shabbat in Sefer Devarim"
• Rabbi Baruch Simon - "Seven Weeks of Seven Days - Making Our Time Meaningful"
• Dr. Shira Weiss - How Do We Know Judaism is the True Religion?

-----

Download Shavuot To-Go 5768
Halachic Perspectives on Live Kidney Donations Rabbi Josh Flug 
Can I Have a Ride? Carpooling & Middas Sodom Rabbi Daniel Stein
The Significance of Matan Torah Dr. Naomi Grunhaus
Shavuot: Middot and Torah Linked Together Rabbi Zev Reichman
Twice Kissed Rabbi Moshe Taragin
Family Program: Pirkei Avot Scavenger Hunt, Environmentalism in Jewish Law and Thought, The Jew's Role in the World - by Aaron Steinberg
-----
Download Shavuot To-Go 5767 
This year's edition focuses on copyrights, wireless networks, and intellectual property from a halachic perspective. There is also a program specifically for teens about friendship in the Facebook era.
-----
Download Shavuot To-Go 5766
Bible Hunt
Learning to use a Tanach
Time to Pick Teams
An Exercise in Mitzvah Categorization

Technorati Tag: Shavuot and Shavuos and Torah.

New Poll On Israeli Reaction To A Nuclear Iran: More Would Leave

Back in January:

Some 23 percent of Israelis would consider leaving the country if Iran obtains a nuclear weapon, according to a poll conducted on behalf of the Center for Iranian Studies at Tel Aviv University.

Some 85 percent of respondents said they feared the Islamic Republic would obtain an atomic bomb, 57 percent believed the new U.S. initiative to engage in dialogue with Tehran would fail and 41 percent believed Israel should strike Iran's nuclear installations without waiting to see whether or how the talks develop.

New poll:

A new poll of Israeli attitudes towards Iran found that the public is evenly split on forestalling Iranian nuclear weapons development by means of an immediate Israeli preemptive strike. Of those advocating further diplomacy, 10 percent said that Israel should engage Iran directly.

Results of the survey, commissioned by the Center for Iranian Studies (CIS) at Tel Aviv University, were published on the sidelines of the CIS's annual conference on Iran May 24-25. The polling was conducted earlier this month among 509 adult respondents representing all Israeli sectors by the Ma'agar Mochot (Brain Trust) research company.

Fifty-one percent of those surveyed expressed support for an immediate Israeli strike on Iran's nuclear sites, while 49 percent believe that Israel should wait for the results of U.S. engagement with Iran before pursuing alternative paths to preventing a nuclear-armed Iran. At the same time, a clear majority of the Israeli public (74 percent), including those advocating a wait-and-see approach, does not believe that American engagement will persuade Iran to change its course. A full 81 percent believe that Iran will, in fact, attain a nuclear bomb.

A further breakdown of the statistics shows that majority support for a preemptive attack on Iran is to be found among male, national-religious and haredi religious Israelis (61, 62 and 60 percent, respectively). A major difference exists between right-wing and left-wing Israelis regarding the appropriate Israeli policy, with 38 percent of those leaning to the left favoring attack, as opposed to 63 percent of those leaning to the right.

While the number of Israelis who believe that Iran will obtain a nuclear bomb has not changed much (85% / 81%), more are now pessimistic of the chances that US dialog with Iran will succeed (57% / 74%)  and more also believe that Israel should strike Iran without waiting for diplomacy (41% / 51%).

The most controversial question from the January poll was on the issue of what percentage of Israelis would consider leaving Israel if Iran obtains nuclear arms: In the January poll 25% said they would. In the current poll, 30% said they would.

It seems like talk about Iran gaining nuclear arms has been going on forever. At some point, the talk is going to be moot: either because Iran will have obtained nuclear arms--or because Israel will have done something to stop it (for now).

And we are getting closer and closer to that point.

Technorati Tag: Iran.

Barack Obama: Middle East Newbie

New York Times Op-Ed Have We Already Lost Iran:

Some diplomatic veterans who have spoken with him have told us that the president said that he did not realize, when he came to office, how “hard” the Iran problem would be.

This has not gone uncommented upon.

Haaretz: The distance between Gaza and the West Bank is growing

So what, after all, is the source of Obama's optimism? One prominent Palestinian commentator ventured that it stems from ignorance. "Obama still doesn't know what the Middle East is and what the Palestinian issue is," he said. "With time, he will learn."

It's still very early in Obama's term--and he is still learning on the job.

Technorati Tag: Obama.

Likud: The Next Generation

Tzipi Hotovely	Danny Danon
Gilad Erdan	Gideon Sa'ar

David Hazony gives an overview of some of the up and coming members of Likud in the context of tomorrow's conference on “Alternatives to the Two-State Outlook”:

the conference being held at the initiative of Likud MK and former TV personality Tzipi Hotovely. Hotovely, just 30 years old, is a rising star on the Israeli political scene, and represents a whole new generation of young Likud leaders, including Danny Danon, Gilad Erdan, and Education Minister Gideon Sa’ar [see here]. These under-45s are all dynamic, well-spoken people who take the grunt-work of parliament seriously. They are, in all likelihood, the future of Likud.

Hotovely has her own website (Hebrew), in addition to her Knesset website. Danon also has his own website (English and Hebrew) besides his Knesset website. Erdan and Sa'ar seem to only have Knesset websites.

There is no arguing with Hazony on the need for fresh new faces:

Part of a party’s success depends on its ability to speak to a younger generation of voters, and give them a sense of where the future lies. Don’t be fooled by campaign cameos of the likes of Benny Begin and Dan Meridor. Keep your eyes on the other Tzipi and her friends.

Tomorrow's conference will be an opportunity to do just that.

Technorati Tag: Tzipi Hotovely and Danny Danon and Gilad Erdan and Gideon_Saar.

On Iran, Israeli And Arab Concerns Coincide Just So Far

Aluf Benn writes that it is true that the Arab world shares Israel's concern about Iran--

But the concerns are not identical. Israel is worried about the Iranian nuclear program and the Arabs are worried about Iran's regional strength and its undermining of the regimes in Cairo, Riyadh and the Gulf emirates. The Saudis and the Egyptians aren't counting the centrifuges and the grams of enriched uranium the way the Israelis are. They are content with a warning that if the Shi'ites in Iran have nuclear weapons, the Sunnis in the region will obtain them, too. Otherwise they are more concerned about terror and subversion. America is trying to reassure them by reinforcing its military forces in the Gulf. The Arab governments though, like Israel, want to know what America will do on the day the dialogue with Iran fails.

The difference in concerns means that Obama can address the Arab concerns separately without having to take the kinds of measures--or provide the approval--that Israel wants. The Arab would be satisfied with strong assurances and a symbolic show of force.

--kind of like what Israel has been receiving over the years.

The question is whether the Arab world will be so easily satisfied.

Technorati Tag: Iran.

Wither Fatah?

As Ethan Bronner of The New York Times puts it, in describing the condition of Fatah: Palestinians Try to Prune Branches of Core Party

The movement has been paralyzed by competing personal alliances and a continuing identity crisis, and has not held a congress in 20 years. While the gap between the Fatah-led West Bank and the Hamas-led Gaza is widely recognized, less appreciated is that Fatah itself, which the West trains and helps, is so internally torn that it is scarcely able to negotiate or govern.

On Tuesday, Prime Minister Salam Fayyad announced a new government with greater Fatah representation among the ministers but little change in policy.

“We are on a sinking ship, and the leadership thinks it can save us by plugging a hole,” lamented Qaddoura Fares, a leading Fatah advocate of change and peace with Israel. “We have to wake up and stop lying to ourselves. We call ourselves a democratic movement, but what democratic movement hasn’t met in 20 years?”
If he and others succeed and Fatah reorganizes itself and successfully takes on Hamas in elections planned for 2010 in the West Bank and Gaza, prospects for a deal between Israel and a future state of Palestine could brighten considerably. But polls show that if elections were held now, Hamas would give Fatah a very close race.

And this the party with which Israel is supposed to negotiate the creation of a second Palestinian state?

As David Hazony points out--apparently not:

As the political dust settles in the wake of the Obama-Netanayahu meeting, the two governments’ positions are starting to come into focus. Netanyahu rejects the two-state solution; Obama affirms it. Netanyahu insists on continuing the “natural growth” of existing settlements; Obama rejects it. Netanhyahu insists that Jerusalem will remain the “eternal, undivided” capital of Israel; Obama sees Jerusalem as up for negotiations.

One would almost think from this that Israel and the United States are negotiating with one another. But they’re not. Israel’s supposed to be negotiating with the Palestinians. And there are all sorts of questions that have to do with what the Palestinians are willing to give up: the “right of return,” contiguity, Jerusalem, education, a permanent end to hostility, etc. What happened to all of these? As long as there is no Palestinian side to this negotiation, the respective positions of both Netanyahu and Obama are meaningless.

Hazony points out that there can be no Palestinian side as long as the irreconcilable split between Fatah and Hamas remains.

All things considered, even Fatah on its own cannot be considered a peace partner until they get their act together.

No wonder that Obama is expected to jumpstart the process by inviting the other Arab countries to get involved with some confidence enhancing measures.

Technorati Tag: Israel and Fatah and Hamas.

'1 in 4 Israelis would consider leaving country if Iran gets nukes'

It's called terrorism--something that Iran knows a lot about:

Some 23 percent of Israelis would consider leaving the country if Iran obtains a nuclear weapon, according to a poll conducted on behalf of the Center for Iranian Studies at Tel Aviv University.

Some 85 percent of respondents said they feared the Islamic Republic would obtain an atomic bomb, 57 percent believed the new U.S. initiative to engage in dialogue with Tehran would fail and 41 percent believed Israel should strike Iran's nuclear installations without waiting to see whether or how the talks develop.

"The findings are worrying because they reflect an exaggerated and unnecessary fear," Prof. David Menashri, the head of the Center, said. "Iran's leadership is religiously extremist but calculated and it understands an unconventional attack on Israel is an act of madness that will destroy Iran. Sadly, the survey shows the Iranian threat works well even without a bomb and thousands of Israelis [already] live in fear and contemplate leaving the country."

But does anyone really want to be put into the position that they have to rely on Iran's good sense--and good graces? If Israelis are ready to run, I wonder what the Arabs living in the countries surrounding Iran are thinking--at least they have the option of appeasement. 

Leon Hadar, guest blogging at Rosner's Domain, goes a step further: Iran having the bomb is a good thing:

A nuclear Iran will have to think twice before giving a "green light" to Hizbollah to attack Israel and not because of any great love for Israel. They'll have to consider the possibility that that could lead to an overall Mideast War that could deteriorate into a nuclear war. In short, let's not get too excited: A nuclear Iran would not mean the end of Israel but instead could lead to more regional stability.[emphasis added]

(Gee, we should have encouraged Iran to get those nukes ages ago...)

So which is worse, 25% of Israelis wanting to flee the Middle East, or trying to fool ourselves that Iran having the bomb is not as bad as it appears.

...Or waiting on Obama to negotiate with the nice Iranians?

The real question is whether the tough talk coming from Israel is going to lead to action.

Technorati Tag: Israel and Iran.

Will Obama's Peace Plan Take Into Account That Olmert Is No Longer Prime Minister

Imagine how much easier things would be for Obama is Olmert was still around:

Barack Obama to unveil peace plan in Cairo

US President Barack Obama is expected to outline a far-reaching proposal for a Palestinian-Israeli peace agreement in Cairo next month that will flesh out the Saudi-initiated Arab Peace Plan proposed in 2002 in a way that makes it more palatable to Jerusalem but also requires the Jewish state to make major concessions.

Under the Obama proposal, Palestinian refugees would not be permitted to return to Israel, but they would be permitted to return to the Palestinian state that would arise on the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Those who continue to reside in Arab countries where they have been largely confined to refugee camps for 60 years would be given citizenship of those countries, ending their refugee status.

On the critical question of Jerusalem, Mr Obama will support the Arab demand that Palestinians be permitted to establish their capital in East Jerusalem, which was captured by Israel in the Six Day War in 1967. However, the walled Old City at the heart of Jerusalem, where the principal holy sites of Christianity, Judaism and Islam are located, would become an international enclave and fly the UN flag.

The Palestinian state would be demilitarised, maintaining a significant police force to keep order but not an army that might pose a security threat to Israel.

The pre-Six Day War borders between Israel and the Palestinian territories would be modified, but only by mutually agreed territorial exchanges, not unilateral annexation.

The proposal was reported by the prestigious Arab-language newspaper Al Quds Al Arabi, which is published in London. The paper said the plan would be unveiled by Mr Obama when he gives his much-touted address to the Muslim world in Cairo next month. [emphasis added]

Far be it that I contradict "the prestigious Arab-language newspaper Al Quds Al Arabi," but that's not what Netanyahu said:

Last night I returned to Jerusalem, our capital, from a very important visit to Washington, capital of the United States. It was very important for me to come back to participate in this ceremony and say the same things I said in the United States:

United Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. Jerusalem has always been - and always will be - ours. It will never again be divided or cut in half. Jerusalem will remain only under Israel's sovereignty. In united Jerusalem, the freedom of worship and freedom of access for all three religions to the holy sites will be guaranteed, and it is the only way to guarantee that members of all faiths, minorities and denominations can continue living here safely. [emphasis added]

The Knesset is taking steps as well:

On the anniversary of the unification of Jerusalem, MKs from five factions representing both the coalition and the opposition submitted a bill on Thursday that would require a supermajority vote within the Knesset to enact any change to Jerusalem's borders.

Coalition chairman MK Ze'ev Elkin (Likud) submitted the amendment to the Basic Law: Jerusalem, Capitol of Israel, Thursday morning. The amendment would require a special majority of 80 MKs to approve any change to the capital's borders.

...The current law requires a simple majority - 61 votes - in order to shift the capital's boundaries. The bill's sponsors argued that the amendment would "fortify the unification of Jerusalem, to ensure its future and to maintain the security of its residents."

Likud Party officials emphasized that the current law defines the area of Jerusalem as the area determined on June 28, 1967, and forbids the transfer of any authority over Jerusalem to any foreign entity - diplomatic or administrative - without a majority approval from the parliament.

Maybe there is a new attitude after all.

Avigdor Lieberman:

We support negotiations and we are trying to come up with a solution for coexistence, but we are done groveling.

Israeli Ambassador Gideon Meir:

There is a new government that was elected by the Israeli people and it is the people who have made it clear that they are fed up. For 16 years we made concessions, giving up land for peace and peace did not come. The key word is negotiation. This means that the two parties talk and both make concessions. But what do we have until now? Israel gave up land and in return all it got was more war, more terror.
We withdrew from Lebanon in 2000 and we got Iran on our borders through Hizbollah, which is its proxy. In 2005 we pulled out of Gaza and we got Iran there through its other proxy, Hamas.

We Israelis have concluded that we want a different approach and are re-thinking government policy in this regard.

Obama may have thought that with a receptive Olmert, peace was so close that all that was necessary was a firm nudge. Now, however, he is dealing with a Prime Minister who reflects the feelings of a broad swath of the Israeli population that are fed up with making concessions--of being the only ones to make concessions.

We will have to wait to hear what Obama says in Cairo, although elsewhere I read that he did not intend to lay out his peace plan at that time.

But at some point, Obama is going to have to lay out what he is going to expect--to demand--from both Israel and the Palestinians. And that is when it will first start to get interesting.

Crossposted on Soccer Dad

Technorati Tag: Israel and Obama.

At Least Someone In The US Agrees With Israel About Iran

Remind me: Does Obama listen to his military advisers?

Iran nuclear bomb would be calamitous: U.S. military

The consequences of Iran acquiring a nuclear weapon would be "calamitous" and major powers must act together to prevent it, the top U.S. military officer said on Thursday.

Admiral Mike Mullen's remarks came the day after Iran's president announced the country had tested a missile that analysts said could hit Israel and U.S. bases in the Gulf, a major source of crude oil for the United States.

The United States and other Western powers are concerned that Iran could combine elements of its uranium enrichment and missile programs to create a nuclear weapon, although Tehran denies it intends to do this.

"I'm one who believes that Iran getting a nuclear weapon is calamitous for the region and for the world," Mullen, chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, told the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

Iran's Arab neighbors are already wary of Iran's intentions in the region--so Mullen's analysis of the consequences of a nuclear Iran seem like common sense:

"It then, in my view, generates neighbors who feel exposed, deficient and then develop or buy the capability themselves," he said, suggesting Iran's acquisition of a nuclear weapon likely would trigger a nuclear arms race in the Middle East.

"The downside, potentially, is absolutely disastrous."

Yet for all that, Mullen stops short of what may end up being the only effective option:

But Mullen did not suggest the United States should take military action to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.

He echoed the Obama administration's policy that big powers should work together to persuade Iran not to pursue a nuclear bomb and halt the proliferation of nuclear weapons generally.

"Major leaders, internationally, have got to come together to arrest this growth or the long-term downside for the people in the world is really, really tragic and drastic," he said.

Israel and the United States have not ruled out military action against Iran but the Obama administration has adopted a policy of trying to engage Tehran diplomatically to resolve differences.

So when Obama's 'dealine' is reached and Iran will have proven unresponsive, what then? By that time, Iran will have instituted every possible defense of their nuclear facilities.

Is this really going to fall on Israel's shoulders?

Technorati Tag: Iran.

One Jerusalem Conference Call With Pollster John McLaughlin

This morning I wrote a post about the results of new poll done by McLaughlin & Associates on issues related to Iran's quest for nuclear weapons, Israel's relations with Iran and the Palestinians, and general national security issues. A summary of their findings is available on their site in PDF format.

This afternoon, bloggers had the opportunity to speak with John McLaughlin about his poll in a conference call put together by One Jerusalem.

One of the points that John McLaughlin emphasized is that the American public demonstrated that it is ahead of the Obama administration on the issue of Iran and the threat that it poses--not only to the security of Israel but to the security of the US as well. Not only did terrorism rank as the number #1 greatest threat to the US (ahead of the economy) but 71% of those surveyed answered that they felt the US will not be safe froma nuclear Iran--with 79% responding that if Iran is successful in producing a nuclear weapon, Iran is likely to provide nuclear weapons to terrorists to attack an American city.

In response to a question from Boker Tov, Boulder on the indication in the poll that Americans have a positive view of Netanyahu, McLaughlin indicated that in a finding not included in the summary 66% of those polled had a negative view of Bibi's counterpart in Iran: Ahmadinejad. Obviously, it is helpful for Israel to have a leader who can represent Israel well but also project a positive image.

Rick Richman of Contentions asked about the methodology of the survey and the areas of agreement among the 4 basic groups represented in the poll: Republicans, Democrats, Independents, and those who voted for Obama. McLaughlin agreed that the base of 600 interviewed was smaller than the 1,000 he would have prefered, the survey itself had a margin of error of 4%. The areas of agreement, such as the threat posed by Iran, indicated an important area of partisan agreement--refreshing considering the multiple areas where Republicans and Democrats do not agree these days. There was similar agreement on concern for the security of Israel.

I asked a question on the use of polls not only as a measure of where people stand on the issues, but also as a tool to influence policy makers. McLaughlin indicated that on those areas where there was strong backing--where Americans were ahead of the Obama administration--there was the potential for influence on our leaders.

Check out for yourself the summary of the findings, and how the American public 'gets it'.

Technorati Tag: McLaughlin & Associates and Israel

When Jerusalem Fell To The British

From a post on Daniel Pipes's blog back in March:

Reporting on General Edmund Allenby's conquest of Jerusalem on December 9, 1917, the New York Herald announced in a headline: "Jerusalem Rescued by British after 673 Years of Moslem Rule." Subtitles then elaborate: "Great Rejoicing in the Christian World" and "Jews Everywhere in Particular See the Restoration of Palestine as Part of Allies' Programme."

The math checks out: 1917-673=1244, the year when the Ayyubids, with Khwarezmian aid, seized the city for the last time from the Crusaders.

The newspaper's second page boasts stories under headlines that read "Distinguished Jews Here [i.e., New York] Express Joy Over Capture of Jerusalem by British," "Rescure of Jerusalem Causes Joy," and "Holy City Ravaged in Many Wars by Pagan and Turk: Has Been Under the Yoke of Mohammedan Rule for 670 Years."

Technorati Tag: Israel and Jerusalem.

The Struggle For Jerusalem: 10 Facts

From The Jerusalem Center For Public Affairs:

The Struggle for Jerusalem

by Dore Gold and the Editorial Staff

The issue of Jerusalem is particularly sensitive and a topic of dispute in every negotiation. Distortions, half-truths, and outright lies are frequently voiced about the struggle for and Israel's right to Jerusalem. This runs counter to the reality that since the establishment of the State of Israel in 1948, and even prior to that, Israel's rights to sovereignty in Jerusalem were firmly anchored in history and international law. There are even many Israelis who are insufficiently aware of their rights according to international law. Below are 10 points that are important to know with regard to the struggle over Jerusalem.


1. A Jewish Majority Resided in Jerusalem Way Before the Unification of the City

A Jewish majority existed in Jerusalem during the hundred-year period that preceded the establishment of the State of Israel. All the sources confirm that prior to the 1880s the Jews constituted the majority in the city. Data from the British Mandatory era, between the two world wars, demonstrates that the Jews were nearly 60% of the general population of the city, while the balance of the population was evenly divided between Christians and Muslims. According to the population censuses conducted separately by Jordan and Israel, each one in the area that it controlled in 1961, the city's overall population constituted 72% Jews, 22% Muslims, and 5% Christians.


2. The Arab Population under Israeli Rule Grew More than in Any Other Preceding Period

The non-Jewish component of Jerusalem's population grew steadily since 1967 when it totaled 26.6% and rose to 31.7% in the year 2000. Furthermore, according to predictions, this relative rate will continue to climb and will total 37.8% in the year 2020. According to Israel Kimhi, who previously served as the Jerusalem town planner: "In a paradoxical fashion, the Arab population of Jerusalem and its environs grew at a more rapid rate in the course of the last 30 years under Israeli rule than in any other era during the 20th century."


3. Jordan Was Defined as the Aggressor both in 1948 and in 1967

Jordan's invasion in 1948 was defined as aggression by the current UN Secretary-General. In 1967, as well, it was the Jordanians who initiated the war on the eastern front, firing artillery at Jewish Jerusalem. They invited Egyptian divisions into the West Bank and allowed the Iraqi army to cross the kingdom in the direction of the West Bank. Israel twice forwarded requests calling for an end to the aggression via local UN officials in the Middle East, but the Jordanians merely intensified their fire. When Israel took the decision to enter East Jerusalem, this was an act of self-defense, not "a preventive strike," and most definitely not an act of aggression.


4. Following the Six-Day War, the United Nations Voted in Favor of Israel and against the Soviet Union and the Arabs

Following the Six-Day War, the Soviet Union comprehended that in the present situation it could not defend its client states, and therefore attempted to brand Israel as the aggressor party. It submitted a demand to the UN Security Council and later on to the UN General Assembly to determine that Israel was the aggressive party in the conflict, but it failed in both attempts. Even in the General Assembly where the results should have been a clear-cut victory in its favor, 80 countries voted against the demand and only 36 supported it. This meant that the international community likewise comprehended that Israel acted out of self-defense. This matter has implications from the standpoint of international law.


5. Resolution 181 and the Internationalization of Jerusalem - An Attempt that Was Never Implemented

The 1947 UN resolution to internationalize Jerusalem as a "separate body"(corpus separatum) in Resolution 181 of the UN General Assembly only enjoyed the status of a nonbinding recommendation. After 10 years a vote was to have been conducted among the city's residents on the issue of sovereignty. When the Jewish residents of the city were besieged by the invading Arab armies in 1948, the United Nations made no response whatsoever and Israel therefore regarded the internationalization proposal as lacking moral basis and as "null and void," in the words of Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion.


6. The 1967 Boundaries Were Never Internationally Recognized Boundaries

One should recall that the Armistice Agreement between Israel and Jordan signed in 1949 did not determine the final borders between the parties, but only the separation lines between the armies at the close of the 1948 war. Upon the demand of the Arab side, the armistice agreements incorporated a paragraph that made it clear that the agreement would not include any condition that would predetermine the rights of any party whatsoever in the final resolution of the Palestine question through peaceful measures. In other words, the 1967 lines never had any political status as an international boundary on the eve of the Six-Day War.


7. UN Security Council Resolution 242 Does Not Call for a Total Withdrawal, But for Negotiations on Setting the Final Boundary

The United Nations Security Council did not adopt Resolution 242 under Chapter 7 of the international convention dealing with acts of aggression by one state against another. Although it does not say so explicitly, the decision was adopted under Chapter 6 that deals with finding a peaceful solution to international disputes. This means there is a demand upon the parties to reach a peaceful solution via negotiations and there is no demand upon Israel to withdraw from the captured territory without an agreement.


8. Resolution 242 - Jerusalem Is Not Mentioned

UN Security Council Resolution 242, adopted November 22, 1967, does not even mention Jerusalem and does not insist on a total withdrawal to the pre-1967 lines in the operative wording of the resolution (but only on the withdrawal from "territories" to "secure and recognized boundaries"). Lord Caradon, the British ambassador to the United Nations who formulated Resolution 242, rejected the Soviet demand to add the words "all" before the words "territories." Since the resolution was formulated by the British, its intention was clear from the wording in the English text; thus any alternative interpretation of Resolution 242 that derives from translation into another official language of the United Nations cannot be accepted as the authoritative one.


9. "Temple Denial" - a New Phenomenon Even among the Palestinians

In the Camp David discussions, Yasser Arafat declared that a Jewish temple had never existed in Jerusalem, touching off a "Temple Denial" movement in the Arab world and even in Europe. The classical commentators of the Koran, when they were called upon to explain the meaning of the expression "Al-Aqsa Mosque" that appears in Sura 17 of the Koran, define the concept as "Beit al Makdas" - in other words, the Temple. This position remained in effect until recently. The Supreme Muslim Council in Jerusalem during the 1920s issued a guide to tourists visiting the Temple Mount where it was explained that the Temple Mount was the site of King Solomon's Temple. During that very period, the council was under the leadership of the extreme Palestinian leader Haj Amin al-Husseini. It thus transpires that "Temple Denial" according to Arafat and his supporters not only contradicts Muslim tradition, but also the position of the Palestinian leadership at the beginning of the twentieth century.


10. Full Access to Jerusalem for All Religions Was Preserved Solely under Israeli Rule

Between the years 1967 and 1948, the Jordanians prevented Jews from visiting the holy sites in the Old City of Jerusalem including the Western Wall. The Jordanians also imposed limitations on the Christian community during that period, such as limitations on land purchases, and the Christian population dwindled. In the British Mandatory era and in the Ottoman period, the Jews were forced to struggle for their rights to pray at the Western Wall.

Technorati Tag: Israel and Jerusalem.

New Survey Results--Is It Enough To Influence The Obama Administration On Israel? (Updated)

McLaughlin & Associates has come out with a new poll about how Americans feel about terrorism, Iran, and Israel [PDF].

Some of the findings:

• Nationwide, voters are very concerned about the threat of terrorism and the development of nuclear weapons in Iran. In an open-ended question, voters say terrorism (15%) is the greatest threat to the United States. Nine in ten voters (91%) say that Iran supplying a nuclear umbrella for terrorists is a serious threat to the United States. This sentiment is strong across the board including among those who voted last year for Barack Obama. There is a great deal of intensity to this sentiment as nearly seven in ten voters (69%) say Iran supplying a nuclear umbrella for terrorists is a very serious threat.

• Seven in ten voters (71%) say the United States will not be safe with a nuclear Iran. If Iran is able to produce a nuclear weapon, nearly eight in ten voters (79%) say it is likely that Iran will provide nuclear weapons to terrorists to attack an American city.

• Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has a net positive opinion rating of 41% favorable to only 17% unfavorable. More than eight in ten voters (82%) say the United States should be concerned about the security of the State of Israel. Eight in ten voters (80%) say it is likely that Iran will launch a missile attack on Israel, and three in four voters (77%) say it is likely that Iran will use the threat of nuclear attack to provide a shield for Hezbollah and Hamas terrorists to attack Israel.

• The majority of voters (57%) says that Israel would be justified in attacking Iran’s nuclear facilities given that Iran has publicly threatened to annihilate Israel.

• Six in ten voters (60%) say that the Palestinians would continue their campaign of terror to destroy Israel even if they were given their own state in the West Bank and Gaza. Only 18% of voters say the Palestinians would live peacefully with Israel.

Given the numbers about how Americans feel about creating a second Palestinian state, does the survey do anything to support those who oppose the two state solution?

Probably not. Just take a look at the results of a poll taken by McLaughlin & Associates back in 2003:

• 71% of Americans believe that the Palestinian Arabs “should not be given a state,” since the Palestinian Arabs have not fulfilled President Bush’s conditions for creating a state, “such as fighting terrorism, stopping the promotion of hatred in its media, ending the encouragement of murder in its schools, becoming a democracy, and respecting human rights.” Only 13% believe the Palestinian Arabs have fulfilled those conditions and therefore should be given a state.

• 77% of Americans say that “the United States should stop giving the Palestinian Arabs $150-million” in aid each year. Only 12% favor such aid.

• 61% of Americans believe that “the goal of Yasir Arafat’s Palestinian Authority is the eventual destruction of Israel.” Only 19% believe that its goal “is to have a small state living in peace alongside Israel.”

• 51% of Americans believe that a Palestinian Arab state will be a terrorist state; only 25% believe that it will be a civilized democracy.

• 73% of Americans want the U.S. government to demand that the Palestinian Authority “turn over all Palestinian Arabs accused of killing or injuring American citizens.” Only 16% said the U.S. should not make that demand. (More than 100 Americans have been murdered by Palestinian Arab terrorist groups, and their killers are being sheltered by the Palestinian Authority.)

• 64% believe that world leaders should refuse to meet with Arafat’s number two man, Abu Mazen (Mahmoud Abbas), since he has claimed that the Nazis did not murder six million Jews—just as world leaders have refused to meet with others who have denied or distorted the Holocaust. Only 20% believe that world leaders should meet with Mazen.

Even with these strong numbers, talk about the two state solution has only grown stronger to the point that its proponents claim that stability in the entire region depends on giving Palestinian Arabs their own state.

Of course, the fact that Israel--especially when Olmert was Prime Minister--tacitly accepted the idea made it easier to both back the idea of a second Palestinian state and claim to still be a friend of Israel.

The question remains whether the implications of the current poll provide ammunition to influence the stance of the Obama administration on the issues.

Oh. I saved the most interesting results of the survey for last--look at what Americans consider to be a bigger threat than Al Qaeda and Iran.

What I'm wondering though is how Iran could rate so low as "the greatest threat to the United States"  if according to the same survey 'nine in ten voters (91%) say that Iran supplying a nuclear umbrella for terrorists is a serious threat to the United States' and 'nearly seven in ten voters (69%) say Iran supplying a nuclear umbrella for terrorists is a very serious threat.'

Check out the survey [PDF].

UPDATE: Jennifer Rubin analyzes the results, especially how it plays out across party affiliation. She concludes:

Americans are “not naive,” as the president likes to say, about Iran and are very supportive of Israel. As to the former, given the level of concern about an attack on a U.S. city, a policy that seemed to tolerate Iranian possession of nuclear weapons would be very unpopular. Finally, the difference along party lines with regard to Israel is noteworthy and troubling (at least to those who believe a robust relationship between the two countries is in their mutual interests), especially at a time when Democrats dominate both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue.

Read the whole thing.

Crossposted on Soccer Dad

Technorati Tag: Israel and McLaughlin & Associates.

Four Arrested In Alleged Plot To Bomb NY Synagogues (Updated)

According to the complaint that was filed, the plot was discovered in June last year.

From the NBC news website:

Four New York City men were arrested Wednesday in connection with an alleged plot to blow up New York City synagogues and other city locations, WNBC's Jonathan Dienst was first to learn.

Raids by the FBI-NYPD Joint Terrorist Task Force in the Bronx captured the suspected ringleader and three followers in what law enforcement sources are calling a homegrown terrorist plot.

Investigators stress the suspects' meetings had been infiltrated early on and there was "no chance" the alleged plot could succeed. Some officials have called them an "unsophisticated" group.

Investigators said several of the suspects are Muslims who allegedly talked about destroying two Jewish temples, including at least one in the Riverdale section of the Bronx.
Prosecutors also said the men discussed trying to shoot down military planes at Stewart Airport using stinger missiles.

The article provides details on some previous Islamist terrorist plots that have been foiled:

Since the 9/11 attacks, authorities have arrested suspects in a number of alleged plots against area targets including the Fort Dix New Jersey military base, John F. Kennedy Airport, the Herald Square subway station in Manhattan and the Brooklyn Bridge.

Last December, a New Jersey jury convicted five foreign-born men, living and working in the area for years, of conspiring to kill U.S. soldiers at Ft. Dix. Three were brothers from Yugoslavia; the others were born in Jordan and Turkey. The FBI arrested them after 15 months of surveillance after they tried to buy AK-47s and M-16s. The men had claimed they were set up by an unscrupulous informant.

In June 2007, four alleged Muslim extremists -- a 63-year-old former JFK airport cargo employee living in Brooklyn and three others from Guyana and Trinidad and Tobago -- were charged with plotting to blow up fuel lines and gas tanks at the busy Queens airport. All four have pleaded not guilty.

Two men were convicted of plotting to bomb the Herald Square station including a Pakistani immigrant Shahawar Matin Siraj. He is serving 30 years in federal prison for conspiring to blow up the subway station on the eve of the 2004 Republican National Convention in nearby Madison Square Garden.

Al Qaeda operative Iman Faris of Columbus, Ohio, a naturalized U.S. citizen from Kashmir, is serving 20 years in federal prison for planning to destroy American targets including the Brooklyn Bridge, which he cased in 2002 and 2003.

Others have been charged with material support for terrorism. Two American born Muslim converts, Bronx jazz musician and martial arts expert Tarik Shah and emergency room doctor Rafiq Sabir, who had worked in New York and Florida, were convicted in 2007 of conspiring to provide material support to Al Qaeda.

Queens resident Mohammed Junaid Babar, who immigrated to the U.S., pleaded guilty in 2004 to supporting Al Qaeda and has since testified against terror suspects who plotted attacks in London.

According to the complaint, the plots were discovered because the person they approached to acquire weapons was in fact an informant:

In their efforts to obtain weapons, the defendants dealt with an informant acting under law enforcement supervision, and the FBI and other agencies monitored the defendants' actions up to the time of arrest, including providing an inactive missile and inert explosives to the informant for the defendants.

UPDATE: Mark Krikorian writes:

But I found this bit particularly disturbing:

The other three suspects converted to Islam after recent stints in jail, police sources said.

Frank Gaffney, Daniel Pipes, and others have long warned about Muslim proselytizing in prisons, and we're starting to see the dangerous results.

More at Memeorandum

[Hat tip: Baruch Who?]

Technorati Tag: Terrorism.

Guess What? Terrorists Are The Same All Over: Once Released, Some Do Kill Again (Updated)

Of course, that is something that Israel has known for a while.

From Arutz Sheva, March 2007:

The Almagor Terrorist Victims Association has published a report on the results of Israel's release of imprisoned terrorists in prisoner exchanges. At least 30 recent terror attacks were perpetrated by terrorists who were released from Israeli jails.

Almagor conducted and published the report Iight of the apparent intention to release terrorists "without blood on their hands" - i.e., terrorists who did not succeed in murdering their victims - in exchange for one or more of the three kidnapped soldiers.

According to the findings:

Between 1993 and 1999, 6,912 terrorists were freed. As of August 2003, 854 of them (12.4%) had been re-arrested for murderous activity. Another two-thirds of them returned to terrorist activity, be it in capacities of command, training or actual perpetration of attacks.

Among the attacks perpetrated by freed terrorists were:

• the lynching of two soldiers in Ramallah (Oct. 2000)
• shooting deaths of Binyamin and Talia Kahane (Dec. 2000)
• suicide explosions in Netanya, 8 dead (March and May, 2001)
• Sea Food Market suicide blast, 3 dead (March 2002)
• shooting in Atzmona yeshiva, 5 youths dead (March 2002)
• Park Hotel suicide bomber during Passover Seder, 30 dead (March 2002)
• bus blasts at Megiddo, Karkur, Jerusalem, 55 dead (June 2002 - June 2003)
• double suicide attacks in Be'er Sheva, 16 dead (August 2004)

Read the whole thing.

Now we find out that according to The New York Times:

1 in 7 Freed Detainees Rejoins Fight, Report Finds

An unreleased Pentagon report concludes that about one in seven of the 534 prisoners already transferred abroad from the detention center in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, has returned to terrorism or militant activity, according to administration officials.

The conclusion could strengthen the arguments of critics who have warned against the transfer or release of any more detainees as part of President Obama’s plan to shut down the prison by January. Past Pentagon reports on Guantánamo recidivism have been met with skepticism from civil liberties groups and criticized for their lack of detail.

But of course, there is always that silver lining:

Mr. Denbeaux [Seton Hall University School of Law, who has represented Guantánamo detainee] acknowledged that some of the named detainees had engaged in verifiable terrorist acts since their release, but he said his research showed that their numbers were small.

“We’ve never said there weren’t some people who would return to the fight,” Mr. Denbeaux said. “It seems to be unavoidable. Nothing is perfect.”

Terrorism experts said a 14 percent recidivism rate was far lower than the rate for prisoners in the United States, which, they said, can run as high as 68 percent three years after release. They also said that while Americans might have a lower level of tolerance for recidivism among Guantánamo detainees, there was no evidence that any of those released had engaged in elaborate operations like the Sept. 11 attacks.

Just your average nickel and dime terrorism, no doubt.

UPDATE: Thomas Joscelyn writes at The Weekly Standard:

the Pentagon had previously released a similar report on June 13, 2008. The report we’ve been expecting since earlier this year, and which only the New York Times now has a copy, is merely an update of that June 2008 report, which is freely available online. There is no good reason the updated report, as well as further updates, cannot be released in a similar fashion.

Indeed, the differences between the June 2008 report and its successors are especially troubling. Perhaps those differences explain why an updated version of the June 2008 report would be especially problematic for the Obama administration as it attempts to close Gitmo.

The June 13, 2008, report noted that 37 former detainees were “confirmed or suspected” of returning to terrorism. On January 13, 2009, seven months later, Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell said that number had climbed to 61. Now, according to the Times, the DOD has found that same metric has risen further to 74--exactly double the Pentagon’s estimate just 11 months ago.

At that rate, the Pentagon is identifying, on average, more than 3 former Gitmo detainees who are thought to have returned to terrorism each month.

That does not bode well.

No, it doesn't.
Read the whole thing.

UPDATE II: I don't know if Mark Krikorian is right about this--but I hope he is:

...But what are the terms for their release? Do we parole them? As I understand it, when you release POWs on parole, they promise not to take up arms again, and if they do, they can and should be executed. I'm happy to be corrected on this, but wouldn't it be reasonable to require such an agreement of any detainees we send back to their homes? Then, if we catch them up to their old tricks, there's less ambiguity about how to treat them.

That would not apply in Israel, though.

Crossposted on Soccer Dad

Technorati Tag: Terrorism and Guantánamo .

Jerusalem the Muse

Jerusalem the Muse

by Zev Eleff

I presume that my reflections accord well with the experiences of my young peers living in the United States. Many of us, and here I mean Jewish college students and recent graduates, have memories of time spent in Israel. Some Jewish youth leave for Israel after high school and immerse themselves in the study of Talmud and community service. Others have volunteered their summers to work at Israeli camps or worthwhile internships. Yet, an even larger cohort participates on Taglit-Birthright Israel. And, while these experiences are all vastly different, they are each deeply passionate ones that lead to a magnificent romance with the Holy Land.

Of course, most of the Diaspora Jews who are fortunate enough to visit Israel share another bond: they return home. Surely, this is not an easy transition. Much ink has been spilled by sociologists of American Jewry regarding the so-called “Year in Israel” and students’ struggle to relocate their attentions back to American life. As well, I have witnessed the scene of Birthright Israel participants awaiting their flight back across the Atlantic. Indeed, the sight of these college-age students—many of them experiencing Judaism and Zionism for the first time—sobbing as they prepare themselves to say goodbye to their Israeli chaperones at Ben Gurion International is most humbling. In fact, I vividly recall one Birthright participant, wearing a Texas A&M sweatshirt and baseball cap, pacing back and forth in the Tel Aviv terminal as she deliberated whether or not to cancel her flight!

However, for those of us who have paraded through Jerusalem’s Old City on Yom Yerushalayim en route to the Western Wall may be better prepared to re-enter Diaspora life. We can recall the lessons of a people who are familiar with the feeling of returning to a home after a long time separated. We can recreate the energy felt while dancing on the Jerusalem stone in our blues and whites in our local American communities. And most of all, whether we feel it our mission to return back to Jerusalem when the timing is right or whether our life’s mission is here in the Diaspora, Yom Yerushalayim can serve as our everlasting battery.

As Louis Brandeis articulated long ago, Jerusalem—and more broadly, the entire Israel—in the hands of the Jewish people provides the rest of the Jews in the Diaspora with a greater sense of security against anti-Semitism. Although most agree that Brandeis was speaking about the physical safety of the Jewish people against its enemies, for religious Zionists, we may expand his viewpoint to the spiritual realm, as well. At Yeshiva University, we are in constant contact with Israeli leaders and politicians. They come to speak in our forums and answer our pointed questions. Our student leaders and Israel Club work tirelessly to find ways to fundraise for Sderot and other Israel-minded initiatives. Similar programs are being run by our friends at other universities, including Columbia, Maryland and Penn. Many of these students plan to stay here and become American doctors, lawyers and rabbis. However, they are deeply committed to the notion of a Jewish future in a united Jerusalem—and find ways to help out; ways in which others living in Israel cannot assist.

In a way, these students follow the lead of Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik. It is well known that shortly after the Six Day War, when Golda Meir was Israel’s Prime Minster, “the Rav” was vocal about his criticism of several of the Israeli government’s programs. At a Mizrachi conference, he turned to an Israeli delegate in the audience and demanded that delegate relay his remarks to Prime Minister Meir. “After all,” Rabbi Soloveitchik is said to have quipped, “who do you think is making Aliyah from America and raising money for Israeli institutions? My students and their communities—that’s who!” Clearly, Rabbi Soloveitchik was encouraged by the prospect of a united Jerusalem and felt that he and his American cohort were joined in the Zionist dream.

The same is true today when, we, the young future of Judaism, are empowered by the beauty of Jerusalem and seek to partner with our Israeli brothers and sisters in building the Jewish state. To this end, nothing energizes us better than the unity personified by Yom Yerushalayim.

The aroma of that day perfumes our love for Israel and informs are mission.

With just a moment of silence and pinch of imagination, we return to a day when we saw Tel Aviv, Haifa, Jaffa and Efrat ascend to Jerusalem. All the parts of the Holy Land seem to collapse into Jerusalem on its historic day. And we too recall that magnificent romance and use it to improve upon tomorrow.

A graduate of Yeshiva University, and the most recent recipient of the Wexner Graduate Fellowship, Zev Eleff was editor-in-chief of Yeshiva College’s student newspaper, “The Commentator,” in ’08-’09. He is also a published author, having written two books, including the popular “Mentor of Generations: Reflections on Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik” (Ktav Publishing House).

Technorati Tag: Israel and Yom Yerushalayim and Zev Eleff.

If Palestinian Arabs Want A State So Badly, Why Do They Keep Turning It Down?

In "Peace Isn't Arab Goal", Jeff Jacoby counters Sarkozy adviser Henri Guaino's statement that "the whole world wants a Palestinian state" with a short history lesson:

International consensus or no, the two-state solution is a chimera. Peace will not be achieved by granting sovereignty to the Palestinians, because Palestinian sovereignty has never been the Arabs' goal. Time and time again, a two-state solution has been proposed. Time and time again, the Arabs have turned it down.

In 1936, when Palestine was still under British rule, a royal commission headed by Lord Peel was sent to investigate the steadily worsening Arab violence. After a detailed inquiry, the Peel Commission concluded that "an irrepressible conflict has arisen between two national communities within the narrow bounds of one small country." It recommended a two-state solution - a partition of the land into separate Arab and Jewish states. "Partition offers a chance of ultimate peace," the commission reported. "No other plan does."

But the Arab leaders, more intent on preventing Jewish sovereignty in Palestine than in achieving a state for themselves, rejected the Peel plan out of hand. The foremost Palestinian leader, Haj Amin al-Husseini, actively supported the Nazi regime in Germany. In return, Husseini wrote in his memoirs, Hitler promised him "a free hand to eradicate every last Jew from Palestine and the Arab world."

In 1947, the Palestinians were again presented with a two-state proposal. Again they spurned it. Like the Peel Commission, the United Nations concluded that only a division of the land into adjacent states, one Arab and one Jewish, could put an end to the conflict. On Nov. 29, 1947, by a vote of 33-13, the UN General Assembly adopted Resolution 181, partitioning Palestine on the basis of population. Had the Arabs accepted the UN decision, the Palestinian state that "the whole world wants" would today be 61 years old. Instead, the Arab League vowed to block Jewish sovereignty by waging "a war of extermination and a momentous massacre."

Over and over, the pattern has been repeated. Following its stunning victory in the 1967 Six Day War, Israel offered to exchange the land it had won for permanent peace with its neighbors. From their summit in Khartoum came the Arabs' notorious response: "No peace with Israel, no negotiations with Israel, no recognition of Israel."

At Camp David in 2000, Ehud Barak offered the Palestinians virtually everything they claimed to be seeking - a sovereign state with its capital in East Jerusalem, 97 percent of the West Bank and Gaza Strip, tens of billions of dollars in "compensation" for the plight of Palestinian refugees. Yasser Arafat refused the offer, and launched the bloodiest wave of terrorism in Israel's history.

What the Palestinian Arabs want--both in Fatah as well as Hamas--is something else:

To this day, the charters of Hamas and Fatah, the two main Palestinian factions, call for Israel's liquidation. "The whole world" may want peace and a Palestinian state, but the Palestinians want something very different. Until that changes, there is no two-state solution.

Technorati Tag: Israel and Two State Solution.

US Has Made Peace With The Idea Of A Nuclear Iran

Not that Iran didn't already know this.

There are growing indications that the US has come to terms with a nuclear-armed Teheran, two analysts told The Jerusalem Post on Tuesday.

"The Americans are in a state of mind according to which Iran has already gone nuclear," said Dr. Mordechai Kedar of Bar-Ilan's Begin Sadat Center for Strategic Studies.

Kedar, who served in Military Intelligence for 25 years, said US President Barack Obama was "at peace" with the idea of a nuclear Iran.

"You can tell from how the Americans talk. Look at how [US special envoy] George Mitchell talks, or how Obama talks. I don't see them being pressured by this threat. They have shown no urgent desire to change this reality," he added.

"Obama has given up," Kedar said.

This much chance the US will stop Iran from manufacturing Nuclear arms.

The other expert agrees:

Emily Landau, director of the Arms Control and Regional Security Program at Tel Aviv University's Institute for National Security Studies, also believes there are a growing number of "hints" suggesting that Washington has come to terms with a nuclear Iran.

"There are implicit indications that it might be going in that direction," she said. "Even at the official level, [US Secretary of State Hillary] Clinton is on record as saying that the chances of success for negotiations with Iran are very small. If you're going into negotiations which you say ahead of time will likely fail, you're giving the sense that you might not be doing everything possible [to stop the Iranian nuclear program]," Landau said.

"The US administration is projecting some kind of sense that they're not taking these negotiations seriously enough. If they just go through the motions, but they don't believe talks will succeed, that is worrisome," she said.

So once Iran goes nuclear--then what?

Does Obama seriously think that the effects of a nuclear Iran pale against the effects of creating a second Palestinian state?

Technorati Tag: Iran and Obama.

PA Sources: Obama Promised Us East Jerusalem

From YnetNews.com

US President Barack Obama's new peace plan for the Middle East continues to unravel, ahead of it official presentation in Cairo, on June 4.

Official Palestinian Authority sources told Ynet Wednesday that following Jordan's King Abdullah's visit to Washington, as well as other visits to the US capital, they were given the impression that any new American peace plan would call for establishing a Palestinian state with Jerusalem as its capital.

The source stressed that the US official also assured them the new plan would include halting all settlement construction, as well as setting a clear timetable for the realization of the two-state solution and a commitment that the permanent peace agreement would be negotiated according to the understanding set by the Arab peace initiative. [emphasis added]

Obviously, having leaks about what Obama promised or did not promise--in advance of the official announcement of his peace plan--is not a good thing. On the other hand, whether that qualifies as 'unraveling' is unclear. Nor is it clear just what unraveling was going on that this revelation is supposed to be a continuation of.

As it is, analysis of what went on between Obama and Netanyahu is not unanimous. Shmuel Rosner writes that you can basically have your pick:

Barack Obama and Benjamin Netanyahu did their thing, and even the fearsome elite punditry isn’t sure if Obama ended up “being the sucker” (Martin Indyk), or if Netanyahu was “outmaneuvered” by the President (David Ignatius).

The new speculation that the Palestinian revelations engender will only make the issue more unclear. 

One thing that is known is that Obama wants to make changes in the Saudi plan--the one he denied be interested in back in November, but has been showing increased interest in ever since.

The US plans to add "improvements" to the Arab peace plan: According to an early May report in London-based Arabic-language newspaper al-Quds al-Arabi, the revised plan will include reintegrating Palestinian refugees either in various Arab nations, or in the demilitarized Palestinian state, and Israel and the Palestinian Authority would agree to a land exchange.

The revised plan is also said to call for east Jerusalem to be made the new state's capital – with the Palestinian Authority's flag waving over it official institutions and the UN banner waving over the Old City and places sacred to Judaism, Islam and Christianity.

The US is also expected to demand Arab nations set a timetable to the normalization of their diplomatic relations with Israel – a step meant to encourage Jerusalem to take practical steps towards forming a Palestinian state.

Apparently the PA officials are not the first to be dropping hints about what Obama intends for East Jerusalem.

At the same time, Israel appears to be standing firm:

Acting Prime Minister Silvan Shalom said, "Jerusalem will not be divided. Jerusalem will forever remain the eternal capital of the State of Israel. This is not a promise, this is a fact."

When Obama lays out his plan in Cairo, someone is going to be very disappointed.

Technorati Tag: Israel and Jerusalem.

In Testimony To Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Iran's Shopping List Revealed

Apparently, Morgenthau's testimony was ignored by the media

Back when the Bush Administration was warning about Iran's nuclear progress, or its deadly meddling in Iraq, the typical Democratic and media response was to treat the Islamic Republic as innocent until proven guilty. This month, Democrat Robert Morgenthau supplied the proof.

In testimony to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that was largely ignored by the media, the legendary Manhattan District Attorney opened a window on how Iran is secretly obtaining the ingredients for an arsenal of mass destruction. Mr. Morgenthau, whose recent cases have exposed illicit Iranian finance and procurement networks, has discovered what he calls "Iran's shopping list for materials related to weapons of mass destruction." They add up to "literally thousands of records."

Missile accuracy appears to be a key Iranian goal. In one of Mr. Morgenthau's cases -- the prosecution of Chinese citizen Li Fang Wei and his LIMMT company for allegedly scamming Manhattan banks to slip past sanctions on Iran -- the DA uncovered a list that included 400 sophisticated gyroscopes and 600 accelerometers. These are critical for developing accurate long-range missiles. He also found that Iran was acquiring a rare metal called tantalum, "used in those roadside bombs that are being used against our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan." So much for the media notion that Iran has played no part in killing American GIs.

Mr. Morgenthau also noted that the material shipped by LIMMT "included 15,000 kilograms of a specialized aluminum alloy used almost exclusively in long-range missile production; 1,700 kilograms of graphite cylinders used for banned electrical discharge machines which are used in converting uranium; more than 30,000 kilograms of tungsten-copper plates; 200 pieces of tungsten-copper alloy hollow cylinders, all used for missiles; 19,000 kilograms of tungsten metal powder, and 24,500 kilograms of maraging steel rods . . . especially hardened steel suitable for long-range missiles."

Besides the fact that Morgenthau is respected, his information is all the more reliable because of the corroboration it has received:

Mr. Morgenthau's information is corroborated by a staff report for the Foreign Relations Committee, chaired by Democrat John Kerry, which notes that Iran is making nuclear progress on all fronts, and that it "could produce enough weapons-grade material for a bomb within six months."

And now that we have inconvertible proof of what Iran is doing and what their intent is?

As for what the U.S. should do about it, the committee report insists that "direct engagement" must be a part of American strategy, and so it seems fated to be under the Obama Administration.

It is too much to hope for that they meant military engagement.

At Hot Air, Karl writes:

Given the record compiled by his fellow Democrats, it seems rather odd that Pres. Obama plans on spending six months assessing whether his diplomatic effort is moving in the right direction. After all, Obama recently reaffirmed that he would like a nuke-free world and acknowledges that Iran’s intransigence threatens to set off a Mideast arms race.

I guess Obama wants to be really, really sure.

Technorati Tag: Morgenthau and Iran.

Pelosi Goes On The Offensive!

...and when you wake up, you will have no memory of the CIA having spoken to you...533 members to go

Technorati Tag: Pelosi.

'Lawfare'--It's Not Just About Israel, And It's Happening In The US Too

From an email. The conference referred to took place yesterday.

'Lawfare' gains ground
U.N. resolution on 'defaming' a case in point

by Brooke M. Goldstein and Aaron Eitan Meyer
Washington Times
May 19, 2009

The United Nations recently passed resolutions that would make "defaming" Islam a globally criminal act. The United Kingdom first refused entry to Geert Wilders, a sitting European Parliament member and Islamist critic, and now has issued a list banning 16 other individuals, which includes some banned solely for their exercise of free speech.

"Faith Fighter," an online video game featuring various religious figures, attracted considerable attention and controversy, but was removed after the Organization of the Islamic Conference threatened the game's producers. Valentina Colombo, an Italian professor, wrote about an Islamist who said liberal Muslims could be killed as apostates; he has now sued her for damaging his credibility as a "moderate."

And the United States is not immune. As the presidential election race was under way, the Council on American-Islamic Relations, better known as CAIR, filed a complaint with the Federal Elections Committee claiming that "Obsession," a candidate-neutral documentary on terrorism, somehow constituted improper election activity.

More recently still, CAIR has demanded that Florida House Majority Leader Adam Hasner step down, for the "crime" of co-hosting a conference on free speech at which Mr.Wilders spoke. Lawsuits charging "defamation" continue to plague people who speak out against radical Islam and terrorism, including ongoing cases against Iranian-American researcher Hassan Daioleslam, Americans Against Hate founder Joseph Kaufman, and Hawaii Free Press Editor Andrew Walden. By and large, these events, and others like them, have not made the front page of any major newspaper, or been featured on broadcast television, if mentioned at all.

Yet, along with a number of individual lawsuits aimed at silencing critics of radical Islam, terrorism, and terrorist funding, freedom of speech is under siege, not only in the United States, but throughout the West - and the ideology behind this dangerous threat is radical Islam. And while steps have been taken to counteract some forms of this legal warfare, or "lawfare," there is a distinct need for a counteroffensive.

Perhaps, turning radical Islam's tactics against it is the solution. If Europeans can be prosecuted by Islamists using the European Union's legal system, should it then not follow that radical Imams in Muslim countries can be cited by European citizens and extradition be requested by them to European courts for their anti-Semitic and anti-Christian rhetoric? Whatever the particular solution may be, some attempt must be made, and soon.

Recognizing the severity of the threat, and the necessity of responding to it, the Legal Project at the Middle East Forum, in conjunction with the Federalist Society, the Center for National Security Law and the Thomas Jefferson Center for the Protection of Free Expression, is hosting a conference titled "Libel Lawfare: Silencing Criticism of Radical Islam," on Tuesday, in Washington. The conference, featuring experts in the field as well as victims of lawfare, will fully address this dangerously underreported trend. The conference panelists represent diverse views, about the nature and scope of the problem, as well as the solution. There will be no conference conclusion - that is not its purpose. The conference will achieve its purpose simply by engaging in precisely the type of speech that Islamists want to suppress so desperately: open discussion on this critical issue of public concern, without fear of threats or reprisal.

Brooke Goldstein is a lawyer, an award-winning filmmaker and the director of the Legal Project at the Middle East Forum. Aaron Eitan Meyer is assistant director at the Legal Project and legal correspondent of the Terror Finance Blog.

Technorati Tag: Libel Lawfare.

Beneath The Rhetoric: Who Really Believes In This Two State Solution (And Who Doesn't

Tony Blankley writes about the apparent coming together of forces--especially in the Arab world--to make the two-state solution a reality:

So consider this dismal data from the authoritative polling of the 2007 Pew Global Attitudes Project. The report tabulated the response to the key question No. 60: Which statement comes closest to your opinion? (1) A way can be found for the state of Israel to exist so that the rights and needs of the Palestinian people are taken care of, or, (2) the rights and needs of the Palestinian people cannot be taken care of as long as the state of Israel exists?

The specific percentages are as follows, with the key results being, by 77 percent to 16 percent, that Palestinians don't believe they can live side-by-side with Israel, while by 61 percent to 31 percent Israelis do believe they can live side-by-side with a Palestinian state. Note that all the Arab states are very negative, and all the Western states (plus Israel) are quite positive for a two-state solution. [emphasis added]

According to the actual report:[PDF, p56]

Israel’s Existence and Palestinian Rights

Western publics generally believe that a way can be found for Israel to exist so that the rights and needs of the Palestinians are addressed. The picture is quite different, however, among Muslim publics in the Middle East.

More than seven-in-ten Egyptians, Jordanians, Palestinians, and Kuwaitis believe “the rights and needs of the Palestinian people cannot be taken care of as long as the state of Israel exists.” Lebanese opinion is divided on this issue: Christians tend to believe strongly that coexistence can work, while the Shia community overwhelmingly disagrees. Among Lebanese Sunnis, 57% believe a way can be found for Israel to exist and Palestinian rights be addressed – a far greater percentage than among Sunnis in other countries.

Majorities or pluralities in Western Europe and North America – as well as 61% of Israelis – say a way can be found for Israel to exist so that the rights and needs of the Palestinians are addressed. But this belief has declined since 2003 in Britain (71% in 2003, 60% now), Italy (65% in 2003, 48% now), and Spain (53% in 2003, 45% now).

	Yes	No	Don't Know
United States	67	12	21
Canada	64	11	25
France	82	16	2
Germany	80	11	9
Sweden	65	12	23
Britain	60	12	28
Italy	48	19	33
Spain	45	27	28
Israel	61	31	8
Lebanon	49	50	1
..Shia	16	84	0
..Sunni	57	43	1
..Christian	70	28	2
Turkey	30	45	25
Morocco	23	47	30
Kuwait	21	73	6
Egypt	18	80	3
Jordan	17	78	5
Palestinians ter.	16	77	7

Blankley suggests one reason for the pessimism:

Keep in mind, also, that after Egyptian President Anwar Sadat signed a Sinai peace treaty with Israel, in October 1981 he was assassinated during a military parade in Cairo. A fatwa authorizing the assassination had been issued by Omar Abdel-Rahman, a cleric later convicted in the United States for his role in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing.

It would take an unusually courageous leader to sign a peace treaty and his own death warrant in one document.

Which is why in order to really make a two-state solution work, the focus should actually be on the Palestinian Arabs, and what they need to do--not on Israel.

Technorati Tag: Israel and Two State Solution.

I Thought They'd Never Ask

It remains to be seen whether they'll listen to the answer:

U.S. lawmakers to quiz Netanyahu on Palestinian statehood

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, ending a three-day trip, is likely to face questions from lawmakers on Capitol Hill on his refusal to endorse the cornerstone of international Mideast policy, the creation of an independent Palestinian state.

If  they are really interested in concrete reasons why creating a second Palestinian state now is problematic at best--here is an part of an edited transcript of the Eidelberg Report by Professor Paul Eidelberg on Israel National Radio, November 10, 2008 on reasons against a second Palestinian state that a 'realist' can sink his teeth into:

Five Basic Arguments Against A Palestinian State

Contrary to the governments of the United States and Israel, various experts in both countries reject the "two-state" solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. I shall mention their views while developing five decisive arguments against a Palestinian state: Economic, Demographic, Political, Strategic, and Democratic. Let's begin with the—

1. Economic Arguments

a. A RAND study indicates that a Palestinian state would not be economically viable. It would require $33 billion for the first ten years of its existence—and this study was made before the economic crisis now confronting the United States and entire world. [Note: report is available here in PDF format--see p. 13]

b. Besides, to confine more than two million Arabs to the 2,323 square miles of the so-called West Bank, and to squeeze another million into the 141 square miles of Gaza, is to doom these Arabs to economic stagnation and discontent. The projected state would be a cauldron of envious hatred of Israel fueled by the leaders of one or another group of Arab clans or thugs parading under the banner of Allah.

c. Moreover, to compensate perhaps 200,000 Jews expelled from the "West Bank"—or even half that number—would bankrupt Israel's government, to say nothing of the resulting trauma and civil discord.

2. Demographic Arguments

a. "Two-state" solution advocates warn that the Arabs between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean will soon outnumber the Jews, and that this necessitates a Palestinian state. The Sharon government, without public argumentation, used this demographic contention to justify its perfidious implementation of Labor's policy of unilateral disengagement from Gaza in 2005. The Olmert-Livni government is using the same policy to withdraw from Judea and Samaria including eastern Jerusalem.

b. However, a groundbreaking study by the American-Israel Demographic Research Group (www.aidrg.com) revealed in 2005 that Israel does not need to retreat from Judea and Samaria to secure Jewish demography. The study shows that the Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics exaggerated the Arab population in Judea, Samaria, and Gaza by nearly 50%. Rather than 3.8 million Palestinians, it was no more than 2.4 million. Since those registered as Jews in Israel comprise almost 80% of Israel's population, they make up a 59% majority with Gaza and Judea and Samaria, and a solid 67% majority with Judea and Samaria without Gaza!

c. The American and Israeli researchers also found that Jewish fertility rates are steadily increasing while Arab fertility rates are steadily decreasing.

3. Political Arguments

a. According to Maj.-Gen. (res.) Giora Eiland, former head of Israel's National Security Council, "the Palestinians do not truly desire the conventional two-state solution. The Arab world—especially Jordan and Egypt—does not truly support it either …" (The Jerusalem Post, September 24, 2008).

b. Dr. Yuval Steinitz, former Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee chairman, said that the idea of a two-state solution should be dead. "A Palestinian state in Judea and Samaria," he said, "would bring about Israel's demise.… Such a Palestinian state would immediately become an outpost for Iran" (The Jerusalem Post, September 14, 2008).

c. Advocates of a Palestinian state live in a fantasy world or lack the intellectual courage to acknowledge the obvious: the Palestinians are committed to Israel's annihilation. A generation of Arab children has been educated to hate Jews and emulate suicide bombers. Daniel Pipes said it would take at least two generations to undo such indoctrination. (This would require, among other things, basic changes in the Quran. Muslims would have to renounce the ethos of Jihad. No American or Israeli official has the guts to speak of this religious-cultural issue.)

4. Strategic Arguments

a. On December 29, 2002, the freighter Karine A set sail from Iran en route to the Suez Canal. It was boarded by Israeli commandos without opposition from the four crewmen, who were members of the Palestinian naval force. When the commandoes examined the ship's cargo, they discovered launchers and rockets, mortars, anti-tank weapons, mines, 2 tons of explosives, assault rifles, machine guns, sniper rifles with telescope lenses, hand grenades, and hundreds of thousands of rounds of ammunition—enough weaponry to tilt the balance of terror against Israel. The destination of the Karine A was Gaza. Consistent with Dr. Steinitz's warning, this Iranian arms shipment arms signifies that Iran views the Palestinians as a battle field in its 30-year war with Israel. (See Ronen Bergman, The Secret War with Iran, 2008, p. 270.)

b. Even if it were agreed that a Palestinian state would have to be demilitarized, only fools would believe that the Arabs would abide by such an agreement—no more than they adhered to the arms limitations in the Oslo Agreement.

c. An armed Palestinian state would expose all of Israel to missile attacks. Preoccupied with such attacks, Israel could no longer serve effectively as America's strategic ally in the Middle East. No longer could it provide the U.S. with priceless intelligence and technological assistance whose value far exceeds the value of U.S. military aid. And I have not mentioned the multibillion dollar economic market Israel provides the fifty states of the American Union.

d. Ponder also the fact that rewarding the Palestinians with statehood would promote irredentist movements or civil war and terrorism throughout the world.

5. Democratic Arguments

a. Doctrinaire adherence to the democratic principle of self-determination would encourage any ethnic group to seek independent statehood. It would endow any ethnic group with the right to elect a tyrannical form of government, whether fascist, communist, or Islamic.

b. Hamas, an Islamic terrorist group dedicated to Israel's destruction, was victorious in the 2006 democratic elections. Lincoln echoed Jefferson when he said, "No people have a right to do what is wrong." Ponder the American Declaration of Independence: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

c. Underlying these words is the Biblical conception of man's creation in the image of God. The Declaration portrays man as a rational being possessing free will and capable of distinguishing right from wrong. Without such a conception of human nature, the signers of the Declaration would have had no rational or moral grounds for rebelling against Britain, whose colonial governments violated the "Laws of Nature and of Nature's God."

d. This "Higher Law" doctrine of the Declaration provides a set of standards by which to determine whether granting national self-determination to any ethnic group can be justified. It cannot be justified among people steeped in ignorance or habituated to violence and servitude. In his classic, Representative Government, John Stuart Mill said that a people may lack the moderation that representative government requires of them: "Their passions may be too violent, or their personal pride too exacting, to forego private conflict, and leave to the laws the avenging of their real or supposed wrongs."

e. The "Palestinians" have not only bungled their every chance of self-government by making Fatah and Hamas terrorists their leaders. Having educated their children to emulate suicide bombers, the goal of these thugs is not statehood but Israel's annihilation. The democratic principle of self-determination is not an absolute; it is limited by rational and ethical considerations. It would be irrational—indeed, criminal—to establish a Palestinian state on Israel's doorstep.

In Forbes, Daniel Doron writes:

But should not the establishment of such a state--which the Europeans so strongly promote--adhere to the European Union's 1993 Copenhagen Political Criteria for new members, which states, "Membership criteria require that the candidate country must have achieved stability of institutions guaranteeing democracy, rule of law, human rights, and respect for and protection of minorities"?

The fact that serious political, economic and strategic questions are not part of the discussion of the creation of a second Palestinian state--and Europes reluctance to apply their own criteria--point to the shallowness of the thinking, and motivation, that goes into the arguments that actually are being offered.

It's about time the entire range of issues is actually addressed.

Now is as good a time as any.

Technorati Tag: Two State Solution.

Obama Wants Arabs to Open Skies to Israel--And Three Are On The Border With Iran!

Gee, what a thoughtful idea--openning a path for Israel's Air Force!

Obama Wants Arabs to Open Skies to Israeli Commercial Planes

U.S. President Barack Obama hopes to persuade several Arab countries considered moderate to take "small but symbolic" steps described as "confidence-building measures" in order to "build up a sense of momentum" towards peace, the Washington Post reported Sunday.

The Arab states being singled out in the hope that they would be the first to take such measures are Morocco, Oman, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates.

Now let's see: Oman, Qatar and the UAE...yup, all on the border by Iran!

Maybe Obama is trying to make it easier for Israel to bomb Iran's reactors!

It's a start.

Thanks!

Technorati Tag: Israel and Obama and Iran.

US Takes Action On Iran: Tells Israel To Tone It Down

I guess when the other guy won't listen, it's always easiest to tell Israel to stop:

Ahead of Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu's trip to Washington this week, the US has been urging Israel to "tone down" its rhetoric on Iran and to stop threatening a military strike on its nuclear installations, The Jerusalem Post has learned.

Iran is the country that has been doing anything but toning down the rhetoric:

• "Israel must be wiped off the map of the world…and God willing, with the force of God behind it, we shall soon experience a world without the United States and Zionism."

• "the establishment of the Zionist regime was a move by the world oppressor against the Islamic world"

• "the Islamic Umma (Nation) will not allow its historic enemy to live in its heartland"

• "All the conditions for the removal of the Zionist regime are at hand."

• "Nations in the region will be more furious every day. It won’t take long before the wrath of the people turns into a terrible explosion that will wipe the Zionist entity off the map."

• "The basic problem in the Islamic world is the existence of the Zionist regime, and the Islamic world and the region must mobilize to remove this problem."
  

And that list is just from up to November 2006.

Back in October 2005 when Ahmadinejad first started talking about wiping out Israel, the UN Security Council responded:

The U.N. Security Council has condemned recent comments by Iran's president that Israel should be "wiped off the map" but did not say if the world body planned any action against Iran.

At the time, then-Israeli ambassador to the UN, Dan Gillerman commented made the overly optimistic statement:

"I certainly think that a country whose head of state calls for the destruction of any other member state of the United Nations does not deserve a seat in this very civilized organization."

And it's not as if the UN did not have the power and authority to do just that. According to an article by two lawyers in the Washington Post:

Ahmadinejad's words clearly violate Article 2.4 of the U.N. Charter. This provision, to which Iran has agreed, requires all U.N. member states to "refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state." Ahmadinejad's specific formulation -- wiping Israel off the map and prophesying a coming nuclear conflagration in which much of humanity would expire -- also clearly entails a threat of committing genocide, which member nations are obliged, under the Genocide Convention, to prevent.

This is not just a question of UN niceties, it is an issue of International Law. According to the same article:

But Ahmadinejad's rant features a direct and unequivocal threat, and it gives Israel a valid casus belli -- under both Article 51 (self-defense) of the U.N. Charter and customary international law -- to use preemptive force as a means of ensuring that Iran cannot make good on its stated intentions.

Indeed, the International Court of Justice, in a 1996 opinion analyzing the legality of the threat or use of nuclear weapons, found that use-of-force threats that violated Article 2.4 and were not otherwise justified under Article 51 also posed a threat to international peace and security, thereby further infringing the U.N. Charter. Since Israel has not committed aggression against Iran, Ahmadinejad's statements cannot be justified as self-defense. They have, in fact, created a legally cognizable threat that can, and should, be addressed by the Security Council under its Chapter VII powers, which are concerned with threats to peace.

As it turned out,  it wasn't until Ahmadinejad said that "The Zionist regime is a rotten, dried tree that will be eliminated by one storm," that the UN finally did take action--and elected Iran to a vice-chair position on the U.N. Disarmament Commission--no doubt to encourage Iran into being co-operative.

Now the US is playing nice with Iran as well.

Pity no one plays nice with Israel.

Technorati Tag: Israel and UN and Iran.

40% Of Israeli Arabs Believe Holocaust Never Happened (Updated)

From Haaretz:

Some 40.5 percent of Israeli Arabs believe the Holocaust never occurred, according to the results of a University of Haifa poll released Sunday.

The survey shows that Holocaust denial among Israeli Arabs has become more prevalent in recent years. In 2006, 28 percent of Israeli Arabs polled denied that the Holocaust occurred.

The annual poll of Jewish-Arab relations, which was conducted by Professor Sami Samuha, also found that only 41 percent of Israel's Arab minority recognize the country's right to exist as a Jewish and democratic state, as opposed to 65.6 percent in 2003.

Moreover, only 53.7 percent of the Israeli Arab public believe Israel has a right to exist just as an independent country, according to the poll, down from 81.1 percent in 2003.

Besides the fact that Holocaust denial increased from 28% to 40.5% over 3 years, there also was a corresponding drop in the acceptance of Israel--as a Jewish state and even in general.

So what is behind the numbers?

"This radicalization in the positions of Arabs was caused by a series of factors such as the Second Lebanon War, the stalemate in the negotiations with the Palestinians, the failure to implement the conclusions of the Or committee, closing the case against the Border Police troops who shot dead the Israeli Arab protesters in October 2000, and more," Samuha said.

No Samuha may very well be right that as a result of events Israeli Arabs have become less accepting of Israel's right to exist, but would that affect their acceptance of whether a historical fact happened or not? [see update below]

Maybe. It could make them more likely to distrust Israel and by extension whether the Holocaust happened. But it could also be hearing Ahmadinejad talk about it.

It would be interesting to get numbers worldwide about whether Holocaust denial is also on the upswing. If so, then that would tend to support what Samuah is saying, that increased negative feelings about Israel--as when Israel reacts against terrorist attacks--increases Holocaust denial. There are already indications that it increases Anti-Semitism.

Then again, an increase in acts of Anti-Semitism and the volume of Anti-Semitic propoganda is not necessarily the same as an increase in belief.

Anyone know of a poll that measures worldwide Holocaust denial?

UPDATE: Sure enough, in a second, updated version of the article:

Prof. Sammy Smooha, who conducted the survey, said he believes the 40.5 percent denial rate reflects a protest more than actual disbelief in the Holocaust.

Granted that it would be odd for anti-Israel feeling to create more disbelief in a historical event, but I still think that the effect of attacks on the historicity of the Holocaust in Iran play a part.

More at Memeorandum

Technorati Tag: Holocaust Denial.

Netanyahu Meets Obama: Be Careful What You Wish For (Updated)

“You may come away thinking, ‘Wow, he agrees with me.’ But later, when you get home and think about it, you are not sure.”
Rashid Khalidi on Barack Obama

Does the same apply to Netanyahu?

Originally, we were concerned about pressure be applied to Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu as the days grew nearer to his meeting with President Obama. Would Obama force Bibi to say the dreaded words "two state solution."

At Powerline, Dan Diker, foreign policy analyst at the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, offers some analysis on Monday's meeting between Netanyahu and Obama--and based on information he has received from inside sources, it may be that the message that Netanyahu is bringing to the US might not be that difficult for the Obama administration to hear.

Here is some of what Diker's analysis:

...The US perception of the Netanyahu government as right wing, hawkish, and "settler friendly" is one of the keys to understanding the administration's rejection of Netanyahu's argument that it is impossible to make any political progress with the Palestinian Authority while Iran controls Gaza and is working to destabilize Judea and Samaria, despite an IDF security presence, via Iranian-backed proxies.

Last week, a former senior White House official in the Bush administration told me that the administration's problem with the Israelis is the "messenger" more than the "message." That's why it's vitally important for Obama to hear Netanyahu's "Iran must be stopped first message" from Arab allies who are equally threatened by Iran and its terror proxies such as Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak who will meet twice with Obama in the coming weeks both in Washington and Cairo.

One of the difficult differences between Netanyahu and Obama concerns their fundamentally different views over the linkage of the Palestinian-Israeli peace process to the containment of Iran's nuclear charged race to destroy Israel and achieve regional dominance. Netanyahu rejects linking the Palestinian issue to Iran. His view is that Iran is a nuclear existential threat to Israel and Arab states via terror proxies and must be stopped now at all costs. Period. The Palestinian conflict predated Iran's ascension and has not been resolved over the past 61 years; it will likely continue to be a major problem even after the Iranian regime is contained or neutralized.

Obama and his advisors simply don't see it that way. They are convinced that making great strides towards establishing a Palestinian state will help coalesce the Arab world against Iran. Arab leaders have been whispering in Obama's ear since his first day in office that Iran is undermining Arab regimes by exploiting the Palestinian issue via Hezbollah and Hamas to inflame the Arab street. This is a silly argument. Iran, Hamas, Hezbollah and other Islamist servant groups are ideologically and religiously motivated, they are not driven by Palestinian or other grievances. Besides, Iranian-backed Hamas has been subverting the US and Israeli backed Palestinian Authority first in Gaza and now in the West Bank; it will never allow a US-backed Palestinian state to arise.

Netanyahu and Obama can find a way to square the circle on this issue. I understand from a trusted friend who attended a small closed door dinner with Rahm Emanuel at last Week's AIPAC conference that Obama's close confidant was misquoted on the Palestinian-Iran linkage issue. The source said Emanuel specifically did not make Israeli Palestinian peace progress a precondition of US-Israel cooperation on Iran but merely suggested that it would make coalition-building far easier.

Read the whole thing.

Netanyahu paid a visit to both Egypt and Jordan before coming out to visit Obama. That may have been part of getting backing for that "Iran must be stopped first message".

On his blog, Mitchell Bard--author of Myths and Facts--goes even further. He writes that there is actually every reason to be outright optimistic about Monday's meeting:

The villainous portrayal does not comport with the actual policies of the man who was the last Israeli prime minister to carry out a major withdrawal from the West Bank. Yes, it was Netanyahu who agreed to withdraw from Hebron, the most sensitive of all West Bank communities because of its historic and religious significance. He went even further, in fact, and accepted the Clinton administration’s proposal for a withdrawal from an additional 13 percent of the West Bank beyond what his predecessors has given up.

Prior to being elected the first time, as in the most recent election, Netanyahu ran a campaign that focused on security and came across to many as uncompromising. But, as in the United States, governing in Israel is very different from campaigning. Thus, while Netanyahu had said, for example, that he would never shake Yasser Arafat’s hand, he was photographed doing just that after agreeing to territorial concessions that were negotiated in the Wye River Memorandum in 1998.

...A greater chance for a breakthrough exists with Syria. Here again, Netanyahu has talked tough about holding onto the Golan Heights, but he is the one who engaged in secret talks with the Syrians based on the premise of full (or nearly full) withdrawal in exchange for the normalization of relations.

...Over the last 60 years, the U.S.-Israel relationship has only grown stronger, despite occasional tensions. Neither Prime Minister Netanyahu nor President Obama have said anything to suggest that they will be anything but close partners in the pursuit of peace and stability in the Middle East and they will undoubtedly work together to make the alliance even stronger.

I don't know.

Before, I was wary that Netanyahu and Obama would not see eye to eye.

Now...I'm afraid they will!

UPDATE: Daniel Pipes outlines 3 reasons to expect a break from business as usual when Netanyahu and Obama meet and concludes:

Some predictions: (1) Iran being Netanyahu's top priority, he will avoid a crisis by mouthing the words "two-state solution" and agreeing to diplomacy with the Palestinian Authority. (2) Democrats too will be on their best behavior, checking their alienation through Netanyahu's visit, momentarily averting a meltdown. (3) Obama, who has plenty of problems on his hands, does not need a fight with Israel and its supporters. His move to the center, however tactical, will last through the Netanyahu visit.

Short term prospects, then, hold out more continuity than change in U.S.-Israel relations. Those concerned with Israel's security will prematurely breathe a sigh of relief – premature because the status quo is fragile and U.S. relations with Israel could rapidly unravel.

Even a lack of progress toward a Palestinian state can prompt a crisis, while an Israeli strike against Iran's nuclear infrastructure contrary to Obama's wishes might cause him to terminate the bond begun by Harry Truman, enhanced by John Kennedy, and solidified by Bill Clinton.

So bottom on, everyone will behave themselves and do what is expected of them.

This time.

Crossposted on Soccer Dad

Technorati Tag: Netanyahu and Obama.

Myths And Facts: Have Israel's Issues With The Vatican Been Resolved?

From Myths and Facts Online (posted with permission):

MYTH

“The pope’s trip to Israel shows that issues between Israel and the Vatican have been resolved.”

FACT

The Catholic Church has had a difficult relationship with the Zionist idea since the early 20th century when Theodor Herzl sought the support of Pope Pius X for a Jewish homeland and was told by the pontiff that “the Jews did not acknowledge our Lord and thus we cannot recognize the Jewish people. Hence, if you go to Palestine, and if the Jewish people settle there, our churches and our priests will be ready to baptize you all.”²⁶⁹

In 1947, the Vatican voted in favor of UN General Assembly Resolution 181 to partition Palestine; however, it did not officially recognizeIsrael until 1993. Since then, the Catholic Church has taken strides to improve its relationship with the Jewish state, including signing a diplomatic treaty and exchanging ambassadors with Israel.²⁷⁰

In 2000, Pope John Paul II visited the Holy Land and Pope Benedict XVI’s trip to Israel was meant to follow a similar path to foster interfaith dialogue and improve Vatican-Israel relations. Unfortunately, a series of missteps by the pope have shown that past wounds are far from healed.

Pope Benedict XVI was born in Germany and has said he reluctantly became a member of the Hitler Youth during World War II (a Vatican spokesman denied this during the tour and had to issue a retraction after it was pointed out that Benedict admitted it in his autobiography). This personal background made his May 11, 2009, visit to Israel’s Yad Vashem Holocaust Memorial especially poignant. Though his address condemned Holocaust denial and anti-Semitism, many Israelis expected him to go further. Rabbi Yisrael Meir Lau, the Chairman of Yad Vashem, expressed his disappointment following the speech, “Something was missing. There was no mention of the Germans or the Nazis who participated in the butchery, nor a word of regret.” Though the pope referred to the millions of innocent victims, he did not specifically mention the 6 million Jewish victims.²⁷¹

The role of the Catholic Church during the Holocaust has long been a contentious issue for Israel and the Vatican. At Yad Vashem, there is a plaque criticizing Pius XII, who was pope from 1939 to 1958, for not doing more to save the Jews of Europe during the Holocaust. The Vatican continues to limit access to archives that might shed further light on the actions of Pius. Furthermore, in 2008, Pope Benedict announced his intention to beatify Pius XII, a high religious honor of the Church that is the last step before sainthood.²⁷² This decision angered some Jews as did his announcement in January 2009, that he was lifting the excommunication of Bishop Richard Williamson, aHolocaust denier who believes that Jews are bent on world domination.²⁷³

Israelis hoped that the pope’s visit to Israeli sites and meetings with Israeli officials would be accompanied by positive statements aboutIsrael’s quest for peace and some recognition of the ongoing dangers it faces. Benedict, however, reserved his more political remarks for his tour of Palestinian areas. Speaking to a crowd in Bethlehem, for example, Pope Benedict XVI reasserted the policy of the Vatican on Palestinian statehood. While declaring their rights to a sovereign homeland, the pope lamented Palestinian losses suffered in Gaza. He told a crowd in Manger Square, “Please be assured of my solidarity with you in the immense work of rebuilding which now lies ahead and my prayers that the embargo will soon be lifted.” Though he urged Palestinian youth to resist the temptation to resort to terrorism, he did not condemn Hamas for its acts of terror against Israel that made the embargo on the Gaza Strip essential to halting weapons smugglers and provoked Operation Cast Lead.²⁷⁴

The Palestinians also took full advantage of the propaganda value of the pope’s appearances in the West Bank. Mahmoud Abbas, for example, used the pope’s speech in Bethlehem as an opportunity to criticize Israel’s security fence, labeling it an “apartheid wall”.²⁷⁵Later, on a visit to a Palestinian refugee camp, the pontiff was photographed in front of one of the few sections of the fence that is actually a wall and lamented that it symbolized the “stalemate” in relations between Israel and the Palestinians. He expressed his wish that the wall would come down soon so that “the people of Palestine… will at last be able to enjoy the peace, freedom and stability that have eluded [them] for so long.”²⁷⁶

In addition to ignoring the Palestinian violence that killed more than 800 Israelis and prompted the building of the security barrier, the pope was also silent with regard to the ongoing persecution of Christians throughout the Middle East and especially within the Palestinian Authority. This was another missed opportunity for the pope to show concern for the plight of his followers.

The decision of Pope Benedict XVI to make a pilgrimage to Israel was a welcome one and did show the distance the Vatican has traveled in the century that has passed since Herzl’s visit to Rome. The acts of commission and omission during the pope’s trip indicated, however, that there is still some distance to go before Israel will have the respect it deserves from the Holy See.

-----

²⁶⁹Uri Bialer, Cross on the Star of David, Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2005, p. 3.
²⁷⁰Tony Johnson, “Vatican-Israel Relations,” Council on Foreign Relations, (May 12, 2009).
²⁷¹“Pope: Holocaust victims’ cry still echoes in our hearts,” Haaretz, (May 11, 2009).
²⁷²Rachel Donaido, “Vatican-Israel Tensions Rise Over Pius,” New York Times, (October 19, 2008).
²⁷³Richard Owen, “Dismay as Pope welcomes back Holocaust bishop Richard Williamson,” Times Online, (January 26, 2009).
²⁷⁴Rachel Donaido and Alan Cowell, “In Bethlehem, Pope Urges Lifting of Gaza Embargo,” New York Times, (May 13, 2009).
²⁷⁵Ibid.
²⁷⁶Only about 5% of the Security Fence is a wall. “Pope: West Bank fence is symbol of ‘stalemate’,” Haaretz, (May 13, 2009).

Technorati Tag: Israel and Pope Benedict.

One Jerusalem: End of Week Review: May 17, 2009

From an email from One Jerusalem:

End of Week Review: May 17, 2009

Dear Friend of Jerusalem,

Here are the latest headlines from the One Jerusalem Blog:

● In Iran, The Politics of Holocaust Denial: From the headline,"Rival Criticizes Ahmadinejad's Holocaust Denial", one might get the mistaken impression that one of Ahmadinejad's challengers for President of Iran has denounced the anti-semitic incumbent and declared the historical truth about the attempted destruction of World Jewry.Unfortunately, this... (read more)

● What Is With Pope Benedict?: For a mild mannered scholarly man he sure causes a stir. This morning when I met an evangelical Christian friend of Israel he started the conversation by telling me that he had just been interviewed on the Pope's trip to... (read more)

● Obama Takes Iran Off The Table: We have commented on the Obama Administration's penchant to dictate policy to Israel without extending the courtesy of consulting Israel, America's most important ally in the Middle East. Even before his first official meeting with Prime Minister Netanyahu, President Obama... (read more)

● Obama Team Continues To See Iran As An Israeli Issue: Today, the Obama Administration's National Security Adviser, Jim Jones, reiterated their policy of linking the Palestinian and Iranian issues. In an interview on ABC news, Jones said "We understand Israel's preoccupation with Iran..." This sounds like the Obama team is... (read more)

Sincerely, The One Jerusalem Team

Technorati Tag: Israel.

Now Judaism Equals Racism?

ELECTION RESULT

Rabbi Avi Shafran


Even with the surfeit of silliness passing these days for “Torah commentary”– the manufactured “midrashim,” “original interpretations” and Biblical passages turned on their heads – I was flabbergasted to read a homily disparaging the Chafetz Chaim.

The Chafetz Chaim, of course – Rabbi Yisrael Meir Kagan – was renowned for his saintliness and sagacity, and for his monumental works on Jewish law, including two on the laws against slander. When the Polish sage died, in 1933, The New York Times’ obituary noted that he had shut down his store when he realized that its success born of his renown was imperiling other local storekeepers’ income.

What exercised the contemporary sermonizer, whose words appeared in an Israel-oriented magazine, was the Chafetz Chaim’s comment on an undisputed halachic ruling, that even a sinner, if Jewish, can be counted as part of a prayer-quorum. The Chafetz Chaim had elucidated the reason behind the ruling: “Even though he is a sinning Jew,” the great rabbi explained, “his holiness endures.”

The magazine-homilist, a Jewish educator, found that statement “not so enlightened,” indeed “particularly problematic in an era when racism has fallen out of favor.”

Racism? To most of us that word implies mistreating, or at least disliking, someone because of his ethnicity. There are observant Jews who are racist; observance, unfortunately, doesn’t preclude any of a number of irrationalities. But affirmation of “Jewish election” – the concept that the Jewish people was chosen by G-d to be a holy nation with a holy mission – has about the same relationship to racism as a sizzling steak has to a slab of cold tofu. (No angry e-mails, please – I like tofu!) For that matter, Jewish chosen-ness is a belief held by many non-Jews as well.

And what sort of “racism” permits its targets to switch races? While Judaism doesn’t encourage conversion, anyone not born Jewish but willing to undertake commitment to the faith’s laws and undergo the conversion process is fully welcomed into the Jewish people. Does David Duke let Pakistanis join his whites-only club? Would Louis Farrakhan let Mr. Duke become an honorary black?

The bottom line: Jewish chosen-ness, from the Jewish perspective, entails no disparagement of others. It is not a license but a responsibility, to live by the laws of the Torah and to set a holy example for others – to shine forth in belief and behavior as the prophet Isaiah’s “light unto the nations” (42:6).

But, yes, even one who has failed to shoulder that responsibility doesn’t thereby lose that responsibility, or his status as part of his people. The relative who let you down, even terribly, remains your relative.

The derivation itself of the concept of a prayer-quorum implies as much. The Talmud divines the requirement of ten men for a public declaration of G-d’s holiness (like, for example, the recitation of the Kaddish) from the use of the same Hebrew word, b’toch – “among” – in both the verse “And I will be [declared] holy among the Jewish people” and the verse “Separate yourselves from among the congregation,” the latter concerning the followers of Korach, who rebelled against Moses and Aaron. Since the word “congregation” – “edah” – in that latter verse is in turn used in yet a third one, “How much longer, this evil congregation?” (referring to the ten Jewish men who scouted the Holy Land and delivered a misleadingly discouraging report), the Talmud concludes that a “holiness” prayer-quorum requires ten Jewish men (Berachot, 21b).

And so the very source of the quorum is rooted in references to sinners. That speaks loudly about the Jewish faith’s demarcation of Jews as special, sinners and all.

Maybe the contemporary educator is not aware that the concept of Jewish election itself dates somewhat farther back than the Chafetz Chaim, to the Torah itself. Or maybe he is, but rejects the idea nonetheless, choosing to see it as “racism.”

I suspect he doesn’t really deny what is, in the end, a basic Jewish conviction; he’s just uncomfortable in our universalist times with the notion that the Jewish faith sets Jews apart (the essential meaning of the Hebrew word for holy, “kadosh”) . But I think that he knows it does and, deep down, accepts the fact. That alone could explain why, as the biographical note at the end of his essay states, come fall the writer will be joining the faculty at a Jewish day school in California.

Not a Catholic, Muslim or Hindu school. A Jewish one.

© 2009 AM ECHAD RESOURCES

[Rabbi Shafran is director of public affairs for Agudath Israel of America.]

All Am Echad Resources essays are offered without charge for personal use and sharing, and for publication with permission, provided the above copyright notice is appended.

Technorati Tag: Judaism.

EyeontheUN: UN Human Rights Council Election Results

From an email:

For Immediate Release: May 15, 2009 Contact: Anne Bayefsky info@EYEontheUN.org

Video Alert

UN Human Rights Council Election Results

• Number of fully free countries on the UN's lead human rights body
  
  -> less than 50%
  
  
• Balance of power on the UN Human Rights Council
  
  -> Organization of the Islamic Conference
  
  (Islamic states elected enough states to form a majority of both the African and Asian regional groups; the African and Asian regional groups together hold a majority of seats on the Council)
  
  
• Number of votes obtained by the United States as compared to the number of votes for Kyrgyzstan: 167 U.S. vs. 174 Kyrgyzstan
  
  
• Number of votes for the three slots reserved for Western states, with only three Western states running (i.e. a fixed slate):
  
  -> Norway - 179
  
  -> Belgium - 177
  
  -> United States - 167 (the least number of votes)

For additional videos see www.youtube.com/eyeontheun or EYEontheUN video updates.

EYEontheUN monitors the UN direct from UN Headquarters in New York. EYEontheUN brings to light the real UN record on the key threats to democracy, human rights, and peace and security in our time.EYEontheUN provides a unique information base for the re-evaluation of priorities and directions for modern-day democratic societies.

Technorati Tag: UN and UN Human Rights Council.

Monday Rally May 18 To Support Netanyahu

From an email:

This Monday, May 18th: Rally for a Proud & Undivided Israel!!!

Please join us in D.C. to rally in support of Israel and Prime Minister Netanyahu, rain or shine, at:

Lafayette Park (across from the White House)
Washington, DC
May 18, 2009
10am-3pm

Round trip transportation is available from Manhattan and Brooklyn. Charter buses will depart from:

79th and West End Avenue
New York City
Leaving promptly at 6 a.m.

If you would like to book a seat on the bus, and for all other inquiries, please contact:
Hillary Markowitz, AMCHA
kensy7@aol.com

and

770 Eastern Parkway (at Kingston Avenue)

Brooklyn

Leaving promptly at 7 a.m.

Cost per seat: FREE

To reserve a place or to volunteer: נא להזמין מקום מראש
(718) 213-2956 / (347) 513-5130 shalom@chabad4israel.org

Both buses will be returning by 8:00 p.m.

Monday, May 18, PM Netanyahu will meet with President Obama in Washington DC and will be under immense pressure to create an Arab State in the Land of Israel. Aside from violating "The Statute and eternal covenant" (See Divrei Hayamim 1: 16:15-18), an agreement would also create a terrible situation in the Land of Israel.

How so? The result will be:

1. The expulsion of nearly 300,000 Jews. The lives of 300,000 Jews will be ruined, as will yeshivot, shuls and kollelim, and the beautiful communities will be handed over to the enemy.

2. The surrender of the entire Samarian and Judean mountain range to the enemy (Hamas, Fatah, Islamic Jihad, etc.). Rockets from Hebron will hit Beersheba and Kiryat Gat; Bethlehem will hit Jerusalem; Bodrus will hit Ben-Gurion Airport; Rantis will hit Tel Aviv; Kalkilya will hit Kfar Saba and Raanana; Tulkarem will hit Netanya; Jenin will hit Afula and Nazareth.

3. The surrender of eastern Jerusalem and the Temple Mount. No more visits to the Kotel. Even with Israeli control over eastern Jerusalem and the Temple Mount, the army has shut down the Kotel for hours at a time due to security concerns. In addition, the Jews in western Jerusalem will have to deal with constant rocket and mortar attacks, as did their parents and grandparents up until 1967.

4. The surrender of over 1/3 of Israel's water supply. Israel already faces a severe water crisis. The aquifers of Judea and Samaria are of the highest quality and supply the domestic needs of Jerusalem, Tel Aviv, Beersheba and most of the cities in the center of the country; they are also used for the irrigation of large agricultural areas along the coastal plain, the piedmont, the Beersheba valley and the Jezreel Valley.

5. The release of thousands of Arab murderers. This will strengthen the armies of Hamas and Fatah and destroy the morale of the Israeli army as it watches years of work unravel. Jewish soldiers will understand that they endanger their lives for nothing, and draft dodging will increase. In addition, the release will cause grave mental stress to all victims of terror and put the rest of the population in harm's way.

As a former IDF combat soldier and as one who is making Aliyah in the next several months, I am pleading with you to act! The "Disengagement" was only 4 years ago!

Have we already forgotten how 10,000 Jews were thrown out from their homes, shuls, schools, yeshivahs, kollelim, mikvaot and hothouses?

Have we already forgotten how those areas, which were full of life and Torah, were converted into terror training centers?

Have we already forgotten how Sderot was turned into a ghost town due to the non-stop rockets, that were a direct result of the "Disengagement"?

Have we already forgotten how most of world Jewry stood in dead silence as all this occurred?

Please heed this warning BEFORE it is too late!!!

If you or your school, shul, church or other organization is organizing a bus, please let us know, at: eyisrael1@gmail.com.

Updates will be posted on: http://eretzy.blogspot.com.

If you cannot organize a bus to Washington DC, then please make a rally in your town or city!

I hope you make it on Monday!

Yosef Rabin

eyisrael1@gmail.com

If you have not as yet signed our petition to say
"No to an Arab State in the Land of Israel," please click below:

http://www.petitiononline.com/1eys/.

Technorati Tag: Israel.

Video: Gaza Explained In 82 Seconds

[Hat tip: Noah Pollak]

Technorati Tag: Israel and Gaza and Hamas and UN.

OU Emerging Communities Fair 2009. June 14, 2009

From an email:

OU Emerging Communities Fair 2009. Date:14 Jun, 2009

Description:
On Sunday, June 14, 2009, the Orthodox Union will showcase twenty-three growing Jewish communities from around the country that will work with you in your search for employment. Register for this event now! You will meet community representatives and you will learn about:

·Exciting and lucrative job opportunities
·Affordable housing
·Close-knit and warm communities
·Synagogues, day schools and yeshivot
·Kosher stores and other Jewish communal resources

Featured Communities: Upstate, NY (Albany, Schenectady, Troy) · Allentown, PA · Atlanta, GA · Columbus, OH · Dallas, TX · Denver, CO · Des Moines, IA · Harrisburg, PA · Houston, TX · Jacksonville, FL · Malden, MA · Memphis, TN · New Orleans, LA · Norfolk, VA · Phoenix, AZ · Providence, RI · Richmond, VA · San Francisco, CA · Southfield & Oak Park, MI · St. Louis, MO · Stamford, CT · Stony Brook, NY

To Register Copy and Paste to your browser the following link:
http://community.ou.org/site/Calendar?id=101321&cal_form=UserDetail&rsvp_signup=true

Have you signed up to be a FREE member of the OU Job Board? If not please go to www.oujobs.org. Enter your e mail and you will get the latest employment news, Seminar information and E-Learning classes being held in YOUR area!

Srulie
jobs@ou.org

Technorati Tag: OU and Jewish Communities and Jobs.

Image Is Everything: Netanyahu vs. The New York Times

Aluf Benn notes that this time around, Netanyhau seems to have 'got it':

Perhaps we just became accustomed to him, or maybe it's his age and experience, but there is no doubt that the Netanyahu of 2009 is not the vilified and troubled prime minister of his previous term in office. He enjoys unprecedented public and international legitimacy. His critics and rivals accept his leadership and do not see him as the leader of only half the nation, as they did during his former round at the top. Even though he ran for office on a right-wing platform and came in second after Tzipi Livni, since he took office Netanyahu has been the prime minister of everyone.

But this is not just an issue of Netanyahu getting the right wing vote to make him Prime Minister. Nor is it an issue of his forming a coalition that on paper makes it appear that Netanyahu has the backing of a broad swath of Israelis.

No, it goes a lot further than that:

Members of Likud are not the only ones happy with Bibi:

The ranks of the cheerleaders are packed. Dan Meridor and Benny Begin were the first to jump on the election bandwagon, but are now silent, leaving Shimon Peres, Ehud Barak and Benjamin Ben-Eliezer to sing Netanyahu's praises. Throughout his political career, Netanyahu has never had such support. There is no doubt that he is enjoying his new status...Even the media is giving him a break.

Even the Bibi's critics--of which there have not been a few--see something different in him:

Netanyahu's critics, who used to make do with cries of "Bibi, go!" are now trying to bring him over to their side. The left is dying for him to undergo an ideological revolution, like Menachem Begin and Ariel Sharon, and lead the peace camp - before he has altered even a single comma in his positions. A moderate Bibi? His maintenance of the cease-fire with Hamas in the Gaza Strip, and the Yesha Council settler leaders' criticism of him for "continuing the freeze on settlement activity" only serve to bolster the still unproven belief that he has become more moderate.

In fact, this new perception of Netanyahu goes beyond the borders of Israel itself, granted that the politics of the region, and especially concern about Iran, are a good part of it:

The situation is similar in the rest of the world. Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, one of the biggest rivals of the "old" Netanyahu, heads the list of foreign leaders eager to meet with him, followed by Jordan's King Abdullah. The bizarre boycott that Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas has imposed on Netanyahu bothers no one. Who remembers how much Netanyahu was pressured in 1996 until he agreed to meet with then-Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat? If the meeting with U.S. President Barack Obama next week passes without a hitch, Netanyahu will emerge as a winner and become more firmly entrenched as a consensus figure.

But that's the point, isn't it? How will this 'new' Netanyahu fare with Obama? If he is able to hold his own and not be perceived as buckling under US pressure, this will be a victory not only for the new Netanyahu, but for Israel as well.

That may explain The New York Times editorial from earlier this week. The New York Times is not about to let Netanyahu lose his right wing hawk mantle:

In his video speech to the same activist group, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, Mr. Netanyahu said he wants peace with the Palestinians. He even committed to negotiations “without any delay and without any preconditions.” But it rings hollow. He has resisted — and his foreign minister and unity government partner, Avigdor Lieberman, has openly derided — the two-state solution that is the only sensible basis for a lasting settlement that could anchor a regional peace. On Monday, the 15-member United Nations Security Council unanimously adopted a statement endorsing the two-state solution.

Other differences also threaten next week’s meeting. One is the president’s decision to reach out to Iran, which has made Israel uneasy. Mr. Netanyahu — perhaps trying to ensure talks with the Palestinians never get anywhere — hinted that he might condition peace efforts on Mr. Obama’s success in ending Tehran’s nuclear program. [emphasis added]

If Netanyahu's words ring hollow, it is because he has not jumped on the two-state solution bandwagon that has yet to take into account and address the natural concerns when a corrupt and incompetent leadership that is less than popular with its own people takes control of land adjacent to a country

--that it does not recognize,

--against whom it has not renounced terrorism, and

--with which it has agreements that it has not kept

(not to mention having a charter that calls for the destruction of Israel)

And we are talking here about Abbas and the Palestinian Authority, not Hamas.

The New York Times may very well believe that 'the two-state solution that is the only sensible basis for a lasting settlement' but in their enthusiasm to blindly cheer about the solution that will supposedly satisfy Palestinian Arabs, they never address whether the Palestinian Arabs can govern such a state--or keep it from changing into a terrorist state.

The dismissive tone the editorial takes towards Netanyahu's concerns about Iran are also indicative of the New York Times' lack of interest in Israel's security concerns.

Barry Rubin, who pointed out Benn's piece, writes about the changed Netanyahu:

It’s time for the Western media and the world in general to understand this reality. Netanyahu has moved toward the center and Israelis have become fed up with advice that their policy should be one of making concessions and getting nothing in return.

And that is the crux of the matter, is it not? At the first inkling that the pendulum may be swinging the other way, that Israel is no long content to be told to unilaterally make concessions on its security with nothing in return--the media and the world insists that Israel sign on to a poorly defined two-state solution, a solution that is geared to solves the world's problem rather than Israel's.

If Netanyahu can hold his ground next week, the world faces the uncomfortable prospect of taking a look at just how unrealistic the two-state solution is at this time.

No wonder the New York Times is on the attack.

Crossposted on Soccer Dad

Technorati Tag: Israel and Netanyahu and Obama.

How FDR Could Have Saved Jews Without Dropping A Single Bomb

This article is by Dr. Rafael Medoff, director of The David S. Wyman Institute for Holocaust Studies, 

70 Years Since the British White Paper: FDR's Missed Opportunity to Save Europe's Jews

Chaim Weizmann called it "a death sentence for the Jewish people." David Ben-Gurion said it was "the greatest betrayal perpetrated by the government of a civilized people in our generation."

Seventy years ago this week, England declared a new policy for Palestine: Jewish immigration would be restricted to just 15,000 annually for the next five years, and after that would be permitted only with the agreement of Palestine's Arabs.

Just six months after the Kristallnacht pogrom, with German Jews desperately seeking a haven and country after country shutting its doors, the British closed off the one land that offered the hope of refuge.

Weizmann rushed to London to plead his case before Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain. "The Prime Minister sat before me like a marble statue; his expressionless eyes were fixed on me, but he never said a word," Weizmann later recalled. "I got no response. He was bent on appeasement of the Arabs and nothing could change his course."

Well, maybe not quite nothing.

The British were, after all, in a particularly vulnerable position in May 1939. Two months earlier, Hitler had completed his dismemberment of Czechoslovakia, leaving the Munich agreement in tatters. War with England seemed inevitable. "London was in such dire need of American support," the historian Selig Adler has noted, "that a strong dissent from Washington would have probably forced a British reversal" of the White Paper.

American Zionists thought likewise. In the weeks before the publication of the White Paper, U.S. Zionist leaders repeatedly urged President Franklin Roosevelt to intervene against the anticipated British action.

The Jews closest to FDR, Justice Louis Brandeis and Rabbi Stephen Wise, begged the president to step in. Roosevelt tended to deflect these kinds of requests with a dose of charm. Calling Wise "Stevie" made the American Jewish Congress leader feel he was a personal friend of the most powerful man on earth. "The President gladhanded Zionist leaders," Prof. Adler recalled. "He would pacify his Jewish visitors with promises ... but then failed to put these pledges into the executive pipeline."

To be sure, Roosevelt was not happy about the rumored new British policy on Palestine. He instructed the State Department to inform London that the U.S. hoped "no drastic changes" were in the offing. In a memo to Secretary of State Cordell Hull on the day the White Paper was issued, FDR called it "something that we cannot give approval to."

But there is a huge difference between "not giving approval" and expressing forceful, explicit disapproval. The British took note of Roosevelt's minimalist response and dug their heels in accordingly.

Would a different response by FDR have persuaded London to backtrack?

An episode from 1936 may be instructive. That summer, the British were preparing to slash Jewish immigration to the Holy Land. Rabbi Wise appealed to Roosevelt to intervene, and with election day just a few months off, the president leaned on the British to relent. The restrictions were shelved. As a result, Wise biographer Melvin Urofsky notes, in the next three years, "more than 50,000 Jews, mostly from Germany and Austria, were able to join the yishuv--men, women, and children who would undoubtedly have perished had the 1939 White Paper been issued three years earlier."

It's true that 1939 was not the same as 1936. By 1939, Britain was close to war with Germany and was deeply worried about which side the Arab world would take in such a conflict. Supporters of the White Paper said the restrictions were needed to keep the Arab world from erupting in revolt.

But would there really have been such a serious Arab reaction if Jewish immigration were allowed to continue during the Holocaust years? In her autobiography, Golda Meir characterized British fears of an Arab revolt as wildly exaggerated: "A few Arab leaders might have made threatening speeches. Perhaps there would have been a protest march or two. Maybe there would even have been an additional act or pro-Nazi sabotage somewhere in the Middle East ... But thousands more of the Six Million might have survived."

Despite the logic of Meir's argument, the British White Paper went into force. And Roosevelt was silent.

The history of FDR's response to the persecution of European Jewry s is littered with empty promises, unfulfilled hopes and missed opportunities. Seventy years ago this week, one of the most important of those opportunities was squandered, and on the eve of the Holocaust, one of European Jewry's last avenues of escape was almost completely shut off. The consequences were catastrophic.

As always, the bottom line is that Jews, and Israel, can only rely so much on the help of foreign nations, including the US--a lesson we are reminded of as the meeting between Netanyahu and Obama draws closer and pressure is already being applied.

Technorati Tag: FDR and Roosevelt and White Paper.

Elder Of Ziyon On "Casualties Of Truth" And The Indifference Of The Media

Elder of Ziyon addresses the issue of the contradictions in the number of Gazans killed during Operation Cast Lead as claimed by the Palestinians:

For three weeks in December 2008-January 2009, Israel and Hamas fought a war in the Gaza Strip after Hamas announced it was abandoning the ceasefire and began escalated rocket and mortar attacks on Israel.

There is one fact about that war which people around the world think they know: there were about 1400 Palestinians killed in the war and most or almost all of them were civilians, mainly women an children.

This claim, however, is false and demonstrably so on the basis of careful research using publicly available and reliable materials. Indeed, a group of bloggers, including the author, have shown already that more than 30 percent of the claimed "civilian" casualties were in fact, to use the polite word, armed militants or members of Hamas-led security forces. And the number of such combatants we are discovering is rising every day.

Read the whole thing.

But there is another issue--the media doesn't seem to care:

Every effort I have made to reach out to people doing similar research, in order to consolidate findings, has been met with silence. Every effort to publicize it through the media has been ignored.

...I just don't get it.

Is it not newsworthy? Is it automatically suspect because it originated at a blog? Are people turned off by the blog name? Do the other researchers feel threatened by "competition"?

Or the media continues to be just a little too ready to accept the Palestinian interpretation of events.

See also: In Gaza, After The Battle Is Over--The Battle Of The Numbers Begins

Technorati Tag: Israel and Gaza and Hamas and Operation Cast Lead.

More Pressure On Netanyahu: UN Security Council Throws In Its Two Cents

With Netanyahu's visit to Washington coming up, there is no subtlety on what topic the world wants discussed:

The U.N. Security Council sent a strong message to Israel on Monday that the international community is demanding "urgent efforts" to create a separate Palestinian state and achieve an overall Mideast peace settlement.

The council statement was approved by all 15 members a week before Israel's new hawkish Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who has refused to endorse the two-state solution, holds his first meeting in Washington with President Barack Obama.

Claiming that Netanyahu rejects the two-state solution is of course not true, but since he advocates a 3-track approach addressing economic and security concerns in addition to political ones--rather than blindly accepting the ambiguous 'two-state solution', such a cautious approach must of course be labeled rejectionist. And of course, since the vote was unanimous, that means--unsurprisingly--that the US was on board on this:

U.S. Ambassador Susan Rice, speaking at a ministerial meeting of the council as a member of Obama's Cabinet, underscored the president's determination to vigorously pursue "a comprehensive peace between Israel and its Arab neighbors" in the months ahead.

Russia, the beacon of democracy, of course chimed in:

...Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov of Russia, which holds the council presidency this month and organized Monday's meeting, stressed the importance of a rapid resumption of negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians and of international involvement in the process, a view echoed by Rice and council members.

Only one small problem:

The council reiterated its call for "renewed and urgent efforts by the parties and the international community " to reach a Mideast peace agreement "based on the vision of a region where two democratic states, Israel and Palestine, will live side by side in peace," according to its statement.

What we have is a vision not based on fact--no one asks, let alone answers, questions such as

s there an exit strategy? Is the American military going to be involved. What will the cost be to U.S. taxpayers? Do we expect the Palestinian state to be a democracy? If this goes wrong, who will pick up the pieces.

Of course, based on past experience, the term 'democracy' is purely a reference to the election, not to the form of the government afterwards. And with all the talk of requiring Hamas to recognize Israel, reject violence, and recognize past agreements--no one seems to care that Abbas and the Palestinian Authority do not fulfill any of these requirements either.

Rushing ahead to create a second Palestinian state has taken on a life of its own, and none of the advocates seem to think about--or care about--the consequences.

Technorati Tag: Israel.

Video: Music And Chevrah On Lag B'Omer Evening (Updated)

From Dixie Yid:

Here are some pictures and videos of some of the niggunim from the Hillula for Rebbe Shimon Bar Yochai at Aish Kodesh (held at the YI of Lawrence-Cedarhurst) last night. It featured a secret from Rav Weinberger that is beyond words (v'hameivin yavin) and music by Nochi Krohn , Eitan Katz and Avi Feinberg on drums. With thanks to Neil in the comments for pointing this out, you can download and listen to the shiur portion of the Hillulah by Rav Weinberger for free (as of now) HERE. Amazing. The videos below don't have much of a picture in them (except for the top one of the Barditchiver Niggun where you can see Rav Weinberger), but the music and the chevra singing are the ikar. Enjoy.

Check it out!

Technorati Tag: Israel and Lag B'Omer.

The Pope And Hillary Clinton: Similar Response? (Updated)

Sheikh Tayseer Tamimi took over a meeting with the Pope to attack Israel:

A leading Palestinian cleric commandeered an evening devoted to interfaith dialogue with Pope Benedict XVI on Monday to rant against Israel for "killing Gaza's children," "bulldozing Palestinian homes" and "destroying mosques."

In an impromptu speech, delivered in Arabic at the Notre Dame Pontifical Institute in Jerusalem, Sheikh Tayseer Tamimi, chief Islamic judge in the Palestinian Authority, launched a 10-minute tirade against the State of Israel for confiscating Palestinians' land and carrying out war crimes against the residents of Gaza.

He also called for the immediate return of all Palestinian refugees, and called on Christians and Muslims to unite against Israel.

Tamimi invoked the name of Saladin, the Muslim sultan who recaptured Jerusalem from the Crusaders in 1187. Tamimi said that unlike Israel, Saladin upheld the religious freedoms of all faiths.

The Pope was present--and how did he respond to the accusations that Israel was "killing Gaza's children," "bulldozing Palestinian homes" and "destroying mosques"?

He walked out after the Sheikh finished speaking, but before the meeting was finished--good for him.

But: "he shook Tamimi's hand before walking out".

That is reminiscent of November 1999, when Hillary Clinton listened as Suha Arafat claim that Israel used poisoned gas, and then kissed her after the 'speech'. At least later, Clinton did turn around and criticize Suha Arafat--after all, there was an election to think of.

The things people do--and put up with--in the name of being civil.

UPDATE: Jennifer Rubin draws a different parallel, comparing the Pope's response to Obama:

The handshake was ill-advised, but the walk-out was appropriate and indeed required. Unlike Obama, who sat mutely through Daniel Ortega’s diatribe, the Pope had it right: a prominent figure on the world stage should not by his presence extend legitimacy to those who peddle hate and lies. There is no “dialogue” to be had under such circumstances.

Its important to remember that rogue states and hate mongers crave legitimacy that can only be bestowed upon them by responsible world leaders. Denying them that legitimacy is one of the few diplomatic tools that can be easily utilized at low “cost.” That reality seems to have eluded the Obama team.

Rubin is less critical of the Pope than I am.

Personally, I am not so sure that Pope Benedict did not in fact bestow that very legitimacy with that handshake--the walkout will be interpreted as a sop to Israel, while the handshake will be pointed to as an indication of where the Pope's real feelings lie.

Technorati Tag: Pope Benedict and Hillary Clinton.

Israeli Arab Population Growth Falls Back To Earth

In Defusing the demographic scare, Paul Morland writes that the tremendous growth of the Israeli Arab population was to be expected--as is its current decrease:

In the early days of the state, the Arab minority underwent a "demographic transition," something that often occurs when traditional societies confront modernity. Health care and living standards improved rapidly, life expectancy rose and infant mortality fell, but, initially, family size remained large. As a result, Israel's Arab population expanded fast, and maintained or even increased its proportion of the population, despite the massive Jewish immigration to the state. In the 1960s, Israeli Muslim women were still having on average nine children.

However, after the first stage of demographic transition - a falling death rate, a persistently high birthrate and thus rapid population growth - invariably comes a second stage, in which birthrates fall. This is now happening within Israeli Arab society, and has been for some time. The average Israeli Arab woman is now having fewer than half the children she had in the 1960s, while the Jewish birthrate has recently stabilized and even risen. This is seen in the number of children actually born each year. In 2001, there were around 95,000 Jewish births in Israel and 41,000 Arab births. Just seven years later, in 2008, Jewish births had risen to over 117,000, but Arab births had declined to less than 40,000. In a period that constitutes barely a quarter of a generation, Arab births had fallen from around 30 percent of the total to around 25 percent. This has been a steady trend and, should it continue, it will only be a very short time before Jewish and Arab births each year are broadly proportionate to the overall balance of Jews and Arabs in the population as whole - that is, 4:1, or 80 percent and 20 percent, respectively. [emphasis added]

In fact, while the Arab birth rate in Gaza and the West Bank is not so reliable--the current Israeli birth rate increases that in a number of Muslim countries:

...although the relatively high Jewish birthrate in Israel bucks the trend for developed societies, the decline in the Arab birthrate within Israel accords with recent trends in the Islamic world. Today Israeli women as a whole have more children (2.77) than women in Iran (1.71), Bahrain (2.53), Algeria (1.82), Morocco (2.57), Indonesia (2.34) or Turkey (1.87). Latest figures suggest that Israeli women now have more children than women in Egypt (2.72), Jordan (2.47) or Lebanon (1.87). As recently as 2003, Syrian women had a fertility rate 50 percent higher than that of Israeli women. By 2008, it was only 16 percent higher.

But even if Morland is correct, Israel is not out of the woods yet. In his article, Seven Existential Threats, Michael Oren writes that the Arab demographics remain one of those threats:

Even if the minimalist interpretation [that the Arab Israeli population is declining] is largely correct, it cannot alter a situation in which Israeli Arabs currently constitute one-fifth of the country’s population—one-quarter of the population under age 19--and in which the West Bank now contains at least 2 million Arabs.

Israel, the Jewish State, is predicated on a decisive and stable Jewish majority of at least 70 percent. Any lower than that and Israel will have to decide between being a Jewish state and a democratic state. If it chooses democracy, then Israel as a Jewish state will cease to exist. If it remains officially Jewish, then the state will face an unprecedented level of international isolation, including sanctions, that might prove fatal.

Be that as it may, Morland concludes that the focus on the numbers is misplaced. He writes that the focus should not be on the size of the Israeli Arab minority,

but rather what kind of minority it will be. Will it be an integrated part of society, upwardly mobile, both socially and economically, enjoying and contributing to the fruits of Israeli society, a potential bridge to the region and an advertisement for Israel's inclusiveness and tolerance? Or will it become marginalized, alienated and increasingly hostile? That depends very much on the Jewish majority's attitudes and the government's policies. It also depends on a pragmatic and realistic Arab leadership looking out for the interests of its constituency and basing its strategy on a sober understanding of its own demographic prospects.

Bottom line, for all of Netanyahu's talk about implementing his proposal for a triple-track approach that includes addressing the economic issues of the Palestinian Arabs, he will need to address the economic, as well as the political, concerns of the Israeli Arabs as well.

Technorati Tag: Israel Demographics.

Technorati Tag: Israel and Gaza and Hamas and Operation Cast Lead.

One Jerusalem: End of Week Review: May 10, 2009

From an email from One Jerusalem:

End of Week Review: May 10, 2009 Dear Friend of Jerusalem, Here are the latest headlines from the One Jerusalem Blog: ● Obama's Muslim Speech: Yesterday, White House Press Secretary Gibbs announced that President Obama will deliver a major address to the Muslim world, in June on a visit to Egypt.Before Obama took office, One Jerusalem reported that he had plans to speak to the... (read more) ● OBAMA'S ESCALATING WAR ON ISRAEL: Based on the growing body of evidence in the public domain one could make the case that Israel has gone from American ally to American problem in the eyes of the Obama Administration. High level members of the Obama Administration,... (read more) ● Reality Check :: Worldwide Future Muslim Demographics: watch the video ● Melanie Phillips: Obama preparing to throw Israel under the bus: Thanks to Jihad Watch for posting this story. The incomparable Melanie Phillips analyzes the "moral sickness of the West" as it plays out in Obama's looming betrayal of Israel. "Obama prepares to throw Israel under the bus," in The Spectator,... (read more) Sincerely, The One Jerusalem Team

Technorati Tag: Israel.

Video Of Prime Minister Netanyahu Address To AIPAC Conference 2009

Netanyahu describes his 'triple-track' approach to resolving the conflict with the Palestinian Arabs:

Technorati Tag: Netanyahu and AIPAC.

Is The Coolness Of The Obama Administration Towards Israel Being Exaggerated?

In his blog, The Rubin Report, Barry Rubin thinks that it is exaggerated--while at the same time agreeing there are real problems in Obama's overall Middle East strategy:

Mister Netanyahu Goes to Washington

There’s no question that the Obama administration is less warm toward Israel than those of Clinton, Reagan, or George W. Bush’s first six years. But is it worse than the late George W. or all the Bush I and Jimmy Carter administrations? We’re about to find out.

The bottom line is that the basis of the relationship is still secure, in no small part because each side wants—and can get—something from the other. Israel says: You want us to cooperate on Palestinians? You cooperate on Iran! The United States says the same thing, albeit in reverse. And each side understands this is what they both want to do.

Many have made big claims to the contrary without much hard evidence, based on Obama’s cool-toward-Israel background and his eagerness to engage radical forces; wishful thinking in anti-Israel media; hatred of Obama in some pro-Israel circles; and misunderstanding Israeli government positions through error or malice.

Often, the Obama administration is blamed or credited with breaking new ground when it’s simply repeating predecessors’ positions. A U.S. government favoring a two-state solution (it’s a pity the Palestinians don’t also do so), opposing settlements, or proclaiming it will solve the conflict real fast isn’t new. The widespread claim that the administration threatened Israel’s nuclear arsenal is also wrong, based on a general statement that all countries should join the Non-Proliferation Treaty which was actually aimed at justifying a current U.S. nuclear deal with India.

Posturing and pretending is a far bigger factor than real pressure against Israel. U.S. officials supposedly said progress on Iranian nuclear weapons depends on progress in the peace process. This is simply a way to leverage minimal Israeli cooperation on the peace process. After all, will the administration try harder or less hard on Iran depending on whether the peace process advances? Obviously not. And neither Israel nor the Palestinians will give more concessions to each other if Iran’s nuclear program slows down.

The other thing going on here is the administration’s search for easy victories. U.S. officials will say: “That hardline Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu wanted to build dozens of settlements while refusing to talk to Palestinians or accept a two-state solution, but we sure showed him how to behave!” When in fact, Netanyahu would have done precisely the same things without any supposed pressure.

Of course, when the administration tries to get the Arab states or Palestinian leadership to do anything, that’s when its problems begin. And nothing whatsoever of great significance will happen in the peace process.

Still, the administration will be able to tell the American public: “We said we’d succeed in making advances and we’ve done so!”

Yes, that’s how politics and diplomacy works.

Basically, the administration wants Netanyahu to act as prime minister about the same as Tsipi Livni or Ehud Barak, leader of the two other main parties, would. Any “pressure” will not be to make big concessions but rather not to raise demands too high.

Netanyahu and his team are not foolish or—as a group—extremist. Their program, though somewhat tougher than that of their predecessor, is not all that different and is certainly something the U.S. government can accept.

There’s been much nonsense about Netanyahu government positions. He’s not going to annex territory or stop negotiating, or condition talks on accepting Israel as a Jewish state or eliminating Iran’s nuclear weapons’ program. He won’t attack Iran next week or reject the magical words: “two-state solution.”

What he will do—backed by Defense Minister and Labor party leader Barak—is to assert that Israel will only make concessions if it receiveds concessions. For example, the Road Map, which Netanyahu endorses and both the administration and EU reveres, puts obligations on the PA which Israel wants to see met.

Contrary to breathless insistence on imminent success, the Obama administration doesn’t believe it’s going to get a comprehensive solution soon. Nor is it going to bash Israel, break completely with historic U.S. policy, or go soft on Hamas.

Does this mean there are no problems regarding Obama administration policy in the Middle East? No and here’s a long list of them:

--U.S. policy toward Iran is too soft and unintentionally encourages Tehran to be more aggressive. Efforts at engagement with the Islamist regime will slow down any application of tougher sanctions and increases the likelihood that one day Israel will have to choose between attacking or watching Iran get nuclear weapons. If Israel were to attack, it could not expect support by the Obama administration (but the same was basically true, though slightly less so, for the Bush administration).

--U.S. policy toward Syria is leading Damascus to believe it can get away with murder continue sponsoring terrorism at no cost, and extending its power over Lebanon.

--The Obama administration isn’t energetic enough on helping moderates in Lebanon which means that Syria and Iran may well control the government there after the June eletion. If the radicals win in Lebanon, U.S. policy might deal with a government in which Hizballah is a leading member, though administration officials insist this won’t happen.

--Being less warm toward Israel overall the Obama administration will be less forthcoming on some key military equipment and less likely to brief and coordinate with Israeli leaders. (Though this administration which talks so much about multilateralism doesn’t seem to be doing these things with Britain either.)

--When facing a major Middle East crisis which affects Israeli interests directly or indirectly, can the Obama administration be depended on to have the understanding, determination, and toughness to handle it well?

--Given the cooler attitude to Israel, there can all manner of minor pinpricks and frictions which may have no lasting or major impact but will create short-term difficulties. The correct description is more likely to be "rude" rather than "hostile."

Despite all these genuine issues, however, in direct terms the supposedly “hardline” Netanyahu and allegedly “Israel-hating” (albeit certainly not Israel-loving) Obama may get along better than predicted.

Technorati Tag: Obama and Middle East.

The Third Jihad--From The Producers Of The Documentary 'Obsession'

From an email:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

CLARION UNVEILS NEW FILM ABOUT THE THREAT OF RADICAL ISLAM IN AMERICA AT NATIONAL PRESS CLUB

CAIR DECLINES INVITE TO DISCUSSION WITH DEVOUT MUSLIM
FILM NARRATOR, WHO IS EXPECTED TO SPEAK OUT
AGAINST RADICAL ISLAM AT THE THIRD JIHAD PREMIERE


(New York, NY – May 10, 2009) The Clarion Fund announced today that it will premiere its newest documentary film, The Third Jihad, at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C., on Wednesday, May 13, 2009. In addition to the screening, several American Muslim groups have been invited to participate in a roundtable discussion where the film’s narrator, Dr. M. Zuhdi Jasser – a devout Muslim and chairman of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy (AIFD) – and its producers will speak out about the threat of radical Islam in America.

Clarion’s first documentary film, the award-winning Obsession: Radical Islam’s War Against the West, communicates the global threat posed by the radical elements of Islam. The Third Jihad shifts the focus to the growth of radical Islam on American soil via “Cultural Jihad,” the use of the democratic system to transform the American way of life from within to a society governed by Sharia Law (Islamic religious law).

“Clarion Fund recognizes the propagation of radical Islam and the promulgation of Sharia Law within our borders as a clear and present crisis affecting the Muslim American community and the American public at large,” said Peter Connors, Executive Director of Clarion. “Our educational tools and media properties will serve as a platform for the American public – including Muslims – to embrace Western liberties and speak out in a meaningful way to silence radical elements in our midst.”

Among these tools is RadicalIslam.org, the foundation of Clarion’s grassroots movement. The user-friendly website was developed to spread awareness about the threat of radical Islam in America as well as to provide practical response tools. For the launch of the film, the site has been redesigned to include up-to-the-minute updates from major news sources as well as social media-driven networking capabilities.

“We are focused on educating the American public about this eminent threat to their rights and freedoms, with the goal of bringing ‘Creeping Sharia’ to a screeching halt,” explained Raphael Shore, producer of both The Third Jihad and Obsession and the founder of Clarion. “We want to expose the true intent of radical Islam in order to secure the future of the American public at large, including its Muslim community.”

Among those organizations invited to participate in the roundtable discussion is the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR). However, CAIR has declined the invitation, a surprising turn of events considering the group’s usual insistence that a representative of their “mainstream Muslim” staff be present at such events to offer a “balanced perspective.” In fact, since the beginning of 2009, CAIR has requested such representation in at least three U.S. events focused on radical Islam.

“We invited CAIR and they said they wanted nothing to do with this film,” said Connors. “CAIR’s response is unfortunate, as The Clarion Fund believes that the only way to address this issue is to discuss it openly and honestly with those who agree with us and those who disagree. Then, based on that education, the American public can decide for itself.”

The Third Jihad, which is narrated by devout Muslim American Dr. M. Zuhdi Jasser, centers on the FBI discovery of a Grand Jihad Manifesto calling for the destruction of the U.S. and the establishment of a radical Islamist theocracy in its place. The film features interviews with experts on radical Islam and American security specialists, including leading expert professor Bernard Lewis, as well as a first-hand account from a former terrorist. All those interviewed agree that the spread of Islamic fundamentalism in America is a societal reality that cannot be ignored.

Though a shortened version of The Third Jihad has spread virally on the Internet since the beginning of the year, the Washington, D.C. screening will serve as the official launch of the feature-length version of the film.

# # #

The Clarion Fund (www.clarionfund.org) is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization that aims to educate Americans about issues of national security. The organization focuses primarily on the emergent threat of radical Islam. To that end, Clarion produces and distributes documentary films and facilitates online education to help Americans better understand the real dangers posed by radical Islam. In addition to RadicalIslam.org, the organization’s interactive online educational and social networking tool, Clarion has a popular live-blogging presence on Twitter: @No2RadicalIslam.

Technorati Tag: The Third Jihad and Obsession and Islam and Terrorism.

The UN Revisionism of Durban II Begins

From an email:

For Immediate Release: May 10, 2009

Contact: Anne Bayefsky info@EYEontheUN.org

The UN Revisionism of Durban II Begins: The Dangerous UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay

The Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights has just released a document called"Anti-racism conference outcome document - what it actually says." As the title itself indicates, High Commissioner Navi Pillay is on the warpath to redeem her reputation as Secretary-General of a racist anti-racism conference. Not by recognizing Durban II and its outcome as a human rights travesty, but by deliberately misrepresenting and distorting "what it actually says." Dangerous Pillay Falsehood Number 1: New OHCHR release, May 7, 2009 "Contrary to a common misconception, the Durban Review Conference and its outcome did not focus on a single issue, conflict or group of people - the Middle East for instance is not mentioned in the outcome document." Actual Durban II Outcome Document, adopted April 24, 2009 Paragraph 1 of the Durban II outcome document "reaffirms" the 2001 Durban Declaration and Programme of Action (DDPA) which mentions only the state of Israel and claims Palestinians are victims of Israeli racism. Reaffirming Durban I's Declaration became the number one priority of Islamic and Arab states at Durban II precisely for this purpose. Navi Pillay, News Conference, held April 24, 2009, on the adoption of the Durban II Outcome Document "The DDPA includes ... one paragraph which mentions the suffering of the Palestinians ... Palestine is mentioned ... in the DDPA, and the word "reaffirm" carries those paragraphs into this document." High Commissioner Pillay is fully aware that Durban I and II stand for the false accusation that the Jewish state is racist, and that every Durban mention of the words "victims of racism" is intended to include Palestinian victims of Israeli racism. Pillay deliberately picked out and congratulated participants on this very result on the final day of the conference as the Durban II outcome was adopted. But two weeks later the dangerous High Commissioner compounds the Durban II outrage by launching a campaign to claim "it actually says" the opposite. Dangerous Pillay Falsehood Number 2: New OHCHR release, May 7, 2009 "...the Durban Review Conference...did not focus on a single issue, conflict or group of people..." Reality Check The Durban Review Conference was opened on April 20, 2009 by Holocaust denier Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad who said "The word Zionism personifies racism that falsely resorts to religion and abuses religious sentiments to hide their hatred and ugly faces." He also claimed that Israel was created on "the pretext of Jewish sufferings." Ahmadinejad was the only head of state handed a global megaphone by the UN at the Durban Review Conference. Navi Pillay and UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon refused to join the 26 states that walked out during this repugnant display of antisemitism. The only statements of NGOs condemning "a single issue conflict or group of people" during the Durban Review Conference that were never interrupted once by any participant or the Chair of the conference were all those who condemned Israel and the self-determination of the Jewish people. (Arab Commission for Human Rights, Badil Resource Center for Palestinian Residency and Refugee Rights,Al-Haq and Law in the Service of Man, Ittijah: Union of Arab Community Based Organizations, Federacion de Asociaciones de Defensa y Promocion Defensa De Los Derechos Humanos, International Trade Unions Confederation (ITUC) International Association of Democratic Lawyers (IADL) and Arab Organization for Human Rights (AOHR), International Organization for the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination (EAFORD), Independent Jewish Voices, Nord-Sud XXI and Union of Arab Jurists, Indian Movement Tupaj Amaru and World Peace Council (WPC), Habitat International Coalition (HIC), Canadian Arab Federation, International Islamic Federation of Student Organization (IIFSO)). Dangerous Pillay Falsehood Number 3: New OHCHR release, May 7, 2009 The Durban outcome document "represents the latest global consensus on how to fight all forms of racism." Reality Check The Durban II document does not represent a "global consensus." Ten leading democratic states boycotted the Durban Conference: United States, Canada, Australia, the Netherlands, Italy, Germany, New Zealand, Poland, the Czech Republic (currently head of the European Union) and Israel. Dangerous Pillay Falsehood Number 4: New OHCHR release, May 7, 2009 The Durban II declaration is "a carefully balanced and yet meaningful outcome enshrining a common aspiration: to defy racism in all its manifestations and work to stamp it out wherever it may occur." Reality check The Durban II conference actively prevented consideration of specific manifestations of racism and deliberately refused to identify such manifestations where they occur. The silence of its outcome on egregious manifestations of racism - including discrimination against Tibetans, ethnic cleansing ofBerbers and Bahais, genocide in Darfur, slavery victimizing migrants and minorities in the Arab world, and the murder and expulsion of Jews from Arab lands - is deafening.

For a complete source of information on Durban II see www.EYEontheUN.org/durban. EYEontheUN monitors the UN direct from UN Headquarters in New York. EYEontheUN brings to light the real UN record on the key threats to democracy, human rights, and peace and security in our time.EYEontheUN provides a unique information base for the re-evaluation of priorities and directions for modern-day democratic societies.

Technorati Tag: Israel and UN and Durban and Navi Pillay.

Obama And Israel: Following The Signs

In The Wages of Moral Equivalence, Victor Davis Hanson writes about the developing Israeli policy of the Obama administration:

The Obama outreach to Syria, the video sent to Iran, the failed Freeman appointment, the $1 billion to Hamas, the anti-Israeli figures in Obama's past (cf. the Wright outbursts, Khalidi, etc.), and the Al Arabiya interview all point to an "adjustment" in U.S. policy toward Israel — made easier by the victory of the rightist Netanyahu.

We are entering a new phase in which, for the first time since Jimmy Carter, an American administration really believes that land concessions back to 1967 will ipso facto ensure new mentalities that are not like those in 1967, when the Arab world on three occasions had gone to war to destroy the Jewish state within its 1947 borders.

If the Obama plan is successful, we would see Israel back to about the 1947-sized state, public professions of eternal peace — and then triumphalism from non-democratic players in the radical Islamic world to the effect that first Sinai, then Lebanon, then Gaza, then the West Bank, capped off with Jerusalem — and, for the next generation, the final task of the end of Israel itself.

Once U.S. foreign policy is based on moral equivalence — that a Western democratic state is about the same as an undemocratic, radical authoritarian entity that embraces terrorism as a tool of state policy — then anything is possible, from calling for Israeli nuclear disarmament as part of an Iranian deal, to pretending that a Hamas ten-year truce is something other than a decade of chest-thumping before the final assault.

Given the fact that the vast majority of American Jews voted for Obama — despite clear indications that he would embrace radical changes in U.S. policy toward Israel — the politics of what is to come will be as fascinating as they will be tragic.

I recall when Rahm Emanuel was appointed Obama's White House Chief of Staff, most pundits wrote that it was because of Emanuel's aggressiveness. One person at work claimed that the appointment was a sign of Obama's outreach to Jews and evidence of his friendliness towards Israel. 

I don't know--maybe the appointment was in part so that when Jews see what Obama is doing to Israel and cry foul, Obama can point to Emanuel and say, "I'm not anti-Israel--I even have a Chief of Staff who is Israeli!"

Technorati Tag: Israel and Obama.

When It Comes To Israel, Obma's Gaffes Are More Like Snubs

Given that Obama came to the White House without real experience, some gaffes and perceived snubs regarding US allies are to be expected. In Is Obama snubbing another foreign leader?, Foreign Policy reported in March:

...Brazil is already grumbling about the treatment of President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, who will sit down with Obama this weekend and is the first Latin American leader to visit the White House under the new administration.

Silva aides said the trip was pushed forward from Tuesday because of the St. Patrick's Day holiday - making Latin America once again look like an afterthought. Then, the White House announcement misspelled his name as "Luis Ignacio" and put "Lula" - a nickname that decades ago became a legal part of the Brazilian leader's name - in quotes.

That is small potatoes--and a result of oversight.

Other snubs are more than a matter of perception. In Jerusalem worried over breakdown of U.S.-Israel cooperation under Obama, Ha'aretz reports:

Senior officials in Jerusalem expressed concern recently over the sharp decline in the coordination between Israel and the United States on security and state affairs since President Barack Obama's entered the White House and especially since the formation of Israel's new government.

Senior White House officials told their Israeli counterparts that Obama will demand Netanyahu completely suspend construction in the settlements, the officials said.

"Obama's people brief their Israeli counterparts in advance much less about security and Middle East policy activities than the Bush administration used to," the officials said.

In addition, when they do brief Israeli officials, they don't consult with them or coordinate their statements in advance.

Assistant U.S. Secretary of State Rose Gottemoeller statement--calling on Israel to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty--came as a surprise to Israeli officials, who first heard of it from the media.

There are other examples of Israel being left in the dark as well:

...The American policy shift toward Syria and opening direct talks with Damascus followed minimal coordination with Israel. For example, Israel was not briefed about senior American diplomats' trip to Damascus, which the U.S. had initiated.

Another incident concerned U.S. envoy for Iranian affairs Dennis Ross' trip to the Gulf states a few days ago for talks on Iran. Israel was briefed on the trip in general details, but no consultations or message-coordination took place before the trip. In addition, Ross did not pass through Israel on his way to the Gulf or back to brief Israel on the talks' outcome.

The American policy toward Iran has remained generally ambiguous as far as Israel is concerned and the administration has not outlined to Israel its plan for a dialogue with Iran in an orderly way. Many of the details Israel learned about this plan were obtained via European channels.

Considering Israel's understandable concern with Iran, and the possibility that Israel may feel the need to act to prevent Iran's acquisition of nuclear arms, one might have though keeping Israel in the loop on some level might be a considerate--if not wise--thing to do. Then again, Obama's overtures to Iran have the rest of the region anxious as well.

So while Obama may be signaling that the US is eager to open a dialog with the Arab world, he has different agendas and his pursuit of talks with Iran are done at the expense of the good will he is trying to create in the Arab world pursuant to creating a second Palestinian state.

More at Memeorandum

Technorati Tag: Israel and Gaza and