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.

Nope.

The request, filed by the United States, was jointly submitted by 10 European states, as well as Japan, Mexico, South Korea, Senegal and Zambia.

Not a single Arab nation on the council joined in the request. A close personal friend of Muammar Khadaffy is—get this—a “council investigator on human rights violations by mercenaries,” thus explaining why Libya was never brought up on any human rights violations. All of the thugs on the council are in bed with one another regarding covering their own crimes. But don’t forget, Cuba and China are on the council.

The council has no problem finding fault with Israel on the subject of human rights. One might even say it seems to be the council’s raison d’etre. Fifty percent of all special sessions of the UNHRC so far have been devoted to Israel. Fifty percent of all resolutions of the UNHRC so far have been devoted to Israel.

So excuse me while I turn a jaundiced eye toward this new special session, as well as toward Ban Ki-Moon’s objections to Syria gunning down six-year-old children. Nothing will come of it. Bashar al-Assad will survive. And in a year or so, his representatives will be condemning Israel for violating human rights on something or other.

UNHRC to Goldstone: Nyah nyah nyah, it is too true! The execrable United Nations Human Rights Council says that Goldstone’s op-ed, where he pointed out the bias and lies of the commission report named after him, is not binding. Also that the only way to undo the report is by unanimous vote of all the countries in the UNHRC. In other words: Pound sand, Jewboy. We got what we wanted out of you: A veneer of respectability from a Jewish, South African judge. And if anyone thinks I’m exaggerating what they used him for, well, I have this bridge to sell you. Cheap. It’s in New York. Been in my family for generations.

The Goldstone Repentance Tour begins: He’s going to visit Sderot. As well he should. And if his repentance is sincere, we are commanded to forgive him.

What the media leave out: The AP carried a short piece on the Israeli-Arab actor murdered in Jenin. They missed a significant motive, however.

Residents of the refugee camp disseminated fliers in 2009 calling the actor a fifth column. “If words don’t help we will have to speak in bullets,” the fliers said.

What was it that angered the Arabs of Jenin? This:

However, the actor added, he was taking precautions. Of those behind the fliers he said, “It makes them crazy that a man who is half-Jewish is at the head of one of the most important projects in the Palestinian West Bank and it is just hypocritical racism.”

Stop for a moment and realize that every single time an Arab is wounded or killed and blames Israeli Jews, the AP runs wild with it (as does the rest of the world media). When Arabs murder Jews because they are Jews, the media ignore it.

Reuters missed it in the first article, but noted the anti-Jewish threats in the current one. The AFP missed it. There are most of the European news media outlets right there. And there is a primary example of the anti-Israel, pro-Palestinian bias of the major media. The man was murdered because he was Jewish. Not publishing that fact is tantamount to covering it up.

The administration officials offered few details on how Obama would turn the broad objectives he’ll call for Wednesday into specific policies. They did, however, say the efforts would require increased spending on research and development. The officials spoke on the condition of anonymity in order to preview the president’s speech.

Of course. Spending other people’s money has been his life.’s work Why stop now that he’s president? Oh, as to drilling in America’s oil fields? Shyeah, right. Why would he want to do that?

Yeah, and the Israeli Air Force jets were on their way to synagogue: This is a new excuse. PIJ admits that Israel killed one of its terrorists, but he wasn’t going to launch rockets at Israel. The random group of Islamic terrorists was on its way to the mosque to pray. Uh-huh. By the way, the headline, of course, uses the active voice when discussing the death of Palestinians. And blames Israel (which is, of course, responsible). As opposed to AP’s inability to use the active voice or blame Palestinians when Israelis are killed.

Israel airstrike kills 1 Gaza militant

Awesome. Egypt’s new government wants to build ties with Iran. See title.

Check back later: Ban Ki-Moon made a speech about Israel and the Palestinians. I suspect fiskability.

The Secretary-General condemns last night’s shocking murder of an Israeli family of five, including three children, in a West Bank settlement. He calls for the perpetrators to be brought to justice, and for all to act with restraint.

What did he say when the IDF misfired a shell, killing Palestinian civilians by mistake?

The Secretary-General strongly condemns the killing of three Palestinian children and their uncle and the wounding of 13 other civilians by an Israeli tank shell in the Gaza Strip earlier today. He is very concerned at an escalating situation in Gaza and southern Israel. He reiterates as well his condemnation of rocket fire by Palestinian militant groups in Gaza, including from populated areas, against civilian targets in southern Israel. He calls on all to respect their obligations under international humanitarian law and human rights law.

And what did he say in response to the bombing of Jerusalem’s main bus station?

The Secretary-General strongly condemns a bomb attack today adjacent to a bus stop in West Jerusalem, which has reportedly killed one woman and injured over thirty Israeli civilians, some of them seriously. Such attacks are unacceptable. The Secretary-General is deeply concerned and calls for an immediate cessation of acts of terrorism and violence against civilians in order to prevent further escalation and loss of life.

Do you see a pattern here? Which party does he most condemn, Hamas or Israel? What does he react to the most viscerally, terrorism or the death of civilians by either side? And what kind of condemnation does the butchery of a four-year-old, a three-year-old, a young child and their parents get?

The Secretary-General condemns last night’s shocking murder of an Israeli family of five, including three children, in a West Bank settlement. He calls for the perpetrators to be brought to justice, and for all to act with restraint.

Oh. That’s right. It was only Jews. And “settlers,” while we’re at it. No need to get as up in arms as he does over Palestinian civilians killed by errant IDF fire.

Egyptian women’s rights protest marred by hecklers

Right. “Heckled” is the headline, though the body of the story contains the facts.

Also in Egypt, Muslims torched a Coptic Christian church. Why? Because a Muslim and a Christian were dating, and the father of the Muslim refused to murder his child for dating a Christian. The Muslims murdered the father, and then attacked the Christians. Christians fought back. There are now pitched battles in Egypt between Christians and Muslims.

In Libya, Madman Gaddaffy is flattening towns where the people are rebelling against him, and also bombing oil production terminals.

In Israel, the government has postponed by several months the decision to deport children of foreign workers who are not legal citizens of Israel.

In Ramallah, the PA censored a TV show making fun of Madman Gaddaffy.

Israel is ranged number 2 globally for having women in upper management positions in corporations.

Oh, and Israeli Jews don’t murder their women for intermarrying.

But by all means, let’s vilify Israel during the annual Israeli Apartheid festivals at universities worldwide. Because that’s where the problems are in the Middle East.

Anti-Semitism Israel “Apartheid” month commences: Phyllis Chesler has a great piece about how the left is just using Israel for its protest fix. Via.

Jews against Jews? So the Jews Zionists control the media, except at NPR, and this guy, who has a Jewish last name, is only too happy to agree with undercover citizen journalists posing as Muslims offering $5 million to NPR. So, Ron Schiller—are you Jewish? Because if you are, that makes your actions even more offensive.

When the man pretending to be Kasaam suggests to Schiller that “Jews do kind of control the media or, I mean, certainly the Zionists and the people who have the interests in swaying media coverage toward a favorable direction of Israel,” Schiller does not rebut him or stop eating. He just nods his head slightly.

Well done, Ron! Well done! Another reason for me to continue to refuse to fund NPR. For the record, I don’t think we should defund all government funds for programming. I like the Richmond PBS station, and think the PBS stations give programming we would not otherwise get. NPR, on the other hand—buh-bye.

Mini-Durban: It’s on, Israel! The UN is bashing Israel again. Because it’s not like there’s anything else going on in the Middle East of note.

The Iranians are crushing their citizens’ skulls again. Word is that Hezbollah imports are doing much of the beatdowns.

The UN Security Council resolution on Israeli settlements was sponsored by Lebanon, now nearly fully Iran’s client state. And Iranian ships are passing through the Suez Canal for the first time since 1979. (And sure, they’re not carrying weapons. They’re just going to stop in Lebanon for the tourist attractions.)

But the major problem needing fixing in the Middle East today? Why, of course, it’s the Israeli-Palestinian issue. No peace in Israel, no peace in Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, Tunisia, Libya, Egypt, Yemen, Bahrain, Syria, etc., etc., etc. The UN condemns Israel at every opportunity.

Seriously?

The European Union is telling Israel that growing instability in the Middle East makes it imperative to immediately resume the stalled peace process with the Palestinians.

Hungary’s foreign minister Janos Martonyi, whose country currently chairs the EU, told his Israeli counterpart Avigdor Lieberman on Tuesday that time is pressing and that the Israeli-Palestinian talks remain the core issue.

A Palestinian state would have stopped Ghaddafy from firing on his people? It would have stopped the Iranians from bashing in the heads of democracy protesters? It would have stopped the rest of the Middle East from rising up against their autocratic rulers and demanding freedom? That’s what the establishment of a Palestinian state would have done?

I think I’m going to call bullshit on that. Yes, I most definitely am. (Insert several eye rolls here.)

Morons.

Americans believe that power is derived from the will of the people. We decry despotism. Yet our sense of fairness often drives us to allow the mob to rule even when we know that its rule is unfair. That contradiction results in another, namely a contradiction between the belief that the rights of every person are sacred and the belief that the will of the majority, even to trample upon the rights of the minority, must be followed.

Today we are witnessing upheaval in the Middle East. Mob rule threatens to overturn despotism. Ethically, we must support the mob because power should derive from the will of the people. Yet also ethically, we must oppose the mob’s efforts should they gain power, to create a tyranny of their own. Our conflicted minds think, “Down with the dictator! Beware the victors!”

I wish that I could say that this conflict was limited to foreign lands. It is not. This week, both on the left and the right of the political spectrum, mobs gather to press their voice, to press their power, in states across our Union. They speak and act in righteous indignation at affronts, at unfairness, or in religious fury. I will not for a moment declare all of these groups wrong to do so and, in this place, will not even criticize a one. What I offer here is one man’s sense that times are changing. The majority is feeling empowered to act as a mob. Minorities, both ethnic minorities and those who hold minority views, are under increasing threat.

Thus, when I hear the words of those advocating for the United States to support condemnation of Israel precisely because the majority of nations do and when I can note that this reasoning seems to be starting to resonate, I find myself, as I do today, becoming increasingly concerned. I am concerned not only for Israel. Israel has friends. Israel has strength. Israel may take care of itself. I am concerned that the 1920s, 1930s, and 1940s will be reborn and that Israel’s purpose as a safe haven for the persecuted Jew will be made manifest again. I am concerned that the rights of minorities in America and throughout the world will be under threat because the masses so wish. I am concerned that the rule of law will be increasingly unable to be sustained against the will of the masses.

There is little or no difference between the resolution proposed in the UN Security Council today in condemnation of Israel and many others that have been proposed before. The real difference is in the sense that standing up for the persecuted minority, or even standing apart with a minority, increasingly appears to be seen as unreasonable and even as unrighteous.

Should the United States today vote to support the majority for that sole reason, it will be a shameful day in our nation’s history and a frightening omen for the future.

Today is Purim Katan, “Little Purim”. Today is the 14th of the First Month of Adar. Today, though we are not required to read the Megillah, the Book of Esther, as we will be required next month on Purim, we are reminded of the persecution of minorities everywhere in the world. We are reminded that the tide may swiftly change against us and others. We cannot forget.

If we are vigilant, we may live the blessing from the Book of Esther, “And the Jews had light and Gladness and Joy and Honor.” Kein yehi ratson!