Eugene Kontorovich finds nothing new in the'non-statehood' resolution that passed the United Nations on Thursday, except....
6) Abbas’s repeated refusal to heed any of America’s insistent and
increasingly pathetic requests (stop the resolution, or even tone it
down) represents a slap in the face for President Obama – a flat refusal
to cooperate or accomodate American (and many European) interests.
This
demonstrates the failure of Obama’s policy “outreach” towards the
Palestinians, and his general courting of the Arab world. Despite his
explicitly creating “space” between Israel and the US in his first term,
it has not made the Palestinians even the least bit tractable on any
issue, even when it comes to embarrassing the U.S.
Presumably all those who were indignant about Netanyahu’s purported
“defiance” of Obama will now take up the President’s honor against
Abbas.
7) Speaking of the President – credit where credit is due. I have previously criticized
the record of his first three years on Israel, and stand by that. My
criticism was always non-partisan. As I often point out, the Democratic
Party has always been in lock-step with the general American solicitude
for Israel, but Obama in his first three years took a different,
confrontational course.
In the year before the election, he switched gears. I am happy to
observe that since the election, his support of Israel has been what one
would expect of any generic American president. One suspects that
Abbas’s obvious rejection of any serious peace process, and his open use
of Obama as a cat’s paw, began to grate.
There's a /sarc tag missing at the end of Item 6, but Item 7 sounds really hopeful.
Once again, my college classmate, Rabbi Pruzansky, is excellent.
It should not be overlooked that the foundation for this vote was
laid by the Israelis many years ago. The Oslo Accords, whatever the
technical language, was obviously designed to create a Palestinian
state. That agreement was an explicit admission by the Jewish state that
the Jewish people are not the exclusive sovereigns in the land of
Israel, despite G-d’s eternal promises set forth in the Bible.
Governments of the left and the right embraced that outcome in one form
or another. Menachem Begin himself recognized (in 1978) the “legitimate
rights of the Palestinian people,” a phrase that stuck in his craw but
that he accepted based on his lawyerly interpretation that the words
“legitimate rights” could be interpreted to mean anything he wanted it
to mean and not what the other signatories understood it to mean. So the
chickens of Oslo, Lebanon, and Gush Katif have indeed come home to
roost.
And yet, whatever the psychological value (and most Arabs will
assume that the vote means something that it does not, and fire their
weapons in the air in celebration), the vote has no effect in the real
world. Nothing changes here, today, anymore that Arafat’s declaration of
statehood amounted to anything in 1988. A General Assembly vote has no
legal status at all. Abba Eban said it eloquently: “If Algeria
introduced a General Assembly resolution that the world is flat and that
Israel had flattened it, it would find overwhelming support in the Arab
world” and elsewhere. And he said it almost forty years ago. Nothing
has changed there, either.
Abbas still needs to be propped up by Israel. There is no
Palestinian state. The PA and Hamas are still bitter rivals, and Abbas
knows that his political career ends the moment the people are given the
right to vote him out, whenever that is. The UN carnival, typically,
just distracts the world from the real crises in the region – Iran’s
nuclear bomb, Syria’s civil war and Egypt’s ongoing unrest. Anyone who
still needs proof of the mendacity and hypocrisy rampant in the Arab
world needs to consider only the howls of protest when 150 Arabs were
killed and several hundred wounded in the clashes in Gaza – squeals that
were intended to awaken the world to the horrors of a nation (Israel)
exercising its right of self-defense – while the Arab world is dormant
at the massacres in Syria of more than 35,000 people, and the turmoil in
Egypt where already more than 500 people have been injured.
It’s not the civilian deaths or injury that seem to disturb the
Arab world and its malevolent allies across the world; it’s that the
cursed Jews are doing it, and in defense of their right to exist.
There are two obvious conclusions to this vote. One, that Oslo is
officially dead, and this declaration vitiates its very premises of
negotiations over final status issues, and, two, that the United States
is now bound by law to cut its funding of the Palestinian Authority. But
neither will happen and the blatant violations will be finessed,
because neither the US nor Israel has any real interest in changing the
dynamic of the struggle. That complicity is emblematic of the failures
of Israeli politicians for decades that have seen Israel’s strategic
position deteriorate slowly but inexorably.
Nonetheless, in the beleaguered town of Sderot, barely two miles
from Gaza and the recipient of thousands of missiles and rockets in the
last ten years, one encounters today personal strength and courage, a
desire to rebuild, lifelong residents who have no interest in moving to
safer zones. Their resilience is an inspiration to all Jews, and their
heroic story will yet be told. In the new communities built to house the
Jewish refugees driven out of Gaza in 2005, one encounters the same
determination, along with sadness about what was lost and the
unshakeable (and usually unmentioned) feeling of “I told you so,” the
unheeded warnings of what would befall Israel if they retreated under
pressure from Gaza.
All these brave souls have been betrayed by governments with
convoluted miscalculations, wishful thinking and illusions disguised as
policies, unkept promises repeated in every election cycle, or
statecraft that is often illogical and self-destructive.
The people of Israel deserve better; if only they would realize it and act upon it.
This may be speculation on my part, but based on who won and who lost in the Labor party primary on Thursday, I would venture to guess that Labor's voters are a lot more interested in returning the country to socialism (God forbid) than they are in the 'peace process.'
The proof? High placements of the likes of (former Welfare Minister) Yitzchak Herzog, (former Histadrut Labor Union Chairman) Amir 'Comrade' Peretz, (social protest leader) Stav Shafir and (student union head) Itzik Shmuly, and out-of-the-money placements for (selfish hypocrite) Noam Shalit and ('Peace Now' chairman) Yariv GoogleheimerOppenheimer.
The vote showed how much influence party leader Yacimovich has, as
opposed to the growing opposition within Labor led by MK Amir Peretz.
Yacimovich has tried in recent weeks to position Labor as a centrist
party, saying on Tuesday night that she hoped the list would not be “too
left-wing.”
Former defense minister Amir Peretz got the third spot, followed by Itan Cabel, former Haaretz columnist Merav Michaeli and MK Binyamin Ben-Eliezer. Herzog received 3,000 votes more than rival Peretz.
Peretz
told Israel Radio he is pleased with the results. "I'm very pleased
with what we got here today - both important experienced Labor members,
people I've aided, and new, young members that I believe will help the
Labor party," Peretz said.
Peretz stated he intends to "bring back
the diplomatic agenda to the negotiating table" in the 19th Knesset. "I
was the first to put the social topic on the agenda, but without peace
we can't fix the social issue," Peretz told Israel Radio.
Leaders
of the summer 2011 social protest Stav Shaffir and Itzik Shmuly also got
high spots, with Shaffir getting the 8th spot and Shmuly getting the
12th spot.
Michaeli and Yacimovich are not the only former
journalists to receive high spots on the party's list, investigative
journalist Mickey Rosental got the 13th spot on the list.
Noam Schalit came through just 39th
on list after he left his hi-tech job and met Labor members across the
country for a year, whilst Peace Now former secretary-general Yariv
Oppenheimer came in 27th.
Yacimovitch was trying to attract Tzipi Livni to run with her. Maybe she should send Livni Shalit and Oppenheimer instead.
Did Netanyahu put Israeli lives at risk to avoid attacking Hamas before the US election?
Jonathan Schanzer argues that Operation Pillar of Defense was a net positive for Prime Minister Netanyahu's relationship with President Obama, because Israel put off its hunting expedition for game-changing Fajr-5 rockets until after the US Presidential election.
For Israel, Pillar of Defense was not about killing terrorist
masterminds like Ahmed Jabari or blowing up Hamas headquarters. Those
were ancillary targets. This round of hostilities was actually a hunting
expedition for Fajr-5s.
As Israel's air force methodically struck these rocket sites, one
after the next, Hamas realized it was "use 'em or lose 'em." They began —
along with Palestinian Islamic Jihad – firing off their Iran-supplied
weapons. But even then, the Fajrs hurtled some 50 miles out of Gaza only
to be shot out of the skies over Tel Aviv by Iron Dome, an anti-missile
system developed jointly by the U.S. and Israel.
The Israelis claim to have destroyed most if not all of the Fajr-5s –
about 100, give or take – in the first few days of fighting. Only then,
after Israel had destroyed the bulk of the rockets, did Secretary of
State Hillary Clinton make any serious effort to pressure Egyptian
President Mohammed Morsy into brokering a ceasefire.
In other words, Operation Pillar of Defense bears unmistakable signs
of close coordination between Netanyahu and Obama. And while the White
House may not admit it in public, Netanyahu appears to have done
everything in his power to ensure that Israeli military operations did
not get in the way of Obama's bid for reelection.
If anything, Netanyahu may have put off striking the Fajr-5s until
well after the election, even if it put his own population at risk.
Of course, Obama and Netanyahu may yet come to loggerheads over when
and whether to attack Iran's nuclear sites. Even before that, Obama may
demand the Israelis return the favor, either by asking anew for a
settlement freeze, or even pushing Netanyahu to forgive PLO chief
Mahmoud Abbas' unilateral theatrics at the United Nations tomorrow.
But, for now, Pillar of Defense has resulted in a surprising new
understanding between two leaders who have struggled to find common
ground. And that's a victory for the U.S.-Israel relationship.
While the delay in the operation may have been positive for our relations with the US in the short term (and I'm not so sure even that can be said in the long run, although clearly Obama did not object to Israel's bombing Hamas for an entire week), I'm afraid it sets a bad precedent and that in the end Obama will not help us with Iran anyway. This story reminds me of Operation Desert Storm, where Israel sat back and absorbed rockets for the sake of the Bush (I) administration's coalition, and then found itself the target of a gang rape a couple months later in Madrid. What could go wrong?
One of the biggest of the holdings, between $50,000 and $100,000, according to Rice’s disclosure statement for 2011,
is Royal Dutch Shell. The international oil giant stopped buying crude
oil from Iran early this year as sanctions were tightened to block oil
exports by Iran and to stop financial transactions with its central
bank.
A company spokesman said officials dealing with Iran could
not be reached, but a person familiar with the company, speaking on the
condition of anonymity because of a lack of authorization to discuss the
topic, said Royal Dutch Shell owes Iran about $1 billion.
Rice
and her husband also own between $15,000 and $50,000 of stock in ENI,
the Italian international oil company. ENI has said that it is no longer
doing business with Iran, but it has a waiver from sanctions to enable
it to collect oil as payment for about $1 billion Iran owes the company
from earlier business deals. The company had been purchasing crude oil
and developing natural gas fields.
On Thursday, Republicans on
Capitol Hill began circulating information about Rice’s investments
connected to Iran. Asked about the disclosure revelations, one senior
GOP official, speaking on the condition of anonymity because he wasn’t
authorized to discuss the topic, said, “This news adds to the list of
questions about Susan Rice — not only her public statements, but now
there are broader concerns about her past record.” Democratic staffers
also said on condition of anonymity for the same reason that the
investments would prompt questions of her if she is nominated.
Several
ethics advisers interviewed Thursday said they did not see an immediate
problem with the Rice’s investments but suggested that people on such a
career track not hold stock in individual companies.
...
Rice is one of the richest members of the Obama Cabinet. She and her
husband, Ian Cameron, were worth between $23.5 million and $43.5 million
in 2009, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. Cameron, a
former television producer, is, like Rice, a Stanford University
graduate. His father owned Victoria Plywood, a lumber company in British Columbia.
Rice,
a Rhodes scholar, worked for the management consulting firm McKinsey
& Co. before joining the Clinton administration, where she served on
the National Security Council and later as assistant secretary of state
for african affairs. Her late father was an economics professor, World
Bank director and a governor of the Federal Reserve. Her mother is an
education expert and guest scholar at the Brookings Institution.
LATMA's tribal update featuring Morsy's letter from Obama and an ode to the man who fled too much
Latma's Tribal Update presents Egyptian President Morsi receives a
letter from Obama, the results of the Likud primaries and an ode to the
man who fled too much.
Disgraceful: Israeli police prevent burning 'Palestinian' flag
The Israeli police - who never act to prevent the burning of Israeli or American flags by 'Palestinians' - grabbed a 'Palestinian' flag away from two members of the Israeli Knesset on Thursday in order to prevent them from burning it. Then, since they could not arrest the Knesset members, who have legal immunity, they arrested three of the activists who accompanied the Knesset members.
Three right-wing activists were arrested on Thursday at a protest
outside the UN headquarters in east Jerusalem, after two members of
Knesset attempted to burn the Palestinian flag. MKs Michael Ben Ari and
Arieh Eldad (Strong Israel) wanted to burn the flag as a symbol of their
opposition to the Palestinian bid at the UN for observer status.
“We
will prevent any attempts to create a Palestinian state west of the
Jordan river,” Eldad said outside the UN Headquarters located in between
the neighborhoods of Arnon Hanatziv and Jebl Mukaber.
“The minute that Abu Mazen [PA President Mahmoud Abbas] begins his
speech, the Oslo accord is cancelled,” he said, since no state can take
unilateral actions.
“We will never agree to any foreign statehood other than the state of Israel in our homeland,” he added.
Dep. Cmdr of the Moriah precinct, Yaakov Cohen, asked the MKs not to
burn the flag. “This will disrupt public order and I ask you not to do
this,” he said.
“I ask that you take care of the terrorists before you take care of us,” Ben Ari retorted.
When
the MKs took out the Palestinian flag in order to burn it, police
forcibly tore the flag of their hands, initiating a short scuffle
between the twenty protesters and police.
Chanting “Strong
Israel!” and “No more Palestinians!” protesters screamed at police that
they had no right to stop them. Police arrested three right-wing
activists.
“There never was a Palestinian state and there never
will be a Palestinian state!” shouted an agitated Ben Ari as the protest
began to disband.
“Instead of taking care of our enemies they
are attacking members of Knesset. The UN is giving a tail wind to people
who are trying to destroy the state of Israel! Sixty five years ago
they gave us a little tiny piece of land. But this was ours and it will
always be ours – we don’t need them and we will never need them. This is
our land because it is our land, not because the UN gave it to us!” he
yelled.
Eldad slammed the police’s use of force. “This was not an
act to protect the order and the peace of Israeli society, it was a
violent act of the police against members of Knesset abusing their force
and preventing us as members of Knesset to express our objection to any
creation of a Palestinian state,” he said.
Let's go to the videotape.
Naftali Bennett, the new leader of Jewish Home, said on Thursday that the United Nations 'mess' is the result of Israel's schizophrenic policies.
"You can't support the establishment of a Palestinian state on the
one hand, and on the other – wonder when the world takes action to
establish it," he said. "This is schizophrenic policymaking."
Bennett added that "intensive negotiations" are underway with Ichud
Leumi (National Union) with the aim of unifying the two parties in a
common list ahead of the national elections.
"This is being carried out good-naturedly," he said. "I have
instructed the negotiations team to respect the other guys, and make
sure that unity is accomplished."
Bennett also denied having made a statement attacking Moshe Feiglin,
which has been attributed to him recently. "I respect him, and know he
is a man with values who loves our land and nation," he added.
Cartoon video: Israel has the right to defend itself
This extremely clever video is going viral - 110,000 views in two days. If you cannot figure out what's happening from the fact that the bully is wearing green and the bullied is wearing blue and white, you can find a full explanation here.
Let's go to the videotape.
And if I weren't in mourning, I would add a video of Bob Dylan's Neighborhood Bully at the bottom, so you can all go find that one yourselves.
How Hamas and Islamic Jihad use 'journalism' as a cover for terrorism
The IDF has documented the use of journalism as a cover for terrorism by Hamas and Islamic Jihad. It's not just that the terrorists are using media buildings as hiding places. Some of them are actually journalists by day and terrorists by night.
Al-Shamalah had no connection to anything media-related. But that
isn’t the case for all Hamas and Islamic Jihad operatives who try to
claim the title of “journalist”. Some of them do, in fact, carry
cameras, but they are paid by a terrorist organization, and they are
serving the goals of a terrorist organization.
For example, Mahmoud Al-Kumi and Hussam Salama [pictured] were Hamas operatives
and cameramen for Hamas’ Al-Aqsa television network, which regularly
features programming that encourages and praises attacks on Israeli civilians. The IDF targeted Al-Kumi and Salama on Nov. 20.
Faced with serious accusations of Al-Aqsa TV’s connections to terrorism, the head of the network, Mohammad Thouraya, denied that Al-Aqsa was the voice of Hamas — a hard fact to deny, since the channel is financed and controlled by Hamas — but he did admit that his employees were “all part of the resistance.”
Being “part of the resistance”, in other words, could mean that those
carrying a camera during the day could be carrying rockets at night.
Another example: Mohammed Abu Aisha was an employee of Al-Quds Radio,
which some media outlets have labeled an “educational” network. Abu
Aisha was also an Islamic Jihad terrorist, and that’s why his car was targeted in an IDF airstrike on Nov. 20. Abu Aisha appears on Islamic Jihad’s official website — in an Islamic Jihad uniform.
A rebel fighter who identified himself as Abu Omar, a member of the Jund
Allah brigade, told Reuters that insurgents fired mortars at the
airport's runways and were blocking the road linking it with the
capital.
He said insurgents were not inside the airport but were able to block access to and from it.
Another
source in a Damascus rebel unit said mortars had been used in clashes
near the airport but did not know whether rebels had fired mortars
directly at the airport.
Their accounts could not be immediately verified because of severe restrictions on media access to Syria.
Two
Austrian soldiers in a UN peacekeeping force deployed in the Golan
Heights, disputed by Syria and Israel, were wounded when their convoy
came under fire near the Damascus airport, the defense ministry said in
Vienna.
An official at EgyptAir said it had cancelled its Friday
flight to Damascus due to the "deteriorating situation" around the
airport. He said the airline would hold an urgent meeting in the next
few hours with Egyptian officials to discuss halting all flights between
Egypt and Syria.
Residents also reported Internet connections in
the capital were down and mobile and land telephone lines working only
sporadically in what appeared to be the worst disruption to
communications in Syria since an uprising began 20 months ago.
Syria's
minister of information claimed that "terrorists", not the state, were
responsible for a countrywide Internet outage, a pro-government TV
station said.
It looks like the game may soon be over in Syria. Unfortunately, the country is about to fall to al-Qaeda.
An Iranian Jewish woman has been murdered in Isfahan by Muslims who obviously misinterpreted the Koran's calls for peaceful coexistence.
Muslim extremists murdered a Jewish woman and then dismembered her body in the Iranian city of Isfahan, Israel Radio reported.
The
woman's relatives said that a mosque had recently been built near their
home, and that worshippers had demanded that the family leave their
home in order to expand the building. The homeowner had submitted an
official compaint against the worshippers.
So far I have not heard any comment from New York Times columnist Roger Cohen.
Europeans more supportive of 'Palestinians' than a year ago
The Washington Post printed the map above, which shows how (mostly) the Europeans voted on the 'Palestinian' issue at the United Nations on Thursday.
A comparison of Thursday's vote with last year's vote on UNESCO does not bode well for Europe's relations with Israel, or for the so-called 'peace process.'
Here are the big changes between the 2011 vote and today’s:
Five countries switched from “abstain” to “yes”: Italy, Denmark, Switzerland, Portugal, Georgia.
Three countries switched from “no” to “abstain”: Germany, Netherlands, Lithuania.
One country switched from “no” to “yes”: Sweden.
One country was absent: Ukraine, which had abstained in 2011. It happens.
Excluding Ukraine’s absence, that means that nine European countries
moved their votes in a way that suggests greater support for Palestinian
U.N. statehood efforts. That might just be about these two particular
U.N. votes and nothing more, or it might represent shifting European
diplomatic energy away from the Israeli-Palestinian peace process (the
U.S. and Israel have warned that approving the Palestinians’ bid would
undermine the process) and toward supporting more such unilateral
Palestinian efforts.
It is difficult to see good news here for Israel or for the U.S.-led peace process.
Video: 'Palestinian' children talk about being suicide bombers
Here's a video that's mostly 'Palestinian' children talking about how they want to be suicide bombers and destroy Israel.
This is why there will not be peace between Israel and the 'Palestinians' in your lifetime or mine, because these kids have been brainwashed into thinking that all life is about is making sure you kill as many people as possible when you die.
This video was mainly taken in Jenin about ten years ago. I actually know one of the people in it.
UN grants non-member state status to non-existent state of 'Palestine'
The United Nations on Thursday granted non-member state status to the non-existent state of 'Palestine.' The vote was 138-9 with 41 abstentions.
"We did not come here seeking to delegitimize a state
established years ago, and that is Israel; rather we came to affirm the
legitimacy of the state that must now achieve its independence, and that
is Palestine," he said.
"We did not come here to add further
complications to the peace process, which Israel’s policies have thrown
into the intensive care unit; rather we came to launch a final serious
attempt to achieve peace," he said. "Our endeavor is not aimed at
terminating what remains of the negotiations process, which has lost its
objective and credibility, but rather aimed at trying to breathe new
life into the negotiations and at setting a solid foundation for it
based on the terms of reference of the relevant international
resolutions in order for the negotiations to succeed."
Abbas said
that the Palestinians will accept no less than "the independence of the
State of Palestine, with east Jerusalem as its capital, on all the
Palestinian territory occupied in 1967, to live in peace and security
alongside the State of Israel, and a solution for the refugee issue on
the basis of resolution 194."
Well, it doesn't sound like there's going to be a 'Palestinian state' anytime soon. That unelected putz isn't going to dictate terms to us.
Abbas said nothing about
immediately resuming negotiations with Israel without preconditions,
though he did pledge to "act responsibly and positively in our next
steps, and we will to work to strengthen cooperation with the countries
and peoples of the world for the sake of a just peace."
Well, of course he didn't. Why should he when the duplicitous Europeans will vote with him anyway?
Among the few states that voted against the move, were the US, Canada, the Czech Republic, Micronesia, and the Solomon Islands.
The
resolution was presented to the General Assembly by the representative
of Sudan, who called this a victory for the "values of truth."
Staunch
European allies such as Germany and the Netherlands, who opposed
Palestinian admission into UNESCO last year as a state, were among those
who this time only abstained. And other friendly countries, such as
Italy, voted for the move.
The vote took place on the annual "Observance of the International Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian People.
Senior
diplomatic officials voiced deep disappointment at the EU vote. Up
until a few days ago, when France declared that it would support the
move, senior officials held out hope that the EU might abstain as a
bloc, something that would have deprived the Palestinian Authority of a
moral victory.
One senior official said that the recent fighting
in Gaza tipped the European scales, with the Europeans worrying that if
PA Authority President Mahmoud Abbas would not gain some kind of
diplomatic victory, he would loses all stature and authority.
"Had the vote taken place before the Gaza operation, the EU would have voted differently," one official said.
Yeah. All we had to do was to let a few more Jews get murdered and the Euroweenies would vote differently....
The Prime Minister's Office issued a statement after Abbas' speech,
saying that by going to the UN the Palestinians have "violated
agreements with Israel, and Israel will act accordingly." Israel has
made clear in recent days that it would free Israel of its obligations
under the Oslo accord since Jerusalem views the move as a blatant
violation of the underlying principle of those agreements: that all
outstanding issues be resolved through negotiations, not through
unilateral actions.
Israel's immediate reaction is expected to be
the deduction from tax transfers it makes to the PA each moth of some
NIS 800 million the PA owes to the Israel Electric Corporation. Further
steps are expected if the Palestinians use this new status and try to
join other UN bodies or, as a result of their enhanced status, attempt
to haul Israel or Israelis before the International Court of Justice or
the International Criminal Court on war crime charges.
The United States has finally given Iran a deadline to stop playing games with the IAEA and start cooperating: March 2013.
The comments by US diplomat Robert Wood to the 35-nation governing board
of the UN International Atomic Energy Agency signaled Washington's
growing frustration at the lack of results in the IAEA's inquiry into
possible military dimensions to Tehran's nuclear program. Iran denies
the charge.
"If by March Iran has not begun substantive cooperation with the IAEA,
the United States ... would urge the board to consider reporting this
lack of progress to the UN Security Council," Wood said, according to a
copy of his statement.
"Iran cannot be allowed to indefinitely ignore its obligations ... Iran must act now, in substance," Wood said.
IAEA chief Yukiya Amano earlier on Thursday said the UN agency had made no progress in a year-long push to find out if Iran worked on developing an atomic bomb, despite "intensive efforts" by his agency.
"No
concrete results have been achieved," Yukiya Amano, director general of
the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), told a quarterly meeting
of the 35-nation governing board of the United Nations' nuclear
watchdog.
I'm sure Iran is laughing all the way to the bank. By the time the case is referred to the Security Council in March, they should already have a nuclear weapon. And even if they don't, it will take many more months for the Security Council to decide when and how to act. And even if the Security Council decides to act, Russia and China will make sure that no serious action is taken.
For this she's going back into politics? Personally, I'd rather practice law.
The Tzipi Livni Party, which the former Kadima leader formed
with great fanfare Tuesday, would win no more seats than United Torah
Judaism, according to a Smith Research poll conducted Tuesday and
Wednesday for The Jerusalem Post and the Globes business daily.
The
poll of 500 Israelis representing a sample of the adult population
found that Livni's party would win six seats, much less than she
envisioned when she declared herself the only possible alternative to
Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu at a press conference Tuesday.
Livni's party swallowed up retiring Defense Minister Ehud Barak's
Independence Party and took away seats from Yesh Atid and Labor. Livni's
former Kadima party would not pass the electoral threshold.
But
The Tzipi Livni Party, as her associates asked that it be called, would
only be the third largest list on the Center-Left, trailing Labor, which
would win 20 seats and Yesh Atid, which would win 10.
The poll
found that Livni's party would take no seats away from the Center-Right
bloc, which remained strong with 68 mandates, up three from the current
Knesset.
Two comments: The Tzipi Livni party? Good grief. Well, no one ever said that the woman has no ego.
And the implosion of Kadima is amazing. It is the largest party in the current Knesset, and yet it likely won't even make the threshold. That's amazing.
I posted this
on r/worldpolitics, and somebody told me I should do an AMA, not sure
if you'd be interested. I'm sure most of this information is new to you
considering the considerable lack of media reporting on the issue. FYI,
I'm a Palestinian refugee from Lebanon. Here's the proof.
Let me start with a couple of countries:
Lebanon
Around half of the 400,000 refugees live in camps, deprived of many
rights. Refugees don't have any property rights, no access to the
Lebanese healthcare system and there are certain restrictions on jobs we
are allowed to do. We are issued handwritten [travel documents](www.passport-collector.com/2011/08/10/lebanon-refugee-passport-for-palestine/)
of appalling quality (large size, cheap paper). The travel documents
don't even have a full date of birth, just the birth year. You probably
know about the Sabra and Chatila massacre (from the movie Waltz with
Bashir, perhaps my favorite animated movie) were 3000 Palestinian
civilians were killed in cold blood. These are at the top of my head,
I'm sure there's more. This is what a British MP Gerald Kaufman said in
2011 when he visited the camps:
When I went to Gaza in 2010 I thought I had seen the worst that could
be seen of the appalling predicament of Palestinians living in
conditions which no human being should be expected to endure. But what I
saw in the camps in Lebanon is far worse and far more hopeless. The
conditions are unspeakable, but for over 400,000 of our fellow human
beings this is their life: today, tomorrow and for a future that cannot
even be foreseen. At least in Gaza, frightful though the situation is,
the people are free within the confines of their blockaded prison. In
the camps of Lebanon they are not free.
UPDATE1: Since many here are blaming the PLO and its
involvement in the civil war. That's definitely true to a large extent,
however you're missing a few points. Most Palestinians refugees were
placed in camps in south Lebanon when they arrived. These camps were
gradually militarized and became the grounds for operations against
Israel and because the PLO had so much power back then, they started
making trouble and trying to control part of the country. So had the
Lebanon absorbed it's Palestinian population properly, this wouldn't
have happened. Look at the Palestinians of Syria, they didn't make any
trouble and didn't start any wars, why? Because they were treated like
equal citizens. Also, FYI, Lebanon naturalized more than 100,000
Palestinian Christians and Shiites. Second, who do you think was funding
the militarization of the PLO? THE ARAB GOVERNMENTS, whether it's Saudi
Arabia or Iraq or some other Arab country.
What do I want from Lebanon as a Palestinian refugee? Some of
you say that naturalizing 450,000 Palestinians would be a strain on the
country. You think that much Palestinian refugees aren't already a
strain? Everyone knows if Lebanon naturalizes Palestinians the whole
debt Lebanon has would disappear. I'm not exactly fond of naturalization
myself though. However, so many laws can be quickly enacted that will
significantly improve the life of a refugee, like property law or proper
ID and passports formats that aren't from the 1950's. Also, you say
that refugees put a strain on Lebanon. Mind you that a large number of
Palestinians work abroad and they all send money to their families in
Lebanon so they contribute a lot to the Lebanese economy. Hell, I've
been told the Lebanese lira dropped significantly when the PLO left the
country in 1982. One more thing, all Lebanese factions and leaders
involved in the civil war are now reigning free in the country many of
them ministers or MPs, the same people that committed massacres towards
their fellow Lebanese. Nobody was punished for the civil war, except for
the Palestinians. Why? Because they're not Lebanese, so it's perfectly
fine to discriminate against them.
I just want to make sure that none of you missed this part:
Moral of the story: Israel naturalized over 1.5 million Palestinians.
They enjoy full citizen rights and many of them would remain in Israel
even if a Palestinian state is established. Palestinians in the Arab
world on the other hand suffer from discernible and vile discrimination.
If a non-Palestinian Arab speaks of the maltreatment of Palestinians by
Israelis, tell them to STFU and demand rights for Palestinians in their
countries before they complain about Israel. People living glass houses
shouldn't throw stones.
Jewish group to be barred from UN vote on 'Palestine'
Breitbart.com reports that theUnited Nations has barred a Jewish group from being present at Thursday's General Assembly fiasco over 'Palestine.'
For kick-off day and the vote at the General Assembly, which is
supposed to be all about mutual respect and coexistence, “Palestine” has
teamed up with the “UN Division for Palestinian Rights” and UN
officials to pack the Assembly hall with Palestine supporters while
denying access to a prominent Jewish organization.
Staging thunderous applause with no discernible dissent for the
unsuspecting global media is evidently a top Palestinian priority.
The extraordinary scheme to deny access to the General Assembly to an
unpalatable, though formally accredited, UN NGO looked like this.
Yesterday, the UN Division for Palestinian Rights sent a letter to
the UN pass office to insist that they step in to deny invitees of the
UN-accredited Touro Institute on Human Rights and the Holocaust, the
passes they had duly requested in writing. (A copy of the letter follows
this article, below.)
The passes had in fact already been printed and issued (see below),
but after receiving the Palestinian branch's demand, UN security
officials took the extraordinary step of insisting upon their return.
The denial affects 23 Jewish young adults who were part of an
educational program associated with the Taglit-Birthright Israel alumni
community.
The Jewish group had requested passes for November 29, 2012 to attend
separate events: the “UN Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian People”
in the morning and, the General Assembly debate on “The Question of
Palestine” which commences at 3 p.m. in the afternoon. Solidarity Day is
an annual event that takes place on the anniversary of the General
Assembly vote of November 29, 1947 to partition Palestine into a Jewish
and an Arab state. Sixty-five years ago, the resolution was immediately
rejected by all Arab countries, but welcomed by the soon-to-be citizens
of Israel.
Solidarity Day is widely advertised, including on the UN website,
with the words “NGOs are invited to attend.” Furthermore, the
Taglit-Birthright Israel alumni completed individual registration forms
and submitted them to the host of Solidarity Day, the Division for
Palestinian Rights (which is part of the UN Department of Political
Affairs). And the Division sent out letters of acceptance. However, yesterday the same UN employee, one Mable Chan, reneged on the confirmations and abruptly sent emails to the suddenly-rejected Jewish and pro-Israel participants claiming the event was “filled.”
Mahmoud al-Kumi and Hussam Salama worked as cameramen for Al-Aqsa TV,
which is run by Hamas and whose reporting frequently reflects that
affiliation. They were covering events in central Gaza when a missile
struck their car, which, according to Al-Aqsa, was clearly marked with
the letters “TV.” (The car just in front of them was carrying a
translator and driver for The New York Times, so the execution hit close
to our organization.) And Mohamed Abu Aisha, director of the private
Al-Quds Educational Radio, was also in a car when it was hit by a
missile.
Now let’s say that being identified as a major Hamas military
commander in a news story prior to the Gaza war isn’t enough evidence to
warrant a second look. (Also suppose that you’re unconvinced by this
martyr’s tribute to one of the other “journalists” on the website of the
terrorist group Islamic Jihad.) Let’s zoom out and look at the media
affiliation itself. Two of the men that Carr mourns worked for the
Hamas-affiliated Al-Aqsa TV, which he acknowledges in his
story–apparently in the belief that Hamas’ TV network plays by
similar-enough rules, and serves as similar-enough social function, to
be thought of as Gaza’s CNN.
But that’s simply not true, which is why Al-Aqsa TV, has been designated
by the United States Treasury as a terrorist financing organization.
“Al-Aqsa is a primary Hamas media outlet and airs programs and music
videos designed to recruit children to become Hamas armed fighters and
suicide bombers upon reaching adulthood,” notes the 2010 press release.
“‘Treasury will not distinguish between a business financed and
controlled by a terrorist group, such as Al-Aqsa Television, and the
terrorist group itself,’ [Treasury Secretary Stuart] Levey said.”
Now Col. Avital Leibovitch has a letter in the New York Times objecting to the column, Terrorist or journalist?
The real question raised by Mr. Carr’s column is whether a station
that is ideologically motivated and subsidized by a terrorist
organization deserves the same treatment as CNN or The New York Times.
Moreover, should a Hamas commander who painted the words “TV” on his car
be considered a journalist?
Mr. Carr is quick to incriminate the Israel Defense Forces for targeting
journalists, but he does not mention that terrorists are actively
exploiting journalists as shields.
Mr. Carr is worried about freedom of the press and rightly so. However,
when terrorist organizations exploit reporters, either by posing as them
or by hiding behind them, they are the immediate threat to freedom of
the press.
I think we can all agree that the Gaza rocket fire is reprehensible
and is aimed at terrorizing Israeli civilians. It’s disruptive and
traumatic. But let’s be clear: The overwhelming majority of rockets
fired from Gaza are like bee stings on the Israeli bear’s behind.
These rockets are unguided and erratic, and they carry very small
explosive payloads; they generally fall in open areas, causing little
damage and fewer injuries.
...
Gaza, meanwhile, is almost entirely urban and densely populated; bombs
there will kill civilians no matter how precisely targeted.
The Israeli ambassador to the United States, Michael Oren, responded to Pexton's column (which is linked to but not explicitly named) in an op-ed today, Falling for Hamas’s media manipulation:
In reporting Palestinian deaths, media routinely failed to note that
roughly half were terrorists and that such a ratio is exceedingly low by
modern military standards — much lower, for example, than the NATO
campaign in the Balkans. Media also emphasize the disparity between the
number of Palestinian and Israeli deaths, as though Israel should be
penalized for investing billions of dollars in civil-defense and
early-warning systems and Hamas exonerated for investing in bombs rather
than bomb shelters. As in Israel’s last campaign against Hamas in
2008-09, the word “disproportionality” has been frequently used to
characterize Israeli military strikes. In fact, during Operation Pillar
of Defense this year, Hamas fired more than 1,500 missiles at Israel and
the Israeli Air Force responded with 1,500 sorties.
The imbalance is also of language. “Hamas health officials said 45 had
been killed and 385 wounded,” the Times’ front page reported. “Three
Israeli civilians have died and 63 have been injured.” The subtext is
clear: Israel targets Palestinians, and Israelis merely die.
The media perpetuated Hamas propaganda that traced the fighting to
Jabari’s elimination and described Gaza as the most densely populated
area on earth. Widely forgotten were the 130 rockets fired at Israel in
the weeks before Jabari’s demise. For the record, Tel Aviv’s population
is twice as dense as Gaza’s.
2) The editors on the bid
The New York Times has an editorial, The U.N. bid from Palestinians. There is little to object to in the opening paragraphs of the editorial:
On Thursday, a week after the Gaza cease-fire between Hamas and
Israel, the Palestinian Authority, which controls parts of the West
Bank, is scheduled to ask the United Nations General Assembly to upgrade
the Palestinian status to nonmember observer state.
The 193-member body is expected to approve the application. That support
has grown since the Gaza fighting, with France and other European
nations declaring their backing for the Palestinian bid — in part as a
way to bolster the more moderate Palestinian forces, which recognize
Israel’s right to exist and seek a two-state solution.
But passage of the resolution — which would allow the Palestinians to
try to join the International Criminal Court, where they might be able
to bring cases against Israel — would not get the Palestinians any
closer to statehood. A negotiated deal with Israel is the only way to
ensure creation of a viable Palestinian state and guarantee Israel’s
security.
There is a notable omission. A year and a half ago, Abbas wrote an op-ed
in the New York Times advocating this lawfare strategy against Israel.
That underscores the overall problem with the editorial.
The rest of the editorial portrays Abbas as a hapless participant in
Middle East peace processing. But he's one of the reasons there has been
no progress since 2008. He refused to respond to an offer from then
Prime Minister Olmert and once Netanyahu was elected, he waited for
American pressure on Netanyahu to get what he wanted with no
negotiation. (The truth is that Hamas is too powerful. Any agreement
Israel achieved with Fatah - assuming one could be reached - would be
worthless.)
The Palestinian leader has hinted at a couple of different and
contradictory courses. One would involve immediately entering into
direct peace negotiations with Israel — something Mr. Abbas has refused
to do for almost all of the past four years. A spokesman said this month
that after the U.N. vote “the way will be open to direct talks,” and
Mr. Abbas himself made a conciliatory-sounding statement about the
Palestinian claim of a “right of return” to Israel, though he later
retreated from it. By engaging the government of Benjamin Netanyahu in
unconditional talks, Mr. Abbas could force it to spell out its bottom
line on terms for Palestinian statehood — something that, thanks to Mr.
Abbas’s intransigence, this Israeli government has never had to do.
Mr. Abbas’s advisers, however, have also talked of another strategy:
using the new U.N. status to bring cases against Israel in the
International Criminal Court and possibly other international forums,
while describing its continued occupation of parts of the West Bank as
an act of international aggression. This would cheer many opponents of
Israel, but it would also provoke a backlash from European governments
as well as Israel and the United States, which would probably respond by
cutting off funding to the cash-strapped authority once and for all.
Meanwhile, any U.N. agency Palestine sought to join would probably find
itself, like UNESCO, contemplating the loss of the one-fifth of its
budget supplied by Congress.
At age 77, Mr. Abbas may well shrink from either course, instead
claiming the U.N. vote as his legacy. For the umpteenth time, there are
efforts underway to broker a reconciliation between Fatah and Hamas;
this could lead to long-overdue Palestinian elections, along with Mr.
Abbas’s retirement. Though touted by the Obama administration as a
peacemaker, the Palestinian leader appears unwilling to commit himself
to the concessions that would be needed for a deal with any Israeli
government. Meanwhile, with Israeli elections due in January, Mr.
Netanyahu appears to be more dependent than ever on nationalist
hard-liners in his Likud Party.
Reconciliation between Fatah and Hamas, of course, will end the peace
process. (Ironically, the Post worries about Israeli hard-liners, but
seems unbothered by the presence of the unreformed terrorist
organization in the Palestinian government.) At least the Post, unlike
the Times acknowledges that Abbas is part of the problem, not some
innocent swept up in events out of his control.
Rather than watch another sterile round of diplomatic maneuvering
among Abbas, Netanyahu and Obama, Egypt seems bent on overseeing another
attempt to broker a reconciliation between the Palestinian factions. In
the short run this would prevent peace negotiations, to the
satisfaction of hard-liners on both sides. But in the long run it might
make a deal more possible. Palestinian elections — a likely part of any
internal accord — could bring in new and stronger leaders. Meanwhile
Morsi’s government will have to choose between pushing the Palestinians
toward an accord with Israel or tolerating growing instability on
Egypt’s border. Even if no comprehensive peace is possible, the new regional
alignment may allow Israel and Hamas to work out a modus vivendi that
benefits both sides. In exchange for more open borders and an
opportunity to develop economically with backing from its new Arab
allies, Hamas could agree to a more thorough and reliable truce that
leaves southern Israel in peace. That’s a long way from real peace — but
it’s better for both sides than going to war every couple of years.
When I first read this, I thought he was hyping Hamas too much. It's not
as bad as my first impression, I still think he gives Hamas too much
credit. The reliability of a truce with Hamas will depend on how well
Israel is able to police the situation.
Hamas is engaged in a subtle campaign to win the sympathy of the
international community by appearing as if it is ready to abandon its
dream of destroying Israel. Mashaal's remarks should be seen in the
context of a new Hamas tactic aimed at turning the radical Islamist
movement into a legitimate and recognized player in the international
and regional arenas.
Those who have been misled into believing Hamas's lies should be
referred to the movement's charter, where it is clearly stated that "The
Islamic Resistance Movement believes that the land of Palestine has
been an Islamic Waqf throughout the generations and until the Day of
Resurrection, no one can renounce it or part of it, or abandon it or
part of it…the liberation of that land is an individual duty binding on
all Muslims everywhere. When our enemies usurp some Islamic lands, Jihad
[holy war] becomes a duty binding on all Muslims."
The next time CNN or any other Western media outlet interviews a Hamas
leader, it would be advisable to ask him whether his movement was
willing to change its charter. Unless Hamas does so, the talk about
changes in its strategy only serves to spread the movement's campaign of
deception.
International relations: they played out well, don't you think? If
there was any light between the Israeli and American governments, I
didn't see it. William Hague, a British fellow not know for giving
pro-Zionist speeches, was supportive. His German counterpart traveled
over to say Israel has a right to defend itself and Hamas has no right
to be shooting at Israeli civilains. The UN passed no resolutions - and
now won't set up any new version of the Goldstone Commission, either.
None of this happened by accident. Israel doesn't get international
support by default, and certainly not at time of war. Just as with the
the military and media aspects, someone worked hard in advance to
achieve the result. Syrian bestiality helped, as did blatant Hamas
ciminality, but the diplomats have apparently been earning their upkeep
by the sweat of their luggage.
For Israel, Pillar of Defense was not about killing terrorist
masterminds like Ahmed Jabari or blowing up Hamas headquarters. Those
were ancillary targets. This round of hostilities was actually a hunting
expedition for Fajr-5s.
As Israel's air force methodically struck these rocket sites, one after
the next, Hamas realized it was "use 'em or lose 'em." They began —
along with Palestinian Islamic Jihad – firing off their Iran-supplied
weapons. But even then, the Fajrs hurtled some 50 miles out of Gaza only
to be shot out of the skies over Tel Aviv by Iron Dome, an anti-missile
system developed jointly by the U.S. and Israel.
...
In other words, Operation Pillar of Defense bears unmistakable signs of
close coordination between Netanyahu and Obama. And while the White
House may not admit it in public, Netanyahu appears to have done
everything in his power to ensure that Israeli military operations did
not get in the way of Obama's bid for reelection.
In an earlier post, I reported that FIFA, the international soccer soccer federation, is going to pay the costs of rebuilding Gaza's bombed out soccer stadium for the second time since 2006.
In case you are wondering why the IAF destroyed the stadium in the first place, here's an image that was released by the IDF (I had previously seen a much smaller version that wasn't very useful, and I saw this one this morning). Note that the stadium had been used to launch Fajr-5 rockets at both Tel Aviv and Jerusalem.
Finally: An Israeli government representative speaks out against media bias
This is the first time I can remember a senior Israeli government representative going after the media directly for its anti-Israel bias. Michael Oren rips the media for its slanting the news in Thursday morning's Washington Post.
But Hamas also has a media strategy. Its purpose is to portray
Israel’s unparalleled efforts to minimize civilian casualties in Gaza as
indiscriminate firing at women and children, to pervert Israel’s
rightful acts of self-defense into war crimes. Its goals are to isolate
Israel internationally, to tie its hands from striking back at those
trying to kill our citizens and to delegitimize the Jewish State. Hamas
knows that it cannot destroy us militarily but believes that it might do
so through the media.
One reason is the enlarged images of
destruction and civilian casualties in Gaza that dominated the front
pages of U.S. publications. During this operation, The Post published
multiple front-page photographs of Palestinian suffering. The New York
Times even juxtaposed a photograph of the funeral of Hamas commander
Ahmed Jabari, who was responsible for the slaughter of dozens of
innocent Israelis, with that of a pregnant Israeli mother murdered by
Hamas. Other photos, supplied by the terrorists and picked up by the
press, identified children killed by Syrian forces or even by Hamas
itself as victims of Israeli strikes.
In reporting Palestinian
deaths, media routinely failed to note that roughly half were terrorists
and that such a ratio is exceedingly low by modern military standards —
much lower, for example, than the NATO campaign in the Balkans. Media
also emphasize the disparity between the number of Palestinian and
Israeli deaths, as though Israel should be penalized for investing
billions of dollars in civil-defense and early-warning systems and Hamas
exonerated for investing in bombs rather than bomb shelters. As in
Israel’s last campaign against Hamas in 2008-09, the word
“disproportionality” has been frequently used to characterize Israeli
military strikes. In fact, during Operation Pillar of Defense this year,
Hamas fired more than 1,500 missiles at Israel and the Israeli Air
Force responded with 1,500 sorties.
The imbalance is also of language. “Hamas health officials said 45
had been killed and 385 wounded,” the Times’ front page reported. “Three
Israeli civilians have died and 63 have been injured.” The subtext is
clear: Israel targets Palestinians, and Israelis merely die.
The media perpetuated Hamas propaganda that traced the fighting
to Jabari’s elimination and described Gaza as the most densely
populated area on earth. Widely forgotten were the 130 rockets fired at
Israel in the weeks before Jabari’s demise. For the record, Tel Aviv’s population is twice as dense as Gaza’s.
I constantly hear justified complaints about how Israel has no media strategy and doesn't do hasbara properly. I can't think of a better answer to both of those claims than having our ambassador go after the host country's media for being biased against Israel. I hope that others in the diplomatic corps will follow suit.
BBC reporters rooting for 'Palestinian state' on Twitter
I suppose that these twotweets shouldn't surprise anyone who has a clue just how biased the BBC is against Israel.
3 weeks ago would have said Abbas's UN bid was non event but Gaza has put Pals back on agenda. #Abbas needs a big day to try & salvage rep.
— Jon Donnison (@JonDonnison) November 29, 2012
#UN General Assembly vote on #Palestine status significant moment. Not just symbolic.
— Jeremy Bowen (@BowenBBC) November 29, 2012
Why a 'Palestinian state' was a bad idea in 1989 and is a worse one today
In February 1989, Professor Louis Rene Beres wrote an article in which he discussed why a 'Palestinian state' is a bad idea for Israel. The article was positively prescient (well, maybe except for the part about Iraq which no one could have foreseen). Arutz Sheva reprints it with two small updates in brackets.
The following article appears exactly as it was written by Professor Louis René Beres more than 23 years ago, except
for two editor's comments in brackets. It is important to reconsider at
this particular moment, in late November 2012, when the Palestinian
Authority leadership, in a diplomatic end-run around still-binding
international legal obligations to Israel, expects to receive formal
U.N. recognition as a nonmember observer state.
A pair of prominent Israeli
commentators has recently pointed out that continued control of the
"territories" – that is, Judea and Samaria - would have grave
consequences for Israel's security. In this connection, Yehoshafat
Harkabi, a former chief of military intelligence (AMAN), argues, in his newest book, ISRAEL'S FATEFUL HOUR,
that a refusal to end “occupation” of West Bank (Judea/Samaria) and
Gaza will produce escalating terrorism and further incentives for war by
neighboring Arab states. Abba Eban, Foreign Minister of Israel from
1966 to 1974, insists in a January 2, 1989 editorial in The New York Times ("Israel, Hardly the Monaco of the Middle East"),
that Israel would have nothing to fear from an independent “Palestine.”
Such a state, he claimed, "would be the weakest military entity on
earth."
In these assessments, Harkabi
is certainly correct, but nowhere does he compare the risks to Israel
of an ongoing "occupation" with those of a Palestinian state. If he had
offered such a comparison, perhaps he would have understood that
continuing Israeli administrative control of Judea/Samaria/Gaza would
certainly have its risks, but that a bordering state of Palestine would
be far worse. As for Mr. Eban, he is wrong altogether.
If there were to be an
Arab-ruled state in Judea/Samaria/Gaza, its particular danger to Israel
would lie less in its own army, than in the assorted insurgents that
would soon shelter themselves in "Palestine." To suggest that the
principal risks to Israel could be ascertained by simply comparing the
Israeli army to the far more modest forces of this 23rd Arab state, would
assume an incorrectly static condition in the new enemy country, one
that would offer only the "best case" scenario for Israel.
These suggestions, therefore,
are hardly in Jerusalem's best interests. Israel is not "the Monaco of
the Middle East," but neither would Palestine be as benign a
mini-state as Abba Eban suggests. Before Israel can reasonably conclude
that the so-called "occupation" is intolerable, its leaders will first
have to determine whether it is actually less tolerable than Palestinian
statehood. If it isn't less tolerable, then rationality would require
continuing administrative control, however painful, costly and
unfortunate.
And such rationality
would not even take into account the overwhelmingly all-important fact
that Judea and Samaria are inherent parts of the Jewish State under
authoritatively binding international law.
...
It follows from all of this
that Palestine would pose a very serious security risk to Israel, and
that this risk could become far greater than that of maintaining Israeli
control of "the territories." This does not mean that Israel and the
Palestinians should steer clear of meaningful negotiations, or that
Israel should neglect concerning itself with protecting the peremptory
human rights of Arab populations under its control.
But it does mean that any
reasonable assessments of Israel's security must always compare the
expected costs of both principal options for Judea/Samaria/Gaza: IDF military administration versus independence.
In the absence of such an
essential comparison, Israel could go from bad to worse, from a
situation that is conspicuously debilitating and demoralizing, to one
that is utterly intolerable.
In an interview with a Palestinian TV station in the Gaza
Strip, [Hamas’s Minister for Prisoners Affairs, Atallah Abu al-]Sabah claimed that thousands of Israelis had fled to the North to escape
from Hamas’s rockets and missiles.
“The era of Israeli victories has gone
for good,” he said.
The Hamas official predicted that Israel would from
now on rely on short-term wars “because it is not able to lead long-term wars of
attrition.”
The claim that Israelis fled north is not entirely untrue. Recall this scene from Beersheva on the first night of the Operation:
Yes, that's the train station....
And then there's this from Khaled Meshaal himself:
Hamas leader Khaled
Mashaal was quoted Thursday as saying that “the resistance will soon occur in
the West Bank too.”
Mashaal attributed the absence of “resistance” in the
West Bank to “security pressure by all parties.” He said that although Hamas
agreed to a cease-fire with Israel, this did not mean that the movement has
relinquished the “resistance to achieve the liberation of Palestine.”
Stopping Operation Pillar of Defense without destroying Hamas was a mistake - a huge mistake. It's the second time Israel made that mistake, with the first being in Operation Cast Lead nearly four years ago. Will we get a third chance?
Israel gives 'Palestinians' NIS 200 million reward for UN gambit
The government of Israel has decided to give the 'Palestinian Authority' a NIS 200 million reward for their UN gambit by transferring that amount of 'tax money' to the 'Palestinian Authority' just two days before the UN vote. Of course, as usual, much of that money will go to pay the salaries of the PA's 'employees' in Gaza (you know, the ones who bragged that they shot 516 rockets at Israel last week), to pay Hamas, and to pay the 'salaries' of 'Palestinian' terrorists in Israeli jails.
The transfer of the money, 200 million shekels, took place just two
days before the vote in the United Nations General Assembly on the PA’s
unilateral bid to become a non-member observer state.
Army Radio noted that Israel has said it would not take
extreme steps in response to the PA’s statehood bid but has continued to
threaten to freeze the funds it transfers to the PA each month. Despite
this threat, however, and despite PA Chairman Mahmoud Abbas’s
statements that he does not intend to back down from the move, Israel
transferred the funds on Tuesday.
Finance Minister Yuval Steinitz, who has also threatened the PA with sanctions if it goes ahead with its bid, told Army Radio on Wednesday that Israel would respond to the move at the correct time and place.
“If the Palestinian Authority thinks it will attack us in the UN in
such a harsh way and will continue to benefit from the cooperation with
us, I think that some surprises await it,” said Steinitz.
If only our politicians had the courage of their convictions....
I am an Orthodox Jew - some would even call me 'ultra-Orthodox.' Born in Boston, I was a corporate and securities attorney in New York City for seven years before making aliya to Israel in 1991 (I don't look it but I really am that old :-). I have been happily married to the same woman for thirty-five years, and we have eight children (bli ayin hara) ranging in age from 13 to 33 years and nine grandchildren. Four of our children are married! Before I started blogging I was a heavy contributor on a number of email lists and ran an email list called the Matzav from 2000-2004. You can contact me at: IsraelMatzav at gmail dot com
