Saturday, February 18, 2012

Undermining Israel

Cut to Missile Defense for Israel Gives the Lie to Obama’s “Best Friend” Narrative
Jonathan S. Tobin | @tobincommentary
02.17.2012 - 9:30 AM

Democrats are crying foul about Republican efforts to publicize the fact that President Obama’s budget request to Congress contained a cut in funding for missile defense projects in Israel. The amount of aid allocated for this sector went down from $106 million in 2012 to $99 million next year. ..

But the cut is worth talking about specifically because it undermines the line of baloney Obama and the Democrats have been selling to American Jewish audiences in recent months about him being the most pro-Israel president in history when it comes to supporting defense of the Jewish state. Moreover, the decision to pare back missile defense is particularly embarrassing because American support for Israel’s “Iron Dome” system is something Obama has taken credit for at every possible opportunity, even though the project was initiated and funded by George W. Bush...As for the specific cut in missile defense aid,  that was a curious decision considering how much effort Democrats have put into trying to convince American Jews Obama was the sole author of Iron Dome, even though the most one could say of his role there is that he did not exert himself to prevent the completion of a project initiated by his predecessor. Given the constant threat of missile attacks from Gaza and Lebanon, not to mention worries about Iran, such efforts are of particular importance to Israel...
Though the amount of the cut is not large and will be restored by Congress, the Republicans are right to speak up about this issue. Obama’s attempt to claim the mantle of Israel’s best friend ever in the White House is mere campaign rhetoric that has only been swallowed up by the most credulous and partisan Jewish Democrats. The budget request is one more piece of tangible proof that the president’s boast is an election year joke.

Friday, February 17, 2012

Harvard Hosts destroy Israel conference

On March 3-4 Harvard will host a two-day conference at the Kennedy School of Government focused, in effect, on dismantling the Jewish state of Israel. A number of student groups and others associated with Harvard are sponsoring "One State Conference: Israel/Palestine and the One State Solution."
Those who promote a one-state "solution" advocate creating an entity which would, through its merger with the Palestinian Arab population of the West Bank and Gaza and a potential influx of Palestinians from neighboring states, lose its Jewish majority and its Jewish character. In effect, the right to Jewish self-determination would be nullified.
Conference speakers and organizers include extreme anti-Israel academics, the founder of Electronic Intifada, members of the radical Jewish Voice for Peace and an ex-PLO spokesperson. No one even remotely sympathetic to Israel appears to be affiliated with the conference.
The Kennedy School's own notorious Stephen Walt, author of The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy, a work discredited for its shoddy scholarship and bigoted charges against American supporters of Israel, joins other Harvard figures, including law school professor Duncan Kennedy, in lending the event the imprimatur of the institution.
According to the working definition of anti-Semitism developed by the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA), and recognized by the United States Department of State, the One State Conference, in implicitly "denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination" is an exercise in anti-Semitism.
The One State Conference website boasts the logo of Harvard's Kennedy School of Government and has been in the planning for a year. According to The Jewish Advocate, Kennedy School Dean David T. Ellwood released a statement, saying:
I want to emphasize once again that Harvard University and the Harvard Kennedy School in no way endorses or supports the apparent position of these student organizers or any participants they include. We hope that the final shape of the conference will be significantly more balanced.
Furthermore, the university is quoted saying that the event is being at least partially underwritten by "modest" funds set aside for student activities. According to Melodie Jackson, Associate Dean for Communications, also quoted inThe Jewish Advocate, "Generally administrators try to be supportive of student ideas for events that they are planning."
Increasingly, assaults on Israel's legitimacy and survival are promoted by academics, including at the nation's most prestigious universities. The public has a vital role to play in voicing its outrage at the use of these institutions by anti-Israel propagandists and at the often minimal response by university officials.

Thursday, February 16, 2012

Palestinian big lie

The Palestinian Big Lie Revisited
By: Yedidya Atlas
As the US presidential elections draw closer, support for Israel becomes a mantra for every potential candidate. Republicans wave their pro-Israel flag to satisfy the significant majority of pro-Israel Republican voters (non-Jews). While President Obama renews efforts to prove to the left-liberal Jewish Democratic donors and Jewish voter blocs in key states that he too just loves Israel - despite his actual record while in office these past three years - including eating non-kosher pastrami on rye sandwiches in public.
So the Palestinians, in what appears to be a coordinated good cop/bad cop effort are redoubling promotion of their Big Lie about who their “deep roots in the Land” and that the “Palestinian-Israeli Conflict” is the big issue that requires a “just solution” - which is a euphemism for pressuring Israel to accept the Palestinian Arab position. Just one week after Dr. Ahmed Tibi attacked Majority Leader Eric Cantor in an op-ed in the local Richmond newspaper, PLO Mission head in Washington , DC ,Maen Rashid Areikat, blithely repeated many of the same lies in The Washington Post.
This unrelenting PR campaign continues to bear fruit. One hears many Republicans and nearly all Democrats talk about the “Palestinian-Israeli Conflict” and the dire need to solve it to stabilize the volatile Middle East . And here is the real problem: It assumes a false axiom which stipulates that the “Palestinian-Israeli Conflict” is the core of the conflict, and therefore solving it will solve everything else in the Middle East .
It seems that everyone under the age of 60 never heard the term “Arab-Israel Conflict” which was the only term used to describe the on-going war between the Arab States and the Jewish State of Israel up until after the 1967 Six Day War. And most people over 60 seem to have memory issues.
By assuming  the “Palestinian Problem”, as it was first called, is at the core of the Arab-Israel Conflict, one can now understand how it became today’s politically correct term: the “Palestinian-Israeli Conflict”, and one is forced to also assume that Arab enmity towards Israel began either after 1967 when Israel either liberated or captured (depends on whom one asks, of course) the territories that comprise the Biblically named Judea and Samaria (AKA as “the West Bank”) and Gaza, or at least no further back than the creation of the Jewish state in 1948. Yet even cursory examination of the historical facts belies these contentions because they are based on the false premise that the Arab-Israel Conflict has something to do with the so-called "Palestinian Problem."
Chronologically, Arab enmity preceded the “Palestinian Problem” before the State of Israel officially existed. The Arab countries declared war on Israel before the Palestinian Arabs fled. Logically, then, one can conclude that the Arabs had some other reason to attack the fledgling Israel other than Palestinian refugees that didn't yet exist.
It was in this vein that the semi-official Egyptian newspaper, Al-Ahram , printed the following editorial on  November 26, 1955: "Our war against the Jews is an old struggle that began with Muhammad and in which he achieved many victories ... it is our duty to fight the Jews for the sake of Allah and religion, and it is our duty to end the war that Muhammad began ..."
Al-Ahram makes no mention or reference to Palestinians or refugees because the highly touted “Palestinian Problem” of today was then considered, at best, nothing more than a secondary detail and, at worst, an artificially created political weapon (The PLO was only established in 1964). The Arab-Israel Conflict is based on Arab enmity towards the Jews, and therefore the Jewish state, and has nothing to do with either Palestinian Arab refugees or any specific Israeli policies.
Bearing that in mind, one wonders why the territories under discussion for the “Palestinian State” in the making, Judea and Samaria (AKA “the West Bank”, as in the west bank of the Jordan River), became holy soil in the eyes of Palestinian Arab nationalism only after Israel took possession of these territories following the clearly defensive war in 1967?
During the previous nineteen years, from 1948 to 1967, these areas were under Jordanian control/occupation after the Jordanian Legion captured it from the fledgling State of Israel in the 1948 War. Yet despite the alleged existence of a Palestinian Arab people, there was no public outcry for Jordan to return this region to anyone to establish a Palestinian Arab state. Nor were international protests made demanding that Jordan cease "creating facts" by building new Arab neighborhoods throughout these areas, thus creating "obstacles to peace". Arab leaders didn’t make pilgrimages to the al-Aqsa mosque on the Temple Mount in Jordanian-occupied Jerusalem , and PLO chieftain Yasser Arafat never once visited the “ West Bank ” during those 19 years.
The Palestinian Problem was created and promoted, and the Big Lie prospers: "Without unilateral Israeli territorial concessions the Palestinian Problem which is the core of the Arab-Israel Conflict will never be resolved." Thus the “Arab-Israel Conflict” was smoothly turned into the “Palestinian-Israeli Conflict” – the pre-1967 Arab Goliath against the beleaguered little Israeli David was transitioned into the intransigent Israeli Goliath versus the poor Palestinian David.
The Big Lie has seeped in everywhere. The first internet site, for example, seen by today’s students googling the “Arab-Israel conflict is Wikipedia. Irrespective of how really accurate it is, it is the top of the list. Wikipedia describes the “Arab-Israel Conflict” thusly:
“The Arab–Israeli conflict refers to political tensions and open hostilities between the Arab peoples and the Jewish community of the Middle East . The modern Arab–Israeli conflict began with the rise of Zionism and Arab Nationalism towards the end of the nineteenth century, and intensified with the creation of the modern State of Israel in 1948. Territory regarded by the Jewish People as their historical homeland is also regarded by the Pan-Arab movement as historically and presently belonging to the Palestinian Arabs(2) and in the Pan-Islamic context, in territory regarded as Muslim Lands.”
The line: “is also regarded by the Pan-Arab movement as historically and presently belonging to the Palestinian Arabs(2)” is footnoted as if seriously sourced. However, if one bothers to scroll down to the very bottom to see the source, Wikipedia (or the writer of said entry) accepts the “Palestinian National Charter [the PLO Charter written in 1964], as an unbiased reference source.
Further on Wikipedia’s version of history is not only in the so-called facts it includes, but those facts omitted. In the section on the conflict’s “History” it notes that “the area came under British rule as the British Mandate of Palestine”, but conveniently left out how and by whom the British received said “Mandate.” 
In fact, in 1920, the San Remo Conference of the Allied Powers issued what is called the “Palestine Mandate of the League of Nations .” Hence, the League of Nations, the forerunner of the United Nations, assigned to Great Britain a mandate to establish the Jewish national home. The Preamble to the Mandate specifies that “recognition has thereby been given to the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine .”
The Palestine Mandate does not mention Arab national or political rights in the Land of Israel . It does not relate at all to the Arab residents of Palestine 1920, as a separate people or nationality. It merely states that the civil and religious rights of all the inhabitants of Palestine , irrespective of race and religion, must be safeguarded. The reason for that is clear. Only one nation was recognized, the Jews. Hence the object and purpose of the Mandate was to reconstitute the political ties of the Jewish people to their homeland.
Moreover, the Arab delegates to the San Remo Conference led by the Hashemite Prince Faisel ibn Hussein (who would be appointed first king of Syria, then after he was ousted by the French, king of Iraq) accepted said “Palestine Mandate” and even declared Zionist demands “moderate.”
Mr. Areikat, in his December 28th op-ed, would have readers of The Washington Post believe otherwise. “We lived under the rule of a plethora of empires,” he writes, “the Canaanites, Egyptians, Philistines, Israelites, Persians, Greeks, Romans, Crusaders, Mongols, Ottomans and, finally, the British.” In other words, the Palestinian Arabs must have been hiding in the closet since throughout thousands of years of well documented history nobody mentions them. But it doesn’t matter. The spokesmen for the PLO/PA simply repeat lie after lie until their political fellow travelers and useful idiots (to borrow terminology of another period when venal and foolish people acted similarly) in the mainstream media and academia repeat the lies as if there was a scintilla of truth in them.
One of Mr. Areikat’s more ironic lines are “Many in the United States forget that Palestinians are Muslims and Christians. They ignore the fact that Palestinian Christians are the descendants of Jesus and guardians of the cradle of Christianity.” Aside from the historical fact that Jesus was Jewish, and therefore the Israelis are the actual relatives, not the Palestinian Arabs, consider the fact that the Palestinian Authority has systematically driven out the Christian Arabs from Bethlehem , the birthplace of Jesus, according to the New Testament. Specifically, more than 70% of Christian Arabs have fled the PA controlled areas to any country that will issue them a visa. In Bethlehem , for example, whereas in 1950, Christian Arabs comprised 80% of the population, today under Palestinian Arab rule, it is less than 15%. But why tell the truth when one’s lies are accepted so easily?
So today the situation is far different then the pre-1967 period and has been further exacerbated by the incessant presenting of the “Palestinian-Israel Conflict” in asymmetrical form. The Palestinian Arabs cry “the Jews stole our Land” and demand “inalienable national rights” predicated on a false history. And then “pro-Israeli” western politicians declare support for a Palestinian State while mumbling about Israel’s security needs and wanting peace (e.g. President Obama’s UN speeches), rather than challenge the false premise and deal with an existent problem in its true reality – including the possibility that the two sides are not equal and that there may not be an actual solution.
Given the rise of Pan-Islamism throughout the “new” Middle East, the continued inflexibility of the Palestinian Arab leadership and their refusal to abandon murderous violence as a strategic method of achieving their goals, the odds of having a Hollywood-style happy ending of the Arab-Israel Conflict or the so-called Palestinian-Israel Conflict is not slim to none, but just none.
When that harsh reality is absorbed by Republican and Democratic policy makers alike, perhaps then the issue of Middle East stability and its ramifications for the West can be dealt with in light of the true facts on the ground, and not merely as short term verbal electioneering points.
The author is a veteran journalist specializing in geo-political and geo-strategic affairs in the Middle East . His articles have appeared in such publications as The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Times, Insight Magazine, Nativ, The Jerusalem Post and Makor Rishon. His articles have been reprinted by Israel ’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs and in the US Congressional Record.

soldiers speak out Chicago

Saturday Feb. 18 – 9:30 AM A special shabbat service followed by a taste of Israel
Lincolnwood Jewish Congregation
7117 N. Crawford Lincolnwood, IL
Sunday Feb. 26 –
10:15 AM  
Temple Beth-El 305 West Madison St. South Bend, IN 

7:00 PM
Munster Jewish Federation 
585 Progress  Ave. Munster, IN 
Monday Feb. 27 – 5:00PM
Temple Beth-EL 3610 Dundee Road Northbrook, IL 
Tuesday Feb. 28 – 11:00 AM
Loyola University Chicago Mundelein  Greenhouse – 7th floor (Sheridan Rd. & Kenmore) 
Wednesday Feb. 29 – 7:30 PM
Anshe Sholom B’nai Israel
540 W. Melrose St., Chicago, IL 60657
Israeli Soldiers Speak Out is an innovative program featuring a diverse group of reserve duty Israeli college students. Their mission is to educate, inform, delve into conversation about the Israeli-Arab conflict by putting a human face to the IDF uniform. Meet these citizen soldiers with combat experience in the IDF during missions in Gaza and Lebanon.  

Hear real soldiers tell about their real lives!
StandWithUs, supporting people around the world who want to educate
their campuses and communities about Israel. 

Monday, February 13, 2012

Newsweek obama will not stop iran

Newsweek has a must-read today on the cooperation between the U.S. and Israel on halting Iran’s nuclear program. The detail getting the most attention is the Obama administration’s decision to keep crucial intelligence from Israel regarding the locations of nuclear scientists. But the lack of intelligence-sharing goes both ways – Israel is also staying mum about when it will strike Iran, if it decides to take that course.
The reason for the silence seems to be a breakdown of trust between the Israeli government and the Obama administration. While the U.S. has the capability to attack the program after it goes fully underground, Israel’s window of time for carrying out a successful attack is much shorter. And the Israelis have reason to doubt Obama would take military action if he wins reelection, Newsweek reports:
One former Israeli official tells Newsweek he heard this explanation directly from Defense Minister Ehud Barak. “If Israel will miss its last opportunity [to attack], then we will have to lean only on the United States, and if the United States decides not to attack, then we will face an Iran with a bomb,” says the former Israeli official. This source says that Israel has asked Obama for assurances that if sanctions fail, he will use force against Iran. Obama’s refusal to provide that assurance has helped shape Israel’s posture: a refusal to promise restraint, or even to give the United States advance notice.
Could there be a clearer example of “leading from behind” than this? A nuclear Iran is perhaps the biggest threat the world currently faces, and yet Obama can’t provide reassurances he’ll take military action if necessary – knowing this will lay the brunt of the responsibility on Israel.
Apparently, all options are NOT on the table.

In a must-read piece at the Daily Beast, we learn that Obama is trying to calibrate support for Israel with his own re-election campaign:
Obama’s advisers most concerned about the economy, for instance, have been at odds with allies in Congress most focused on preventing Iran from going nuclear. (It would take much less than an oil crisis to restoke panic about Greece and other feeble European economies.) Israel’s national interests are not always in line with Washington’s. And a messy war—or perceived weakness on Iran—could tip the election for the Republicans in November. . . .
From the get-go, Obama had a frosty relationship with Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu. “There’s no question that tension grew between the two, because we felt like ... they had a different estimation [of the timeline for Iran to get nuclear-weapons capability],” says the Pentagon source, “and we felt like some of their [kinetic] activities undermined what we were trying to do. Obama’s view was, why would you remove the opportunity for a diplomatic solution for something that was so incrementally significant [as killing a scientist]?”

The real zinger in the piece comes close to the end:
The key question now is how much time is left to achieve a negotiated solution. Israeli officials say that the United States thinks it can afford to wait until Iran is on the very verge of weaponizing, because U.S. forces have the capacity to carry out multiple bombing sorties and cripple the Iranian program at that point. Israel, however, would not be able to carry out such a sustained attack and would need to hit much sooner to be effective—before Iran could shelter much of its program deep underground. One former Israeli official tells Newsweek he heard this explanation directly from Defense Minister Ehud Barak. “If Israel will miss its last opportunity [to attack], then we will have to lean only on the United States, and if the United States decides not to attack, then we will face an Iran with a bomb,” says the former Israeli official. This source says that Israel has asked Obama for assurances that if sanctions fail, he will use force against Iran. Obama’s refusal to provide that assurance has helped shape Israel’s posture: a refusal to promise restraint, or even to give the United States advance notice.
Talk about a buried lede. This is conclusive evidence, as if more were needed, that contrary to the wishful thinking of Obama’s supporters, the Israelis cannot rely — indeed they’ve been told not to rely — on Obama to take military action if needed to stop Iran. In other words, “all options on the table” is meaningless. Israel must act accordingly. And, not to put too fine a point on it, but Israel will need to act before the election. The only thing Obama really cares about these days is getting another four years, and his reaction to an Israeli strike pre-election will undoubtedly be more sympathetic than after he has won four more years.

Saturday, February 11, 2012

Friday, February 10, 2012

Land for peace is folly

A New, Realistic Peace Is Needed - Ari Shavit
After Israel gave the Palestinians most of Gaza, the first bus blew up at Dizengoff Square. After Israel gave the Palestinians Nablus and Ramallah, buses started blowing up in downtown Jerusalem and Tel Aviv. And after Israel suggested that the Palestinians set up a sovereign state on most of the territories, they responded with a wave of terror. And as suicide terrorists were running amok in our cities, it started to dawn on people that maybe there was something defective about the promise of a great peace.
    After Israel withdrew from south Lebanon, a Shi'ite missile base was set up there, which threatens the entire country. And after Israel withdrew from the Gaza settlements, the area became an armed Hamastan that continually attacked the south.
    Tzipi Livni sat with Ahmed Qureia (Abu Ala ) for a full year, but Qureia signed nothing. Ehud Olmert offered Jerusalem to Mahmoud Abbas, but Abbas just disappeared. The fact that the moderate Palestinians were turning their backs on the most generous peace offerings Israel had ever made raised gloomy suspicions about their intentions. Were they really willing to divide the country into two national states that would live side by side with one another? Reasonable, moderate Israelis lost their faith in reconciliation.
    Now the Islamic revolution in Egypt has removed the southern anchor of that promised peace. The Arab awakening has killed the diplomatic process. In the coming years, no moderate Arab leader will have enough legitimacy or power to sign a peace agreement with Israel. Peace simply isn't going to happen. Not now, and not in this decade. (Ha'aretz)

does obama support terroism

Does Obama supports terrorism?
Besides Muslim brotherhood in Egypt see this from today's Daily Alert
Report: U.S. Won't Oppose Fatah-Hamas Deal - Elior Levy (Ynet News)
    The U.S. administration has informed the Palestinian Authority that it has no objections to the reconciliation deal between Fatah and Hamas, the London-based Al-Hayat reported Friday. (even though US offically calls Hamas a terrorist group)
    Israel has expressed vehement objection to the deal.
    On Thursday the Palestinian leadership in the West Bank decided against resuming the Amman peace talks with Israel.

Obama iran israel

How Obama betrays Israel and threatens her survival
Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum all but accused Obama of deliberately selling out Israel and the United States.
We're throwing Israel under the bus because we know we're going to be dependent upon OPEC. We're going to say, "Oh, Iran, we don't want you to get a nuclear weapon — wink, wink, nod, nod — go ahead, just give us your oil." Folks, the president of the United States is selling the economic security of the United States down the river right now.
Santorum later told CNN that Obama's actions support the view that the president was choosing Iran over Israel. He accused Defense Secretary Leon Panetta of divulging sensitive information about Israel's plans to strike Iran and then invited scorn upon the Jewish state from the rest of the world.
"This is a president who is not standing by our allies," he said, likely in reference to Israel, "is trying to appease, trying to find a way to allow — clearly to allow Iran to get this nuclear weapon."

Wednesday, February 8, 2012

Palestinians in terrorist camp

The New PA-Hamas Agreement: Opening the Gates to the Trojan Horse - Jonathan D. Halevi (Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs)
  • Although the words of the Doha Declaration on PA-Hamas reconciliation signed on Feb. 6 sound weighty, their practical significance is small since it does not express genuine Hamas recognition of Abbas' leadership or authority. Instead, it is merely verbal, expedient recognition for tactical reasons, intended to enable Hamas' official entry into the PLO in the framework of new elections for the Palestinian National Council and to pave the way for Palestinian presidential and parliamentary elections.
  • The Hamas leaders are trying to implement the strategy of the Arab Spring in the Palestinian arena. They assume they will win an overwhelming majority in the elections and, thereby, complete their historic takeover of the Palestinian national movement. In other words, they view Abbas as the doorman who opens the gates to the Trojan horse.
  • From Abbas' perspective, his appointment as prime minister, in addition to president, will enable him to maintain the international recognition of the Palestinian government despite the agreement with Hamas, and give him room to maneuver in contacts with the international community, both politically and in terms of keeping the aid money flowing. Abbas thereby buys himself some quiet for an interim period. When it ends, though, he will likely find himself without assets and in a minority in the representative institutions of the Palestinian national movement.
  • Abbas' cooperation with Hamas leader Khaled Mashaal, and his uncompromising refusal to meet with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, illustrates the strategic choice he has made. He does not prefer the path of a political settlement but, rather, to link up with Hamas and the other regional forces emerging in the Arab Spring and thereby use them as a force multiplier against Israel without having to offer political concessions. The release of 64 "political" prisoners is not only a gesture to Hamas but also an implicit message that the security cooperation with Israel is secondary in Abbas' eyes to the old-new alliance with Hamas.

    Lt. Col. (ret.) Jonathan D. Halevi, a senior researcher at the Jerusalem Center, is a former advisor to the Policy Planning Division of the Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs.


Commnetary blog Feb 8

Dislike of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has been a constant theme of the Obama administration. While President Obama has cuddled up to an Islamist troublemaker and human rights violator like Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdo─čan, he has made no secret of his abhorrence of Netanyahu. Obama has tried to humiliate Netanyahu and has abused him in public (via an open microphone while chatting with French President Sarkozy). Indeed, American policy toward Israel in 2009 seemed aimed at forcing the newly elected Netanyahu from office. Those maneuvers failed and the U.S. foreign policy establishment as well as its European counterparts settled down to wait for Netanyahu to be beaten at the next election.

Friday, February 3, 2012

More palestinian war crimes

Gaza rocket barrage: 7 Qassams hit south

Palestinians fire seven Qassam rockets at Israel which explode in open areas in Shaar Hanegev Council; no injuries
Shmulik Hadad
Latest Update: 02.01.12, 21:58 / Israel News

Seven rockets fired from the Gaza Strip exploded in open areas in the Shaar Hanegev Regional Council on Wednesday. No injuries or damage were reported.

The latest barrage saw five rockets fired at Israel just before 9 pm. A Color Red alarm was activated. Another rocket exploded in an open area at 6:30 pm. There were no injuries.