THE EXPANSION OF AL-QAEDA-AFFILIATED JIHADI GROUPS IN GAZA: DIPLOMATIC IMPLICATIONS
The Expansion of Al-Qaeda-Affiliated Jihadi Groups in Gaza: Diplomatic Implications
January 4, 2010
In the West there is a growing trend to view Hamas as separate from al-Qaeda in order to open a political dialogue with Hamas, but is this view correct?
In its annual survey of terrorist threats to Israel during 2009, the Israel Security Agency noted the spread and buildup of "global jihadi" organizations in Gaza. In recent years a number of these jihadi groups have emerged that openly identify with al-Qaeda, such as Jaish al-Islam (the Army of Islam), Jaish al-Umma (the Army of the Nation), and Fatah al-Islam.
Hamas was founded in 1987 as the Palestinian wing of the Muslim Brotherhood. Osama bin Laden was educated in Saudi Arabia by Muhammad Qutb of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood and Abdullah Azzam of the Jordanian Muslim Brotherhood. Khalid Sheikh Muhammad, the architect of the 9/11 attacks, came out of the Kuwaiti Muslim Brotherhood. The Muslim Brotherhood still defines its goal as "a world Islamic state."
In February 2004, the U.S. designated Sheikh Abd al-Majid Zindani, president of Iman University in Yemen, as a "loyalist to Osama bin Laden." On March 20, 2006, Zindani, who recruited volunteers for al-Qaeda, sponsored a major fundraising event for Hamas in Yemen. Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the Nigerian who tried to blow up Northwest Flight 253 to Detroit, went to hear lectures on radical Islam at Iman University.
The al-Qaeda affiliate Jaysh al-Islam joined Hamas in the 2006 kidnapping of Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit. This proves that Hamas and al-Qaeda affiliates have been involved in joint operations. In 2007, the Egyptian press reported that one of the heads of al-Qaeda in Egypt had escaped and sought sanctuary in Gaza. In May 2009, Egypt charged that another al-Qaeda-linked group was using Gaza for training terrorists for attacks in Egypt.
Full article: http://www.jcpa.org/JCPA/Templates/ShowPage.asp?DBID=1&LNGID=1&TMID=111&FID=254&PID=0&IID=3257
A Low and Dishonest Decade
Dec. 31, 2009
Caroline Glick , THE JERUSALEM POST
Upon returning from Cairo on Tuesday, Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu proclaimed, "It's time to move the peace process forward."
The most sympathetic interpretation of Netanyahu's proclamation is that he was engaging in political theater. It was a low and dishonest statement uttered at the end of what has been, in the immortal words of W.H. Auden, "a low and dishonest decade."
Everyone with eyes in their heads knows that there is no chance of making peace with the Palestinians. First of all, the most Israel is willing to give is less than what the Palestinians are willing to accept.
But beyond that, Gaza is controlled by Hamas, and Hamas is controlled by Iran.
For its part, Fatah is not in a position to make peace even if its leaders wished to. Mahmoud Abbas and his deputies know that just as Hamas won the 2006 elections in Judea, Samaria and Gaza, Hamas would win elections today. To maintain even a smudge of domestic legitimacy, Fatah's leaders have no choice but to adopt Hamas's rejection of peaceful coexistence with the Jewish state.
Clearly, now is not the time "to move the peace process forward."
No less than what it tells us about Netanyahu, his statement is notable for what it tells us about Israel. Our continued willingness to ensnare ourselves in the rhetoric of peace processes demonstrates how little we have progressed in the past decade.
In 1999, Netanyahu was ejected from office by an electorate convinced that he was squandering an historic opportunity for peace between Israel and its neighbors. A majority of Israelis believed that Netanyahu's signature policies of demanding that the Palestinians abide by their commitments to Israel, and maintaining the IDF's security zone in south Lebanon were dooming all hope for peace.
His successor, Ehud Barak, promised to remove IDF troops from Lebanon and forge a final peace with the Palestinians and with Syria within a year. After winning the election, Barak famously promised a swooning crowd at Rabin Square that the "dawn of a new day has arrived."
Barak lost no time fulfilling his campaign promises. He withdrew the IDF from south Lebanon in May 2000.
He launched talks with Syria in December 1999. For four months he begged Syrian dictator Hafez Assad to accept the Golan Heights, stopping only after Assad harshly rebuffed him in March 2000.
And in July 2000 at Camp David, Barak offered Yasser Arafat Gaza, 90 percent of Judea and Samaria and half of Jerusalem in exchange for peace. After Arafat rejected his offer, Barak sweetened it at Taba in September 2000, adding another 5% of Judea and Samaria, the Temple Mount, and extra lands in the Negev, only to be rejected, again.
Barak made these offers as the wisdom of appeasement exploded before his eyes. Hizbullah seized the withdrawal from Lebanon as a strategic victory. Far from disappearing as Barak and his deputy Yossi Beilin had promised it would, Hizbullah took over south Lebanon and used the area as a springboard for its eventual takeover of the Lebanese government. So, too, with its forces perched on the border, Hizbullah built up its Iranian-commanded forces, preparing for the next round of war.
Similarly, Barak's desperate entreaties to Assad enhanced the dictator's standing in the Arab world, to the detriment of Egypt and Jordan.
To the extent he required encouragement, the ascendance of Hizbullah, Syria and Iran made it politically advantageous for Arafat to reject peace. Buoyed by their rise, Arafat diverted billions of dollars in Western aid from development projects to the swelling ranks of his terror armies. Instead of preparing his people for peace, he trained them for war.
Arafat responded to Barak's beggary at Camp David and Taba by launching the largest terror offensive Israel experienced since the 1950s. The Palestinians' orgiastic celebration of the mass murder of Israelis was the final nail in Barak's premiership, and it seemed at the time, the death-knell of his policies of appeasement.
A year and a half after he took office, the public threw Barak from power. Likud leader Ariel Sharon - who just a decade earlier had been taken for dead - was swept into power with an electoral landslide. To the extent the public vote was for Sharon, rather than against Barak, the expectation was that Sharon would end Barak's appeasement policies and defeat Arafat and the terror state he had built in Gaza, Judea and Samaria.
But this was not to be.
Rather than abandon Barak's policies, Sharon embraced them. He formed a unity government with Labor and refused to fight. He didn't fight after 22 teenagers were massacred outside the Dolphinarium nightclub in June 2001. He did not fight after the September 11, 2001, attacks and the Palestinian celebrations of the slaughter in New York and Washington.
Sharon did not order the IDF to fight until the carnage of March 2002 that culminated in the Seder massacre at Netanya's Park Hotel forced his hand. Had he not ordered the IDF to dismantle the Palestinian terror infrastructures in Judea and Samaria at that time, he faced the sure prospect of being routed in the Likud leadership race scheduled for November of that year.
Operation Defensive Shield was a textbook example of what you get when you mix weak politicians with a strong society. On the one hand, during Defensive Shield, the IDF took control of all the major towns and cities in Judea and Samaria and so enabled Israel to dismantle Palestinian terror networks by remaining in place in the years that followed.
On the other hand, Sharon refused to allow the IDF to launch a parallel operation in Gaza, despite repeated entreaties by the army and residents of the South. Most important, Sharon barred the IDF from toppling the PA or even acknowledging that it was an enemy government. And he maintained that the Palestinian jihad began and ended with Arafat, thus absolving all of Arafat's deputies - who were then and today remain deeply involved in the terror machine - of all responsibility.
In acting as he did, Sharon's signaled that he was not abandoning appeasement. Indeed, he made clear that his aim was to re-embrace appeasement as his national strategy as soon as it was politically feasible.
Most Israelis explained away Sharon's behavior in his first term as the price he was forced to pay for his coalition government with Labor. So when in 2003 Sharon, Likud and the political Right won an overwhelming mandate from the public to lead the country without the Left, the expectation was that he would finally let loose. He would finally fight for victory.
Instead, Sharon spat on his party, his coalition partners and his voters and adopted as his own the policies of the Left that he had condemned in his campaign.
To implement those policies, Sharon dismantled his government and his party and formed a coalition with the same Left the nation had just overwhelmingly rejected.
The past decade's major policies: the withdrawal from Gaza, the construction of the security fence, the acceptance of the road map peace plan, the Annapolis Conference, Operation Defensive Shield, the Second Lebanon War and Operation Cast Lead all shared one central feature. They were all predicated on ignoring the lessons of the failure of appeasement in 2000.
Whereas Defensive Shield's strategic success was owed to Israel's decision to maintain control over the territory the IDF seized in the fighting, in launching the wars with Hizbullah and Hamas, Sharon's successor, Ehud Olmert, ignored that success and chose instead to emulate the operation's failures.
To further his government's appeasement policies, Olmert refused to order the IDF to seize south Lebanon or Gaza. By the same token, like Sharon in Defensive Shield, Olmert announced at the outset that he had no interest in defeating Israel's enemies. He limited the goals of the campaigns to "teaching them a lesson." And of course by not seeking victory for Israel, Olmert enabled both Hizbullah and Hamas to claim victory for themselves.
By opting not to defeat Hizbullah or Hamas, Olmert communicated the message that like Sharon before him, his ultimate strategic aim was to maintain the political viability of appeasement as a national strategy. He was fighting to protect appeasement, not Israel.
As we move into the second decade of this century, we need to understand how the last decade was so squandered. How is it possible that in 2010 Israel continues to embrace policies that have failed it - violently and continuously for so many years? Why, in 2010 are we still ignoring the lessons of 2000 and all that we have learned since then?
There are two main causes for this failure: The local media and Sharon. Throughout the 1990s, the Israeli media - print, radio and television - were the chief propagandists for appeasement. When appeasement failed in 2000, Israel's media elites circled the wagons. They refused to admit they had been wrong.
Misleading phrases like "cycle of violence" were introduced into our newspeak. The absence of a security fence - rather than the presence of an enemy society on the outskirts of Israel's population centers - was blamed for the terror that claimed the lives of over a thousand Israelis. Palestinian propagandists and terrorists such as Fatah leader Marwan Barghouti were treated like legitimate politicians. Palestinian ties to Iran, Syria, Iraq and the nexus of global jihad went unmentioned or uncommented upon.
At the same time, opponents of appeasement - those who had warned of the dangers of the Oslo process and had spoken out against the withdrawal from Lebanon and a potential withdrawal from the Golan Height and Gaza - were not congratulated for their wisdom. They remained marginalized and demonized.
This situation prevails still today. The same media that brought us these catastrophes now derides Likud ministers and Knesset members who speak out against delusion-based policies, while suddenly embracing Netanyahu who - with Barak at his side - has belatedly embraced their pipe dreams of appeasement-based peace.
Then there is Sharon. The man who built the settlements, who removed the PLO from Lebanon, who opposed Oslo, Camp David and the withdrawal from Lebanon; the man who opposed the security fence and pledged to remain forever in Gush Katif. As Israel's leader for most of the past decade, more than anyone else Sharon is responsible for Israel's continued adherence to the dishonest, discredited and dishonorable dictates of appeasement.
Whether due to his alleged corruption, his physical enfeeblement, his fear of the State Department, or his long-held and ardent desire to be accepted by the Left, Sharon betrayed his voters and his party and he undermined Israel's ability to move beyond failure.
Auden's "low and dishonest decade" was the 1930s. It was the West's obsession then with appeasement that set the world on course for the cataclysm of World War II.
As Israel enters the new decade, we must redouble our efforts to forestall a repeat of the cataclysm of the 1940s. Disturbingly, Netanyahu's call for a fraudulent peace process shows that we are off to an ignoble, untruthful start.
Caroline Glick in Shdema: "Obama does not like Israel nor does he like America. More and more Americans are disappointed by their president".
January 4, 2010
JEWS, JEWS, JEWISH
"Obama and Israel" was the topic of Caroline Glick's talk on Friday
in the Land of Israel cultural Center in Shdema, Gush Etzion.
More than a hundred people packed the hall in Shdema. They came from
Jerusalem, Bet Shemesh, Gush Etzion, Efrat, Kiryat Arba Hevron, Ofra,
According to Glick's analysis, Obama never liked Israel and nothing
Israel will do will change that. The reason is simple. His biography
shows that, since his youth, Obama surrounded himself with people that
were anti-Semitic, pro-Arab and with a Communist orientation; a
surrounding of people that not only deny the right of Israel to exist
but that do not like America either.
Netanyahu will never succeed in "finding favor" in the eyes of Obama
and his friends and thus Bibi should stop trying to appease and please
them. On the contrary, more and more people in America are very
disappointed with Obama and understand he is not the person they
thought he was. They are very disturbed with the fact that clearly
Obama does not like America and is not behaving like a proud patriot.
Netanyahu should do all he can to minimize the strength of Obama.
Instead of telling us that relations with Obama are "warming up",
Netanyahu should bypass Obama and directly speak to the people in
America, passing on a very clear message that Israel is strong and
does not intend to capitulate. A message of strength like that was
passed on by Netanyahu in his speech at the UN in September; a speech
that led to an incredible wave of support in America. Unfortunately,
says Glick, after that speech, Bibi went downhill and started caving
in. Caroline Glick called upon Bibi to get a hold of himself.
At the beginning and end of Caroline Glick's talk, videoclips of Latma
were screened. Latma is Caroline Glick's Hebrew website
(www.latma.co.il) in which, through satire, they make fun of the
leftist media and elites in Israel and thus delegitimize them. Latma
enables every Jew to identify with his healthy Jewish instinct.
Caroline Glick received a very warm welcome and support by the Shdema
public, among them many English speakers who enjoyed the speech thanks
to the simultaneous translation of Ruchi Avital who translated, into
earphones, Glick's Hebrew speech.
The members of the Committee for a Jewish Shdema and Women in Green
summarized Caroline Glick's message by saying that now more than ever,
it is clear we must increase the struggle for the Land of Israel even
more; a struggle that Obama might not like but the people in America
most certainly identify with.
This coming Friday, January 8th, Attorney Yoram Sheftel will speak in
Shdema (in Hebrew) at 9:00am on "the Dictatorship of the Supreme
The Committee for a Jewish Shdema and Women in Green
For details: Nadia Matar 050-5500834, Yehudit Katzover 050-7161818
Link to pictures by Gemma Blech:http://picasaweb.google.com/gemmablech/1011WIGAtSHDEMAWithCarolineGLICK#
Link to pictures by Rivka Ryback: http://www.yeshabulletin.com/FIGHT%20BACK/FightBack.htm
A Realistic Assessment and a Fantasy for the New Year*
Prof. Paul Eidelberg
What is to be done about Iran?—(1) its development of nuclear weapons; (2) its potential control of Persian Gulf oil on which the world’s economy depends; (3) its regional power via proxies and alliances; (4) its global Islamic ambitions; (5) its imminent threat to Israel’s existence.
While appeasement is entrenched in Washington, defeatism holds sway in Jerusalem, where the Netanyahu government has endorsed a Muslim state in Israel’s heartland.
Consider some simple facts. Estimates of the number of Muslims worldwide that support Jihad vary from 15 to 50 percent (and higher). Given 1.5 billion Muslims on planet earth, this means that between 225 and 750 million Muslims have been conditioned by the Quran, which exalts the Muslim who “slays and is slain for Allah” (Sura 9:111). It’s hardly reassuring to say “not all Muslims are terrorists.”
The prospects are worse than you have been told. Even if most Muslims were “moderates,” virtually all harbor the ethos of Islam. Hence the vast majority of Muslims are at hand to be recruited by “extremists” So what is to be done?
As long as the White House is occupied by Barack Obama, who bowed to Saudi King Abdullah, and purrs to Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad—the two principal patrons of Jihad—no serious policy will be taken by the United States to put an end to Islam’s threat to the free world. This was the paramount failing of the Bush administration.
Can it be that only Israel stands between civilization and barbarism, as Israel did almost 2,000 years ago when it planted the seed of Christianity in pagan Rome?
Today Europe, the home of Christianity, is dying of neo-paganism. Having replaced the God of Israel, the creator of life, Europe is succumbing to the Islamic god of death. Is this Europe’s punishment for the death camps of the Holocaust?
All talk of fostering a moderate Islam is spineless obfuscation of Islam’s essence: necrophilia. Islam’s religious nihilism is more deeply engrained in Muslims than Nazism was engrained in Germans. Mein Kampf is tepid compared to Islam’s turgid hatred of “infidels.” Some 56 states exalt of the Quran, which Winston Churchill called “the Mein Kampf of war.” Germany under Hitler did not use German children as human bombs. And unlike, Ahmadinejad, the sadistic beasts of Nazi Germany did not use thousands of German children to walk through enemy mine fields. The fools in Washington and Jerusalem have learned nothing from the enormity of evil manifested in the Nazi Holocaust; that evil now manifested in Islamic chants: “Death to America!”—“Death to Israel!”
The cult of hatred and death is everywhere. Can anything be done to save civilization? Here let me mention a proposal I published after 9/11—when George W. Bush was President, a proposal rendered obsolete by the election of Obama. Since Islam is not localized in a single nation state:
The President, I suggested, should call in all Muslim ambassadors. He should warn them—for starters—that the US will submit a resolution in the UN General Assembly stipulating that all Islamic states have 30 days to renounce militant Jihad, a doctrine that violates the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Failure to do so will result in expulsion from the UN.
Of course this proposal was not realistic. It’s not realistic to educate the American people about the nature of the enemy that destroyed the World Trade Center and almost 3,000 innocent human beings. Realism has taken a vacation from Washington.
President Bush did not tell the American people that 9/11 was nothing less than an Islamic declaration of war on the United States, evidence of which goes back to November 1979, when Iranian militants stormed the US embassy in Tehran and took some seventy Americans captive for 444 days. Nor did he mention the Islamic bombing of the World Trade Center in 1993, or the Islamic bombing of the US Embassies in Tanzania and Kenya in 1998. Nor did he mention the Islamic attack on the USS Destroyer Cole that killed 17 American sailors in 2000.
These were acts of war, ignored as such by a decayed American government more concerned about Arab oil than American blood. The deadly significance of the 9/11 has yet to be grasped. This direct attack on the American homeland was cheered by the Islamic street. This worldwide Islamic hatred of America should be related to research conducted by the Center for the Study of Political Islam, which concluded that Muslims have slaughtered some 270 million Christians, Jews, Hindus, and other non-Muslims since Muhammad added the veneer of monotheism to paganism. The unvarnished truth obscured by Western elites—politicians, academics, and journalists—is that Islam is at war with Western Civilization, or what’s left of it.
Lee Harris, the “philosopher of 9/11,” describes Islam as today’s “enemy of civilization.” By civilization he means a standard that can be applied across cultures and history. Civilization requires three basic ingredients: (1) the co-operation of individuals pursuing their own interests, (2) the ability to tolerate or socialize with one’s neighbors, and (3) a hatred of violence. Islam lacks these ingredients. Syrian-born Wafa Sultan, a psychiatrist now living in the United States, denies that Islam is a civilization.
Even those who refer to Jihadists as merely a radical element of Islam are tainted by “political correctness” or timidity. The issue is Islam per se from Muhammad to Ahmadinejad. World War III is all around us. Don’t worry: the United States is not about to declare war on Islam, let alone devastate Mecca or Medina to shatter faith in this creed.
It’s more realistic to be silent about evil, to remain on the defensive, to worry about airline safety while Jihadists plan their next attack—like exploding a “dirty” nuclear bomb in New York to bring the United States to its knees. This is Israel’s policy of “self-restraint.”
Israel and the United States are following the road map to self-destruction, regardless of the differences between their respective leaders. The addiction of Israeli prime ministers to the policy of “territory for peace” is independent of which party or party leader rules the nation. On this vital issue there is no basic difference between Shimon Peres and Netanyahu. Both endorse a Muslim state in Israel’s heartland, and no one should be deceived by Netanyahu’s spin about demilitarization. The Palestinian Authority is armed beyond the limits of the Oslo Agreement—a quicksand of lies that has ensnared Israel.
The government under Netanyahu has no more intention of disarming the PA than the Obama administration has of disarming Iran. Neither has the stamina to adopt a policy of victory. While Obama apologizes to the world for American greatness and is anxious to humble America vis-à-vis despotic Iran on the basis of moral equality, Netanyahu retreats from the idea of a “greater Israel,” and is anxious to humble his country vis-à-vis the despotic Palestinian Authority on the basis of “reciprocity.” But just as Ahmadinejad has ignored Obama’s self-effacing policy of “outreach,” so Mahmoud Abbas has ignored the self-effacing “outreach” policy of Netanyahu. Muslim pride trumps Western humility.
But wait! Isn’t Obama by Islamic law a Muslim? Didn’t he speak with Muslim pride in Cairo last year? Hasn’t he taken an imperious position toward Israel?
These discomfiting remarks provide a realistic assessment for the New Year. So let’s amuse ourselves with a fantasy. Imagine a future Israel going on the offensive like this:
(1) Israel demands that all Islamic states be given 30 days to renounce Jihad or be expelled from the United Nations.
(2) Israel demands that President Ahmadinejad be indicted forviolating international law by vowing to “wipe Israel off the map.”
(3) Israel demands that the Palestinian Authority be dissolved on the grounds that it is nothing but an alliance of terrorist groups whose constitution calls for the annihilation of Israel, a member of the United Nations.
(4) Israel demands that the Government of the United States abide by international law, including the Anglo-American Convention on Palestine, which was ratified by the US Senate and subsequently proclaimed by President Calvin Coolidge on December 5, 1925. This treaty,which incorporated the Balfour Declaration, remains in force to this day as the supreme law of the land. Hence, the letter and spirit of this treaty, along with the US Constitution, are violated when American officials insist on creating a Palestinian state in the Land of Israel.
(5) Finally, Israel declares that any state that threatens Israel’s existence is signing its own death warrant, like Ahmadinejad’s predecessor in the Book of Esther.
Happy New Year!
*Edited transcript of the Eidelberg Report, Israel National Radio, 4 January 2010.
Another Tack: The Decade of Defeatism
Strictly in the Israeli context, the first decade of the 21st century deserves to be remembered as the decade of defeatism. The country ushered in the new millennium with an air of resignation. The no-can-do premise and loser mentality still persist, perniciously.
It's essentially a psychological state in which defeat is the foregone conclusion, anticipated as inevitable and accepted without significant resistance. Thus Kadima MK Nahman Shai pontificated in a radio interview that "Israel has no choice but to pay the price Hamas demanded for Gilad Schalit" and if more abductions are thereby engendered, "we'll have to pay then too. That is our lot."
To be sure, Israeli defeatists aren't all cut from the same cloth. Some, especially on the ideological Left's fringes, promote anything that weakens the state. Their espousal of capitulation to Hamas over Schalit's kidnapping wasn't inspired by concern for his welfare but by desire to further dent Israel's armor. Hence they portray settlements as, heaven forefend, compromising the country's Jewish majority. Yet they simultaneously clamor against new citizenship legislation geared to prevent the wholesale importation of hostile Arabs under the guise of family reunions, as occurred in Oslo's wake when some 150,000 Arabs were willy-nilly added to the population. That transpired without arousing any outcry from the Left, which, at opportune occasions, wrings its hands in despair over the purportedly perilous Jewish demographics.
Since the more hypocritical ideological defeatists hold inordinate sway in the media, they also perforce mold opinions, forge zeitgeist and orchestrate political crusades. They inspire widespread defeatism compounded by the citizenry's intellectual indolence. Their demoralizing spin is that there's no sense to struggle and sacrifice because the fight will anyhow be lost. The inescapable by-products are erosion of faith in the cause and the pervasive perception of all headliners as corrupt and unworthy. "They're all the same" is the oft-heard catchphrase.
IRONICALLY, THIS cynicism failed to foil the most cunning abuse against our most fundamental existential interests. The public let Ariel Sharon - striving to extricate himself from whopping legal entanglements - cheat his voters with an abrupt volte-face, renege on the referendum he initiated, crush his opponents with political steamrollers and propagate patently false prophesies about the bounties of disengagement.
The Ehud Olmert-Tzipi Livni duo had ample opportunity to change course but seemed fettered to the folly and indeed plotted more of the same.
Binyamin Netanyahu, despite promising redirection, imposed the most draconian settlement freeze ever. It hardly improved Israel's image but will create a hell of a stink if or when it's thawed.
The dynamics of defeatism were best exposed by Ehud Barak's ex-foreign minister, ultra-dove Shlomo Ben-Ami. In an extensive monologue entitled "The Day the Peace Died"(Ha'aretz, September 14, 2001), Ben-Ami spellbindingly dissected Barak's 2000-2001 near-desperate peace-drive that began in Stockholm, continued at Camp David and expired ignominiously in Taba. Not to forget, 2000 was highlighted by the unilateral retreat/escape from South Lebanon and by within-Green-Line riots.
The decade's tone was set: Barak's egregious territorial generosity undercut all future Israeli bargaining positions. Subsequently Sharon's unilateral disengagement emboldened terror to the point of imposing Hamas hegemony on Gaza. Instead of super-icon Yasser Arafat, our current interlocutors are Ramallah's virtual-leader Mahmoud Abbas and his clique, trusted and respected by nobody in the Mideast apart from a select band of Israelis calling the shots even in Netanyahu's coalition and serially addicted to making nice to genocidal foes.
THESE ARE the same defeatists who masterminded the haggling of 2000. When it was over, Ben-Ami retroactively understood that Israel "operated under misguided conceptions about the other side's intentions... Oslo constituted a mega-camouflage behind which Arafat exerted political pressure and employed varying measures of terror to undermine the very notion of a two-state solution."
While Israel kept retreating from one "red line" to another, eventually agreeing to cede almost anything the Palestinians insisted upon, including much of Jerusalem and its holiest of holies, Ben-Ami noted, "never at any point did the Palestinians so much as draft any counterproposals."
That, he belatedly concluded, "was the crux of the matter. The Israeli side forever finds itself in a dilemma: Either we quit because this bunch is unwilling to suggest anything, or we manage one more concession, one more kvetch. At the end, however, even the most moderate person arrives at a point in which he admits that the other side has no endgame. Kvetch after kvetch but they're never satisfied. It never ends."
With painstaking detail Ben-Ami listed each and every kvetch, each and every vital position from which Barak and his team were reluctantly pushed by the intractable Palestinians. Even as Israeli negotiators sacrificed Jerusalem, the Palestinians "weren't ready for as much as allowing a face-saving formulation for Israel."
A senior American go-between opined to Ben-Ami that "all the Palestinians want is to humiliate you." They even degradingly rejected a last shameful Israeli entreaty for "subterranean sovereignty underneath the Temple Mount, denying we have any right whatsoever there." When Ben-Ami was willing to make do with Palestinian "undertakings not to dig on the Mount, because it's holy to Jews, they adamantly refused to tolerate any mention of any sanctity anyplace for Jews."
WHAT DISTRESSED Ben-Ami most "wasn't just their refusal but how they refused - with total contempt. They were dismissive and arrogant toward us... They weren't willing to make even an emotional or symbolic conciliatory gesture. In the deepest sense, they were loath to acknowledge that we have any claim here."
Camp David eventually flopped, according to Ben-Ami, because "the Palestinians refused to give us any inkling about where their demands would terminate. Our impression was that they constantly sought to drag us into a black hole of another concession and another, without there being anything like a discernible finish line."
Ben-Ami's unavoidable conclusion was that "more than the Palestinians want their own state, they want to condemn ours... They always leave loose ends... to keep viable the option that at some future point someone would pull these ends and unravel the Jewish state."
That said, like fellow leftists, Ben-Ami even then couldn't bring himself to fully renounce his demonstrably untenable ideological creed. But though still professing devotion to his smitten idols, he nevertheless cautioned against "ignoring what was revealed to us: Palestinian and Islamic positions that defy our very right to exist. We mustn't continue the kvetch culture which might culminate in our suicide... We must cease relinquishing Jewish and Israeli patriotism. We must understand that we aren't always guilty. We must learn to say, 'Till here and no farther.' If the other side aims to destroy even this nucleus, we must steadfastly defend it."
In other words, Ben-Ami cautioned against defeatism early in the decade, before the disengagement that monstrously magnified all of Barak's blunders and then some. But nobody paid heed.
Israeli Stocks Beat the Market
Tevet 18, 5770, 04 January 10 12:11
by Tzvi Ben Gedalyahu, IsraelNationalNews.com
Israel in 2009, as well as from 2000, proved to be one of the best places to invest money. The popular Tel Aviv 25 index soared 75 percent in 2009 and now is only 8 percent from its all time high of 1,166 of two years ago, while popular averages in the United States climbed by less than 29 percent last year.
If an investor had put 1,000 into the TA 25 average at the beginning of the decade, he would now have more than $2,000. The same money in the Standard & Poor's 500 would be worth only $918 today, according to S&P analyst Howard Silverblatt.
While the old investment prediction “the market will fluctuate” holds true, Israeli analysts are optimistic for 2010. The economy withstood the global financial blowout better than most countries and far better than the United States, where scandals and bankruptcies ruptured faith in the entire capitalistic system.
The shekel, which in the past several years has reversed what used to be a seemingly eternal trend of weakening, has become one of the most stable currencies in the world. Inflation, which once was 500 percent a year, has consistently been under control for the past several years, even reaching a lengthy period of depreciating prices.
One unexpected impetus from higher consumer spending, which may encourage more economic growth, is last week’s cut in the Value Added Tax (VAT) by half a percent.
The strong business climate has led Bank HaPoalim and Bank Leumi to predict that the stock market record is within range. Israel's largest companies traded in Tel Aviv and in New York range from Teva Pharmaceuticals, the world’s largest generic drug maker, to Elbit Defense Systems, fertilizer exporters Israel Chemicals and Makhteshim-Agan as well as the technology sector.
Foreigners invested $1.2 billion in the Israeli stock market in 2009 following withdrawals of $2.8 billion in the second half of 2008, according to the Tel Aviv Stock Exchange.
While Israeli stocks have made profits for many investors, the indices in many Middle East countries declined last year, with Bahrain off 16.4 percent, Jordan down by 13 percent and Kuwait off 5.7 percent.
© Copyright IsraelNationalNews.com
The EU's 'East Jerusalem' Christmas Gift
Wednesday, December 23 2009
Christmas came early for Israel's enemies this holiday season. On December 1 a draft statement from the European Union calling for the immediate restart of negotiations leading to a "viable state of Palestine ... with East Jerusalem as its capital" made worldwide news.
This is very curious because, after all, "East Jerusalem" does not actually exist. At least not yet. Let's remember that East Jerusalem is what the Bible means when it refers to Jerusalem itself.
Words and names have meaning. Especially in the Middle East. The European Union obviously chose to use the words of Israel's enemies deliberately.
So just what is "East Jerusalem" and why is adding the word "East" to describe part of Judaism's holiest city and Israel's capital of any serious magnitude?
East and West in Israel are not the simple geographic terms they are in the U.S. Northeast Philadelphia, the Upper East Side in Manhattan and East L.A. are used to denote neighborhoods and sections of a city. In Israel, where Judea and Samaria have been labeled the West Bank, things are different.
The term West Bank is used to de-emphasize the area's inherent Jewishness and to disassociate the land from the State of Israel. The same is true with the term East Jerusalem.
What is East Jerusalem? In the Christian Bible, every instance where a specific location in Jerusalem is mentioned it refers to an area the EU would like to see given to the Palestinians. The term East Jerusalem cannot be found in a Christian Bible. And that is because East Jerusalem is about as real as Santa Claus.
The expression "the Lights of Chanukah" refers to the menorah in the ancient holy Temple in Jerusalem. The EU sees the Temple Mount (the site of the Temple in biblical times) as part of this mythical East Jerusalem in its unholy Palestinian state. There is no East Jerusalem in Judaism.
According to Wikipedia, "East Jerusalem refers to the part of Jerusalem captured by Jordan in the 1948 Arab-Israeli War, and subsequently by Israel in the 1967 Six-Day War. It includes Jerusalem's Old City and some of the holiest sites of Judaism, Christianity and Islam, such as the Temple Mount, Western Wall, Al-Aqsa Mosque and the Church of the Holy Sepulcher."
So East Jerusalem is Jerusalem's Old City and its surrounding neighborhoods. The original and oldest parts of Jerusalem are in this East Jerusalem. There has never been an independent municipal entity known as East Jerusalem. (For the record, there has never been an independent national entity known as Palestine. But that's another story.)
When anti-Israel partisans use the term East Jerusalem, it is to rip Israel's capital apart as part of their long-term quest to defeat Israel. This effort tragically gained full force with the Oslo Accords, as was explained in the B'tzedek Online Journal on December 30, 1996 in an editorial titled "The War Has Just Begun":
"The Oslo Accords are indeed the fulfillment of the PLO 'salami' strategy. That is to say, Israel shall be destroyed not through overt military action of Arab nations, but through the whittling away of Israeli resolve and slow but determined territorial expansion of a Palestinian state. Slice by slice Israel will be carved away by the knife of terrorism and world opinion, both deftly handled by the Israeli-created Palestinian entity."
The very name Jerusalem means city of peace, city of completeness and city of perfection. This was something Bible-believing Americans in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries were taught. A Jerusalem that is not complete is just not Jerusalem.
The United States can do much to confront the EU on Jerusalem. The late senator Jesse Helms wrote in 1996 that "Israel is the only nation in the world denied the right to choose its own capital. This second class citizenship among nations must end."
Now is the time for friends of Israel to apply more pressure on the Obama administration to move America's Embassy. The U.S. government has failed to relocate the American Embassy to Jerusalem from Tel Aviv for more than ten years.
The Jerusalem Embassy Act was passed by Congress on October 23, 1995; the law stipulates that "Jerusalem should be recognized as the capital of the State of Israel" and declares that "the United States Embassy in Israel should be established in Jerusalem no later than May 31, 1999."
"For Zion's sake I am not silent, and for Jerusalem's sake I do not rest," reads Isaiah 62:1. For Jerusalem's sake, contact your congressman today and demand that the Jerusalem Embassy Act be honored.
Drop Dead Jimmy Carter
Sorry Mr. President--I just don't forgive you. How dare you think you
can demonize one of the most moral nations in history--and get away
with your crimes. How dare you blame Jews for your pathetic world
view, which gave credibility to the most evil characters on the face
of the planet. Your apology is worthless.
President Jimmy Carter will undoubtedly be known as the worst
president in American history. He allowed the Shah of Iran to fall and
the evil Khomeni to gain power, giving Muslim extremism the fuel to
spread like cancer throughout the world--ultimately leading to 9/11.
His presidency was a true calamity from interest rates skyrocketing to
21.5% to the disastrous rescue attempt of the US embassy hostages, to
the Carter "malaise" he created throughout America. A total
catastrophe and tragedy would sum up the Carter administration at its
best. I mean, a born and bred true Polish anti- western antisemite in
the tradition of those who aided the Nazis, actually became his
National Security Advisor---Zbigniew Brzezinski.
Carter's cute little "al chayt" prayer of forgiveness is as impressive
as Jeffrrey Dahmer's apology cries. The ex-President finally realizes
what a total putz he is--so what? "We must not permit criticisms for
improvement to stigmatize Israel," Carter wrote recently. Please
Jimmy, save those platitudes for your wife.
You cannot write books filled with outright lies about Israel and
Jews, going on lecture tours and media interviews--fraudulently
accusing Israel of apartheid, occupation, war crimes, terrorism,
obstacles to peace, targeting innocents and other despicable labels.
And then you beg for forgiveness? I mean is that a joke Jimmy boy?
Ex-President Carter recently met with Hamas--the modern day version of
the Nazis. Chamberlain redux? No, Carter is much, much worse. What
Jimmy Carter has done is join the list of well known historical
antisemites to create a new type of Jewish Blood Libel. With
tremendous passion and foolishness, Carter pretty much alone gave
credibility to the "Israel Blood Libel," which propagated throughout
mainstream Western democracies, especially in Europe, to falsely
accuse Israel and Jews of using Arab/Muslim blood to expand Israel's
In a similar vein to his fellow antisemites throughout history, Carter
focused on the blood of children in Gaza and the West Bank, as if
Israel purposely targeted non Jewish children to explain their
horrific deaths. The fact that terrorists stationed their weapons and
missiles in schools was totally irrelevant to the Jimmy Carter immoral
These Jewish Libel accusations by someone who was an ex-president of
the United States gave instant credibility to the lies coming out of
the Arab and Muslim world. The original Jewish Blood Libel gave rise
to attacks on Jews from the first century through the Middle Ages, the
Renaissance, right up until the Nazi era. It was pretty much Jimmy
Carter who created the modern day scenario which spurred attacks on
Jews in France, England, Spain, Belgium, Mumbai, and many other
It was obvious to Jews throughout history that the Jewish Blood Libel
was all based on lies because the Jewish Bible, the Torah contains
many specific laws against using blood in any way--even animal blood.
This same Bible is filled with laws pertaining to the sin of harming
innocents. Therefore, this concept of being extremely sensitive to
hurting innocent people has become dominant in the Jewish psyche and
Thus, when Palestinians, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Syria, Egypt, Lebanon,
Turkey, Jordan, et al all accuse Israel of purposely targeting
innocents, Jews worldwide know that this Jew Hatred is based on pure
lies. However, as we know about lies, if it is repeated often enough,
people, especially Europeans and the Left begin to a believe it as a
fact. That is the tragedy facing both America and Israel today--the 2
most moral nations of modernity.
Is there a nation in the history of the world, who during a war
instigated against it, actually dropped brochures, made phone calls
and sent emails warning innocent civilians to leave an area that was
going to be attacked? Only Israel has cared so much for "the lives" of
innocent people, even people who hate it and wish it destroyed.
However, due to Carter's Christian faith, he actually believes that
all Jews should and will actually forgive him, showing a major
difference between Judaism and Christianity about sin and forgiveness.
Since Jesus' death atones for the sins of those who have faith in Him,
Carter mistakenly thinks that all Jews will ultimately forgive him and
However, only non-Jewish Jews like Abe Foxman of the ADL, who have
almost no knowledge of Judaism, will forgive Carter for his massive
evil. According to Judaism, God Himself cannot forgive anyone for sins
against another person. The only way that Carter can actually be
forgiven, would be to go to every Jew worldwide and ask for
forgiveness--not make his blanket empty announcement, because his
grandson is running for office in a Jewish district in Georgia.
What is ironic about Carter is that he has committed the same "libel
accusations" on America, creating the American Blood Libel. Carter's
comments over the last decade have included the rhetoric that "America
is a torturer at Abu Ghraib, has performed criminal acts by water
boarding in Guatanamo, we're occupiers in Iraq and colonialists, we
attack Arab countries for Halliburton or for oil," etc. etc. Some day
we can all expect an empty Carter apology to America.
So for the damage that Jimmy Carter has caused to both Israel and
America, I do not forgive him and neither do many millions of other
Jews or Americans. The best I can do for one of the most horrific
American men of the past 3 decades is say, "Drop Dead Jimmy Carter,"
and then you can ask your maker for forgiveness.
Copyright by Irwin N. Graulich
Irwin N. Graulich is a well known motivational speaker and author on
morality, ethics, religion and politics. He is also President and CEO
of a leading marketing, branding and communications company in New
York City. He can be reached at firstname.lastname@example.org
Bill Ayers, Israel’s Latest Attacker – by P. David Hornik
Posted By P. David Hornik On January 7, 2010 @ 6:36 am In FrontPage | Comments
“What a country. It makes me want to puke.” Thus spoke  Bill Ayers , the former but unrepentant Weatherman terrorist  who’s now a professor of education at the University of Illinois, in 2001. The country he had in mind was the United States. It’s a safe bet that people with his degree of America-hatred don’t like Israel, either. Indeed, Ayers has now joined 431 academics in signing  an anti-Israeli petition.
Not surprisingly, it accuses Israel of apartheid—the ritual accusation  of the Israel-hating crowd that dreams of Israel’s Jewish-majority government being forced to dissolve the way South Africa’s white-minority government was forced to. The petition also “urge[s] our colleagues, nationally, regionally, and internationally, to stand up against Israel’s ongoing scholasticide and to support the non-violent call for academic boycott, disinvestment, and sanctions.”
Soon after signing the petition Ayers, along with his wife and fellow former terrorist Bernadine Dohrn, was in Egypt , agitating to be allowed into Gaza to express “solidarity” with the Gazans and their leadership, Hamas .
It’s a testament to the irresistible pull, for people like Ayers and Dohrn, of terrorism directed at a democratic society—in their own case, the U.S., in Hamas’s, Israel. In a 1974 manifesto , Ayers, Dohrn, and two other coauthors wrote that “We are communist women and men…deeply affected by the historic events of our time in the struggle against U.S. imperialism.” Somehow, that morphs into sympathy for fanatically religious, socioculturally troglodyte Hamas—with the spilt blood of democratic citizens as the connecting glue.
Ayers’s antics are still of interest because of his close past connections  with the current U.S. president. Ayers helped get Obama’s political career going in the mid-1990s by featuring him in meetings at his home. Ayers also appointed Obama as the first chairman of his school-reform group, Chicago Annenberg Challenge, and the two of them apparently worked closely together . There is even considerable evidence  that Ayers ghost-wrote Obama’s 1995 memoir, Dreams from My Father.
It was particularly Obama’s association with Ayers and with Obama’s longtime pastor, Reverend Jeremiah Wright , that sparked fears that America was on the way to electing a radical president. Wright and Ayers were intensely worrisome from Israel’s standpoint, too. Ayers, for his part, accused Israel in a 2006 blog post  of “invading” the New York public schools with its “elaborate, self-aggrandizing, and thoroughly dishonest story of itself….” Last month he said  that “small little Israel…tends to make U.S. foreign policy” and called this a “disaster” and “something we could end.”
Were Israel’s fears that Obama would be influenced by such attitudes justified? It seemed that way for a while. As when, in his speech last June in Cairo, Obama found ways to relativize and mitigate all evils that occur in the Muslim world and referred only to Israeli settlements as an intolerable offense that “must stop,” and then continued (along with other members of his administration) to pound away on the settlements issue while referring only delicately and obliquely  to the mounting domestic brutalities of the Iranian regime.
More recently, though, Obama and his administration have taken a softer line on Israel and allayed some of these fears. As Israel’s ambassador to the U.S. Michael Oren pointed out , the U.S. under Obama has in the past months backed Israel by opposing the Goldstone report  and by pulling out of joint military maneuvers with Turkey after Turkey forced Israel out of them.
Reasons for the change could include Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s deft deflection of the administration’s pressures; Obama’s preoccupation with a host of other issues from health care to domestic terror to Afghanistan to Yemen; and perhaps even the evident intransigence and refusal to negotiate of Palestinian Authority president Mahmoud Abbas.
Ideally, however, the change would reflect Obama’s progress from an Ayers-type view of the world, in which the United States and Israel are its main troublemakers, to realism about the actual threats that civilization faces. On that score, though, Obama’s continued ineptitude in dealing with Tehran means it’s much too soon to celebrate. Israel, as the country most directly threatened by Iran’s nuclear drive, can only hope he can still shed the old myopia that led him to people like Ayers in the first place.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0. You can leave a response or trackback to this entry.
 Bill Ayers: http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=2169
 ritual accusation: http://www.jcpa.org/text/apartheid.pdf
 in Egypt: http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=120711
 Hamas: http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/groupProfile.asp?grpid=6204
 1974 manifesto: http://www.zombietime.com/prairie_fire/
 worked closely together: http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=76022
 considerable evidence: http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=79392
 Reverend Jeremiah Wright: http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=2307
 2006 blog post: http://billayers.wordpress.com/2006/09/21/israel-invades-the-ny-public-schools/
 said: http://storyballoon.org/videos/bill-ayers-talks-about-barack-obama-health-care-domestic-terrorism-afghanistan-etc-with-rt-part-2-2/
 referring only delicately and obliquely: http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/no-meddling-with-iran-but-oh-those-settlements/
 pointed out: http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1261364520820&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FPrinter
 Goldstone report: http://www.goldstonereport.org/open-letters-to-goldstone/428?task=view
 Image: http://www.addtoany.com/share_save?linkurl=http%3A%2F%2Ffrontpagemag.com%2F2010%2F01%2F07%2Fbill-ayers-israel%25e2%2580%2599s-latest-attacker-by-p-david-hornik%2F&linkname=Bill%20Ayers%2C%20Israel%E2%80%99s%20Latest%20Attacker%20%26%238211%3B%20by%20P.%20David%20Hornik
Copyright © 2009 FrontPage Magazine. All rights reserved.
Column One: Israel's opening to China
Jan. 7, 2010
Caroline Glick , THE JERUSALEM POST
The growing power of the UN-based international community is one of the gravest emerging threats to Israel's national security.
This threat stems from two sources. First, the
UN-led system of global governance is working to redefine international law by on the one hand whitewashing war crimes by states associated with the majority, and on the other hand rendering it illegal for unpopular countries to take action to protect themselves against aggression. Second, and most important, Israel has become the scapegoat of the UN-led international community. The 57-member Islamic bloc has built an automatic majority for its unrelenting and ever-escalating assaults on Israel's right to exist.
The new - and false - interpretation of international law gives every General Assembly resolution the weight of binding Security Council resolutions and international treaties. Among this new "legal" regime's most dangerous features is its bid to overturn state sovereignty by subjecting leading citizens of weak states to politically-motivated criminal prosecutions under the rubric of universal jurisdiction.
With Israel's right to exist - let alone to defend itself - being denied in an avalanche of General Assembly and Human Rights Council resolutions, the acceptance of universal jurisdiction is a short step away from turning every Jewish citizen of Israel into an international outlaw.
THIS ESCALATING threat is already hurting Israel's ability to carry out routine relations with foreign countries. Just last week the IDF was compelled to cancel plans to send a delegation of its officers to England for a joint conference on asymmetric warfare after British authorities were unable to promise that their guests from the IDF wouldn't be arrested over spurious war crimes allegations during their stay.
During her visit to Israel this week, British Attorney-General Patricia Scotland made clear that the British government is unwilling to cancel Britain's universal jurisdiction law despite the fact that anti-Israel activists exploit the law to abuse Israeli officials visiting her country.
In her view, the most important thing is for Britain to maintain its commitment to universal jurisdiction. Any mitigation of the right of unaccountable, anti-Israel British judges to issue arrest warrants would, in her mind, water down this most precious of legalisms.
While Britain demonstrates that it prefers international legal conceit to both justice and its bilateral relations with Israel, senior Israeli jurists are making clear that they prefer to maintain their good reputations in places like London over defending the actual legal rights of their country.
On Monday, former Supreme Court president Aharon Barak announced that in his view, Israel should accept the jurisdiction of the inherently anti-Israel International Criminal Court. In his words, "Israel is part of the international community, and it must conduct itself in accordance with the interpretation that is common in international law."
The fact that this "common interpretation" is common only when convenient and is actually antithetical to international law and to the rights of nations is of no interest to Barak. Also of no interest to Israel's international legal superstar is the fact that the institution set to do the judging is politically stacked against Israel, and that the Islamic bloc-dominated "international community" redefined international law for the purposes of the ICC to make all Israeli communities beyond the 1949 armistice lines criminal.
Concerned not only about the anti-Israel likes of Richard Goldstone but also about the likes of "international community" obsessed Barak, IDF Chief of General Staff Lt.-Gen. Gabi Ashkenazi this week ordered army commanders to integrate legal advisers in decision-making not only during the planning of battles, but also during battles themselves.
In an effort to offset some of the crushing pressure the UN-led international community is placing on Israel to stop defending itself, senior IDF officers have been dispatched to lobby US and UN officials. Unfortunately, it is hard to see how the IDF's efforts to convince the UN or the US that it upholds international law will make any difference. The UN is a lost cause and under US President Barack Obama, America has been moving swiftly in the direction of Europe in accepting the authority of the UN as the linchpin of a morally-relativist, post-nationalist, philo-Islamic international system.
In his speech at the UN General Assembly in September, Obama renounced the US's right to lead the international community when he proclaimed, "No world order that elevates one nation or group of people over another will succeed."
Obama's decisions to try terrorists as criminal defendants; to close the American military prison at Guantanamo Bay; to join the UN Human Rights Council; and to open criminal investigations against US intelligence operatives all demonstrate that the US supports the expansion of the power of the UN-led international system against actual international law that views independent nation-states rather than the UN as the foundation of the international legal system.
America's behavior towards the UN today should serve as a reminder to Israel that we mustn't put all our diplomatic eggs in America's basket. If we wish to neutralize the threat the UN-based international community poses to our national interests, we must expand our international alliances.
IN OUR efforts we have a potential ally in China. One of Beijing's abiding positions is that it opposes UN sanctions on individual states. In the Chinese view, such sanctions diminish national rights to sovereignty. It is on the basis of this claim that China has justified opposing sanctions against rogue states like Iran and North Korea.
Israel should make the case to the Chinese that China should back Israel in international institutions, by among other things vetoing UN Security Council resolutions against Israel. If in defense of the principle of sovereignty China is willing to block sanctions against Iran and North Korea, then surely Beijing should be willing to take the far more benign step of supporting Israel.
China's willingness to buck the US and Europe in refusing to support sanctions against international rogue states has expanded China's international influence by making it a country that cannot be taken for granted. Likewise, were China to block international sanctions against Israel, it would become an influential player in the big power game in the Middle East. And whereas its support for Iran and North Korea potentially endangers China by empowering destabilizing actors, support for Israel would serve China's interest of enhancing regional stability since a strong Israel deters regional aggressors from stirring up trouble.
Israel should back up its approach to China with a prolonged public diplomacy campaign to educate the Chinese about the Jewish state. A groundbreaking effort in this field is being initiated this week by StandWithUs, the US-based Israel-advocacy organization. This week, StandWithUs members from Israel will travel to Harbin, China, to present a photography exhibit called "Inside Israel." Their goal is to educate the Chinese about Judaism, Israel's history and life in Israel.
It is true that China does not share Israel's democratic values. Owing to this, it may be difficult for Israel to sustain a bilateral alliance with China over time. However, China and Israel share the distinction of being the two oldest, continuous civilizations. This shared direct line to antiquity can form the basis of a strong bilateral relationship. It is already a source of Chinese attraction to the Jewish state.
Over the past 15 years or so, Israel's expanding trade ties with China have been a source of friction with the US. As the US turned a blind eye to Chinese theft of US military technologies at places like Los Alamos, New Mexico, American officials were quick to attack Israel for selling military technologies to Beijing. To placate Washington, Israel effectively ended its military sales to China in recent years. It is probably reasonable to continue this practice if only because there is a strong likelihood that China will sell Israel's military technologies to the likes of Iran and Syria.
At any rate, it is not anti-American for Israel to cultivate closer ties to China. As America's alliances with Israel and Saudi Arabia and its courtship of Iran and Syria show, international affairs are not and should not be monogamous. This has never been more apparent than now. The Obama administration's moves to subordinate US foreign policy to the UN-based international community make it less clear that Israel can rely on the White House to veto anti-Israel resolutions in the Security Council.
It is fortuitous that this time, when Israel's need to diversify its international affairs has become acute, that the foreign minister is not a Shimon Peres-type who believes that Israel's ability to achieve its national interest is a function of the number of European cocktail parties he attends. Whatever Avigdor Lieberman's drawbacks may be, they clearly don't include excessive worship of the international community's taste for opulent statecraft or a desperate desire to be loved by Europe.
From his first moments on the job, as the Obama administration subordinated the US's joint interests with Israel to the president's dream of establishing a Palestinian state by 2011, Lieberman moved quickly to diversify Israel's international ties. Noting that his predecessors harmed Israel by behaving as though our international relations began and ended with negotiations with the Palestinians, Lieberman turned his attention to the great world they ignored.
In September, Lieberman travelled to Africa. There he bolstered Israel's strategic ties with potential allies in Ethiopia, Kenya and Nigeria. In July, he went to South America with the declared goal of blunting Iran's influence in the continent. In at least one of the countries he visited - Colombia - great potential exists for a strategic alliance.
On Tuesday, Lieberman reached out to the Balkans. During a meeting with visiting Macedonian Prime Minister Nikola Gruevski, he noted that the forces of global jihad are making a concerted effort to penetrate the Balkans through the Albanian and Bosnian Muslim communities. This encroaching threat should induce states like Macedonia to enhance their relations with Israel.
Lieberman should seek a diplomatic opening to China just as he has reached out to states in Africa, South America and the Balkans, as well as to Russia. With its Security Council veto, China would be a major asset to Israel in its bid to neutralize the UN-centered international community's campaign to delegitimize its right to exist.
By supporting Israel, Beijing stands to lose nothing and gain a great deal. Just as China's support for Iran has not harmed its trade ties - and its burgeoning military ties - with the likes of Saudi Arabia, so its support for Israel will likely have no impact on its ties in the Arab world. More important for China, its support for Israel would enhance its ability to challenge the UN-besotted Obama White House in the great power game.
Ironically, to the extent that by supporting Israel China secures the rights of nation-states threatened by the rapidly expanding UN colossus, China will become a pivotal defender of embattled democracies on the world stage.
'We can manage without US guarantees'
Jan. 10, 2010
JPost.com Staff , THE JERUSALEM POST
Finance Minister Yuval Steinitz on Sunday said Israel was not planning to make use of US loan guarantees in the near future and has managed to raise funds without guarantees.
Steinitz was responding to remarks by US Middle East envoy George Mitchell on Thursday, who suggested that Washington could withdraw guarantees given to Israel in the event that peace talks with the Palestinians remained at an impasse.
The finance minister added that several months ago, the US and Israel agreed to extend the loan guarantees by another two years, until the end of 2011. Washington did not set any conditions for extending the guarantees, he said.
On Saturday night, Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu issued a statement in response to Mitchell's remarks, asserting that Israel has taken significant steps to propel the peace process forward while the Palestinian Authority refuses to renew peace talks.
"It is the Palestinian Authority that needs to change its ways - certainly not the Israeli government," the PMO statement read.
In the Thursday interview, when asked by Charlie Rose on PBS: "You sit there and you say to Israel, look, if you don't do this, what?", Mitchell replied: "Under American law, the United States can withhold support on loan guarantees to Israel... There are others [options], and you have to keep open whatever options. But our view is that we think the way to approach this is to try to persuade the parties what is in their self-interest."
Mitchell said he believed negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians could be concluded within two years - provided that they resumed in the near future.
"We think that the negotiation should last no more than two years, once begun we think it can be done within that period of time. We hope the parties agree. Personally I think it can be done in a shorter period of time," Mitchell said. He added that the US was working to persuade both Israel and the Palestinians to agree to conditions which were in their best interests.
The envoy said he intends to return to the region in the coming days, and hopes for quick development on the political, security and economic fronts.
On Thursday, Ambassador to Washington Michael Oren told The Jerusalem Post that "In the past, attempts to impose time frameworks have not proved either realizable or helpful."
Mitchell, however, expressed hope that a Palestinian state would be able to properly function from the moment it is established.
He added that parallel to the Palestinian channel, Israel must advance negotiations with Syria.
In related news, while US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Jordanian Foreign Minister Nasser Judeh on Friday urged the Israelis and Palestinians to begin talks which would resolve the border issue, chief Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat was not optimistic about this latest take on the peace process.
"You cannot have discussions on borders while the territory you want to set up your state on is being eaten up by the settlements," Erekat said.
"We are awaiting the arrival of [US Mideast envoy] Sen. Mitchell, and we hope the US administration will go on the path of the end game. What we need are decisions now on the end game, on the borders," he said.
Hilary Leila Krieger and AP contributed to this report.
Act now to stop Mitchell - Israel is not the 51st State!
by David Wilder
The Jewish Community of Hebron
Stop Mitchell's latest mission to Israel...the US is actively forcing Israel to acquiesce to declared terror-supporters, namely the PA and their leader, Abu Mazen, thereby infringing upon Israeli sovereignty, endangering Israeli lives and jeopardizing the existence of the State of Israel.
The United States, personified by James Jones and George Mitchell, revolving under the magic wand of Clinton and Obama, is continuing to exert humongous pressure on Israel, in an effort to obtain continued "good-will gestures," aka concessions to Abu Mazen and the Arabs.
The pressure cooker's been on the fire ever since the White House changed hands, just a year ago. The results have been far from tasty. American demands, as well as international pressure following Operation Lead Shield and the Goldstone report cooked up covert incitement against the State of Israel, leading to continued rocket attacks against Israeli cities in the south. Of course, Israeli responses are greatly limited due to international Israel-bashing. Any Israeli response is viewed as an unnecessary escalation of violence.
Israel has been pushed into opening roads and checkpoints to 'ease' the life of Arabs in Yesha and throughout Israel. Such an 'easing' cost the life of Rabbi Meir Chai a month ago.
When Israel reacted by eliminating Rabbi Chai's murderers, the United States demanded an 'accounting' of the IDF action.
Rock-throwing throughout Judea and Samaria is reaching epidemic proportions, yet an IDF response is virtually nonexistent. Yesterday a baby was hit in the head by a rock in the southern Hebron Hills. It should be remembered: rocks thrown at cars can kill. For those with short memories, Yehuda Shoham z"l, was a five month old murdered by rock-throwing terrorists in June, 2001.
The opening of Highway 443 and just this morning, the road leading to the Neguhot community in the southern Hebron Hills, to Arab traffic, are overt threats to Israeli lives. It should be noted that the Neguhot road was ordered opened against the recommendations of the IDF. It cannot be a coincidence that this is occurring only a few days before Mitchell is due back in Israel.
And of course, the world renowned chefs stewed up a forced Israeli building freeze throughout Judea and Samaria.
Many people don't yet understand the significance of an 'only' ten month building freeze. The problem is that 10 months is only the beginning. Getting around to month 8.5 – 9, we can only guess what goodies the US will bake to try and keep the freeze from thawing.
But, at present:
First: Eretz Yisrael - the Land of Israel belongs to the Jewish people. Period. Would any country in the world allow international pressure to force them to agree to a 'building freeze?!' If it's my land, I can do whatever I want with it. If it's not my land, what am I doing there? Israel's acceptance of a coerced building freeze is tacit acceptance of the claim that Yehuda and Shomron really are not a part of Israel!
2. An internationally imposed stopping of construction is adding to the already vast split in Israeli society, between the 'right' and the 'left.' This widening gap is causing irreparable harm to Israeli societal norms, and must be dealt with as an internal Israeli issue. However, such compulsory measures, clamped down on Israel from the outside, allow external forces to govern the shape and opinion of Israeli society.
3. America, as reflected in one of the most revered US historical documents, the Constitutional Bill of Rights, is supposed to be a protective pillar of human rights. International insistence of a building freeze, being implemented against private citizens, is a direct contradiction to the basic human right of a person to be allowed to live freely in his home, on his land. Prevented a family from adding a room on to their house, as a result of foreign insistence, is a blatant infringement of basic human rights.
4. And finally, of course, the American demands are hitting both individuals and the state where it really hurts, in the pocket. The costs incurred by the freeze are in the tens and hundreds of millions of dollars.
All of this, of course, according to the United States, is not enough. Keeping all of the above in mind, we reach George Mitchell's threat to Israel: Loan guarantees to Israel can be stopped should Israel not toe the line. The pressure cooker has exploded!
Israel immediately rejected such threats. The treasury minister proclaimed that Israel can live without the guarantees. Leading American Senators Joe Lieberman and John McCain denounced Mitchell's warning. Speaking in Jerusalem Lieberman said that such pressure would not be accepted in Congress. McCain said that the Senate would not allow the White House to use such measures against Israel.
Headlines, such as "Major rift between George Mitchell and Israel over loan guarantees" http://goo.gl/G71F began to appear. ABC news: U.S. Envoy's Comments Spark Israel Uproar http://goo.gl/4edi.
Almost immediately the US tried to play down Mitchell's disdain for Israel. The Jerusalem Post: 'No intention to recall loan guarantees to Israel' http://goo.gl/7xdB. The Christian Science Monitor: US says no plan to cut Israel loan guarantees, but it's been tried before http://goo.gl/D2wy.
As this drama was (is) being played out, one little tidbit of information was forgotten or perhaps just ignored, due to lack of seeming significance.
As reported by Palestinian Media Watch:
This week Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas once again honored the memory of the terrorist Dalal Mughrabi - this time by sponsoring a ceremony celebrating the 50th anniversary of her birth. Mughrabi led the worst terror attack in Israel's history in 1978, when she and other terrorists hijacked a bus and killed 37 civilians. Present at the ceremony were Palestinian dignitaries and a children's marching band. Earlier this year, Abbas sponsored a computer center named after Mughrabi.
The PA further glorified Mughrabi on the date of her birth when the Governor of Ramallah announced the naming of the "Dalal Mughrabi Square".
An article by Fatah spokesman Jamal Nazal in the official PA daily defined the terrorist Mughrabi as "the heroine of Palestine's heroines."
Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu's opening remarks at last week's cabinet meeting:
It is not only missiles and rockets that endanger security and push peace further off. Words can also be dangerous. Sadly, there has been a retreat in this area in recent months, both within the Palestinian Authority and by its leaders. Whoever sponsors and supports naming a square in Ramallah after a terrorist who murdered dozens of Israelis on the coastal road – encourages terrorism. Whoever declares those responsible for the murder of the late Rabbi Meir Avshalom Hai, father to seven children, as holy martyrs – pushes peace further away.
At the same time, incitement continues in the Palestinian media and education system; in its official media outlets and in the schools under its supervision. These serious actions represent a harsh violation of the Palestinians' international obligation to prevent incitement. http://goo.gl/S7bh
In other words, while the US is sending more troops to Afghanistan to fight international Taliban terror, it is actively forcing Israel to acquiesce to declared terror-supporters, namely the PA and their leader, Abu Mazen, thereby infringing upon Israeli sovereignty, endangering Israeli lives and jeopardizing the existence of the State of Israel.
The time has come for the entire American Jewish community, and all lovers of Israel, of freedom and of human rights, of all those who oppose terror and terrorist supporters, to make their voices heard.
Stop Mitchell's latest mission to Israel. Write now, fax and or email Senators and Congressmen (numbers and addresses found here http://goo.gl/oo6F), demanding that George Mitchell, together with his threats and unconcealed contempt for Israel, must not be allowed to return to Israel.
Remind them that Israel is NOT the 51st State!
The Tel Aviv Cluster
By David Brooks
Published: January 11, 2010
Jews make up 2 percent of the U.S. population, but 21 percent of the Ivy League student bodies, 26 percent of the Kennedy Center honorees, 37 percent of the Academy Award-winning directors, 38 percent of those on a recent Business Week list of leading philanthropists, 51 percent of the Pulitzer Prize winners for nonfiction.
In his book, "The Golden Age of Jewish Achievement," Steven L. Pease lists some of the explanations people have given for this record of achievement. The Jewish faith encourages a belief in progress and personal accountability. It is learning-based, not rite-based.
Most Jews gave up or were forced to give up farming in the Middle Ages; their descendants have been living off of their wits ever since. They have often migrated, with a migrant's ambition and drive. They have congregated around global crossroads and have benefited from the creative tension endemic in such places.
No single explanation can account for the record of Jewish achievement. The odd thing is that Israel has not traditionally been strongest where the Jews in the Diaspora were strongest. Instead of research and commerce, Israelis were forced to devote their energies to fighting and politics.
Milton Friedman used to joke that Israel disproved every Jewish stereotype. People used to think Jews were good cooks, good economic managers and bad soldiers; Israel proved them wrong.
But that has changed. Benjamin Netanyahu's economic reforms, the arrival of a million Russian immigrants and the stagnation of the peace process have produced a historic shift. The most resourceful Israelis are going into technology and commerce, not politics. This has had a desultory effect on the nation's public life, but an invigorating one on its economy.
Tel Aviv has become one of the world's foremost entrepreneurial hot spots. Israel has more high-tech start-ups per capita than any other nation on earth, by far. It leads the world in civilian research-and-development spending per capita. It ranks second behind the U.S. in the number of companies listed on the Nasdaq. Israel, with seven million people, attracts as much venture capital as France and Germany combined.
As Dan Senor and Saul Singer write in "Start-Up Nation: The Story of Israel's Economic Miracle," Israel now has a classic innovation cluster, a place where tech obsessives work in close proximity and feed off each other's ideas.
Because of the strength of the economy, Israel has weathered the global recession reasonably well. The government did not have to bail out its banks or set off an explosion in short-term spending. Instead, it used the crisis to solidify the economy's long-term future by investing in research and development and infrastructure, raising some consumption taxes, promising to cut other taxes in the medium to long term. Analysts at Barclays write that Israel is "the strongest recovery story" in Europe, the Middle East and Africa.
Israel's technological success is the fruition of the Zionist dream. The country was not founded so stray settlers could sit among thousands of angry Palestinians in Hebron. It was founded so Jews would have a safe place to come together and create things for the world.
This shift in the Israeli identity has long-term implications. Netanyahu preaches the optimistic view: that Israel will become the Hong Kong of the Middle East, with economic benefits spilling over into the Arab world. And, in fact, there are strands of evidence to support that view in places like the West Bank and Jordan.
But it's more likely that Israel's economic leap forward will widen the gap between it and its neighbors. All the countries in the region talk about encouraging innovation. Some oil-rich states spend billions trying to build science centers. But places like Silicon Valley and Tel Aviv are created by a confluence of cultural forces, not money. The surrounding nations do not have the tradition of free intellectual exchange and technical creativity.
For example, between 1980 and 2000, Egyptians registered 77 patents in the U.S. Saudis registered 171. Israelis registered 7,652.
The tech boom also creates a new vulnerability. As Jeffrey Goldberg of The Atlantic has argued, these innovators are the most mobile people on earth. To destroy Israel's economy, Iran doesn't actually have to lob a nuclear weapon into the country. It just has to foment enough instability so the entrepreneurs decide they had better move to Palo Alto, where many of them already have contacts and homes. American Jews used to keep a foothold in Israel in case things got bad here. Now Israelis keep a foothold in the U.S.
During a decade of grim foreboding, Israel has become an astonishing success story, but also a highly mobile one.
When Peace Is Not a Priority
Posted By P. David Hornik On January 25, 2010 @ 12:10 am In FrontPage | Comments
U.S. Middle East envoy George Mitchell is here in Israel again, and it’s not stirring much excitement or even interest. On Sunday he met  with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, with the latter saying Mitchell had “interesting ideas” on how to get Israeli-Palestinian talks going again but not saying what the ideas were.
On Friday Palestinian Authority president Mahmoud Abbas reiterated  to Mitchell his refusal to talk with Netanyahu absent a total ban on Jewish building in Judea and Samaria (the West Bank) and East Jerusalem. Chief Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat said the fact that Israel had positions at all—on not giving up every inch of the West Bank, on the demilitarization of a future Palestinian state—made negotiating with Israel impossible.
Based on his statements to Time magazine’s Joe Klein last week, it can be surmised that President Barack Obama is not all that surprised by Mitchell’s inability to get anything moving. “This is just really hard,” Obama told  Klein.
“Even for a guy like George Mitchell…. Both sides—the Israelis and the Palestinians—have found that the political environment, the nature of their coalitions or the divisions within their societies, were such that it was very hard for them to start engaging in a meaningful conversation…. From Abbas’ perspective, he’s got Hamas looking over his shoulder and, I think, an environment generally within the Arab world that feels impatient with any process.
“And on the Israeli front—although the Israelis, I think, after a lot of time showed a willingness to make some modifications in their policies, they still found it very hard to move with any bold gestures….”
It is easy to poke holes in Obama’s evenhandedness here: the fact that while Netanyahu has been ready at all times to negotiate with Abbas, with not even his most right-wing coalition partners objecting to negotiations per se, it is Abbas who has stonewalled; the fact that it was not “after a lot of time,” but very quickly—in a matter of months since taking office—that Netanyahu made quite bold gestures of reversing his lifelong opposition to a Palestinian state and then announcing an unprecedented ten-month settlement freeze in Judea and Samaria, none of which has sufficed to lure Abbas back to the table.
It is also easy to cite the usual political reasons for the stalemate—that Obama, by hitting Israel hard on the settlements issue particularly in his Cairo speech in June, forced Abbas into an uncompromising stance where he could not appear less Catholic than the pope; that the Palestinians, more generally, saw Obama as an ally and were disappointed when he showed understanding for some of Israel’s positions. All of which is valid—but only grazes the truth.
Looking more deeply into what has “gone wrong”—and has kept going wrong ever since the formal Israeli-Palestinian diplomatic process began in 1993—would require taking account, for a change, of the cultural difference between Israel and the Palestinian side.
It was less than three weeks ago that Netanyahu complained  to the White House and State Department about Palestinian incitement—and not by Hamas in Gaza, but by the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank. Netanyahu was reacting to two particularly egregious incidents. In one, Palestinian prime minister Salam Fayyad paid homage to three Palestinian terrorists who had been killed by Israeli forces after murdering an Israeli rabbi and father of seven. In the other, Abbas named a square in Ramallah after Dalal Mughrabi, the Palestinian woman terrorist who led the “Coastal Road Massacre” in 1978—the worst terror attack in Israel’s history, killing 37 including 10 children. (More details about the Palestinian Authority’s lionization of these killers here  and here .)
Obama, for his part, had no public reaction to Abbas and Fayyad’s behavior, did not mention it in his interview to Klein, and clearly was not deterred by it from sending Mitchell for another round of attempted diplomacy. As Obama did say to Klein: “we are going to continue to work with both parties to recognize what I think is ultimately their deep-seated interest in a two-state solution in which Israel is secure and the Palestinians have sovereignty and can start focusing on developing their economy and improving the lives of their children and grandchildren.”
In other words, even-steven—both sides wanting their peaceful place in the sun. The possibility that peace is not a value for the Palestinian Authority in the way it is for Israel—that there may be an unbridgeable gap between a Western democracy and a non-Western entity that glorifies and perpetrates terrorism—does not, from the evidence available, exist in Obama’s, or Mitchell’s, mental lexicon.
But it is high time that it did, high time that the administration start giving its democratic ally, Israel, more credit and start reexamining the assumption that achieving sovereignty for the Palestinians—Dalal Mughrabi Square and all—is an American interest. Which is, alas, too much to hope for from this administration.
Israel's Economy Exceeds OECD Countries
Straight from the Jerusalem Boardroom #140, Jan. 25, 2010
Yoram Ettinger, Jerusalem
1. London Economist (January 2010): Israel 's 2009 economic performance, in face of global meltdown, suggests impressive growth in 2010. Israel 's GDP grew in 2009 by 0.5%, compared to an average 3.5% decline in OECD countries: US – 2.5% decline, Japan – 6.5% decline, Germany – 4.9% decline, Britain – 4.7% decline, Italy – 4.8% decline, Ireland – 7.5% decline, etc. The Economist projects a 3.7% growth for Israel 's 2010 economy and less than 7% unemployment (7.7% in 2009), compared with a 2.4% OECD growth and 8.8% OECD unemployment. Israel 's inflation is projected to be 1.7%, compared to 3% in 2009 and OECD's inflation of 1.2% (1.3% in 2009).
Morgan Stanley raises growth forecast for Israel to 3.7%, beyond Bank of Israel's forecast of 3.5% (Globes, Jan. 18, 2010).
Israel's Central Bureau of Statistics (ICBS) reported (Israel Hayom daily, Jan. 1, 2010) a 2.9% budget deficit (% of GDP), which is higher than the 0.8% of 2008, but dramatically lower than most Western economies, some of which exceeded 10%. The ICBS also reported a 6.5BN trade balance surplus, a 75% increase in the Tel Aviv Stock Exchange and a 1.3% decline of GDP per capita, compared with a 2.2% increase in 2008.
2. Israel's high-tech holding its own. The number of Israeli high-tech companies, which enticed investment, remained high (447 compared with 483 in 2008), attesting to the attraction of Israel to venture capitalists. The volume of dollar invested decreased significantly, as a result of drying investment resourcesand lower market valuations: $1.1BN in 2009, in comparison with $2BN – 2008, $1.8BN – 2007, $1.6BN – 2006, $1.3BN – 2005, $1.5BN – 2004 and $1BN in 2003 (Ma'ariv, Jan. 19).
3. Microsoft expands R&D operations in Israel, adding a few scores of employees to the 600 currently employed (Globes, Jan. 6).
4. Merger & Acquisition of Israeli companies persist. DVTel acquired Israel 's Ioimage for $80MN in stock (Globes, Jan. 13). DotHill acquired Israel 's Cloverleaf for $113MN (Globes, Jan. 6).
5. Overseas VC investment in Israel. China's $1BN Zhejiang Sanhua invested $9.5MN in Israel 's Heliofocus (Globes, Jan. 6). Europe's FilVest, which specializes in bio-med investment, led a $12MN round of private placement by Israel 's Endogen - FilVest's first investment in Israel (Globes, Jan. 11). Oracle, Pennsylvania 's Susquehanna Growth Equity, Silicon Valley's Hyperion, Boston 's Battery Ventures and Briatain's Stage One Ventures co-led a $10MN round of private placement by Israel 's cVidia (Globes, Jan. 15). invested $9MN in Israel 's Wisair (Globes, Jan. 12). Sequoia Capital participated in a $3MN fourth round by Israel 's SunRad (Globes, Jan. 19). Virginia Life Sciences Investments led a $3MN seoncd round of private placement by Israel 's Cupron n(Globes, Jan. 20).
This article is also available at: http://docstalk.blogspot.com/2010/01/israels-economy-exceeds-oecd-countries.html
IS ISRAEL SURRENDERING HER SOVEREIGNTY?
by Emanuel A. Winston,
Freeman Center Middle East Analyst & Commentator
Let’s start with one of the beginnings which was to remove Israel’s Sovereignty. Some will remember the Oslo Accords fiasco which Shimon Peres and Yossi Beilin created when they met secretly with Yassir Arafat and the Norwegians in Oslo. Their meetings were kept secret because - as Yossi Beilin revealed at an International Conference for the Winston Institute for the Study of Prejudice - that they "didn’t want to make it public because the Israeli people would have stopped ‘us’." "Us" was Yitzhak Rabin, Shimon Peres and Yossi Beilin. Their plan was to advance the "plan" far enough so that when it was finally made public, the Israeli Knesset would have to ratify it because the U.S. and the E.U. were behind it and they had no choice.
As planned, it reluctantly passed as the infamous Oslo plan which turned out to be a disaster for the Israeli people - We were cornered as planned by Peres and Beilin with the State Department playing its usual role as ‘spoiler’.
Moving on to Stage Two: Recall the plan offered or rather imposed by President George W. Bush that was called the "Road Map". This proclamation was issued as if President Bush was an imperial King to a vassal state that was somehow owned and subservient to whatever Royal Commands issued from Washington. Israel was treated as merely something like Puerto Rico or Hawaii or a ‘de facto’ protectorate of the U.S., with a Presidential team dedicated to appeasing Arab oil nations.
Some will recall President George H. W. Bush’s Secretary of State James Baker III with his team of Court Jews, Dennis Ross, Aaron David Miller and Daniel Kurtzer. They were the point men in evolving plans on how to force Israel into compliance first under President George Herbert Walker Bush. Ross, Miller and Kurtzer who were called Baker’s "Jew Boys".
That same ‘advisory group’ continued under Sr. Bush’s son, George W. There were always others who ran the "Shadow Government" who were closely tied to Saudi Arabia and the Oil Gulf States. Keep in mind that most of these same people seem to have a permanent home on the Presidential Advisory Group - no matter who the President happens to be.
You might be asking yourself what nation would accept dangerous marching orders from another nation - unless they were either conquered or that obedient nation at it highest levels of leadership were deeply in collusion and accepted the marching orders called "The Road Map".
Well, that was more or less past history except for the repeated track record that was developing, called "re-partitioning". First, there was the under-the-table Oslo affair. Then there was the ‘arrangement’ for "The Road Map". We all recall Washington’s recruitment of the once great defender of Israel wherein the warrior Sharon followed instructions to abandon Gush Katif/Gaza with Ehud Olmert completing the betrayal.
We frequently hear from President Barack Hussein Obama and his crew, complaining about everything that’s going wrong is all the Bush family’s fault. Recall that Obama has pretty much the same anti-Israel advisors that Father Bush had, that his son had and that Obama has now: Ross, Miller, Kurtzer, later Martin Indyk, Baker III, Zbigniew Brzezinski, Brent Scowcroft and a host of dedicated Arabists who needed Israel to capitulate from the inside in order to appease the Arabs and expand their oil interests. All of the above deny any hostility toward the Jewish State of Israel and they assure us that what they are doing is an effort for "Peace" and that it’s good for the Jewish State.
There were, of course, personal biases - involved in a range from ethnic hostility, well-known in Washington, from the U.S. State Department and the Israeli Leftists who were anxious to divest large tracts of the Jews ancient Biblical heartland to the Arabs. That side of the equation would include but not be limited to Yitzhak Rabin, Shimon Peres, Yossi Beilin, Ehud Barak, Arik Sharon, Ehud Olmert, Tzipi Livni among others.
Let’s pick up the trail:
Now, Barack Hussein Obama replicates these prior plans that of diktats out of the Oval Office which mandate that Israel must obey his commands...for the good of all - other than Israel. We are already familiar with Obama’s ‘diktats’ to Israel’s Prime Minister Binyamin (Bibi) Netanyahu to cease/freeze all construction in Judea, Samaria and Jerusalem. He included Jerusalem but, temporarily backed off when there were signs of strong resistance from Netanyahu’s Likud Party. But, now we understand that Obama and his team will issue something like the Bush "Road Map".
Clearly, Obama has become, or always was, an adversary of the Jewish Nation/State - in deference (or submission) to Islam and Obama is pressing for America to separate from Israel.
Doubtlessly, radical Islamists already in America, courtesy of the U.S. State Department, can receive their orders to start synchronize Terror attacks across our nation while Obama insists Israel cease her valiant fight against Terror.
Obama’s expected "White Paper" does not have a name yet but, be assured, Obama’s Court Jews will think of something catchy and false. Here I refer to Rahm Emanuel, David Axelrod, and of course, Baker’s original "Jew-Boys" - especially Dennis Ross who is accompanying George Mitchell on his Mid East Peace marathon.
It may be assumed that Netanyahu and Ehud Barak complete the circle of players - just as their predecessors accepted their role as under-the-table collaborators.
We must also assume that Obama’s proclamation (like "The Road Map") will include forced evacuation of 300,000 Jewish men, women and children from Judea, Samaria, the Jordan Valley, the Golan Heights as well as all those parts of Jerusalem (north, east and south) that Jordan illegally occupied and desecrated for 19 years from 1948 to 1967. Obama’s ‘Diktat’ to Israel will mandate a retreat to the 1948 Armistice Lines, giving up water rights under the Judean/Samarian Hills and the Golan which comprises more than 2/3rds of Israel’s fresh water.
Building Terrorist nation is the same appeasement tried by the World’s nations when they surrendered the Sudetenland to Adolph Hitler, hoping to appease him and halt his expansion across Europe.
The next follow-on move of betrayal would be to introduce an occupying foreign force, called "Peace-Keepers" to assist the establishment of an Islamic Terrorist State.
The ‘idea fixee’ is to have such orders come from Washington and command obedience from the Knesset in any subsequent vote asked for by Netanyahu. In Chicago that’s called a set-up or a "fix". I guess it’s called something else in Washington and in Obama’s office.
The same scam has been repeated many times as I outlined before. Of course, other players are in on the scam of re-partitioning Israel into easily conquerable pieces. The U.N., E.U., the Russians, with the U.S. under Obama as coordinator as well as England and France as co-conspirators. An alive and thriving Israel upsets the Arab Muslims because they couldn’t conquer her. They now insist that Israel must be conquered by American diktats and so-called diplomacy. The diplomacy part is recruiting Israeli Leftist leaders through threats, bribes and blackmail. The nations of the world (and especially American Arabists) insist on Treason by their mostly willing Israeli Leftist recruits.
We await Obama’s White Paper instructing Israel to break up her Land and intimidate Israel’s people - while abandoning her sovereignty. Obama is playing the role "Pharaoh" - and you know what happened to him and Egypt!
One more thought. Why is Israel’s Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu attaching Israel’s future, even her existence and sovereignty to the dimming star of a one term failing President?