The elusive issue of settlements and pols’ honesty

Posted on 06/07/2009 by SnoopyTheGoon

To start with: I am not necessarily carrying a torch for all Israeli settlers, but there is a long a complicated history of the whole settlement issue, there are different ways to resolve the problem, not inevitably by removing all of the settlements, and anyway this is beyond the scope of this post. What is in the scope of the post is the brewing US – Israel scandal re continuation of the building in the existing settlements. The demand that this activity be stopped was broadly reiterated by Obama in his Cairo speech, without going into details of the thorny question.

Various Israeli pols insist that there was an understanding with the previous administration about permissibility to continue building in the existing settlements in their existing borders to allow for the natural growth of the population. On the US side, the current State Department chief claims the she is not aware of such understanding.

There is no memorialization of any informal or oral agreement” concerning the settlements, she said.

This statement is a step “forward” from the previous attempts to avoid the issue by Clinton’s spokesperson Robert Wood. The usual pathetic attempts of a spokesperson to crawl away from a direct question are presented in Ami Isseroff’s post Obama: Honesty with Israel is the best policy – Go for it! (the post title is self-explanatory, I hope). So now we have a direct statement from her majestic self that flatly denies the above mentioned understanding. Strange.

Because in the last two days I happened to listen (carefully, too) at least three times to the detailed explanation given in three different interviews by Dov Weissglass, ex-PM office manager during Sharons’ time. He flatly stated that indeed there is an understanding about continuing building – in the existing borders of the existing settlements. The understanding also called for detailed mapping of such borders and for creation of a commission that will deal with the logistics of the process. The mapping committee wasn’t created for technical reasons Mr Weissglass didn’t have time to go into, but the understanding is a part of the roadmap negotiations protocols.

So someone is lying, and I am sure it’s not Mr Weissglass. Protocols are there to be seen by relevant parties, after all, and a lawyer of Weisglass standing wouldn’t resort to a lie so cheap and easily refutable. He is not a politician, after all.

However (is there something in our area without a good hearty “however”, I wonder), Dov Weissglass has clarified clearly and unequivocally another side of the issue, which is quite a thorn in Bibi’s side. The above mentioned understanding is a part of the roadmap paperwork, as it is already mentioned. Obviously, Bibi can’t stand on one point of the protocol (building in the settlements) without accepting the rest of the roadmap conditions – one of which is acceptance of the two state solution. So Bibi has a bit of a conundrum to resolve here.

That’s it in a nutshell. More to follow, probably, in the next few days.

There still remain two interesting questions:

  1. Why should Ms Clinton resort to a barefaced lie, made only more barefaced by the contortions of her employee?
  2. Why should the issue of resolving the natural growth problem become central to the whole Middle East peace process, when really crucial questions, such as status of Jerusalem, the “Right of Return”, Iranian nukes etc. are pushed aside?

Curiosier and curiosier…

Cross-posted on SimplyJews

Posted in Israel, Politics | 1 Comment

Obama’s Cairo speech gets quick results

Posted on 06/06/2009 by Meryl Yourish

Obama’s public weakening of support for Israel is getting the results you would expect:

Saudi Arabia’s foreign minister, Prince Saud al-Faisal, said the US should use aid it gives Israel as leverage in order to pressure the state into accepting the US-backed two-state solution.

[…] When asked whether the US should withhold funds until Israel agreed to a peace plan calling for the establishment of a Palestinian state Faisal said, “Why not? If you give aid to someone and they indiscriminately occupy other people’s lands, you bear some responsibility.”

Why not, indeed. And al-Faisal speaks for the rest of the Saudis. Of course, there are no reciprocal demands on Arab nations:

What are Arabs prepared to do now that Obama has come out so firmly against Israeli settlements?
The speech is one stage, but it has yet to be translated into actions. Arab countries have learned through 60 years of experience with Israel that it’s not the agreement you reach with them; it’s the implementation.

No, really. No obligations whatsoever.

I would be very frustrated if I were Obama having this conversation with you. You’ve got Israeli Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu saying he won’t budge, and you saying “we made our offer. Take it or leave it.”
What can we do more than that? The land that is occupied is in the hands of Israel. We don’t have anything to offer Israel except normalization, and if we put that before the return of Arab land we are giving away the only chip in the hands of Arab countries.

And about that bow?

Yes, he bowed. But remember, he is also of a culture that respects age. It was not demeaning or servile bowing to somebody. When you see an older person, you respect him. I think those who made a fuss about it would do well to take such good manners to heart.

Really, I didn’t think we could have an administration that was further in bed with the Saudis than the Bushes.

I was wrong.

What remains to be seen now is how Israel’s friends in Congress deal with this new direction. Because the Obama administration is making it clear that they’re not going to honor the Bush Administration’s promises to Ariel Sharon:

“We have the negotiating record, that is the official record that was turned over to the Obama administration by the outgoing Bush administration,” Clinton said Friday at a joint press conference with her Turkish counterpart Ahmet Davutoglu.

“There is no memorialization of any informal or oral agreement” concerning the settlements, she said.

That’s a legal distinction. But this is not a court of law. This is the Obama administration choosing to ignore a deal that its predecessor made with another nation, thus diminishing the word of America in international relations.

And by the way, to those of you who voted for Obama insisting he was an Israel supporter: Still think he wasn’t lying?

Posted in Israeli Double Standard Time, Saudi Arabia, The One | 3 Comments

The Cairo context

Posted on 06/05/2009 by Soccerdad

To some degree, I understand the argument that President Obama’s speech in Cairo yesterday wasn’t much different from a speech that President Bush would have given.

And if you read some of the more detailed analyses of the speech (like Bookworm‘s or the Provocateur’s) you can clearly see the good points and the bad points. And yet when I wrote my first post on the speech it was negative.

Content, though, is one thing. Context is another matter entirely.

Consider my initial post on the speech. I’ll admit, I hadn’t read the whole speech at that point. I was relying on a Washington Post report. What was the emphasis of the Post’s report?

At the same time, he said, “it is also undeniable that the Palestinian people — Muslims and Christians — have suffered in pursuit of a homeland . . . They endure the daily humiliations — large and small — that come with occupation. So let there be no doubt: the situation for the Palestinian people is intolerable. America will not turn our backs on the legitimate Palestinian aspiration for dignity, opportunity, and a state of their own.”

The audience, which had stayed silent while Obama described the U.S.-Israel relationship, anti-Semitism and the legacy of the Holocaust, broke into warm applause.

Obama sharply criticized Israel’s policy of settlement construction in lands occupied in the 1967 Middle East War, parts of which the Palestinians envision as their future state. He said “the United States does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements.”

The media acts as a filter and a magnifier. Sure later on, President Obama talked about how the Arab states ought not to let the Palestinian issue stop them from political reform, but this was early in the speech. President Obama had to know two things. One is that his audience would love his evocation of the Israeli occupation and the other is that most major news organizations. well aware of the diplomatic maneuvering with Prime Minister Netanyahu would emphasize the rebuke he was directing towards Israel.

Another thing the President could count on, is that the major media reporting would gloss over the fact that his demands on Israel represented a sharp break from previous administrations. Even the administration of Bill Clinton.

Still one could argue that the President first rebuked the Arab world for its Holocaust denial, so the rebuke of Israel was part of a balancing act. The Wall Street Journal doesn’t buy the balancing act but still its editors wrote:

The President even went one better than his predecessor, with a series of implicit rebukes to much of the Muslim world. There would have been no need for him to specify that six million Jews were murdered by the Nazis if Holocaust denial weren’t rampant in the Middle East, including Egypt, …

But think about that for a moment. Egypt, which made peace with Israel over 30 years ago, still propagates some of the most vile antisemitism in the region. And go back to the Washington Post report. The President’s comments on the Holocaust elicited no response from the audience. And this is in a country that’s been paid $2 billion a year for its ostensible peace with Israel!

The President’s remarks about Holocaust denial weren’t part of any larger campaign. They were uttered in a vacuum. Has the President pursued this issue as actively and publicly as he’s pursued the “settlement” issue?

A similar analysis applies to the President’s exhortation to the Arab world not to use the Palestinian issue as an excuse for blocking political reform. This isn’t an issue he’s promoted elsewhere. So in effect the good statements the President made, appear to be lip service to moderation, while he pursues a path of trying to pressure the one target he believes is susceptible to pressure. He does not care if his exhortations to the Arab world are heeded. He can say the America’s bond with Israel is “unbreakable” but if his actions demonstrate that he’s only interested in getting to a Palestinian “yes” regardless of the cost to Israel, then his assurance is meaningless.

The editors of the Washington Post fear that there’s only one message that the Arab world will hear from the speech. They recommend that the President continue to push these issues. An AP writer took the same message from the speech and wrote a news “analysis” that puts the onus of peacemaking on Israel.

There are other contexts that were missing from his speech. JoshuaPundit criticizes the President for failing to recognize how mainstream extremism is in Islam. Wolf Howling shows that the President rewrote history.

Rather it appears that what’s driving the President is to make new friends even if they’re enemies, at the expense of an old friend. And I don’t think h’es stupid or naive. I think he is very smart and very driven ideologically. More and more Ali Abunimah looks vindicated.

UPDATE: One other point that has to be made is that President Obama sought a “peace gesture” from the Arab world and was rebuffed.

But when he meets in Riyadh, the Saudi capital, with King Abdullah, he should be prepared for a polite but firm refusal, Saudi officials and political experts say. The Arab countries, they say, believe they have already made their best offer and that it is now up to Israel to make a gesture, perhaps by dismantling settlements in the West Bank or committing to a two-state solution.

“What do you expect the Arabs to give without getting anything in advance, if Israel is still hesitating to accept the idea of two states in itself?” said Mohammad Abdullah al-Zulfa, a historian and member of the Saudi Shura Council, which serves as an advisory panel in place of a parliament.

Unlike in the case of settlements where President Obama issued an unqualified disagreement with Israel, the President stepped very gingerly around this rebuff.

The Arab-Israeli conflict should no longer be used to distract the people of Arab nations from other problems.
…
We cannot impose peace. But privately, many Muslims recognize that Israel will not go away.

If he were being balanced, he would have specifically mentioned that Arab states ought to treat Israel as a legitimate state. He didn’t even ask them to do that publicly.

Instead the President took a diplomatic dispute with Israel and amplified it. And he failed to address the Saudi refusal to offer even a symbolic gesture to Israel.

Crossposted on Soccer Dad.

Posted in Israel, Israeli Double Standard Time | Tagged | Comments Off on The Cairo context

Experts know best

Posted on 06/05/2009 by Soccerdad

Barry Rubin has some fun critiquing credulous reporting on the upcoming Lebanes elections.

More seriously, Amir Taheri considers the possibility of a Hezbollah victory:

If Lebanon comes under Iranian control it could become one arm of a pincer — the other being Hamas-controlled Gaza — designed to subject Israel to low-intensity warfare that would, in time, sap its will to resist. With the completion of the Israeli security fence along the West Bank within the next few months, suicide attacks would become increasingly difficult to organize. The fight, therefore, would shift to the skies with “an endless storm of rockets and missiles raining on Israel from Lebanon and Gaza,” as Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah said in an election campaign message last month.

With its clients in control of Lebanon, Iran would build a naval presence in the Mediterranean for the first time since the seventh century. Experts from the Revolutionary Guards have visited the port of Beirut and prepared plans for a visit by an Iranian flotilla before the end of the summer. Six Iranian warships are already on their way to the Red Sea, ostensibly to help combat pirates operating from the Somali coast. In Tehran, there is also talk of helping Hezbollah to develop its own naval units for “resistance operations” against Israel.

And that’s not even considering how Iran would act if it would develop nuclear weapons that President Obama is anxious to convince them not to build with lots of nice words.

Crossposted on Yourish.

Posted in Lebanon | Tagged | Comments Off on Experts know best

Analysis: mainstreaming Jewish conspiracy theories

Posted on 06/05/2009 by Meryl Yourish

If you were to read this without knowing the source, where would you suspect it originated? The Arab News? Al-Ahram? Palestinian propaganda rags?

Among the long list of problems that cloud American relations with the Islamic world, none is more troubling in the Muslim streets and halls of power than U.S. ties to Israel and massive support for the Jewish state in the heart of the Arab Middle East.

On that, Obama gave no ground, declaring U.S. bonds with Israel “unbreakable.”

But as he presses Netanyahu for concessions, Obama has to be looking over his shoulder toward the powerful Israeli lobby in the United States and the many deeply conservative Christian organizations that back Israeli policy without question. Both can make big political trouble for an American president who tips too far from Israel.

Obama appears willing to gamble that pressure on Netanyahu will not produce damaging blowback, especially with more than three years left before the next U.S. presidential election.

Try again. It’s the AP anaylsis by Steven Hurst. And it’s become increasingly mainstream to blame The Israel Lobby for the lack of peace between Israel and the Palestinians. Walt and Mearsheimer, Jimmy Carter, and their team of anti-Israel crybabies have done their job, and done it well. They constantly hammered on the theme that they’re the ones being victimized by The Israel Lobby™, all the while getting their views in op-eds in all of the major news media, and their anti-Israel treatises published and widely distributed. They’ve shifted the blame from Muslim rejectionism to—Israeli settlements.

It’s not the terrorism that prevents peace. It’s not the incitement that goes on daily. It’s not the refusal of the Palestinians, or indeed, any of the Middle East Muslims, to negotiate rather than to make demands (cf: Saudi peace plan, Abbas’ refusal to talk to Netanyahu, Amr Moussa, etc., etc, etc.). It’s not the Palestinian refusal to acknowledge the Jewish origins of Israel (and particularly Jerusalem and the Temple Mount). It’s not the Palestinian refusal to accept a Jewish state as a Jewish state.

No, it’s the settlements. And the Israel Lobby. And the Obama team has apparently completely bought into the settlements argument.

At the same time, Israelis must acknowledge that just as Israel’s right to exist cannot be denied, neither can Palestine’s. The United States does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements. This construction violates previous agreements and undermines efforts to achieve peace. It is time for these settlements to stop.

So what’s Hurst’s analysis on this point?

An Israeli government statement issued after Obama spoke ignored his calls for a settlement freeze and the creation of an independent Palestinian state – demands that the hawkish Netanyahu continues to reject.

“We share President Obama’s hope that the American effort heralds the beginning of a new era that will bring about an end to the conflict,” the statement said, noting that Israel’s security must be guaranteed.

Do you see the narrative here? Bibi put out a positive statement about an end to the Palestinian conflict, and the AP slams Israel for wanting security guarantees—as if Israel didn’t have a constant threat of terrorism and attacks hanging over her head on a daily basis. But since he didn’t immediately line up behind Obama to agree that Jerusalem should be an international city (read between the lines), that “hawkish” Netanyahu “ignored” Obama and “rejects” the creation of a Palestinian state.

But Obama dwelled most heavily on an Arab-Israeli peace. He spoke 6,000 words in Thursday’s speech, 1,000 about the Mideast conflict.

Yeah, funny how that happens to the best of us. It’s almost like the AP article concentrated entirely on the Israeli side of the problem, and not at all on the Palestinian side.

And the last word? Well. It’s that scary Israel Lobby meme:

“It is easy to point fingers,” the president said. “But if we see this conflict only from one side or the other, then we will be blind to the truth: The only resolution is for the aspirations of both sides to be met through two states, where Israelis and Palestinians each live in peace and security.”

Easy to say. Harder is overcoming six decades of hatred and bloodshed, and the entrenched interests that eventually will face Obama at home.

The hatred and bloodshed is coming from mostly one side. Granted, Israel is not a nation of saints. But the Muslim nations surrounding Israel went to war five times since 1948 to try to destroy her.

Yes, it’s very easy to point fingers. That’s exactly what the anti-Israel media is doing.

Posted in AP Media Bias, Israeli Double Standard Time, Religion | Comments Off on Analysis: mainstreaming Jewish conspiracy theories

Lieberman and defense of democracy

Posted on 06/05/2009 by SnoopyTheGoon

It appears that my last post on the subject caused a gamut of responses. From understanding to that other one (about that other one later). I shall try to answer some of the remarks in a general manner, without mentioning the commentators (aside of one). Apologies for the ones I missed.

To start with, an observation that comes from years of experience: most of the folks born in democratic countries put little, or not enough, value to protection of democracy from attempts to undermine it, even when they realize its merits. It takes a nose trained in the smell of a totalitarian society and in that of a democracy to be sensitive enough to these attempts.

Then we should consider the situation with democracy in Israel. While being always justly branded as the only democracy in the Middle East, we are far from being a perfect one – for security reasons, for reasons of equality (may the man who claims that minorities have already equal rights throw the first brick at me and see where it gets him/her – yes, we are going there, but ever so slowly…), for plutocracy getting too much say in internal politics lately, for abundance of corrupted politicians, for the incessant attempts to reduce the power of the High Court of Justice that is the one and the only barrier between the above mentioned politicians and some especially vicious attempts at wholesale corruption.

And have I mentioned the emergency laws yes? The ones left over by the British Mandate that allow unlimited power to the PM and his office?

All in all, while our democracy seems to be stable, there are many reasons to be sensitive. And when a politician like Lieberman gets enough power to become a significant force in our politics, all alarms should start clamoring. It didn’t happen overnight, there were enough warning signs before, but we are ever so busy with our external politics, with our enemies and friends, with our petty provincial scoops* that we all have missed the advent.

All this is not (directly) related to the prospects of our future (oh well…) peace deal with our cousins. It is solely about where this tribe is going as a democracy. By the way, Lieberman and his gang are a pretty mixed bag where their views on the negotiations with out neighbors are considered. In some aspects (like his rumored support for the roadmap agreement) Lieberman could be considered to be more moderate than his PM – at least for the moment. There is even that quote from his Wiki bio: “He has said that, despite having lived there for so long, he is willing to vacate his house in a peace agreement“. Who really knows?

I will not go into Lieberman’s pedigree – it is well known, suffice to mention that he is far from being stupid and that some of his more scandalous shenanigans are carefully prepared in advance to create the desired effect (he has a great mentor – the incomparable Vladimir Zhirinovsky). Which makes him all the more dangerous. And the reasoning that Lieberman just plays populist games to gain popularity and doesn’t really mean to pass this or another law is faulty as hell – after all, other members of parliament are not immune to populism, and there is no knowing when and how another idiotic or totalitarian proposal will pass. The history is crammed with examples of democracies ruined by voting.

The three laws I have mentioned in that other post are showing a dangerous trend. No one knows where such a trend might lead, how agile and able is the rabble we’ve let into the Knesset to abuse the power of lawmaking and the situation in this volatile country. No one should feel that democracy is a given.

It is not for nothing that they say “Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty.” While the sentence may have become a truism with endless repeating, it bears remembering. As much as Lieberman bears watching and eliminating as a political factor on our scene. The paskudnyaks should be sent home. As soon as possible.

Now to a singularly obnoxious commentator that goes under a moniker “Norm Cone“: buddy, if you need an explanation about what is wrong with the “pledge of allegiance to Jewish, Zionist and democratic state” idea, you may need a manual to get your head out of your backside as well. And when the day comes when I shall need your directions to packing and leaving Israel (especially directions coming from a fiery American Zionist), I’ll rather call you, so don’t call me, please.

(*) In yesterday’s morning newspaper (Maariv) the articles on the degenerate celeb Dudu Topaz took up pages 2-6, while upcoming Cairo visit by Obama was relegated to page 7.

Cross-posted on SimplyJews

Posted in Israel | Comments Off on Lieberman and defense of democracy

Desperately seeking brisket help

Posted on 06/04/2009 by Meryl Yourish

My brother bought me a first cut brisket instead of a first cut corned beef brisket, which I discovered only after I boiled it for half an hour.

One of my fellow JBloggers had what I thought was a wonderful brisket recipe for a holiday (Pesach? Rosh Hashanah?), and I can’t remember who it was.

Although I’d take about any help I can get. I’m going to try to recover the meat in a crock pot, so if you have a good brisket recipe (I like them fairly simple, not overly spicy or saucy), I’d be very grateful.

Yeah, looking at the label is wonderful thing. I KNEW he bought the wrong cut. But no, he insisted the label was wrong.

Posted in Life | 8 Comments

One quick comment on the Cairo speech

Posted on 06/04/2009 by Meryl Yourish

I will have more to say after work, but here’s something to chew on:

The Holy Koran tells us, “O mankind! We have created you male and a female; and we have made you into nations and tribes so that you may know one another.”

The Talmud tells us: “The whole of the Torah is for the purpose of promoting peace.”

The Holy Bible tells us, “Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God.”

The people of the world can live together in peace. We know that is God’s vision. Now, that must be our work here on Earth. Thank you. And may God’s peace be upon you.

Why is it that Obama could easily find references to peace in Jewish and Christian texts, but the Koran quote does not contain the word “peace”? I’m not the Islam scholar. But that conclusion makes me wonder if there are any quotes from the Koran using the word “peace” that don’t restrict it to Muslims only.

Posted in Religion, The One | 3 Comments

Strong bond? More like bound and gagged

Posted on 06/04/2009 by Soccerdad

From the Washington Post:

Obama used far stronger and more specific language than his previous remarks on some of the most contested issues in the Muslim world, including the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Although he urged Arab nations to do more to achieve peace with Israel, Obama also spoke passionately about what he called the Palestinian right to a state.

“America’s strong bonds with Israel are well known. This bond is unbreakable,” Obama said. It is based upon cultural and historical ties, and the recognition that the aspiration for a Jewish homeland is rooted in a tragic history that cannot be denied.”

Citing the destruction of six million Jews in the Nazi Holocaust, Obama said that “threatening Israeli with destruction, or repeating vile stereotypes about Jews, is deeply wrong.”

At the same time, he said, “it is also undeniable that the Palestinian people — Muslims and Christians — have suffered in pursuit of a homeland . . . They endure the daily humiliations — large and small — that come with occupation. So let there be no doubt: the situation for the Palestinian people is intolerable. America will not turn our backs on the legitimate Palestinian aspiration for dignity, opportunity, and a state of their own.”

The audience, which had stayed silent while Obama described the U.S.-Israel relationship, anti-Semitism and the legacy of the Holocaust, broke into warm applause.

Obama sharply criticized Israel’s policy of settlement construction in lands occupied in the 1967 Middle East War, parts of which the Palestinians envision as their future state. He said “the United States does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements.”

Note where the applause was. Not after mentioning the bond with Israel. Not after castigating the Arab world for Holocaust denial. But after he demanded that the Palestinians have more freedom than the Egyptians gathered before him. It will be tough to do if the Palestinians are more interested in prolonging their statelessness and keeping their grievance alive.

In a transcript of the speech, the President doesn’t mention the word “terrorism” at all. Israelly Cool observes that when it comes to the Palestinians he eschews “terrorism” for “resistance through killing.” Apparently he believes that there’s something unique about “occupation” that it deserves a special denunciation.

So it appears that the bond President Obama refers to is his effort to constrain Israel’s actions regarding its own citizens.

The New York Times reports:

But he sought to explain that he represented the new face of American leadership. He did not mention the name of George W. Bush, who preceded him in office, and whose policies contributed to the mistrust.

Funny, millions of Iraqis get to vote for their own government. And that’s a reason for mistrust. Of course it is, if you’re an autocrat and wish to preserve your own power and position.

Also please see Israel Matzav, Gateway Pundit and especially Elder of Ziyon. Who’s next?

Crossposted on Soccer Dad.

Posted in Israeli Double Standard Time, Politics | Tagged | Comments Off on Strong bond? More like bound and gagged

6:10 Eastern? The speech is at 6:10 Eastern?

Posted on 06/04/2009 by Meryl Yourish

Feh.

I’m going to sleep through it.

Wake me when it’s over.

Posted in Juvenile Scorn, The One | 1 Comment

The real obstacle

Posted on 06/03/2009 by Soccerdad

Michael Slackman reports in Arab States Cool to Obama Pleas for Peace Gesture:

President Obama starts his much anticipated Middle East tour on Wednesday in Saudi Arabia, where he is expected to press the Arab nations to offer a gesture to the Israelis to entice them to accelerate the peace process.

But when he meets in Riyadh, the Saudi capital, with King Abdullah, he should be prepared for a polite but firm refusal, Saudi officials and political experts say. The Arab countries, they say, believe they have already made their best offer and that it is now up to Israel to make a gesture, perhaps by dismantling settlements in the West Bank or committing to a two-state solution.

“What do you expect the Arabs to give without getting anything in advance, if Israel is still hesitating to accept the idea of two states in itself?” said Mohammad Abdullah al-Zulfa, a historian and member of the Saudi Shura Council, which serves as an advisory panel in place of a parliament.

Did you catch that? Israel is to make a “gesture” in response to the Arab’s “best offer.” Didn’t Israel retreat from Gaza? Didn’t Israel pull out of seven cities in Judea and Samaria? Didn’t Israel give arms and money to the PA? Why must Israel respond to empty Arab promises with concrete actions?

But Slackman reports, with no trace of irony:

The Saudis are concerned about the potential threat to the coalition should one nation make further concessions on its own. That, they say, could provide the less committed countries a rationale for abandoning the peace initiative, according to officials and regional analysts.

Do you get that? No Arab country must go ahead and make peace with Israel before the right time because otherwise Arab countries who don’t want peace with Israel won’t be willing to stand behind the empty promise of normalization anymore.

The peace initiative has no substance. It is a vague promise offered in exchange for concrete demands of Israel.

It was devised by then-Crown Prince Abdullah of Saudi Arabia and columnist Thomas Friedman as a way of deflecting blame for 9/11 away from Saudi Arabia. Friedman’s still at it, after telling an offensive joke he writes:

I told the president that joke because in reading the Arab and Israeli press this week, everyone seemed to be telling him what he needed to do and say in Cairo, but nobody was indicating how they were going to step up and do something different. Everyone wants peace, but nobody wants to buy a ticket.

Well Israel has bought a number of tickets. For Friedman to pretend that it is still 1993 is totally dishonest. Israel now has Hamas to its south, Hezbollah to its north and suffered through its worst terror ever as a result of concession it made to an unreformed terrorist. Israel has bought plenty of “peace” lottery tickets and suffered immeasurably for its efforts.

I have a different joke for Friedman:

Once Cairo was flooding and Abdul escaped to his roof and prayed to Allah to save him. As the waters rose, a boat came by and offered him a ride. He said no, he was waiting for Allah to save him. Then a helicopter came by and offered to rescue him. He said no, he was waiting for Allah to save him. Finally the waters rose above his roof and poor Abdul drowned.

When he went before Allah, he asked why he hadn’t been saved despite his piety and his prayers. Allah said, “I heard your prayers and I sent you a boat and then a helicopter …”

Well it’s time for the Arab world to realize that if it wants peace. And it’s time for the Arab world’s enablers to stop excusing the antisemitism that is at the heart of its refusal to accept Israel.

What’s interesting is how far those who pretend that Israel is at the main obstacle to peace in the Middle East will go. Robet Kagan concludes that the Obama administration is really trying to topple the government of Binaymin Netanyahu. (h/t Shmuel Rosner), Kagan writes:

Instead, by insisting that the Israeli government not only put a freeze on new settlements but also halt “natural growth” in existing settlements, the administration has set up an unavoidable and possibly unpleasant confrontation with Israel, precisely at the moment it is importuning a truculent Iran. This sets up quite an image: Unclench the fist at a government that daily calls us the Great Satan, while balling up a fist at a longtime ally.

I’d agree that Israel’s government isn’t that unstable, but why doesn’t the Obama administration view the Arab rebuff of even symbolic gestures towards Israel with the same hostility it views the Netanyahu government’s (just) claim that an agreement with the Bush administration allows for natural growth in existing settlements?

At some point the peace processors have to come to grips with the fact that no matter what Israel does it won’t get peace until the Arab world substantially changes its view of Israel. That’s the real obstacle. Why doesn’t anyone see it?

Crossposted on Soccer Dad.

Posted in Israel, Israel Derangement Syndrome | Tagged | 4 Comments

Honesty is the best policy, Israeli Exception Clause version

Posted on 06/03/2009 by Meryl Yourish

“Part of being a good friend is being honest,” Mr. Obama said in an interview with NPR News. “And I think there have been times where we are not as honest as we should be about the fact that the current direction, the current trajectory, in the region is profoundly negative, not only for Israeli interests but also U.S. interests.

So let’s hear Obama get honest with the Saudis, with the Egyptians, with the Palestinians, with the rest of the Arab Muslims. Then let’s hear him get honest with the Pakistani Muslims, with the Muslims in the Phillipines, with the Muslims in China, Russia, Malaysia, and Indonesia. Let’s hear him honestly tell Muslims that:

  • Non-Muslims get to worship whom and what they please. Suck it up.
  • You do not get to dictate to non-Muslims that you will kill them if they “offend” your infantile sensibilities about your religion
  • In that spirit, rational people do not riot over perceived slights to their holy books and figures
  • Non-Muslims are not lesser beings who deserve fewer rights than Muslims
  • Non-Muslims have the right to worship in peace in Muslim nations, (and in non-Muslim nations where there are significant Muslim populations)
  • Jews lived in Israel thousands of years before Mohammed showed his face in the Saudi desert, and Israel is the ancestral home of the Jews.
  • Likewise, Jerusalem is the ancient heart of Judaism. Suck it up.
  • Israel is a Jewish state. Suck that up, too.
  • Women are, and should be treated as, the equal of men. Welcome to the 21st century.
  • Binding United Nations resolutions are binding on all nations, not just on Israel and the West.
  • Really, those of us who are non-Muslim are not the least bit interested in your fictional Caliphate. Plans for world domination are so 20th century. Lose the yearning for the good old days; they’re gone forever. Learn a skill. You’ll achieve more.
  • To the OIC on the UN Human Rights Council: Try looking at your own backyards first before constantly slamming Israel. I sincerely doubt your nations would pass muster even on animal cruelty issues, let alone human rights.
  • To the Arab and Muslim dictators, kings, princes, emirs, autocrats, and kleptocrats: Goose. Gander. If Palestinians should have self-rule, and free elections, so should Saudis, Yemenis, Egyptians, Syrians, Iranians (without the interference of the Mad Mullahs in choosing whom is allowed to run, there is no free election), etc., etc., etc. Otherwise, feel free to STFU about the centrality of the Palestinians and Israel.
  • Last, but not least: Colonialism has been over for many, many years, and yet, you’re still blaming it for your societal ills. Get over it, and learn how to put your oil money to good use instead of paying for palaces, planes, and parties. Get a real, job, you lazy bastards.

That’s all for now. But I doubt you’ll find much of what I wrote up there in Obama’s speech tomorrow. Count the Israel references, though. There should be a ton of them. Because when it comes to being “honest” with friends, apparently, the honesty only counts when it’s directed towards Israel. Once again, the Exception Clause is in play. That’s where you add “Except for Israel” (or “Jews”) to the end of whatever is being said, or when what is being said applies solely to Israel (or Jews), and to no one else.

Posted in Israeli Double Standard Time, Juvenile Scorn, Religion, Saudi Arabia | Tagged , , | Comments Off on Honesty is the best policy, Israeli Exception Clause version

The questionable centrality of Palestine

Posted on 06/03/2009 by Soccerdad

The New York Times asked seven Muslims – from Egypt, Yemen, Bahrain, Pakistan, Lebanon and Saudi Arabia – what President Obama’s message to the Muslim world should be later this week. I was surprised at the responses.

AHMED al-OMRAN (from Saudi Arabia) – “The masses will not listen to Mr. Obama unless he also addresses the leaders who deny us basic rights.”

OMAYMA ABDEL-LATIF (from Lebanon) – “To restore America’s credibility in the Muslim world, Mr. Obama should promise that come election time, he will respect the will of voters, even if he does not like the results.”


ABDULKAREEM al-ERYANI (from yemen) – “We have helped Washington combat extremism but the United States has not done enough to help us fight poverty, the twin brother of terrorism.”


SHAHAN MUFTI (from Pakistan) – “President Obama should speak to those Pakistanis who need so badly to hear that this constitutional experiment is worth a fresh try, even in these testing times; that the Islamic legal tradition is compatible with Western models of democracy; that Islamic and Western conceptions of justice and freedom still might meld in the grand Pakistani experiment.”


HOSSAM el-HAMALAWY (from Egypt) – “Our real allies are the human rights groups and unions that will pressure the Obama administration to sever all ties to the Mubarak dictatorship.”

AYMAN NOUR (from Egypt) – “But we expect him to demand freedom for all and to restate his conviction that oppressive regimes march on the wrong side of history.”

ABDULJALIL ALSINGACE (from Bahrain) – “It would be good if Mr. Obama vowed to support democracy and human rights.”

Now I realize that 7 individuals hardly constitute a significant sample of population of one billion, but given the MSM’s obsession with President Obama’s speech being about the peace process, it’s more than a little odd that the Times didn’t find a single writer who mentioned “justice for Palestine” as a major point that the President must address.

The prevailing MSM wisdom is expressed here:

Obama was pressed by NPR’s Michele Norris and Steve Inskeep about the challenge of developing a new relationship with the Muslim world without demonstrating America’s willingness to press Israel harder for changes in its policies. If Israel continues to ignore U.S. demands for an end to settlement activity — which Obama has called for publicly and privately — and the U.S. continues to support Israel, how will that enhance American credibility in the Muslim world?

Yesterday Jeff Jacoby published an interview he had with Saad Eddin Ibrahim (who also wrote an op-ed in the WSJ) which had this exchange:

Q: Do you agree with those who say that what Arab leaders want isn’t a Palestinian state, but a Palestinian struggle?
A: Yes, there are vested interests in keeping the Palestinian conflict going. So if Obama’s speech will really be a breakthrough for peace, it will also be a stepping-stone to genuine democratization. Peace will take away the excuse that the authoritarian regimes use to justify their own hold on power.

In other words, the peace process is a chimera. It’s designed to draw attention away from the failings of the dictatorships that make up the Arab world. Presenting a united front and claiming that you stand for freedom while denying it to your own people is an effective cover for despotism.

To what degree the cause of freedom is greater than the cause of Palestine isn’t certain. But it’s worth asking whether Palestine is the really the central concern of the Muslim world and if pressuring Israel will somehow restore America’s standing among the world’s Muslims by bringing peace to the Middle East.

UPDATE: from When Egypt was in Gaza – via Instapundit Michael:

Ralph Galloway, an UNRWA official who quit in frustration, observed bitterly: “The Arab states don’t want to solve the refugee problem. They want to keep it as an open sore, as a weapon against Israel. Arab leaders don’t give a damn whether the refugees live or die.”

Crossposted at Soccer Dad.

Posted in Israel, Israel Derangement Syndrome, Media Bias | Tagged | 1 Comment

Media narrative or floating balloons?

Posted on 06/02/2009 by Meryl Yourish

Yesterday the New York Times trumpeted the fact that one of the Obama administration “punishments” for Netanyahu refusing to freeze natural growth of the suburbs of Jerusalem—a.k.a. “settlement growth”—would be a lack of support for Israel in the UN.

Today, the State Department says that’s not gonna happen.

US State Department spokesman Robert Wood said Monday that the US government would continue to ensure that Israel received fair treatment in the United Nations.

“As you know, we’ve long worked to ensure that Israel is treated fairly at the United Nations. That will continue. And as you know, Israel is a close friend and ally. And we remain committed to its security. And as I said, that will continue,” he said.

So here’s my question: Is it wishful thinking on the part of the anti-Israel media, or is it the Obama administration floating trial balloons to see how much pushback they’d receive?

Right now, I’m on the side of wishful thinking on behalf of the media. But all this could change after Obama’s speech on Thursday. However, it’s increasingly obvious that while Obama wants Netanyahu to uphold commitments of previous administrations, he feels no such compunctions himself.

He said Obama’s administration would not focus on agreements made between Israel and the Bush administration. “Both parties have obligations under the Road Map that they need to live up to. And we’re going to do what we can, to help the parties do what they need to do,” he said.

This is what you wrought, 72% of Jewish voters. Don’t blame me. I voted for McCain.

Posted in Israel, Media Bias, The One | 7 Comments

You might just as well be blind

Posted on 06/02/2009 by Soccerdad

Helene Cooper whose Rolodex seems filled with only anti-Israel experts now writes that President Obama will be “honest” with Israel.

“Part of being a good friend is being honest,” Mr. Obama said in an interview with NPR News. “And I think there have been times where we are not as honest as we should be about the fact that the current direction, the current trajectory, in the region is profoundly negative, not only for Israeli interests but also U.S. interests.

“We do have to retain a constant belief in the possibilities of negotiations that will lead to peace,” he added. “I’ve said that a freeze on settlements is part of that.”

It’s nice to have a constant belief, but when they haven’t led to peace until now, you better have a reason for believing that they would start now. And when the other party has decided to be passive aggressive, well “settlements” aren’t the main issue and ought not to be.

When questioned why he’ll be appearing in Egypt this week, President Obama answered:

Mr. Obama also dismissed criticism that he should not deliver his speech to the Muslim world from Cairo because of Egypt’s poor record in upholding human rights. “It’s a mistake to suggest that we’re not going to deal with countries around the world in the absence of them meeting all our demands,” he said.

So he needs to be “honest” with Israel, but he can let the Egyptians slide. Well guess what, the Egyptians (and the whole Arab world) could use a little honesty.

One remarkable thing he can do for Egypt and the rest of the Muslim world is to offer American help in making governance more sound. He should promote the rule of law by promoting democratic elections and term limits for democratically elected presidents.

This may appear to be long shot. Mr. Obama’s advisers will likely argue against it to avoid offending his host. But such a bold move would win him the hearts and minds of the world’s 1.4 billion Muslims forever.

My guess is that President Obama’s yearning for honesty won’t extend that far. He’ll be seeking approval not advocating change. (And honesty apparently won’t extend to honoring previous commitments.) Maybe he’ll pay some lip service to some symbolic but insubstantial form of recognition of Israel. But I’d guess that honesty In the Middle East will hardly ever be heard except regarding Israel.

Crossposted on Soccer Dad.

Posted in Israel, Israeli Double Standard Time | Tagged | Comments Off on You might just as well be blind