Obama challenges Sarkozy about France’s disregarding of the US on the UNESCO issue. One could even argue that Obama was upset about France’s abandonment of Israel on this for which the US was advocating, but that might be going a bit far here. [Supporters will see a strong pro-Israel intent here by Obama]. The conversation leads to Netanyahu. This is interesting because there could well then be linkage between Sarkozy’s decision to vote for statehood in UNESCO, to abandon support for Israel, and to disregard the US. That personal dislike could have that impact on Sarkozy would be a major indictment of his character in and of itself. Sarkozy calls Netanyahu a “liar.” What did he lie about? I am wondering here. Anyway this leads to Obama.

Now with the leader of France being attacked by Obama for not supporting the US and EU stance and launching a tirade about Bibi as a liar, Obama’s response is not “You bet. He’s lied out his you know what!” Nor is it “I can’t stand the man. He is awful!” Instead, Obama actually deflected the conversation in an attempt to create camaraderie with Sarkozy, or to avoid an argument, while playing DOWN the situation. By saying he has to deal with Bibi every day, Obama ended the conversation.

Considering the fact that we already know that there have been a number of heated exchanges over the past couple of years between Obama and Bibi, Obama’s response to Sarkozy was highly restrained, in fact frankly surprisingly so. While Obama would not have said what he did in public, what he did say is a far cry from the sentiments that many ascribe to him and would have expected to hear from him under these circumstances.

Meanwhile, there are plenty of people who each of us like very well to whom we might refer at times as a pain in the ass, and certainly might in response to others who are very angry at those people. I think that Obama supporters will see Obama’s response as nothing more than that, essentially calling Netanyahu a pain in the butt. In fact, one could argue that no few of Netanyahu’s political opponents in Israel would say similar things about him or much worse. Sarkozy’s comments on the other hand are not acceptable at all and were clearly much more hostile and even slanderous.

On the whole, I think that people who dislike Obama will play this situation up, while those who support Obama will have an easy time maintaining that support. Sarkozy has some explaining to do. I think that this conversation will have little or no impact on swaying the opinions of those who support the President and consider him a friend of Israel.

The Palestinian decision to apply for full United Nations membership at the Security Council, announced Friday by President Mahmoud Abbas, was the most viable of the only options possible: surrender, return to violence or appeal to the international community, a senior Palestinian official said Saturday.

I think this sentiment has been grossly misinterpreted in the media. We all understand what a “return to violence” would mean. It would mean another intifada. The last one failed to achieve anything at all for the Palestinians. Intifada is not going to lead to a state.

“Appeal to the international community” obviously means bringing to the United Nations demands that could not be achieved through violence.

The real question is what “surrender” means. I think that many people who support the creation of a Palestinian state believe wrongly that this means give in, not have a state, and continue to be occupied forever. Thus, their gut reaction is to say, “No, we don’t want you to surrender!” However, I do not believe this is what “surrender” means at all.

What is meant by “surrender” is giving up the goal of winning the war of 1948, of eventually eliminating the Jewish state. By not asking the proper question which is “Surrender what exactly?” the supporters of a two-states for two-peoples solution end up preventing exactly that. Instead of telling the Palestinians “Yes, we want you to surrender and to make peace with a Jewish state that will continue to exist for generations to come,” they say, “No, we don’t want you to surrender; fight for your right to self determination.” They say this naive to the fact that the goal is neither statehood nor peace, but a step forward on a path designed to eliminate the Jewish state.

I know there are plenty of supporters of the Palestinians who would advocate for the elimination of the Jewish state. I do not make this argument for their benefit. I write this for those who believe in a two state solution and who wish to help the Palestinians achieve statehood. They need to hear the words, “Yes, you need to surrender. Yes, you need to make peace with the Jewish state.” Nothing other than those words will make a difference.

Four speeches. Lots of argument and conflict.

The President seemingly said what he did on Thursday in the hope of preparing the stage to go to European leaders and the Palestinians hoping to head off an attempt by the Palestinians to bring a vote for statehood to the UN General Assembly. Some of you may question this motive. I do not. I do think that is exactly what President Obama was trying to do. The Congress of the United States is even working on legislation in which the President is urged to act against such a move.

There was an understanding, I believe based upon the counsel of Samantha Power, one of the President’s advisors, that the Palestinians could invoke UNGA Resolution 377 to go around a Security Council veto by the US.

United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) resolution 377, the “Uniting for Peace” resolution, states that, in cases where the United Nations Security Council fails to act in order to maintain international peace and security, owing to disagreement between its five permanent members, the matter shall be addressed immediately by the General Assembly, using the mechanism of the Emergency Special Session.

Evidently, however, this is not true because, according to a J Post article published yesterday, in order for a vote to recognize statehood to take place at all, it needs to go through the Security Council first which means that absolutely nothing has changed. A US Security Council veto will prevent a vote from being taken. It is not the case that a vote is taken and then approved by the Security Council. There will be no vote if the US vetoes it. Thus, there was and is no need for the US to lobby European governments or for the US to convince the Palestinian leadership not to pursue it. This is a dead issue unless the sole purpose of US lobbying efforts are to get other nations to side with the US veto so that the US in not alone in vetoing the effort.

This is the real purpose of President Obama’s efforts in recent weeks. There is little or no chance that the Administration did not know about the rules in the UN. It is much more likely that the Obama administration was using the confusion about the possibility of the Palestinians utilizing UNGA 337 to pressure Israel to make concessions in order to promote negotiations so that other nations would be more willing to preemptively join the US in declaring opposition to a unilateral declaration of PA statehood in the UN. Now, that the cat is out of the bag, the entire argument is revealed to be a house of cards.

We are now back to where we were and where we were is that the Palestinians both need to negotiate in order to achieve the realization of a state and lack any bargaining chips in those negotiations other than violence or its absence. Because attacking security barriers is by definition an act of hostility, those who claim that “non-violence” may succeed are incorrect. Marching against borders is an act of violence even if done without weaponry or physical conflict. I wrote about this only a couple of weeks ago.

But what is more important now is that the situation is exactly as I wrote about in November, one in which the Palestinians lack any leverage in the negotiations. In fact, they have even less leverage now than they did then and that is saying a whole lot. If you haven’t read my article on Palestinian Leverage from November, you really should. It is all you really need to know about what is going on in the peace process.

Meanwhile, Rafah opened today. More on that to come.

The reality is that in any new policy, the President has three options:

1. Throw Israel under the bus and force it to make concessions in order to appease the Arab street while enabling the Palestinian side to avoid making even minor concessions and enabling the Palestinians to strengthen their demands for unreasonable future concessions.
2. Throw the Palestinians under the bus and demand that either Fatah reject working with Hamas or that Hamas publicly renounce armed struggle against Israel and actively combat it. The US would threaten to cut off aid to the PA.
3. Throw both sides under the bus, proposing a solution that is impossible for either side to support publicly for certain, but possibly in private as well, and which will have no impact on the ground (because neither side will be able to accommodate it). This will allow the President to appear to be boldly offering a new solution.

There is no “Win-Win” solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. There are “lose-lose” scenarios and some of them are pretty drastic. More than likely, the President will offer a “lose-lose” scenario, throwing both sides under the bus, that will upset Israel more than the Palestinians in the hope that Israel will opt to take it rather than facing a “lose-win” scenario. A problem arises however in that the Palestinians may believe that if they hold out, they will eventually get their own “win-lose” option anyway.

For any solution proposed by the United States to have any impact, it has to be made abundantly clear by the administration that it will support an Israeli biased solution if whatever is proposed is not accepted by the Palestinians. There must be a credible threat that the Palestinian side could get worse than what is offered and little hope that it could get better if that option is not chosen. Meanwhile, no one should be holding their breath that whatever is proposed will lead to a final peace agreement anytime soon.

While I would encourage you to view it or read it in its entirety, here are some of the highlights:

Daniel Pipes, an academic known for his hard-line Middle East views, had it right when he said recently “that anyone concerned about the security and welfare of Israel is in the pro-Israel camp.”…

Attempting to delegitimize Israel, on too many college campuses and throughout much of Europe, critics try to portray Israel as though it is some apartheid-like state. It is an absurd assertion. Anyone who knows what apartheid was, and who knows Israel today, is well aware of that.

Critics cite assessments like the Goldstone Report to justify such contentions. When it was first issued I publicly challenged its fatal flaws. The Goldstone Report states that Israeli armed forces “carried out direct intentional strikes against civilians,” a contention, as you know, that Goldstone has now retracted. But the damage has been done, and we’re going to spend years trying to undo that damage. When Rabbi Eric Yoffie excoriated Richard Goldstone and his biased report at the first J Street Conference, some booed him. Rabbi Yoffie was unfazed and went on to say “Anyone who supports a peaceful two-state solution must consider the role of Hamas in destroying such a prospect-and yet, quite astonishingly, nothing of this is discussed in the Goldstone Report.” I applaud Rabbi Yoffie’s independent and clear voice in this and other crucial issues….

And just weeks ago David Saperstein had my full support when he gave his constructively critical keynote address to the second J Street Conference. I agree wholeheartedly with Rabbi Saperstein’s decision to speak at the conference, to assert again how vital movement towards a peace process is to Israel’s security and America’s interests, to offer thoughtful criticism of J Street’s policy making, but also to offer a strong critique of J Street’s stand opposing the recent US veto of the UN resolution condemning Israeli settlements.

Like my colleagues Eric and David, I am unafraid to challenge misguided views regardless of the source….

I also believe that Israel’s security and well-being require that Israel must become a more tolerant and pluralistic society. I have spent over 20 years working to strengthen the Israel envisioned in Israel’s Declaration of Independence:

“THE STATE OF ISRAEL will be based on freedom, justice and peace as envisaged by the prophets of Israel; it will ensure complete equality of social and political rights to all its inhabitants irrespective of religion, race or sex; it will guarantee freedom of religion, conscience, language, education and culture…”

This week our congregation, like many of yours, will hold many events to celebrate Yom Ha’atzmaut. On Erev Shabbat, as we have for the past years, we will host five IDF officers who will share their diverse backgrounds and service in defense of Israel. Last year, our teens were privileged to host 25 elite IDF commanders. Following Operation Cast Lead, it is critically important for these remarkable young soldiers to know that we in America are with them. I know first hand as a senior rabbinic fellow of the Shalom Hartman Institute the kind of ethics training these officers receive because they are taught by many of the same scholars with whom I study.

As I stand with the IDF soldiers this Friday night, I will let them know that my congregation stands in solidarity with them. We admire their courage; we support their abiding efforts to make Israel secure. I am confident that the IDF always aspires to conduct itself according to the highest ethical standards. There will always be lapses and errors in judgment especially in the new unprecedented ways of war confronting Israel, but I believe no other fighting force has more ethical rigor than the Israel Defense Forces….

Despite the expanding sanctions and the undermining of Iran’s technical abilities that U.S. and Israeli joint efforts have achieved, Iran remains determined to move its nuclear weapons program along as expeditiously as possible endangering Israel’s literal existence and U.S. interests throughout the region.

In the UN and around the world, Israel’s enemies have launched an offensive of economic attacks aimed at weakening and delegitimizing Israel that is taking hold in anti-Israel strongholds on and off campuses in Europe and North America. These Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions tactics are destructive and we must do everything in our power to combat these attacks through education, legislative advocacy and good, old-fashioned community organizing. The RAC and ARZA have played a key role in these efforts. But all of us, we’ve got to do our part. I know we can count on each other to get it done….

A very important part of my leadership as the URJ president will be to help all of our congregations become ohavei Tzion-lovers of Israel….

I will never back down from my commitment to a secure Israel.

I will never stop fighting for an Israel that grants all of its citizens, Arabs and Jews, fundamental human rights.

I will never stop working for an Israel that grants equal rights to Jews no matter their spiritual practice or belief.

I will never stop advocating for the US to remain Israel’s staunch ally.

I will not back away from my commitment to a two-state solution living side-by-side in peace and security.

As the leader of the largest Movement in Jewish life, I intend to work every single day to build up the ranks of those who share my Zionist passion. And I call upon everyone in the pro-Israel community to join me in this critical work.

When Israel gets into our hearts, then I know that we will never stop fighting for an Israel that is secure, religiously free, guided by justice and dwelling in peace.

Our hope is not lost-
The hope of two thousand years:
To be a free people in our land,
The land of Zion and Jerusalem.

Ken yehi ratzon.

 

 

In Cairo, in June of 2009, President Obama linked the Palestinian quest for freedom to the American civil rights movement. “Palestinians must abandon violence,” he said. “Resistance through violence and killing is wrong and it does not succeed.” He was right. So why is it that now — when finally, Montgomery has come to Nabi Saleh — he chooses to remain silent?

This is an appeal to Obama specifically presenting the Palestinian cause as a civil rights movement. The obvious answer to Perry is that it is not a civil rights movement, but rather an attempt to use non-violence to achieve the military objectives that violence failed to achieve, namely the acquisition of lands. In other words, the only rights in question are rights to land.

Land issues should be solved in negotiations, not through violence or through non-violence. Non-violence is a tactic, not a goal. If the goals are the acquisition of territory or the elimination of the Jewish state, non-violence is in fact simply another tactic used to achieve these military goals. One can be a non-violent hater, a non-violent Jew hater, a non-violent advocate for the elimination of the Jewish state through non-violent means, a non-violent advocate for the expulsion of the Jews from the land.

We may argue about whether or not certain border fences should be where they are and whether certain lands will be Israel’s or part of a future Palestinian state, but the use of non-violence to achieve those goals rather than negotiations is only qualitatively different from using violence. In effect, one can execute a non-violent attack and attempts to harm Israelis by harming Israeli security are exactly such an attack. This is why non-violent protests that attempt to do harm to Israel’s security are met with a response as if Israel were under attack. They are attacks.

The only question that need be asked if one is wondering whether or not an action qualifies as an attack is “Does it affect the other side harmfully?” Attempts to dismantle security barriers that prevent harm from coming to residents on the other side are such attempts.

Addendum from Meryl: Mark Perry is lying about the protests being nonviolent.

A border guard was blinded by a “protester”. There were also broken leg, broken arm, injuries, injuries, and more injuries during the weekly Bilin “protests.” And here is a picture of the stones used to injure the soldiers.

Apparently, freeing Gaza is not a high priority for too many people: The Gaza flotilla is being postponed. What? You mean people don’t want to risk their lives covering for terrorists pretending to be innocent little activists (who keep talking about martyrdom to the Arabic press)? Color me amazed. If they’re finally getting some sense, good for the idiots. And there’s also this:

It also turns out the Turkish organizers have been largely unsuccessful in raising donations to fund the operation. Many ship owners refused to loan their vessels for the cause, fearing they might be confiscated by Israel. Now the activists are forced to buy the ships themselves.

So the truth did get out, even though the anti-Israel media did its best to paint the Mavi Marmara incident in the best of lights for the terrorists. That’s hopeful news.

Leviathan can’t get here soon enough: I can’t wait for Israel’s energy independence from the Jew-haters around the Jewish state. An “unknown armed gang” blew up the gas line to Israel again. And oh yeah, they’ve arrested the people who made the gas deal with Israel and are charging them for selling gas to Jews for too little money. Sure, Egypt is going to be a peaceful neighbor. Because it’s not like Mubarak allowed decades of anti-Israel incitement or anything like that while he was distracting Egyptians from their shitty condition under him. Oh. Wait.

Obama’s answer to high gas prices: More oil imports. Opening up our own deep water wells again? Nope. Allowing drilling in the U.S.? Nuh-uh. More offshore drilling? Fuhgeddaboudit. But hey, more oil from the Saudis? Awesome! Plus, blaming oil companies for high profits, and putting together yet another commission to investigate “fraud and abuse.” Because that’s exactly what we need, not, say, more American oil.

A Palestinian policeman opened fire Sunday at a group of Israelis who had come to pray at a Jewish holy site in the West Bank without authorization, killing one and wounding four, the Israeli military said.

The shooting threatened to inflame tensions in the West Bank, where Jewish settlers and Palestinians live in uneasy proximity and where settlers have responded to attacks in the past with violent reprisals.

Israeli police identified the dead man as Ben-Yosef Livnat, a Jerusalem resident in his mid-20s. Ben-Yosef was a nephew of Limor Livnat, a prominent hardline Cabinet minister from the ruling Likud Party.

Limor Livnat, who attended the funeral, told reporters that her nephew was killed by a “terrorist disguised as a Palestinian policeman.”

What the AP does not tell you is that the Israelis were driving back to their homes when the Palestinian police fired on their car—at a checkpoint.

Oh, and there’s also this headline:

     Israeli killed, 4 wounded in West Bank

Really? An Israeli was killed? Who killed him? Because in the lead, the AP tells me it was the Palestinian police. Why isn’t the headline “Palestinian policeman kills 1, wounds 4 in West Bank”? It’s just like the headlines where the AP tells us that rockets kill Israelis, but not that they’re fired by Palestinians.

And why was an Israeli killed at Joseph’s Tomb?

Palestinian officials notified the Israeli military that the Israelis “were shot by a Palestinian policeman who, after identifying suspicious movements, fired in their direction,” the Israeli military said.

“Suspicious movements”? Doubtless, the Jews dared to pray at a shrine that is holy to both Jews and Muslims. Note that the emphasis is going to be on the fact that Jews went to the tomb without coordinating the visit, not that they were murdered by a Palestinian police officer. Also note that unlike the deaths of Palestinians, murders of Israelis by Palestinians barely manage a blip on the world media scene.

Palestinians are saying the police fired several warning shots at the car, then into it when it refused to stop. The investigation is ongoing. Watch for the celebrations from the Palestinian side. And no apology. After the shooting, Palestinians once again mobbed Joseph’s Tomb and desecrated it—because it is sacred to Jews. These are the people that the world wants Israel to give control over the Temple Mount. And people wonder why Israel refuses.

Palestinians to Obama: Our way or the highway, dude. Just watch the reaction if Obama actually does present his own peace plan, which is rumored to force Israel back to the 1949 Armistice lines, share Jerusalem, while making the Palestinians dump the “right of return” for second-, third-, and fourth-generation “refugees.” The Palestinian reaction? The “right of return” is non-negotiable. I eagerly await the condemnation of the PA by Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, and members of the Obama administration for being an obstacle to peace. (Of course that was sarcasm. Haven’t you been reading me long enough to know?)

Syrians murdering protesters; Yourish.com readers awaiting UNHRC call of war crimes: Forty protesters were shot in Syria today. Navi Pillay has called Libya’s use of cluster bombs a war crime; where’s the condemnation of Syria? This is the most I can find. It’s not the UN Human Rights Council. I know, I know, you’re as shocked as I am. (Did you know the UN has a Special Rapporteur on arbitrary executions? Also a Special Rapporteur on the right to health. I kid you not.) Actually, I’m pretty sure we’ll be hearing how this is Israel’s fault, too, for not giving back the Golan or something. Also for not making peace with the Palestinians.

I read the interview, so you don’t have to: Mel Gibson is trying to redeem himself by not saying anything that makes you think he’s worth redemption. His latest interview is all about the new movie in which he dons a beaver puppet to express himself, and how life was so unfair to him lately. And here’s the sum total of his response to a question regarding his drunken, anti-Semitic tirade:

WEINER: Even when the drunk driving/anti-semitic incident happened and was splashed everywhere, you continued to work. Do you just compartmentalize things so you can keep working when you’re at the center of something like this?
GIBSON: You have to. There are a lot of people depending on you. There are deadlines to meet and fiscal responsibilities. There are the basics of supporting yourself and those who depend on you and those commitments that you have to co-workers.

It seems that there are plenty of Jews in Hollywood still willing to work with this jerk.

The time has come to realize that the old habits, the old arguments are irrelevant to the challenges faced by our people.

Conclusions drawn from history and experience are often ignored in favor of the exploration by trial and error of new approaches or even previously tried and rejected ones. The belief that it is the Jews, and specifically the Jewish state, who are intractable in the Israeli-Palestinian peace process is exactly such a previously tried and rejected approach. Israel has agreed to final peace agreements at the negotiating table three times, since 1967. Three times!

1. With Egypt
2. With Jordan
3. With the Palestinians at Camp David

The Palestinians have never agreed to peace once, only to interruptions in violence for negotiations through which they might pursue gains that they were unable to obtain through violence. Current attempts to utilize the United Nations to obtain gains are the result of the failure of both violence and negotiations to advance the goal of eventually eradicating the Jewish state, the unrealized goal of the violence.

That reasonable people argue for the creation of a Palestinian state roughly along the 1967 borders has allowed the Palestinian leadership legitimacy in pursuit of a goal not limited to the creation of a Palestinian state alongside Israel, but in fact to pursue the destruction of Israel with the creation of a Palestinian state that substantially weakens Israel’s security and viability being a step in that direction.

This is why it is Israel’s security and not the borders of a future Palestinian state that must be discussed first. For those truly pursuing peace, the coexistence of the two states in peace and security must take precedence over the land which they control and it must be clear that all belligerent claims, much less actions, must end with whatever peace agreement is made.

As I wrote recently for We Are For Israel, American advocacy must support Israel in achieving this goal, in achieving security, opposing efforts in the UN advancing territorial claims by the Palestinians without negotiating a permanent peace.