Labels: Camp David II, Danny Ayalon, intifadeh, Middle East peace process, Palestinian suicide bombers, Palestinian terrorism, Palestinian terrorists
posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 1:44 PM
0 comments
It seems that in the Obama White House, the boss may not be the biggest Israel hater. That title may well belong to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton (Hat Tip: Shy Guy).The only time in her adult life that Hillary Clinton was pro-Israel was when it was necessary to be elected as US Senator from the heavily Jewish state of New York. I don't believe that Hillary Clinton is worthy of Jewish support at all, but if American Jews are going to donate to her campaign they should at least condition their support on a clear and irreparable break with President Hussein Obama's policies on both the Iranian nuclear file and the so-called 'peace process.'
In his book American Evita, Christopher Anderson writes.Read the whole thing. After that second story, anyone want to try to convince me that she 'only' hates Israel and not Jews?At a time when elements of the American Left embraced the Palestinian cause and condemned Israel, Hillary was telling friends that she was "sympathetic" to the terrorist organization and admired its flamboyant leader, Yasser Arafat. When Arafat made his famous appearance before the UN General Assembly in November 1974 wearing his revolutionary uniform and his holster on his hip, Bill "was outraged like everybody else," said a Yale Law School classmate. But not Hillary, who tried to convince Bill that Arafat was a "freedom fighter" trying to free his people from their Israeli "oppressors." (1)Of course Hillary's feelings about the PLO and Israel are only one aspect of her character, often a person's true nature is more closely revealed in a more intimate setting. In an early showcase of Hillary's diplomatic skills Christopher Anderson relates an experience that she and her future husband had during a trip to Arkansas in 1973.
It was during this trip to his home state that Bill took Hillary to meet a politically well connected friend. When they drove up to the house, Bill and Hillary noticed that a menorah-the seven branched Hebrew candelabrum (not to be confused with the more common and subtler mezuzah)-has been affixed to the front door.
"My daddy was half Jewish," explained Bill's friend. "One day when he came to visit , my daddy placed the menorah on my door because he wanted me to be proud that we were part Jewish. And I wasn't about to say no to my daddy."
To his astonishment, as soon as Hillary saw the menorah, she refused to get out of the car. "Bill walked up to me and said that she was hot and tired, but later he explained the real reason." According to the friend and another eyewitness, Bill said, "I'm sorry, but Hillary's really tight with the people in the PLO in New York. They're friends of hers, and she just doesn't feel right about the menorah." (2)
Labels: Bill Clinton, Camp David II, Ehud Barak, Hillary Clinton, Palestinian state, US presidential campaign 2016
posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 10:45 PM
5 comments
Like the Clinton and Bush plans, the Kerry parameters will involve Israeli surrender of Jerusalem and the Temple Mount to the PLO , which rejects the historical fact that two Jewish temples were built at the site that was and remains the cradle of Jewish civilization and history and holiest site to Judaism.What could go wrong?
They will involve the mass expulsion of hundreds of thousands of Jews from their homes in Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria to make room for an anti-Semitic, Jew-free state that maintains its devotion to the destruction of the rump Jewish state.
Kerry’s framework deal will involve the mass immigration of hundreds of thousands of foreign-born Arabs, who have been living in al-Qaida-, Hamas- and PLO -controlled UN-run “refugee camps,” for the past four generations.
Kerry’s plan will require Israeli society to destroy its cohesion through the dismemberment and destruction of hundreds of Jewish communities. As occurred before the Gaza withdrawal, it will require the government to oversee the demonization and criminalization of well over three million law abiding, patriotic Israeli citizens who oppose the mass expulsions.
Kerry’s parameters will require Israel to surrender its ability to defend itself against foreign aggression and Palestinian attacks. As for the Palestinians, implementation of the Kerry parameters will guarantee that all moderate elements in their society, including among Israeli Arabs, will be overwhelmed and destroyed. The PLO state in Judea, Samaria and Jerusalem, like the Hamas state in Gaza, will be breeding grounds for global jihadists. They will actively incite, organize and oversee an armed insurrection of the Arabs of the Galilee and the Negev, meting out punishment for all dissenters.
As for the US forces that Kerry proposes deploying to the Jew-free PLO state, they will be targeted by the Palestinians, just as the Palestinians and the Syrians attacked US Marines in Beirut 30 years ago. And like the Marines in Beirut, they will be withdrawn in humiliation and defeat, but the lesson – that the Arabs perceive the Americans and Jews as enemies of equal weight – will not be learned. And, at any rate, unable to defend itself after agreeing to Kerry’s parameters, Israel will cease to be a strategic ally and be transformed into a strategic basket case. Its destruction will interest Kerry and his supporters just as much as the destruction of South Vietnam interested them in 1975.
Aside from being a more anti-Israel version of the Clinton parameters and Bush’s framework, Kerry’s parameters, and framework deal, have one other unique and particularly dangerous feature. Until now, US peace plans followed former prime minister Ehud Barak’s dictum that “nothing is agreed to until everything is agreed to.”
That is, no hypothetical Israeli concession on Jerusalem, for instance, will be binding unless a final deal is concluded.
Kerry indicated at the Saban Forum that his goal is to coerce Israel into making irrevocable concessions up front, before the Palestinians agree to peaceful coexistence.
As he put it, “A basic framework will have to address all the core issues – borders, security, refugees, Jerusalem, mutual recognition, and an end of claims. And it will have to establish agreed guidelines for subsequent negotiations that will fill out the details in a full-on peace treaty.”
For the past five and a half years, Netanyahu’s strategy for dealing with US President Barack Obama has been to try to survive him. He’s withstood Obama’s constant demand for Israeli national suicide for “peace” by giving the bare minimum of revocable concession possible to keep Obama at bay.
But with Kerry poised to shove his lethal parameters down our throats, parameters that will require Israel to irrevocably accept terms of peace that will destroy the country, it is obvious that Netanyahu needs to adopt a longer-term strategy. Our goal cannot be limited to waiting out Obama. Our goal must be to extricate Israel from the two-state trap.
Yes, Israel will pay a huge price for jumping ship. For 20 years, non-leftist Israeli leaders have been trying to go along to get along with the Left, and the Americans and their ever-escalating demands. But Kerry’s obsessive harping, and his insistence on pushing forward with his disastrous framework deal forces our hand.
Labels: Annapolis process, Barack Hussein Obama, Bill Clinton, Binyamin Netanyahu, Camp David II, Clinton parameters, George W. Bush, John Kerry, Middle East peace process
posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 9:04 AM
0 comments
When Yasser Arafat seemingly renounced terrorism at a press conference in Geneva in December 1988, we wanted to believe him. We signed the Oslo Accords in 1993, brought him and his minions from Tunis to Gaza and Ramallah - only to find that he had by no means abandoned terrorism.Nor does he want to fill them. 'Abbas' wants to destroy the Jewish state. Just like his predecessor. But he's too dependent on American money to make that desire as obvious as Hamas makes it.
In May 2000 we decided to unilaterally leave the South Lebanese security zone and abandon our allies, the South Lebanon Army, hoping that after the Israeli withdrawal Hezbollah would cease terrorist activity against Israel. We hoped it would become just another Lebanese political party, and we would have peace on our northern border. These hopes were in vain. Not only did Hezbollah not abandon terrorism against Israeli civilians, but the unilateral withdrawal was advertised by Hassan Nasrallah as a Hezbollah victory and perceived by the Palestinians as a sign of Israeli weakness. This in turn led to preparations for the second intifada.
The second intifada was launched shortly after Ehud Barak offered Arafat, at Camp David in July 2000, the most far-reaching concessions ever proposed by an Israeli government. These concessions were rejected, and what followed was a wave of terror which brought suicide bombers into the streets of Israel and led to the death of over a thousand Israeli civilians.
The Israel Defense Forces' entry into Judea and Samaria put an end to it. We uprooted 8,000 Israelis from the Gush Katif settlement bloc hoping that this would further the peace process with the Palestinians. Instead, Hamas took over the Gaza Strip and rockets started raining down on the towns and villages of southern Israel.
As they fell, Ehud Olmert conducted negotiations with Mahmoud Abbas, offering him everything Barak had offered Arafat. In addition, he agreed to a partial return of Palestinian refugees. That too was rejected.
And so it went, one disappointment after another. As the saying goes, "Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me." Israel has been fooled not once, not twice, but at least five times in a quest for peace that has gone nowhere.
Could it only be wishful thinking on Israel's part that has allowed the Palestinians to make fools of it time after time? Obviously there are other motivations at work - such as the feeling that we have no choice but to give in to pressure from the "international community" and offer concessions that would end this conflict once and for all. This is further reinforced by the Israel-bashing that is going on in much of Western Europe. Maybe this is a chance to become a respected member of the "international community," no matter what the cost.
Or perhaps this is the opportunity to end the "occupation" and rid ourselves of the Palestinians living in Judea and Samaria. They may not be better off after we withdraw, but who cares? That, after all, is their business. And those Israelis who live in the shadow of the "demographic" demon, and do not want a single Arab added to the roster of Israel's Arab citizens, will agree to almost anything to prevent such an eventuality.
So now we have Mahmoud Abbas. He is a reformed terrorist who proclaims his desire to establish a Palestinian state by peaceful means. Is this not the opportunity that we and most of the rest of the world have been waiting for? He rejected Olmert's offer, but maybe we can sweeten the pill.
There is only one problem. Abbas is not capable of fulfilling the two basic requirements Israel would demand in any agreement involving significant territorial concessions: First, that the agreement would constitute the end of the conflict and that no further Palestinian demands would be made of Israel. And second, that the territories ceded would not become bases for terrorist activities against Israel.
Abbas cannot fulfill these requirements, and he knows it.
Labels: Abu Mazen, Binyamin Netanyahu, Camp David II, Ehud Barak, end of conflict, two-state solution, Yasser Arafat
posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 4:29 PM
1 comments
Labels: Camp David II, intifadeh, Suha Arafat, Yasser Arafat
posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 1:41 PM
0 comments
Defense Minister Ehud Barak worries that Israel's current government is not properly suited for 'peace making.' Barak wants to take the 'initiative.' Barak said that the government structure is not suitable for progress in the negotiations: "Until now I could not change the situation from within. I see this as the reason to stay in government."After all, things worked out so well the last time Barak took the initiative.
Barak said that Israel must consider how to move negotiations with the Palestinians forward.
"I have not significantly changed my position on how the final arrangement will look, there is not much difference between the proposal at Camp David and today," the defense minister said.
According to Barak, Israel has a lot to lose from continuing to be passive.
Labels: Camp David II, Ehud Barak, initifadeh, Oslo accords, Oslo War, Yasser Arafat
posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 2:59 PM
2 comments
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
Like what you see? Please hit my tip box below!
Jerusalem |
 |
 |
