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.

Let’s note ahead of time what Israel is willing to do, which will be turned down by the “activists,” because their real agenda isn’t against the blockade. It’s against Israel itself.

The government is considering asking a third party to help inspect all of the ships and then let them land in Gaza. Let us not forget that Gaza does not have a deep-water port. The landing there is purely symbolic. It will be of the “Look at us! We’re so cool! We broke the Israeli blockade!” variety. My prediction: This offer will be flatly refused.

The IHH is insisting they’re going to sit this one out until after the Turkish elections. They want to see if their patron, who denies having any ties to the IHH, is going to be re-elected. And just to show you they’re true pacifists, here’s a quote from their leader:

“This is not Israel’s Mediterranean Sea,” IHH President Bulent Yildrim said last week, according to Turkish newspaper Zaman. “We are not afraid to become martyrs.”

Actually, he said a lot more than that.

“We are saying this: We don’t have a problem with the Christians or Jews. Some of them were with us in our ships… But we do have a problem with one place! And we declare it with courage… without fear… We say this with no hesitation: Our problem is Zionism – which, like a virus, has infected all humanity!”

This man will be described as an “activist” by the non-Israeli media.

The organizers are asking for “protection” against Israeli—wait for it—”threats.” Why? Because Israel asked the governments of the nations sending the boats to stop the fools.

Benjamin Netanyahu asked Ban Ki-Moon for help stopping the flotilla. He pointed out that Gazans now are getting all of the humanitarian aid (and then some) tha they need. Ban did what the UN does best: He issued a statement. And the UN granted accreditation to a pro-terrorist group that will be part of the flotilla, so the UN is doing exactly as expected.

Claire Berlinski’s take on the IHH and the flotilla: These are not flower-bearing peaceniks sponsoring the attempt to break the blockade.

No way this ends well.

The U.S. today vetoed a draft resolution in the United Nations Security Council that would have declared Israel’s settlement construction in the West Bank and East Jerusalem to be illegal and demanded a halt to such activity.

U.S. Ambassador Susan Rice sought until the final hours before the vote to reach agreement with Palestinian and Arab diplomats on a compromise statement that would have increased pressure on Israel to cease settlement construction, while stopping short of calling it illegal or demanding a moratorium.

Rice was alone in opposing the measure on the 15-member council, the UN’s principal policy making panel. It was the Obama administration’s first veto of a UN resolution and marked the 10th time in the past 11 years that the U.S. has voted against a text considered to be critical of Israel.

In the meantime, the Middle East is burning.

As protesters attempted to converge on Pearl Roundabout, a landmark in the capital Manama that has become the principal rallying point of the uprising, soldiers stationed in a nearby skyscraper opened fire.

Since they took to the streets, Bahrain’s protesters have come to expect violence and even death at the hands of the kingdom’s security forces. At least five people were killed before yesterday’s protests.

But this was on a different scale of magnitude.

As they drew near, they were met first with tear gas and then with bursts of live ammunition.

Clearly, if only the UN had passed the anti-Israel resolution, all would be well with Bahrain.

Why is Abbas so set on this resolution? So he can keep on doing what he’s been doing—not conduct peace negotiations with Israel. If the Obama administration truly cared about peace, they’d treat Abbas as badly as they treated Netanyahu. They’d scold him and publicly humiliate him and force him to come to the table. But that’s not the narrative. No. The narrative is that it is Israel that is intransigent.

Challah Hu Akbar: New guy in the neighborhood, with a very witty blog title. Yes, indeed, challah is great. (And one of the tastiest breads in the world!) He’s on the blogroll.

We’ll whitewash Palestinian terrorism even if it kills you: The AP reports that a Palestinian man—that’s the phrase they use—rode up to a checkpoint, fired at soldiers while chanting “Allahu akbar,” and likely did it to revenge a relative who was killed while attacking soldiers with a pipe bomb two week ago—yet he doesn’t even get the “militant” designate. Why? Because the AP can’t find a “militant” group to tie him to.

That famous Muslim religious tolerance: While I am stunned that this is an AP story about Muslim religious intolerance, this is worse than anything they report on the Haredim. Muslim courts divorced a couple that did not request a divorce, leaving their marriage in limbo. This is apparently common practice against unapproved Islamic sects. Where did this happen? Gaza? Nope. Tulkarem, West Bank. Think we’ll see a cover story in Time about the Palestinians upcoming fascist state? (Of course, I kid. We’ll never see a negative story in Time about the Palestinians.)

How corrupt is the UN? This corrupt: The UN investigator is under investigation—for retaliating against two whistleblowers who reported corruption at the UN. Awesome. And oh yeah—this is the guy who closed down investigations before they were finished, with no charges filed. There are no hens, only foxes, in the UN henhouse.

Preparing for the next war: While Hezbollah and Hamas are preparing for the last war, the IDF is readying the troops to win the next one.

Thousands of soldiers and hundreds of armored vehicles dealt with simulated antitank missiles, rockets and mortar shells – as well as motorcycle-riding Hezbollah operatives. The deep mud caused by last weekend’s rain storm made the drill even more challenging.

Chipmunk Cheeks Nasrallah could not be reached for comment. He’s still hiding in his secret underground bunker for fear of assassination by the IDF.

Hezbollah—I mean Lebanese civilians—is still going after UNIFIL. Seriously, they should be renamed EUNUCHFIL, because they’re about as ball-less.

The incident took place as the UN Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL ) patrol was conducting a GPS demarcation, the reports say

The Lebanese Armed Forces (LAF) intervened following an alert byUNIFIL general command at the scene of the incident and resolved the situation by taking the patrol’s computer at the request of the villagers.

They let the LAF take their surveying equipment. Wow. They’re going to be so useful when Hezbollah launches the next war. As hostages.

I eagerly await the UN resolution against Hezbollah.

Kidding.

Why? Israel wouldn’t accept it and Abbas knows that.

The alternatives to PA control of the West Bank are Hamas control of the West Bank which would be worse for Abbas and the PA than they would be for Israel (that’s really bad) or anarchy which would endanger even Hamas. In either situation, Israel would be much more likely to engage militarily and then withdraw than it would to remain in full occupation. In other words, Abbas is stuck in power while lacking even the power to abdicate. He has one real choice which he is doing everything in his power to avoid making, namely to concede enough to Israel in the peace process that Israel can help him and the Palestinian people as a whole out of the current predicament. No one else can help. The process is stuck not because of Israeli refusal to make concessions, but because of Abbas’s refusal to make the concessions that must be made.

This isn’t rocket science. There is an obvious need for a paradigm shift in the thought process of the Palestinian Leadership from one of “How do we achieve what we failed to achieve in 1948?” namely to eliminate Israel or even “How do we achieve what we all rejected in 1949?” namely a state based upon the pre-1967 borders to “How do we create something resembling a state today based upon the changes that have occurred since 1948, 1967, 1973, 1993, 2000, 2005 and 2009?” which is what must be done.

The following are basic realities that have been rejected by the Palestinians thus far and will need to be taken into account for a state for the Palestinians to have a chance to come to fruition.

1. The “Right of Return” to Israel for Palestinians to Israel isn’t an option. It isn’t an act of peace, but is an act of war. Restitution is the only option for those refugees. In fact, restitution is the only option for the vast majority of refugees who would theoretically be able to return to a Palestinian state, but not to Israel (refugees from the 1967 war). Any future Palestinian state could not possibly support a dramatic increase in population for decades, if ever, so even a “return” to a Palestinian state post negotiations isn’t a viable option. To be honest, Israel couldn’t support such a bump in population either, even if it didn’t result in an immediate civil war, which it would. There will be no substantial return of refugees to either Israel or to a future Palestinian state.

2. The western, northern, and southern borders of the West Bank are not really issues, as they could be solved easily with territorial exchanges, with the exception of two issues. First, Jerusalem and second, other large Arab population centers currently within Israel. I’ll address those in a moment.

3. There is no chance that Israel could or would concede a large portion of the Old City to the Palestinians and there is little doubt that most of the residents of the Old City would NOT wish to become citizens of a Palestinian state. They are far better off as citizens of Israel and have said as much. A UN vote granting the pre-1967 border would go against their wishes. Yes, they want a Palestinian state to be created, but they do not want to live in it. This is much like those American Jews who are strong advocates for Israel but have no desire to make aliyah any time soon.

4. There is no chance that Israel could concede free and secure access to the Western Wall and the City of David for Jews which essentially means that it must maintain control over the vicinity of Temple Mount and Silwan as well as maintaining security control over the Mount of Olives to the East of the Temple Mount.

5. Israel is not going to allow the Mount Scopus Campus of Hebrew University to once again become cut off from Jews, which means that Israel will maintain a contiguous territory connecting an area North and East of the Old City with West Jerusalem, no matter what other areas it might consider allowing to become part of a future Palestinian state.

6. Places such as Um-al-Fahem, the large Arab village in the Galilee on the Israeli side of the Green Line would make some sense to place on the Palestinian side of the border after a peace agreement, but just as in #3 above, most of its residents would rather maintain Israeli citizenship than to become Palestinian citizens even though they might advocate for the creation of a Palestinian state. The PA might want this village, a prosperous Arab center, as part of the Palestinian state and no few Israeli Jews would be happy to oblige, but if the residents’ opinions matter, it will remain an Israeli city.

7. There will be significant shifts of populations after any peace agreement as settlements in the midst of a future Palestinian state will likely be abandoned. Compensation will need to be made in these cases as well. Restitution for Jews from Arab lands will be a consideration, but unless the discussions expand and become one between Israel and the Arab world, this issue would not be relevant as the Palestinians as such would have no responsibility to offer compensation to those refugees.

8. Israel cannot possibly allow either the Palestinians or an international force to control the Eastern border with Jordan. International forces have proven grossly and dangerously ineffective at stopping weapons smuggling in Lebanon, in Iraq, in Afghanistan, etc…. No Arab forces could be trusted to prevent the importation of weaponry to those whom they would almost certainly consider their allies. Hence, Israel will need to maintain supervision over the Eastern border of the West Bank indefinitely or it will not be able to make any other concessions.

9. There is no desire on the part of the Arab world to increase its Jihad, its struggle, against Israel and in fact there is significant impetus to improve relations with Israel without it resolving the conflict with the Palestinians. This is demonstrable from the Wikileaks documents.

10. Gaza cannot be a part of discussions until Hamas is removed from power because the Palestinian Authority does not speak for the people of Gaza. Current discussions should involve the West Bank alone.

11. The 1967 border was considered “noticeably insecure” and all previous discussions of UNSC Resolution 242 indicate that whatever border results from a settlement of that conflict must be secure. The understanding from the Western perspective, notably not from the Arab perspective, is that UNSCR 242 meant that Israel would not be asked to turn over all of the land captured in the 1967 war. The Arab world has always interpreted UNSCR 242 to mean exactly that Israel must turn over all of that land. The US does not believe Israel must do so, but also does not wish to define the border because to do so would undoubtedly upset the Arab world or Jewish and many Christian voters in America depending upon which side the administration chose to support. An abstention is the same as a vote in favor of the Arab side on this issue. Hence, the US has no choice but to veto and to demand that borders be settled by the two sides through negotiations. This is exactly what the US is currently doing.

12. While they may make pronouncements in the United Nations, in Arab League meetings, or to the press in general to the contrary, a final settlement of the conflict between the Israelis and Palestinians is not in the interest of the United States or that of many of the Arab League nations either because of positions they would need to take at that stage or because of consequences that would almost certainly follow such as turning hundreds of thousands of refugees into citizens of their states.

There are certainly more considerations that could be listed here. I simply came up with twelve significant ones. Any discussion of peace or of the creation of a Palestinian state that does not take these factors into account, if not many others as well, is not realistic.

Speaking of nutjobs: Muammar Gaddafi, he of the thousand-spellings-name, is proposing “Isratine” to the UN, and hilarity ensued. This is my favorite part of the story:

The proposal also managed to confuse African and Arab member states, which did not know whether to object, abstain, or just leave the venue.

Wait, what? You’re confusing the narrative! Make it stop!

What’s happening at the Oxford Union? First the Israeli position wins a debate, and now the audience is respectful of an Israeli speaker. And this is an awesome quote:

He also fielded a number of poignant questions on subjects such as West Bank settlements. Jerusalem was the capital of Israel when London was just swamplands, he remarked in answer to one student.

There is no story that the AP can’t spin anti-Israel: This one is on Hanukkah. What does the AP put out on the first night? A warning that menorahs can cause house fires. Eff you, AP, and all your anti-Israel writers and editors.

Pay attention, anti-Israel pundits: You’re all wrong. No, really. Wikileaks proved it. The Arab world hates and fears Iran. And there is no linkage between Iran and peace with Israel.

Human Rights Watch notices a country other than Israel: Forgot to mention this when it came out, but HRW has noticed that Libya is a pretty piss-poor country when it comes to human rights. Just for kicks and giggles, I searched two words in HRW’s news pages search engine. “Libya” came back with 27 pages of results. “Israel”? 40 pages. Anti-Israel bias? What anti-Israel bias?

Rockets fall on Israel, AP shrugs: A Grad rocket was fired into Israel this morning. Seven mortars have been fired into southern Israel. What does the AP have to say? Well, at the end of an article about 200 IDF soldiers’ data being put online, you get this:

Early on Friday, Gaza militants fired a military-grade rocket into southern Israel, causing light damage and no casualties.

Militants usually fire mortar shells or small rockets they manufacture themselves and only rarely use military-grade projectiles like the relatively powerful Grad launched early on Friday.

So, the AP itself states that it’s a rare occurrence, which would, you would think, make it—newsworthy. But you would be wrong. Now, if the Grad rocket fell on Palestinians and killed them, then it might be newsworthy. No, wait, that’s happened, and it’s barely a blip on the media radar. Of course, if the IDF sent a Hellfire missile up the asses of terrorists trying to fire a missile and killed them, THAT would be all over the newswires. “Israel kills Palestinians” would be the headline, and the lead would neglect to mention or downplay the fact that they were firing missiles at civilians.

What time is it, folks? See title.

The anti-Semitic Time’s Man of the Year: Can’t really tell who to give the top Jew-hating title to, Time or Recip Tayyip Erdogan. Reading this utterly anti-Israel p.o.s. piece on voting for the Islamist who is moving Turkey towards becoming a fascist, Islamist state is rather nauseating. “Man of the Year” used to mean the person who most influenced world events. That’s why people like Hitler got it. Erdogan has influenced some Middle East events, but nowhere else, really. As for the utterly biased account of an Israeli “raid” killing Turkish “activists” delivering “aid”—well, this is the [so-called] newsmagazine that helpfully put “rhymes with Fagin” as a how-to-pronounce guide of Menachem Begin’s last name. And may I say: Eff you, Time, and all your Jew-hating writers and editors.

Buh-bye, Jihadis: IDF got another couple of terrorists in Gaza. I’d say “Tuna for terrorists,” but the kitties get canned food every day now, so no tuna for them. Bonus points: These are the jerks that kidnapped the BBC reporter (who still hates Israel, though). Al Qaeda is now threatening Jews in Hebrew over these killings. Because it makes a difference if they use our language or theirs. Duh.

What’s missing from this AP piece on the freeze? The fact that the Palestinians have said they will not resume talks without a full settlement freeze. Funny, the Israeli press can find quotes to that effect, but not the AP. And then there’s the “they want a freeze but that’s not a condition” bullshit. Um—they want a freeze, but it’s not a condition? In what universe?

Palestinians want construction to halt in both war-won areas, which they claim for their future state along with the Hamas-ruled Gaza Strip.

But they have not set that as a condition for resuming U.S.-brokered peace talks, which broke down in late September, just three weeks after they began at the White House, following the expiry of a 10-month moratorium on new West Bank construction.

Sure looks like a condition to me.

Big, scary Israel is scaring scared villagers: The AP just can’t go a day without slamming Israel for everthing. The village of Ghajar was captured from Syria during the Six-Day War. When Israel left Lebanon in 2000, the UN split the village in half. Israel occupied it again during the war with Hezbollah, and reunited the village that the UN had stupidly split in half. Now, the villagers say they don’t give a crap who rules them, they want their village whole in one piece. So, of course, it’s Israel’s fault that the village is now split. Not the UN surveyors. It’s the headline that irks me the most: Israel pullout stirs fear in Lebanon border hamlet. Big, scary Israelis—even when they leave, they’re scaring the poor, innocent fill-in-the-blanks.

Lawfare works both ways: Awesome! An Israeli student fought a Spanish websites anti-Israel policies and won. Looks like the threat of being sued ranks higher than a stupid boycott, eh? (Also doesn’t help that the Euros have those thought-crime laws, and it’s far easier to win lawsuits there than it would be here in the U.S. But hey—we’ll take the win.)