Blog | Yourish.com | Cutting straight to the point

Writing about Israel

Posted on 05/26/2011 by Meryl Yourish

I would like to take a moment to point my readers to two of the most reliable sources on Israel that I’ve discovered during my many years of blogging about Israel. There are many, many people who I read, and I approach the issues from many angles, even though (as everyone knows) I am a Zionist. I require information from all sides to make up my mind, though, and I am open to being convinced otherwise, except where the important issues of Israel’s existence are concerned.

It turns out that the two people whose judgements and opinions I trust the most are Barry Rubin and Yaacov Lozowick, who are both Israelis. What I like most about Yaacov is that he has come to his opinions in the center after having been much further to the left, and he challenges me to remember my lefty roots. What I like about Barry is that he states, plainly and in a factual manner, the truth behind the issues that the media and government ignore.

There are many other people whose work I read. But these two men write the kind of information that I agree with and try to get out to my readers. Yaacov and Barry are historians, and it shows in their informative blog posts and columns (and excellent books). They’re not pulling facts out of the air; they have solid evidence backing up their statements. As far as I know, neither of them has ever written for World News Daily. I consider that a good thing.

On a similar subject, I also read Jeffrey Goldberg, but not for the same reasons as above. I don’t dismiss him out of hand the way so many do. He has many valid points. I don’t agree with him on a number of issues (Netanyahu immediately comes to mind), but I know that he, too, has Israel’s best interests at heart—even when he’s wrong. He has a point of view that is valuable to me, because even when I completely disagree with it, it still makes me think about that particular side. I don’t see the need to vilify Goldberg. By all means, call him out when he’s wrong. But the current campaign against him is despicable. Jeffrey Goldberg is a friend of Israel. The mouth-breathers calling him all kinds of Nazi epithets need a swift kick in the ass. He is not in any way in the Tom Friedman camp, and doesn’t deserve to be put there. But then, that’s the intertubes. When you don’t have to face the person you are insulting, it becomes a whole lot easier to do. Been there, done that, got the Master of Juvenile Scorn™ for it.

You don’t have to agree with someone to read him for valuable insight. Or to think that he’s being treated unfairly.

Posted in Bloggers, Israel | 1 Comment

The Gaza flotilla: It’s really about Israel

Posted on 05/26/2011 by Meryl Yourish

The new, improved Gaza Flotilla—which includes more anti-Israel fools than you can shake a lulav at—doesn’t care that the Rafah crossing is going to be opened. They’re going anyway.

“We shall set sail, we have many surprises in store,” IHH spokesman Ömer Faruk said. “If there really is no blockade then there shouldn’t be a problem with us going there. Everything will become clearer next month.”

And it looks like they’re planning on violence again.

The spokesman declared they will act peacefully, adding “we only hope the Israeli side acts the same.”
Earlier this week, IHH head Bulent Yildirim said, “Even if we sacrifice shahids (martyrs) for this cause, we will be on the side of justice.”

I’m guessing this time, they’re going to hide their actions from the “internationals” a little better, and confiscate cameras that catch them preparing to attack the IDF.

And here is where we get to the meat of the matter—why they keep insisting on breaking the blockade when there is no longer any kind of crisis in Gaza:

“It’s not just Gaza. It’s the West Bank and Jerusalem. Israel continues to hurt Palestinian rights illegally. This policy must change, and opening Rafah will not change the fact that Palestinian fishermen cannot fish more than five km away.”

Yes, it’s no longer about the faux humanitarian crisis. (That’s the one that never was.) It’s about trying to force Israel to allow Palestinians to freely enter Israel. Why? Because they want to. They’re enemies of Israel, and no nation on earth has open borders to a hostile neighbor, but that’s what these idiots think is right.

But the flotilla is still necessary, he claimed. “The opening of the crossing still depends on the Egyptians’ mood, they may decide to close it after two days. This also applies to Israel – sometimes it opens crossings, sometimes it closes them. We are acting on the belief that the Palestinians must have control over their own passageways and points of contact with the world. The blockade must end.”

As for violence, well…

Fyler admitted that radicals may try to cause provocations. “I call upon representatives of the UN and the EU to board the ships and check the passengers and cargo before and after the sail.”

The only thing that makes me feel less worried about this flotilla is that nobody learns faster and better than Israelis. They will not make the same mistakes as last time, while I would bet that the IHH Islamists are going to do pretty much the same, with the extra added attraction of probably having a weapons cache or three onboard.

Fact-checking the AP fact-check on Bibi’s speech

Posted on 05/26/2011 by Meryl Yourish

Oh, Josef, Josef, Josef. You know I read the AP regularly. Why would you even tempt me?

NETANYAHU: “You don’t need to send American troops to Israel. We defend ourselves.”
THE FACTS: Israel is a leading recipient of American foreign aid, including more than $1 billion in military assistance each year.

THE TRUTH: Israel must spend 75% of that money on U.S.-made equipment, thus guaranteeing U.S. military suppliers jobs and customers. Also, since Israeli aid is bundled in with Egyptian aid, Israel must spend money on defense from Egypt, as recent events have shown. For every dollar Israel takes from the U.S., it spends between $1.06 and $1.39 on defense.

NETANYAHU: “In Judea and Samaria, the Jewish people are not foreign occupiers. We are not the British in India. We are not the Belgians in the Congo.”
THE FACTS: While the West Bank, or Judea and Samaria, is promised to the Jewish people in the Bible, the international community considers the West Bank occupied territory. Israel captured the area in the 1967 Mideast war but has never annexed it. Its occupied status is underscored by the presence of tens of thousands of Israeli soldiers who protect Israeli settlements and control the movement of Palestinian residents in the name of security.

THE TRUTH: The West Bank includes the ancient Jewish city of Jerusalem, in which a majority of Jews lived before the war with the Arab nations. Jews were driven out of their homes there, and in other areas of the territories, including from Hebron in 1929—fleeing a massacre which a 92-year-old Arab woman thinks of fondly.

NETANYAHU: “You don’t need to export democracy to Israel. We’ve already got it.”
THE FACTS: Israel does give its Arab minority full civil rights, including participation in elections. But Israeli Arabs suffer from systematic discrimination in housing and the workplace. Also, more than 2 million Palestinians living in the West Bank do not have Israeli citizenship and therefore cannot vote in Israeli elections.

THE TRUTH: Democracy is democracy. Arab-Israelis can vote. The rest of this “fact” is distraction. Discrimination is a different story, and, funnily enough, the AP does not point out that the discriminatory practices keep getting knocked down by Jewish judges. Also, West Bank Palestinians are not Israeli citizens. They will be citizeins of Palestine. Why would they vote in Israeli elections?

NETANYAHU: “The vast majority of the 650,000 Israelis who live beyond the 1967 lines reside in neighborhoods and suburbs of Jerusalem and greater Tel Aviv.”
THE FACTS: Nearly all of these communities were built in the face of overwhelming international opposition and are considered illegal settlements by the world, including the U.S. There are 300,000 Israelis living in the West Bank and 200,000 in east Jerusalem, making a total of 500,000.

THE TRUTH: Once again, the AP ignores the Jews displaced from Jerusalem, and does not include, say, the actual distances of the suburbs. Also, once again, the eastern half of Jerusalem never belonged to the Palestinians. In eastern Jerusalem is the Jewish Quarter of the Old City and the ruins of the Temple Mount, both taken from Jews by Jordan in 1948.

NETANYAHU: “The Palestinian economy is booming. It’s growing by more than 10 percent a year.”
THE FACTS: The West Bank economy is indeed growing rapidly. But the World Bank has noted that the growth comes after years of contraction during fighting with Israel and has been fueled by huge amounts of foreign aid. It warns the growth is unsustainable unless Israel does more to encourage the Palestinian private sector.

THE TRUTH: If it is booming, it is booming. This is another attempt to deny the reality of the situation. The AP isn’t able to disprove the growth, therefore it says it is “unsustainable.” Uh-huh.

NETANYAHU: “Israel will not negotiate with a Palestinian government backed by the Palestinian version of al-Qaida.”
THE FACTS: While Hamas and al-Qaida have killed hundreds of people in religious holy wars, they have no connection, and Hamas has in fact come under criticism from the global terror network for being too moderate. Al-Qaida preaches global jihad. Hamas says its struggle is solely against Israel, not the West at large. In its Gaza stronghold, Hamas has violently clashed with smaller armed groups that claim inspiration from al-Qaida.

THE TRUTH: Seriously? You’re going to take a figure of speech and make it count literally? Fine. Let’s discuss terrorist groups and see if you can tell the difference between the two. One wants to kill Jews, drive them out of “Palestine,” restore an Islamic Caliphate, and have Islam rule the world. The other wants to kill Jews, drive them out of “Palestine,” restore an Islamic Caliphate, and have Islam rule the world. One is called Hamas, the other al Qaeda. Can you tell which one is which? I sure can’t.

There is also Article Five of the Hamas Charter, which calls for a global jihad:

Its extent in place is anywhere that there are Muslims who embrace Islam as their way of life everywhere in the globe. This being so, it extends to the depth of the earth and reaches out to the heaven.

And there you have another example of the AP anti-Israel media bias.

Update: Great minds, and all that. Daled Amos and I think alike.

Posted in Hamas, Israel, Media Bias, palestinian politics | 1 Comment

The mysterious Justin Bieber tattoo

Posted on 05/25/2011 by Meryl Yourish

I think I understand now why the U.K. is so anti-Zionist. It’s filled with morons who don’t even know what Hebrew looks like when they see it on a teen pop star’s side. The caption of the bigger picture (at the link):

Body art: Bieber showed off a new tattoo – a row of mysterious symbols under his left arm – in addition to the bird etching on his waistline

Justin Bieber's Hebrew tattoo

Yeah, it’s a mystery, all right. I’ve never seen those symbols before. Oh, wait. Yes I have. They’re yod, shin, vav, ayin. He’s deeply religious. Want to bet that’s how his particular group of Christians spells “Yeshua,” their Hebrew name for Jesus?

I know the Daily Mail isn’t the top drawer of British newspapers, but come on—”mysterious symbols”? How freaking ignorant are the Brits about Judaism, anyway?

Posted in Media, Music, Pop Culture, Religion | 3 Comments

Rafah crossing: Open, closed, it’s still Israel’s fault

Posted on 05/25/2011 by Meryl Yourish

Egypt says it’s going to open the Rafah crossing into Gaza. The AP still manages to slam Israel for having a horrible, awful, punishing blockade on the sweet, innocent Gazans, whose only crime appears to be breathing in the space next to Israel.

Egypt will open its only crossing with the Gaza Strip this weekend, the Cairo military government announced Wednesday, significantly easing a four-year blockade on the Hamas-ruled territory but setting up a potential conflict with Israel.

Funny, the blockade is so difficult that the Gazans are getting a new three-story shopping mall. It’s the second one opened in the last year. Oh, those poor, suffering Gazans, unable to get the basic essentials like beauty products.

There is nothing, of course, that the AP can’t find to bitch about regarding Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians. While admitting that there is no real crisis as a result of the blockade, we get this:

This gives Gaza Palestinians a way to freely enter and exit their territory for the first time since 2007, when Hamas overran the territory, and Israel and Egypt closed the crossings.
Israel’s crossings are more significant, since they handle most cargo. A year ago Israel significantly eased its restrictions on cargo entering Gaza, but it still severely limits entry and exit of Gazans through its northern crossing into Israel.

Gee. Israel refuses to let Gazans into Israel. Why is that, I wonder? Surely there must be some reason [HAMAS TERROR ATTACKS] that Israel doesn’t want [HAMAS TERROR ATTACKS] to let Gazans travel freely [HAMAS TERROR ATTACKS] into Israel. Don’t worry, it’ll come to me. Just give me a minute.

And of course, we have to note this little gem:

The statement said rules in effect before the blockade would be reinstated. At that time, European observers had a role in operating the crossing, and Israel monitored people and cargo to keep out militants and weapons.

So the Gazans can’t enter and exit freely, a fact that contradicts directly the previous statements in the news article. But then again, we are talking about European monitors, who fled when directed by Hamas. I guarantee they will not confront Hamas over the open smuggling of weaponry into Gaza.

Also note that the AP spins this as an issue that will upset only Israel, when in fact, agreements were made between Israel, Egypt, the EU and the U.S. to monitor the crossings after Ariel Sharon withdrew every last Israeli from Gaza in 2005.

In the end of the article, we have the AP boilerplate about Israel claiming Hamas smuggles weapons through the tunnels. They’re very schizophrenic on that boilerplate. Some days, it’s the above. Other days, it plainly states that Hamas uses the tunnels to smuggle weapons. No matter which way you look at it, however, the arming of Hamas continues.

What is happening now is the gathering of Israel’s enemies on three sides, with the fourth side TBD depending on who takes over for Mahmoud Abbas, and how many weapons they can smuggle into the West Bank. The coming years are extremely dangerous for Israel. If the Islamists feel that they’re able to destroy Israel, they’re going to launch a war not unlike the 1967 Six-Day War. Only this time, one of Israel’s enemies may be armed with nuclear weapons. That is not a scenario I want to see. But it is one that the world is pushing Israel towards, by ignoring the enemies and concentrating on—wait for it—settlements.

Because yeah, Israel’s the obstacle to peace. Sure.

Posted in Israel, Media Bias, Middle East, palestinian politics | 1 Comment

God save us from the queen

Posted on 05/25/2011 by Meryl Yourish

I would like to state, plainly and equivocally, that I do not give a rat’s ass that Barack Obama, the democratically-elected President of the United States of America, effed up a toast to the queen of England, who was chosen by no majority to no office and was made queen by virtue of having come out of the right womb of the right woman at the right time.

Yes, I know that he’s supposed to be the most European president of the world or something. Don’t care. He is the American president, not the king of a tiny island nation that is no longer the British Empire. And no, I don’t care that he misstated her stupid title by calling her the queen of England, either.

Obama is unworldly, egotistical, professorial, and annoying. But at least he is the democratically-elected unworldly, egotistical, professorial, annoying president of the United States of America. He wasn’t born into it.

And for that let me say: God bless America.

Posted in American Scene, The One | 5 Comments

Really, Friedman’s just embarrassing now

Posted on 05/25/2011 by Meryl Yourish

If you read Tom Friedman, you have to wonder: Does he know how idiotic he sounds? I’m thinking not.

May I suggest a Tahrir Square alternative? Announce that every Friday from today forward will be “Peace Day,” and have thousands of West Bank Palestinians march nonviolently to Jerusalem, carrying two things — an olive branch in one hand and a sign in Hebrew and Arabic in the other. The sign should say: “Two states for two peoples. We, the Palestinian people, offer the Jewish people a two-state solution based on the 1967 borders — with mutually agreed adjustments — including Jerusalem, where the Arabs will control their neighborhoods and the Jews theirs.”
If Palestinians peacefully march to Jerusalem by the thousands every Friday with a clear peace message, it would become a global news event. Every network in the world would be there. Trust me, it would stimulate a real peace debate within Israel — especially if Palestinians invited youth delegations from around the Arab world to join the marches, carrying the Saudi peace initiative in Hebrew and Arabic. Israeli Jews and Arabs should be invited to march as well. Together, the marchers could draw up their own peace maps and upload them onto YouTube as a way of telling their leaders what Egyptian youth said to President Hosni Mubarak: “We’re not going to let you waste another day of our lives with your tired mantras and maneuvering.”

Nonviolence and Palestinians do not go together. Blindness and New York Times columnists, on the other hand—well, those go together perfectly. A misreading of history is another.

Anwar Sadat brought the Israeli majority over to his side when he went to Israel, and he got everything he wanted. Yasir Arafat momentarily did the same with the Oslo peace accords.

Note the word “momentarily,” deliberately inserted so that Tom can ignore things like the terror attacks on Israelis since the Oslo agreement was reached. But a wilful blindness is what characterizes nearly all Friedman columns on Israel. There are weekly “nonviolent” protests in Bi’ilin and Naalin. IDF soldiers have been blinded, had their legs broken, and regularly pelted with rocks. There is no such thing as a nonviolent protest against Israel. Thousands of West Bank Palestinians heading toward Jerusalem will not be nonviolent. They will not carry olive branches. They will carry rocks the size of a man’s hand, and throw those rocks to maim and kill. They will carry guns and hide them behind women and children. As for the Saudi peace initiative that Tom Friedman is still flogging—it includes flooding Israel with millions of third- and fourth-generation “refugees”. It states:

“Attain a just solution to the problem of Palestinian refugees to be agreed upon in accordance with the UN General Assembly Resolution No 194.”

That would be this, which even Wikipedia knows is interpreted as guaranteeing the “right of return” to Israel for Palestinian refugees.

Resolves that the refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbours should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date, and that compensation should be paid for the property of those choosing not to return and for loss of or damage to property which, under principles of international law or in equity, should be made good by the Governments or authorities responsible.

Considering that the UN classifies the children of Palestinian refugees also as refugees, this would enable millions of Palestinians to claim a home in Israel. It’s a non-starter, and Friedman has always know this, but he consistently refuses to acknowledge the fatal flaws for Israel in the plan.

What bothers me the most about Friedman is his absolute inability to write about the reality of the situation. He ignores the facts when they contradict his shiny worldview, using them only as instruments to bash Israelis who don’t agree with him. By labeling Netanyahu as the Israeli Mubarak, he shows that he does not care that most Israelis do agree with him. They elected him in free and fair elections, the only truly free and fair elections in the entire Middle East. There is no intimidation at the Israeli ballot box. There is no supreme leader with a say-so over who gets to run for office. There are no armed goons standing in the room making sure you put the X on the right box before you drop your ballot in. To label the leader of the most democratic state in the Middle East as a fallen dictator shows me that Friedman is uninterested in the facts as they are. He is only interested in the narrative, and in the facts as he wishes them to be.

No, that doesn’t bother me the most. What bothers me the most is that so many American Jews will read his column, nod their heads, and think he has a point.

He most assuredly does not.

Posted in Israel Derangement Syndrome, Media Bias | 4 Comments

The new narrative on Israel

Posted on 05/24/2011 by Meryl Yourish

The AP has gone overboard in its pro-Palestinian slant in this piece of drek.

Palestinian UN bid enters unknown territory
President Barack Obama threw down a gauntlet this weekend: no vote at the United Nations, he asserted, would ever create a Palestinian state.
The Palestinians hope to prove him wrong. But their planned bid for U.N. recognition this fall of a state in the West Bank, Gaza and east Jerusalem _ territories occupied by Israel since the 1967 Mideast war _ enters largely unknown legal ground, and the Palestinians are still trying to work out how best to work the U.N. labyrinth.

The author twists herself into knots to find ways the Palestinians could circumvent the Security Council—where President Obama has promised to veto a unilateral declaration of Palestinian statehood (at least, for now)—and establish a state without an agreement, or even negotiations, with Israel. And the AP is only too happy to show why the state should be granted unilaterally, by pretending that only Israel is at fault in the failure of negotiations:

Seeking U.N. recognition of a Palestinian state is an idea born out of frustration, after two decades of on-and-off Israeli-Palestinian talks produced few results. Abbas has said he prefers to establish a state through negotiations, and that he is being pushed into unilateral steps by Israel’s refusal to engage in talks on terms backed by the international community.

You see? It’s all Israel’s fault, for refusing to do what everyone is telling it to do. The Palestinians? Well, obviously, they’ve done their best.

Let’s see, two decades ago would be 1991, the Oslo agreements. Nope, no results since then. There are still Israeli towns in Gaza, the Palestinians aren’t controlling most of the West Bank, the IDF has thousands of checkpoints all over the territories—oh. Wait. No, none of that is true anymore. But it’s still all Israel’s fault, anyway.

And here’s where the AP states the new narrative:

Dropping the U.N. bid would dash rising expectations among Palestinians that statehood will be declared in September. Proceeding would risk confrontation with Obama, who laid out his parameters for a peace deal _ including assurances that it must be based on the pre-1967 war lines _ in hopes of getting the Palestinians to desist from unilateral actions.

Thanks, Barry! That’s just what the world needed, another club with which to bash Israel. So glad you provided us with one.

The new narrative. All the cool media kids are pushing it.

Posted in Israel, Media Bias, palestinian politics | Tagged 1967 border | 2 Comments

press.moa@gmail.com

Posted on 05/23/2011 by Meryl Yourish

Looks like the assholes at Move Over AIPAC don’t want their email address scraped by spambots.

Oops.

Pass it on.

(This is why I don’t write for, oh, Commentary. Unlike Omri, I can’t stamp out my tendency to be evil.)

Posted in Anti-Semitism, Evil Meryl, Israel Derangement Syndrome | 1 Comment

Your Monday news roundup

Posted on 05/23/2011 by Meryl Yourish

Pray for the people of Joplin: Horrible. A tornado has killed at least 89 people, and the count will certainly go higher as the missing become known to be killed.

Breaking British law: Come and get me, if you can. Imogen Thomas is having an affair with British soccer player Ryan Biggs. The U.K. media laws are so restrictive that a judge granted Biggs permission to force all British news media not to publish his name. The AP says it is forbidden to publish the name. But this is the age of social media, and fans have sent out thousands of tweets with the details, and a quick Google search gave me the name. Take that, U.K., and stick your overarching laws up your royal-loving butts. And no, I have no idea who either of these people are. But British media laws offend me. You can’t stop the message.

What? Actual recognition that the Palestinians are stonewalling on Obama’s demands? It’s a mild, mild story, but the AP covers the Palestinians’ intransigence and reaction to his speeches in the last few days. And for once, the AP balances out Palestinian lies with the truth immediately after publishing the lie:

Nabil Shaath, a senior Palestinian official, said recognition of Israel as a Jewish state would sell out not only the refugees, but potentially open the door to Israel expelling its roughly 1.5 million Arab citizens as well. This idea has never been seriously raised in Israel.

Good for you, AP. Perhaps there’s hope for you after all. (Of course I don’t believe that. Every time the AP puts out a fairly balanced piece on Israel, it is immediately edited to reflect the anti-Israel, pro-Palestinian narrative.)

The Palestinians are also standing firm on their new precondition for talks with Israel: Recognition of the 1967 lines as a starting point for negotiation.

Erekat said if Netanyahu accepts the 1967 lines he could raise any other matter in negotiations. “Before I hear the prime minister of Israel saying that he accepts this principle, I think it would be a waste of my time to discuss any other issue,” Erekat said.

Great job, Barry!

Well, at least they’re being honest about it: Hamas is now referencing the 1948 borders of Mandatory Palestine. Anyone want to bet the mainstream media completely ignores this quote?

Hamas spokesman Mahmoud al-Zahar responded by saying, “Clearly Obama’s plan is no different, aside from a few small details, from that of George Bush. Now he refers to the 1967 borders as sacred, but who says we accept them, and that we won’t speak of the ’48 lines?” he told al-Emarat al-Youm.

Posted in American Scene, Hamas, Israel, Media Bias, palestinian politics, World | 1 Comment

Binyamin Netanyahu (Bibi) goes to Washington

Posted on 05/23/2011 by SnoopyTheGoon

First I have a confession to make: my expectations of the Obama – Bibi meeting were completely off the mark. I was sure that Bibi will fold under pressure from Obama/Hilary and raise only a token resistance during the meeting, making the after-the-fight interviews a matter of routine thanks, handshakes etc. Mea culpa.

Bibi indeed has performed above expectations, producing this time what Elder of Ziyon characterized as a stunning speech. EoZ adds:

Netanyahu’s red lines are not very different than the red lines that every Israeli government has had since 1967 (and I showed earlier that Yitzchak Rabin was more hawkish in 1995.) The problem has been that they have never been consistently enunciated by Israeli leaders to the rest of the world. It felt as if every prime minister felt that the facts were so obvious that they didn’t have to belabor the point.

Well, so we have shown them the truth, didn’t we? Bibi has explained our position clearly, unequivocally and forcefully, so what else should we expect from a leader? Ain’t Bibi the best? And even if Bibi valiantly and unflinchingly stood up under pressure and created a conflict with the POTUS, so what, you may ask. After all, as Dick Stanley correctly surmises in this post (good one, read it all):

He [Obama] can’t impose his terms on the parties, even if the Congress would let him which it probably won’t. The Republicans because they disagree with him and the Democrats because they want all that liberal Jewish cash to keep flowing their way. Which it won’t if the donors fear Israel is endangered. Which it could be under the new policy terms of the speech.

Right. Difficult to disagree with this prediction, at least for short term developments. Now let me display my usual contrariness and look at other aspects of the whole brouhaha. To start with, the small matter of surprise. No one in Israel knew what will be the contents of the Israel-related part of Obama’s speech. If you consider Israel being one of the closest allies of US (do you really?) and take into account that the speech was ground-breaking (was it really?) in several directions, wouldn’t you expect some frank and open exchange of relevant contents and opinions before the speech? I guess you would. So, either Israel isn’t one of the closest allies or Obama doesn’t trust its current leaders, creating in fact an ambush for Bibi. Or something else, more sinister, that I would prefer to leave to conspiracy theorists.

Next, but in the same vein: when some of the Bibi’s supporters hail his speech as an achievement – why don’t we consider the practical value of this achievement? Visits of this kind are usually carefully prepared by diplomats on both sides, the agenda and the conclusions laid out in advance and vetted for possible inconsistencies and, deity forbid, disagreements. The latter, if and when they exist, are a matter for the meetings closed to press and, at the most, are reflected in protocols of the meeting, to be worked out later at appropriate diplomatic level. The fact that a disagreement was aired in public instead, and in so dramatic a manner, doesn’t bode well for the relationship between the White House and Israeli government, at least in the near future.

Disagreements, when voiced publicly, have a tendency to become permanent, this is why Obama had no choice but to repeat the main thesis of his previous speech in his appearance before AIPAC:

By definition, it means that the parties themselves – Israelis and Palestinians – will negotiate a border that is different than the one that existed on June 4, 1967. That’s what mutually agreed upon swaps means.

To be fair, the formula is a repeat of the letter issued by G.W. Bush regarding the US agreement that Israel will retain the settlement blocs via territorial swaps, but Obama’s demeanor wasn’t one of patience, to say the least. Nor were his AIPAC hosts an easy to please crowd (read Meryl’s report).

Bibi is backpedaling too, realizing that he went a step or two too far in his speech:

I am a partner to President Obama’s wish to promote peace and I appreciate his efforts in the past and present to achieve this goal, I am determined to work with President Obama to find ways to renew peace talks.

So far so good? Nope. The atmosphere between the two, not being too healthy to start with, is poisoned already, and I’m afraid, irreparably.

Which brings me to another, albeit related, point. Obama sounds quite positive on the subject of US commitment to Israel’s security:

Even while we may at times disagree, as friends sometimes will, the bonds between the United States and Israel are unbreakable, and the commitment of the United States to the security of Israel is ironclad.

However, we shouldn’t forget for a moment that it is said by a politician, i.e. a person with a conveniently reusable (meaning erasable) memory. We shouldn’t forget that in the big and cruel world of realpolitik the value of such promises is negligible. And in that world, a person (or a country) that doesn’t have any other friends to speak of, should behave with all due care not to lose the one remaining friend. And start looking for some new friends too.

So the value of that stunning speech could be in its high cost to Israel in the long run.

Too bad.

Cross-posted on SimplyJews

Posted in Israel, Politics | 3 Comments

Commenting

Posted on 05/23/2011 by Meryl Yourish

I opened comments yesterday, but they’re back to requiring user registration again. But for good measure, here is the comments policy you are all expected to adhere to. Flames are not allowed. For some reason, there’s always a contingent of new user that seems to think I am obligated to approve every comment that comes down the tube. Excuse my while I laugh. As I’ve said: My blog, my dime, my rules.

Posted in Site news | Comments Off

Obama and the Middle East reset

Posted on 05/22/2011 by Meryl Yourish

The discussion over the Obama reference to the 1967 lines (a.k.a. the 1949 Armistice Lines) is missing the point. Obama’s defense of what he said at AIPAC today is also beside the point. The fact that other presidents and Israeli prime ministers mentioned the 1967 lines, with land swaps, as a reference point, simply doesn’t matter.

The arguments over whether Obama said what every other president has said are unimportant.

The only thing that matters is how the Palestinians interpret what Obama said. And here’s how they interpret it:

Fatah Central Committee member Saeb Erekat said Sunday that if Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu should agree to the two-state solution based on 1967 borders “we shall turn over a new leaf.”
Erekat stressed that the Palestinian leadership is waiting for an official statement from Netanyahu regarding the principle Obama outlined in his speech, despite the fact that the prime minister has already rejected the US proposal saying that 1967 borders were indefensible.
“If Netanyahu agrees, we shall turn over a new leaf. If he doesn’t then there is no point talking about a peace process. We’re saying it loud and clear.”

The Palestinians now refuse to talk to Israel until they get everything they’ve been pushing for these last 44 years. Obama hit the “reset” button, all right—he’s reset the Israeli-Palestinian negotiations to 1967.

That’s strikes one and two. As has been pointed out by others, Obama took the finishing line and turned it into the starting point for negotiations. The Palestinians will not negotiation unless Israel agrees to start with the 1949 Armistice Lines. As for Hamas recognizing Israel, well—let’s hear what they have to say:

Hamas spokesman Sami Abu Zuhri responded to US President Barack Obama AIPAC speech Sunday, saying that “the American government has failed in the past, and will continue to fail in its attempt to convince Hamas to recognize the Israeli occupation.

Strike three.

In his speech to AIPAC today, Obama said that no country should have to negotiate with a group sworn to its destruction and then turned around and said that Israel still has to negotiate with the PA. He wants to have it both ways. But of course, the onus of the effort is all on Israel. He is not demanding that Mahmoud Abbas cut his ties with terrorist groups. He is not even suggesting that American support of the PA will change now that it is in league with an open terrorist group. No, it is Israel that must make the bold sacrifices for peace—not the Palestinians.

But the Palestinians have shown, again and again, that they will make no sacrifice for peace. Mahmoud Abbas twice turned down a Palestinian state, even one that included Jerusalem (in the waning days of the Olmert administration). They don’t want a Palestinian state on the 1967 lines. They want it on the 1947 lines. That’s what Obama, Hillary Clinton, Susan Powers, and his Middle East advisers don’t want to see. But the facts are there, to those who are actually looking.

Obama just set back the cause of Mideast peace decades.

Posted in Israel, palestinian politics, The One | 1 Comment

Live-blogging Obama at AIPAC

Posted on 05/22/2011 by Meryl Yourish

I will be live-blogging the speech. We’re in the preliminaries right now, and one of the thoughts that crossed my mind was, gee, Israel’s enemies are really hating on AIPAC at this moment.

10:24: I think “Better together” is a good catchphrase.

10:25: Why Meryl isn’t at the AIPAC convention: Meh. I don’t like conventions very much. I hate crowds. It’s expensive. And I’m not going to take two days off from work if I have to pay for the honor. Also, I could have sworn the website said Obama was speaking at 10 a.m., and yet, we have the intro to Steny Hoyer, so I’m thinking not for another hour. Time to hit the exercise machine and the shower. Back later.

10:43: Steny Hoyer announces Israel must have defensible borders; the crowd goes wild.

10:50: Here comes Obama. Scattered boos, if I’m not mistaken. Fair amount of applause. No, now Rosenberg is speaking. Sounds like he’s trying to convince the crowd that Obama really, really, really is a friend of Israel. Really. Faint applause at the pauses. Yep, Rosenberg is trying really hard to convince the crowd that Obama loves Israel. He’s listing all the things the Obama administration have done for Israel. (And to be fair, Obama has done good things. But he is dead wrong about the Palestinian state.) Yes, it looks like AIPAC felt it was absolutely necessary to list Obama’s positives on Israel to head off any embarrassing boos from the crowd. They don’t seem to be buying it. Rosenberg just mentioned how the U.S. must oppose a unilateral declaration of statehood by the Palestinians, but the applause was not earth-shattering.

10:55: Obama apparently outsourced the “I killed Osama” meme. Rosenberg said it, the hall is on its feet, and now here comes Obama. Clever way to get him a big hand. Scattered boos, not thunderous applause.

10:56: Obama is calling Rosenberg “Rosey.” His first tack is to point out the ties between Obama and the Jewish community.

11:00: Shout-outs to the bigwigs and the college kids. Dude, they still don’t vote in great numbers. He says he’s not going to give a big policy speech. Mentioned Netanyahu, applause interrupts. “We reaffirmed that fundamental truth that has guided our presidents and prime ministers for more than 60 years… the bond between our nations is unbreakable and the commitment of the United States to the security of Israel is ironclad.” Big applause.

I don’t think he’s going to walk back the 1967 lines. He’s going to talk around it, is my guess.

“A strong, secure homeland for the Jewish people.”

Blah blah blah, me, blah blah blah, I was in Israel, blah blah blah, Western Wall, blah blah blah, Sderot, me, I, me, I, Iran. He’s stumbling. Funny. He has a Teleprompter and he’s stumbling. Why is that?

A laundry list of what his administration has done for Israel. Yep. This is going to be a “What’s wrong with you ingrates?” speech.

“Make no mistake: We will maintain Israel’s qualitative military edge.” Uh-oh. His “Make no mistake” phrase is a bad sign.

11:05: We’re tougher on Iran than anyone, ever, anywhere. See how good we are? “Let me be absolutely clear: We remain committed to preventing Iran from ever acquiring nuclear weapons.” And there goes his other marker. Uh-oh.

“We will stand up to Hezballah.” Really? Haven’t so far.

True: “Israel’s existence will not be a subject for debate.” Let’s grant him that much.

We withdrew from Durban, stood up for Israel on Goldstone, vetoed last anti-Israel UN motion.

“We have been unwavering in our support for Israel’s security.”

“I have said repeatedly that core issues can only be negotiated directly between parties.”

“No country can negotiate with an organization sworn to its destruction.” Standing ovation. Obama states flat-out that Hamas must recognize Israel, abide by all agreements, cease violence, and release Gilad Shalit. Yep, he’s hitting all the talking points.

“The status quo is unsustainable. That is why I stated publicly the principles that the United States believes can be the foundation” for peace talks.

DEAD SILENCE. Let me repeat: DEAD, SUSTAINED SILENCE answered this statement by Obama regarding Thursday’s speech about the 1967 lines.

Saying he knew this would generate controversy, and he decided not to take the easy way out. He seems a bit peeved that people are silent. He seems angry. “Real friends talk openly and honestly with one another.” Light applause.

He’s playing the demographic card. Also talking about the Arab Spring. Israel can’t forge peace with one or two leaders anymore (referring to dictators). So, I guess that’s how he manages to discount the agreements worked out with the Bush Administration.

He says Palestinians are pursuing statehood at the UN because there’s an impatience with the peace process. Again, he ignores the lack of Palestinian efforts in the last two years, partly due to his speech on settlements.

Obama reaffirms the U.S. veto for a unilateral state for Palestinians.

He’s referring to Hamas, not Palestinians, in the lack of a peace partner for Israel. He’s in full professor lecture mode, talking down to the crowd as if they are students.

He is now whining that he didn’t say anything different from other presidents.

He is repeating what he said Thursday. Light applause and boos. He said “contiguous state.” Boos. He is repeating everything he said Thursday, with the addition of demonstrated security before full Israeli withdrawal.

He’s explaining now saying that what “with mutually agreed swaps” means is that the border will be different from the 1967 lines. He is pretty angry. The crowd is applauding and standing.

“The ultimate goal is two states for two people. Israel as a Jewish state and the homeland for the Jewish people, Palestine as a state for the Palestinian people.”

“We can’t afford to wait another decade or two or three to achieve peace.”

“I know that some of you will disagree with this assessment. And I respect that.” No, you really don’t.

“If the story of Israel teaches us anything, it is that with courage and resolve, progress is possible. Peace is possible. The Talmud tells us that as long as a person has life, they should never abandon faith.”

Now he’s talking about Arab democracy movements.

He’s not happy. But he’s happy it’s over. “God Bless Israel and God Bless the United States of America.” Standing ovation, but absolutely not enthusiastic. Wait until tomorrow’s Netanyahu speech and compare the two.

11:23: Probably Obama’s shortest speech on record. I am out of here.

Update: Thanks for the link, Scott!
Update 2: Thanks, Michelle and Rand!

Posted in Israel | 17 Comments

Sing a song of whitewash

Posted on 05/22/2011 by Meryl Yourish

The AP almost had me on article about an Israeli acting troupe forced to cancel a performance in Turkey because of “protests.” It was the boilerplate, which is far more honest about Israel-Turkey relations than usual, that made me think the AP was being more honest than usual.

Once close allies, Turkey and Israel have seen their ties deteriorate as the Mideast peace process remains deadlocked and as Turkey has turned increasingly away from the West and toward the Islamic world.

Not bad. It’s a short piece, only four paragraphs. And I notice that it actually quotes an Israeli, rather than falling back on the usual “Israel says” motif.

Israel’s ambassador to Turkey says a leading Israeli theater company has been forced to cancel a play because Turkish protesters planned to disrupt the performance.
Gabby Levy says he recommended that the Tel Aviv-based Cameri company cancel the play in Antalya after Turkish authorities warned of protests inside and outside the theater.
The company’s director, Noam Semel, told Army Radio in Israel on Sunday that he decided he could not endanger the 21-person company. He said he had performed abroad at least 100 times, including in Turkey, and did not “remember an incident like this.”

Okay, that seems harmless enough. Straight to the point, gives the facts, no whitewashing of the Turkish side.

Well, yes, there is.

From Ha’aretz:

After arriving in Turkey, the Israeli staff learned over the weekend that anti-Israel groups intended on disrupting the show, apparently by protesting, waving flags, throwing objects onto the stage and even physically harming the actors.
“The embassy’s security officer told us the situation is very volatile,” said lead actor Rami Baruch. A few organizations found out the Cameri Theater was coming to perform and arranged an online campaign, via which they purchased tickets in order to sabotage the show, he said.
“One of the surprising purchases of 35 tickets was by people who never normally attend the theater,” said Baruch.

So apparently, Turkish Islamists were going to the theater with the intention of harming Israelis. This is a pretty big part of the story to be withheld. And note that the actor got his information from the Israeli embassy in Turkey—the same place the AP reporter got his information. But the one mild quote about not endangering the actors is the best the AP could do. Once again, we see the double standard about Israel: All harm to Israelis from others is downplayed, while of course, harm inflicted by Israelis is played up.

Color me unsurprised.

Posted in Israel, Israeli Double Standard Time, Media Bias | Comments Off

The Catmage Chronicles