"What A Stunning, Historic Mistake...": video

Here's Bibi on Obama's Chamberlainesque deal:

David Singer: Netanyahu Goes For Gold In Shoot-Off With Obama

Here is the latest article by Sydney lawyer and international affairs analyst David Singer.

He writes:

Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu's appointment of former United Nations ambassador Dore Gold [pictured] to head up Israel's Foreign Ministry ensures that Israel will be confronting President Obama as he continues attempting to deviate from the commitments made to Israel by his predecessor President Bush in a letter dated 14 April 2004 to former Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon (Bush Commitments).


The Bush Commitments acknowledged the risks involved in Israel unilaterally disengaging from Gaza and evacuating the 8000 Jews who had established twenty-one settlements there over the preceding 35 years whilst additionally agreeing to remove another four settlements in Judea and Samaria (the West Bank).


President Bush assured Israel of the following:

1. the United States remained committed to President Bush's vision and to its implementation as described in the Roadmap.

2. The United States would do its utmost to prevent any attempt by anyone to impose any other plan.

3. Palestinians would have to undertake a comprehensive and fundamental political reform that included a strong parliamentary democracy and an empowered prime minister.

4. The United States reiterated its steadfast commitment to Israel's security, including secure, defensible borders, and to preserve and strengthen Israel's capability to deter and defend itself, by itself, against any threat or possible combination of threats.

5. The United States was strongly committed to Israel's security and well-being as a Jewish state.

6. It seemed clear that an agreed, just, fair, and realistic framework for a solution to the Palestinian refugee issue as part of any final status agreement would need to be found through the establishment of a Palestinian state, and the settling of Palestinian refugees there, rather than in Israel.

7. As part of a final peace settlement, Israel must have secure and recognized borders, which should emerge from negotiations between the parties in accordance with UNSC Resolutions 242 and 338.

8. In light of new realities on the ground, including already existing major Israeli populations centers, it would be unrealistic to expect that the outcome of final status negotiations would be a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949, and all previous efforts to negotiate a two-state solution have reached the same conclusion. It was realistic to expect that any final status agreement would only be achieved on the basis of mutually agreed changes that reflect these realities.

President Obama has attempted to subvert the Bush Commitments by proposing Israel withdraw from part of the West Bank and cede part of its own sovereign territory to the Palestine Liberation Organisation in exchange for the area of the West Bank to be retained by Israel – as announced by President Obama in May 2011:

"... the United States believes that negotiations should result in two states, with permanent Palestinian borders with Israel, Jordan, and Egypt, and permanent Israeli borders with Palestine. The borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps - so that secure and recognized borders are established for both states."

President Obama seems to have given up on the strong parliamentary democracy demanded by President Bush being established in the West Bank and Gaza - having failed to back up a recent
call by another former American President - Jimmy Carter - for such elections to be held in the West Bank and Gaza - which would be the first held there since 2005.


Until such a democracy is established America should not expect any negotiations with the Palestine Liberation Organisation to lead to anywhere but the dustbin of history.


Dore Gold well appreciates the significance of these Bush Commitments and the obligation of Obama to remain bound by them - stating in debriefing.org on 9 June 2009 -

"For example, it still needs to be clarified whether the Obama administration feels bound by the April 14, 2004, Bush letter to Sharon on defensible borders and settlement blocs, which was subsequently ratified by large bipartisan majorities in both the U.S. Senate (95:3) and the House of Representatives (407:9) on June 23-24, 2004. Disturbingly, on June 1, 2009, the State Department spokesman, Robert Wood, refused to answer repeated questions about whether the Obama administration viewed itself as legally bound by the Bush letter. It would be better to obtain earlier clarification of that point, rather than having both countries expend their energies over an issue that may not be the real underlying source of their dispute."

Writing in Jewish Current Issues on 3 June 2009 Rick Richman noted that the State Department had refused to confirm the Bush Commitments on twenty-one occasions during the previous week.


Richman then asserted:

"Since Israel met its obligations under the disengagement deal, the U.S. can no more rescind its agreement and commitment than it can restore the lost world of Gush Katif, or the lost security of southern Israel, or the lives that thousands of rockets traumatized, or the property that was destroyed.

Israel ended up having to fight a war in Gaza because of the disengagement. The least the United States can do is meet its own obligations."

Michael Oren – former Israeli Ambassador in Washington and now a newly elected member of Israel's governing coalition – called for the resuscitation of these Bush Commitments during his election campaign in January.


The Obama administration needs to clear the air and remove any doubts or concerns that it is trying to surreptitiously vary the Bush Commitments.


Let the shoot-off with the reluctant and recalcitrant Obama administration begin.

Obama ... Oy Vey!

This article by former US ambassador (2005-6) to the United Nations John Bolton has gone viral, and here's another that deserves a wide readership.

It concerns the Obama Administration's threat, following Bibi Netanyahu's return to power in Israel, to acquiesce in and even encourage recognition by the UN Security Council of a Palestinian State and the restriction of Israel to the pre-1967 lines.

Bolton writes in part:

'America’s consistent view since Council Resolution 242 concluded the 1967 Arab-Israeli war is that only the parties themselves can structure a lasting peace. Deviating from that formula would be a radical departure by Obama from a bipartisan Middle East policy nearly half a century old.

In fact, Israel’s “1967 borders” are basically only the 1949 cease-fire lines, but its critics shrink from admitting this tedious reality. The indeterminate status of Israel’s borders from its 1948 creation is in fact a powerful argument why only negotiation with relevant Arab parties can ultimately fix the lines with certainty. 

That is why Resolution 242’s “land for peace” formula, vague and elastic though it is, was acceptable to everyone in 1967: There were no hard and fast boundaries to fall back on, no longstanding historical precedents. Prior U.N. resolutions from the 1940s, for example, had all been overtaken by events. Only negotiation, if anything, could leave the parties content; externally imposed terms could only sow future conflicts. Hence, Resolution 242 does not call for a return to the prewar boundaries, but instead affirms the right of “every State in the area” to “secure and recognized boundaries.” Ignoring this fundamental reality is fantasy....

Obama is criticizing not just Netanyahu, but the very legitimacy of Israel’s democracy, giving an implicit green light to those prepared to act violently against it. ...

Whether one takes his or Netanyahu’s side, the administration’s approach is now squarely contrary to America’s larger strategic interests. And the global harm that will be done to common U.S. and Israeli interests through Security Council resolutions if Washington stands aside (or worse, joins in) will extend far beyond the terms of one prime minister and one president. ...'

See the entire article here

As Michael Comay, then Israel's ambassador to Britain, declared in 1970:

"The choice before us is not between victory and defeat, but between victory and annihilation.

 We therefore have not the slightest intention of allowing the re-creation of the conditions of vulnerability in which we found ourselves, abandoned and alone, in the summer of 1967."

Meanwhile:

Why The "Two State Solution" Has Gone Nowhere: David Singer Explains

Here, entitled "Palestine: Words Matter – But Their Meaning Matters More," is the latest article by Sydney lawyer and international affairs analyst David Singer.

He writes:

"Words matter," White House press secretary Josh Earnest told reporters this week.

Regrettably Earnest was being less than earnest in failing to point out that words can also have several meanings – which can result in people failing to actually communicate with each other because each has a different understanding of the words he is using.

As a lawyer with extensive experience in drafting agreements – I have found the most critical part in any agreement is the definition of terms used in those agreements – so that the parties are in no doubt at all as to the meaning of the words they are using.

The so-called “Two State Solution” has gone nowhere in the last 20 years for precisely this reason.

The parties to the negotiations – including America on its own and as part of the Quartet – have been talking at cross purposes without first agreeing on the meaning of the terms they are using.

Take the following terms –  and their suggested possible definitions:

1. “Palestine” – means “the territory known today as Israel, West Bank, Gaza and Jordan being the territory covered by the Mandate for Palestine dated 24 July 1922.”

2. “Palestinians” – means

(i) “those Arab nationals who, until 1947, normally resided in Palestine regardless of whether they were evicted from it or stayed there.

(ii) Anyone born after 1947 of a father qualifying as a Palestinian under paragraph (i) - whether inside Palestine or outside it”

3. “West Bank” – means “the term used since 1950 to refer to the territory known as “Judea and Samaria” since biblical times and comprising the territory that came under Israeli military government control in 1967”

4. Oslo Accords 1 – means Declaration of Principles on Interim Self-Government Arrangements or short Declaration of Principles(DOP) dated 13 September 1993

5. “Oslo Accords II - means Interim Agreement on the West Bank and the Gaza Strip commonly known as Oslo II or Oslo 2 dated 25 September 1995

6. “Oslo Accords” means “Oslo Accords I” and “Oslo Accords II”

7. “Bush Roadmap” means – “the two-state solution”

8. “Two-State solution” – means “the Performance Based Roadmap To A Permanent Two-State solution to the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict as presented in President Bush’s speech of 24 June 2003, and welcomed by the EU, Russia and the UN in the 16 July 2003 and 17 September 2003 Quartet Ministerial statements.”

9. “Quartet” means “America, European Union (EU), Russia and the United Nations(UN)”

10. “Jerusalem” means “all of the area that is described in the appendix of the proclamation expanding the borders of municipal Jerusalem beginning the 20th of Sivan 5727 (June 28, 1967), as was given according to the Cities' Ordinance.”

11. “Palestinian Authority” means “The Palestinian National Authority established in 1994 following Oslo Accords 1 and disbanded on 3 January 2013”.

To the legally uninitiated this may sound like a lot of detailed, unnecessary and technical drafting – but its purpose is quite clear – to ensure when the parties to this dispute use any of the above terms  their meaning is unmistakeably clear.

The proof is in the pudding.

Do President Obama and his Press Secretary – Josh Earnest – agree with the above definitions when they utter these commonly used terms almost daily?

Do Israel’s Prime Minister – Benjamin Netanyahu – and Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas agree with these definitions?

Do the media? Do you?

If indeed there is any disagreement – then the parties need to first reach agreement on their meaning – before they can even think of talking to each other.

Unless everyone is singing from the same hymn book the music will sound frightfully discordant.

"The Churchillian Thing To Do"

"Deeply Unfortunate & Dangerous".  That's how Obama's attitude towards Israel and Netanyahu has been described in this excellent video, telling the story (so far) of the current American administration's attitude to the man who thwarted them in being returned for another term as Israeli prime minister.

Among the  articles that have been written (so far) by friends of Israel in the wake of Bibi's election victory, this brief and lucid statement by Rabbi Abraham Cooper, Associate Dean of the Simon Wiesenthal Center,  which appeared on Fox News, particularly caught my eye:

Iran's aim: Shia Corridor; h/t Bruce's Mideast Soundbites

“Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time." That Churchillian one-liner summarizes the glorious chaos that is Israeli politics.  

In the one Middle Eastern nation where you can still speak your mind without being arrested, disappeared, or executed, Israelis went to the polls Tuesday to decide whether Benjamin "Bibi" Netanyahu or Isaac "Bougie" Herzog would lead the Jewish State for the next four years. 

The unexpected outcome came as a shock to many pundits on both sides of the Atlantic. Netanyahu’s Likud Party won between 29 and 30 seats  Mr. Herzog’s Zionist Union’s, 24. This means  that Netanyahu will be given time to forge a new coalition government. 

 Without question the results will  deeply disappoint President Obama and some European leaders, who were hoping Israelis would swap out an intractable “hawk” for a more flexible “dove,” one whom they assumed would pave the way for a quick final deal with Iran and hasten a two-state solution in the Holy Land before President Obama leaves office. 

The ABC's Sophie (see previous post) begins her campaign

In reality however, there is no real distance between Bibi and Bougie over the existential threat posed by Iran. Israel’s next prime minister must come up with a plan to thwart Tehran, whose leaders continue to call for the Jewish State’s annihilation, from becoming a nuclear power. 

Additionally, Jerusalem will be confronted with a new strategic threat from Iran and its Hezbollah terrorist lackeys whose brazen entrenchment on the Golan Heights has raised nary a peep from the U.S. or the European Union. 

Even if Israel’s left had prevailed it is hard to imagine that a deal for a Two-State solution could be reached in the next two years. Hamas’ continuous terrorism and genocidal hate and the celebration by leaders of the PA of vicious terrorist outrages against Jews, have left most Israelis warily awaiting a Palestinian leader – someone unlike PA President Abbas – who would be ready to tell his constituents that their Jewish neighbors are there to stay and that the Jewish State has a legitimate right to be there.

 Against this background it seems almost ludicrous for anyone to believe that Israeli voters could somehow be manipulated by forces outside of Israel as to whom they should cast their ballots for. For us as Americans, Election Day is certainly important. For most Israeli  parents – right, center, and left – who have to send their 18-year-old sons and daughters for two years of military service to protect the homeland – they cast their votes as if their lives and the lives of their children depend on making the right choice. Those in Washington who were reportedly involved in such an effort did a great disservice to both democracies. 

I was present in our nation’s capital for Netanyahu’s speech on Iran. Love him or hate him, everyone in the Chamber, and Israelis watching at home, saw a true world leader in action. In the end, his respectful and masterful speech reminded everyone, that he has earned his place on the international stage, no matter how discomfiting his message is to some.

 Finally, it would not surprise me if, when Israeli President Ruby [Reuven] Rivlin invites Netanyahu to form the next government, he winds up reaching out to some of the very people who tried to topple him, especially those who gave strong voice to the frustrations of young couples lacking affordable housing as well as the many citizens left behind by Israel’s expanding economy.

After all, that would be the Churchillian thing to do.'

"The Most Thoughtful & Insightful Columnist On The Jewish Scene Today" On Netanyahu, Israeli Politics, Antisemitism & Aliya ...

That's Rabbi Mark Golub's assessment of the incomparable Isi Leibler, who for a quarter of a century bestrode the Australian Jewish communal scene like a Colossus, and who is of course also an international Jewish leader of great renown and prescience, based in Jerusalem.

In this thought-provoking interview Isi Leibler gives his views on Bibi Netanyahu's current visit to Washington (about which the previous post on my blog, by David Singer, is concerned), Obama's "humiliation" of Netanyahu, unparelleled by Obama's treatment of any "rogue state" leader, the attitude of Israeli politicians, the "demonisation" of Netanyahu and his wife in the Israeli press, the Iranian issue, and much more.

 Incidentally, prior to a deep and searching discussion of Israeli politics, parties, political leaders  (including Naftali Bennett, Avigdor Lieberman and other electoral candidates), and the rabbinate, he cautiously predicts that Netanyahu will be returned as prime minister when Israelis go to the polls on 17 March.

He also gives his views on the attainment of a Two State solution ...  on Netanyahu's attitude to peace  ... on Obama's "frightening" inability to use the phrase "Islamic fundamentalism" in relation to terrorism and his apparent support for the Muslim Brotherhood...

Isi Leibler is worried that the Obama administration will not stand by Israel over the remaining 22 months of its existence, and he fervently wishes American Jewish leaders would abandon their "silence"and publicly speak up against Obama ... He believes that American Jews have in their DNA a "liberal" unwillingness to be critical of a Democrat president and a black one at that.

He contrasts their attitude with his own as leader of the Australian Jewish community, when he was not afraid to take on prime ministers.

Viewing American support as absolutely critical for Israel, he is afraid the Obama's administration will distance itself from Israel and turn towards European initiatives...

Regarding antisemitism, he believes there will always be Jewish communities in Europe ("a cemetery for the Jewish people"), but contends that Netanyahu would have been remiss had he not reminded European Jewry that Israel exists for them, and that in a situation in which Islamic antisemitism is rising and Jews need to be guarded from violence, aliya (although ideally to be undertaken for positive rather than negative reasons) becomes an obligation, if only for the sake of the next generation.

He pours scorn on the attitude that aliya from Europe would give Hitler a posthumous victory given the fact that Jews are obliged to live fearfully and almost as pariahs.

And he also worries, in view of campus antisemitism and the dodgy attitude of some Hillel groups, that a critical situation for Jews may eventually happen there.

Israel, he points out, is "the greatest miracle of our times", a happy society despite its problems, its "crappy politicians", and its whingeing – and it awaits.

David Singer: Netanyahu Flies Into Washington On A Wing And A Prayer

Here is the latest article by Sydney lawyer and international affairs analyst David Singer.

He writes:

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s trip to Washington this week is going ahead despite unsuccessful attempts from far and wide to shoot him down in flames before he was even airborne.

President Obama’s unsuccessful attempt to stop Netanyahu’s visit by claiming breach of protocol – represents an ugly attempt to deny Netanyahu his right to freely address the Congress – the very nerve centre of the world’s leading democracy.

Netanyahu has not been deterred by many Democrats threatening to boycott his speech. At least 30 House Democrats and four Democrat Senators will not be on hand to hear what Netanyahu has to say concerning the threat to world security and peace posed by Iran’s implacable march towards producing a nuclear bomb and its threat to use such a bomb to eradicate the State of Israel.

Netanyahu has ignored the entreaties of a panoply of American Jewish groups and Israel’s opposition parties pleading he cancel his visit:

“When there is something that is connected to our very existence, what do they expect the prime minister to do, bow his head and accept something that is dangerous in order to have good relations? I think the relations are strong enough to overcome the disagreements, and that Iran with an atomic bomb is much more dangerous than one disagreement or another [with the US].”

American-Israeli relations were irreversibly intertwined when the Congress – voting 407:9 – and the Senate – voting 95:3 – overwhelmingly endorsed the commitments made by President Bush in his letter to Israel’s Prime Minister Ariel Sharon dated 14 April 2004.

Among those commitments was an unequivocal declaration that: 

“The United States is strongly committed to Israel’s security and well-being as a Jewish state.” 

Netanyahu’s address will fortuitously take place on the eve of the Jewish Festival of Purim when Jews remember the foiled plot in Persia (now Iran) in the 4th century AD: “to destroy, kill and annihilate all the Jews, young and old, infants and women, in a single day.”

Netanyahu has observed: 

“it is the same Persia with a regime that is waving the banner of destroying the state of the Jews. The means by which they intend on implementing this threat is with many atomic bombs” 

Netanyahu will be flying into Washington accompanied by Israel’s ambassador to the United States – Ron Dermer – and all Netanyahu’s top advisors.

They will – in the words of that famous World War II song – be: 

Comin' in on a wing and a prayer
Comin' in on a wing and a prayer
With our full crew on board
And our trust in the Lord
We're comin' in on a wing and a prayer

As for trusting in the Lord,  Obama and those churlish Senators and Congressmen who don’t have the decency to listen to what Netanyahu has to say might well recall the following words from Psalm 83: 

“O God, do not keep silence; do not hold your peace or be still, O God! 2 For behold, your enemies make an uproar; those who hate you have raised their heads. 3 They lay crafty plans against your people; they consult together against your treasured ones. 4 They say, “Come, let us wipe them out as a nation; let the name of Israel be remembered no more!” 5 For they conspire with one accord; against you they make a covenant" 

The Jews have long memories of past attempts over many centuries to exterminate them – as Jew-hatred once again spreads its evil roots around the globe.

The ancient Jewish Book Ecclesiastes proclaims 

“there is no new thing under the sun" 

Pray President Obama heeds Netanyahu’s message.

"Terror Denialists" John & Jen Talk Obama's "Random" Talk, & Bibi Talks Tough On Iran

Barack Obama has recently said:

"It is entirely legitimate for the American people to be deeply concerned when you've got a bunch of violent, vicious zealots who behead people or randomly shoot a bunch of folks in a deli in Paris. ..." (See and read more here)

Watch a couple of Obama spokespeople tie themselves in knots as reporters question them regarding Obama's term "randomly".

First, White House press secretary John Earnest, attempting to stay cool under pressure, but obviously addled, insists that the victims were "randomly where they happened to be" and explaining that "randomly" is a valid term because These individuals were not targeted by name".

He's also asked some tough questions regarding the respective threat from terrorism versus global warning.

Second, Jen Psaki of the State Department, almost squirming under questioning by an intrepid reporter regarding Obama's "randomly" remark.  (Transcript here)

She then went into damage-control mode, making a desperate  tweet on behalf of her master:

Watch the pundits on Fox News disgustedly dissect the situation, and flay the "terror denialist" mindset that underlies the present American administration.

Meanwhile, Bibi Netanyahu has just issued the following statement:

"First, on behalf of the people of Israel, I wish to send condolences to President Obama, the American people and the family of Kayla Mueller. We stand with you.

Israel’s survival is not a partisan issue, not in Israel nor in the United States.

This doesn’t mean that from time to time Israeli governments have not had serious disagreements with American administrations over the best way to achieve the security of Israel.

Israel's first Prime Minister, David Ben-Gurion, declared Israel’s independence in the face of strong opposition from US Secretary of State George Marshall. Likewise, Prime Minister Eshkol’s decisions at the start of the Six Day War, Prime Minister Begin’s decision regarding the nuclear reactor in Iraq, and Prime Minister Sharon’s decisions to press ahead with Operation Defensive Shield; these were all strongly opposed at the time by American administrations.

Disagreements over Israel’s security have occurred between prime ministers in Israel from the left and from the right and American presidents from both parties.'

None of these disagreements led to a rupture in the relationship between Israel and the United States.

In fact, over time, our relationship grew stronger.

But we do have today a profound disagreement with the United States administration and the rest of the P5+1 over the offer that has been made to Iran. 'This offer would enable Iran to threaten Israel's survival.'This is a regime, Iran, that is openly committed to Israel’s destruction. It would be able, under this deal, to break out to a nuclear weapon in a short time, and within a few years, to have the industrial capability to produce many nuclear bombs for the goal of our destruction.'This is not a personal disagreement between President Obama and me. I deeply appreciate all that he has done for Israel in many fields

 Equally, I know that the President appreciates my responsibility, my foremost responsibility, to protect and defend the security of Israel.]I am going to the United States not because I seek a confrontation with the President, but because I must fulfil my obligation to speak up on a matter that affects the very survival of my country. 'I intend to speak about this issue before the March 24th deadline and I intend to speak in the US Congress because Congress might have an important role on a nuclear deal with Iran."

Obama Should Realize That Israel Alone Must Determine Where Its Secure, Recognized & Defensible Borders Are To Be Located: David Singer

Here, entitled "Obama Honouring Presidential Commitments Trumps Protocol", is the latest article by Sydney lawyer and international affairs analyst David Singer. 

He writes:

The furore engendered by House Speaker John Boehner inviting Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to address Congress on March 3 – supposedly in breach of Presidential protocol – marks the first step in Congress flexing its muscles to persuade President Obama to re-think his concerted attempts to undermine the written commitments made by President Bush to Israel’s then prime minister Ariel Sharon in his letter dated 14 April 2004 – as overwhelmingly endorsed by the House of Representatives 407:9 on 23 June 2004 and the Senate 95:3 the next day (“American Written Commitments”)

Those 2004 American Written Commitments to Israel have become even more critical in 2015 – as a completely changed political environment sees America

1. leading negotiations with Iran on curbing Iran’s nuclear program

2. heading a coalition of 62 States seeking to degrade and destroy Islamic State

3. forming part of the London 11 countries' backing the unsuccessful bid to oust Assad from power in Syria

4. witnessing the shredding of the 2003 Bush Roadmap calling for the creation of a second Arab State in former Palestine – in addition to Jordan – as PLO Chairman Mahmoud Abbas chooses instead to travel the road leading to the United Nations and the International Criminal Court

These American Written Commitments were made to support Sharon’s decision to unilaterally disengage from Gaza – which Israel duly honoured in 2005 – when the Israeli Army and 8000 Israeli civilians left Gaza – many after living there for almost forty years.

Israel’s disengagement brought Hamas to power in Gaza’s one and only election – which has since seen three wars, thousands of deaths and casualties, property destruction running into billions of dollars and 11000 rockets being indiscriminately fired into Israeli civilian population centres.
Those American Written Commitments assured Israel that the United States:

1. Would do its utmost to prevent any attempt by anyone to impose any other plan other than the Roadmap envisioned by President Bush on 24 June 2002.

2. Reiterated America’s steadfast commitment to Israel's security, including secure, defensible borders,

3. Was strongly committed to Israel's security and well-being as a Jewish state.

4. Understood that an agreed, just, fair and realistic framework for a solution to the Palestinian refugee issue as part of any final status agreement would need to be found through the establishment of a Palestinian state, and the settling of Palestinian refugees there, rather than in Israel.

5. Accepted as part of a final peace settlement that Israel must have secure and recognized borders, which should emerge from negotiations between the parties in accordance with UNSC Resolutions 242 and 338.

6. Acknowledged that in light of new realities on the ground, including already existing major Israeli populations centers, it would be unrealistic to expect that the outcome of final status negotiations would be a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949, that all previous efforts to negotiate a two-state solution had reached the same conclusion

President Obama and his administration have sought to circumvent these American Written Commitments – thereby encouraging continuing Arab rejectionism of Israeli peace overtures whilst souring the American–Israeli longstanding relationship.

Obama’s Secretary of State Hillary Clinton reportedly took the first steps to repudiate these American Written Commitments on 6 June 2009:

“Since coming to office in January, President Barack Obama has repeatedly called on Israel to halt all settlement activity in Palestinian areas, a demand rejected by the government of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

The Israelis say they received commitments from the previous US administration of President George W. Bush permitting some growth in existing settlements.

They say the US position was laid out in a 2004 letter from Bush to then Israeli premier Ariel Sharon.

Clinton rejected that claim, saying any such US stance was informal and "did not become part of the official position of the United States government." 

 Clinton made Obama’s intentions clear – when she stated on 25 November 2009

“We believe that through good-faith negotiations the parties can mutually agree on an outcome which ends the conflict and reconciles the Palestinian goal of an independent and viable state based on the 1967 lines, with agreed swaps, and the Israeli goal of a Jewish state with secure and recognized borders that reflect subsequent developments and meet Israeli security requirements.”

This blatant disregard for the American Written Commitments - which had never mentioned land swaps – signalled trouble for Israel – if Obama ever confirmed Clinton’s statements.

Eighteen months later Israel’s worst fears were realised when President Obama declared on 19 May 2011:

“The borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps, so that secure and recognized borders are established for both states.” 

 Israel’s curt response came the same day:

Mr. Netanyahu said in a pointed statement just before boarding a plane to Washington that while he appreciated Mr. Obama’s commitment to peace, he “expects to hear a reaffirmation from President Obama of American commitments made to Israel in 2004 which were overwhelmingly supported by both Houses of Congress.”

These American Written Commitments cannot be unilaterally revoked or varied – if America is to retain any international credibility for honouring agreements it makes with other States.

Israel – and Israel alone - must determine where its secure, recognized and defensible borders are to be located under these American Written Commitments.

Obama will hopefully get this unequivocal message when Congress welcomes Netanyahu to address it – protocol or no protocol.

David Singer: With The Republican Victory In The Mid-Term Elections, Obama Confronts An Embarrassing About Face Re Palestine

Here, entitled "Palestine – Obama Confronts Embarrassing About Face", is the latest article by Sydney lawyer and international affairs analyst David Singer.

He writes:

The Republican Party’s stunning victory in the American mid-term elections offers real hope that President Obama will now be held to honouring the written commitments made to Israel by President George W. Bush in his exchange of letters with Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon on 12 April 2004 – as overwhelmingly endorsed by the House of Representatives 407:9 on 23 June 2004 and the Senate 95:3 the next day.

Those commitments were made in support of Israel’s decision to unilaterally disengage from Gaza – which Israel duly honoured in 2005 – when the Israeli Army and 8000 Israeli civilians left Gaza – many after living there for almost forty years.

That withdrawal brought Hamas to power in Gaza’s one and only election – which has since seen three wars, thousands of deaths and casualties, property destruction running into billions of dollars and 11,000 rockets being indiscriminately fired into Israeli civilian population centres.

Bush’s Congress-endorsed commitments assured Israel that the United States:

1. Would do its utmost to prevent any attempt by anyone to impose any other plan other than the Roadmap envisioned by President Bush on 24 June 2002.

2. Reiterated America’s steadfast commitment to Israel's security, including secure, defensible borders,

3. Was strongly committed to Israel's security and well-being as a Jewish state.

4. Understood that an agreed, just, fair and realistic framework for a solution to the Palestinian refugee issue as part of any final status agreement would need to be found through the establishment of a Palestinian state, and the settling of Palestinian refugees there, rather than in Israel.

5. Accepted as part of a final peace settlement that Israel must have secure and recognized borders, which should emerge from negotiations between the parties in accordance with UN Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338.

6. Acknowledged that in light of new realities on the ground, including already existing major Israeli populations centers, it would be unrealistic to expect that the outcome of final status negotiations would be a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949, that all previous efforts to negotiate a two-state solution had reached the same conclusion.

President Obama and his administration sought to circumvent these clearly stated American pledges – thereby encouraging continuing Arab rejectionism of Israeli peace overtures whilst souring the American–Israeli longstanding relationship. Obama’s Secretary of State Hillary Clinton reportedly took the first steps to repudiate these commitments on 6 June 2009:

“Since coming to office in January, President Barack Obama has repeatedly called on Israel to halt all settlement activity in Palestinian areas, a demand rejected by the government of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

The Israelis say they received commitments from the previous US administration of President George W. Bush permitting some growth in existing settlements.

They say the US position was laid out in a 2004 letter from Bush to then Israeli premier Ariel Sharon.

Clinton rejected that claim, saying any such US stance was informal and "did not become part of the official position of the United States government." 

Clinton – doubling as Obama’s attack dog – made Obama’s intentions clear when she stated on 25 November 2009

“We believe that through good-faith negotiations the parties can mutually agree on an outcome which ends the conflict and reconciles the Palestinian goal of an independent and viable state based on the 1967 lines, with agreed swaps, and the Israeli goal of a Jewish state with secure and recognized borders that reflect subsequent developments and meet Israeli security requirements.”

This blatant disregard for Bush’s written commitments – which had never mentioned land swaps – signalled trouble for Israel – if Obama ever confirmed Clinton’s statements.

Eighteen months later Israel’s worst fears were realised when President Obama declared on 19 May 2011:

“The borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps, so that secure and recognized borders are established for both states.”

Israel’s curt response came the same day:

Mr. Netanyahu said in a pointed statement just before boarding a plane to Washington that while he appreciated Mr. Obama’s commitment to peace, he

“expects to hear a reaffirmation from President Obama of American commitments made to Israel in 2004 which were overwhelmingly supported by both Houses of Congress.” 

Prior to Obama’s statement US presidents generally had steered clear of saying any negotiations should start on the 1967 lines.'

“It is clear, however, that a return to the situation of 4 June 1967 will not bring peace.

There must be secure and there must be recognized borders.”

— President Lyndon Johnson, September 1968

“In the pre-1967 borders, Israel was barely ten miles wide at its narrowest point. The bulk of Israel’s population lived within artillery range of hostile armies. I am not about to ask Israel to live that way again.”

— President Ronald Reagan, September 1, 1982

 “Israel will never negotiate from or return to the 1967 borders.”

— Secretary of State George Shultz, September 1988

These presidential statements were reiterating the personally expressed policy positions of those Presidents.

Bush’s commitments – so overwhelmingly endorsed by the Congress – are in an entirely different league.

With the Republicans now firmly back in control of both Houses – the President and Congress need to assure Israel – and indeed every other nation – that commitments jointly made by an American President and endorsed by an American Congress cannot be unilaterally revoked.

America’s honour and credibility – and any hope of ending the Jewish-Arab conflict – demand this happens very soon.

"Islam Has Given Us This Wish, Capacity & Power To Destroy the Zionist Regime": Terrible Talk from Teheran

Reports the Teharan-based Fars News Agency:

'Lieutenant Commander of the Islamic Revolution Guards Corps (IRGC) Brigadier General Hossein Salami underlined that Iranian military commanders are prepared to attack and destroy the Zionist regime of Israel as soon as they receive such an order.

“Today, we can destroy every spot which is under the Zionist regime's control with any volume of fire power (that we want) right from here,” Salami said, addressing a conference in Tehran on Tuesday dubbed ‘the Islamic World's Role in the Geometry of the World Power’.

“Islam has given us this wish, capacity and power to destroy the Zionist regime so that our hands will remain on the trigger from 1,400km away for the day when such an incident (confrontation with Israel) takes place,” he added.

Salami reminded that Iran is not the only country which enjoys such a capability, as even the artilleries of a number of other (Muslim) countries can also target and attack the Zionist regime today.

In relevant remarks in November, Supreme Leader of the Islamic Revolution Ayatollah Seyed Ali Khamenei warned Iran’s enemies to avoid even thinking of any aggressive move against the country, stressing that the Iranian Armed Forces are ready to give such a crushing response to any threat that aggressors will never forget.

Addressing 50,000 Basij (volunteer force) commanders in Tehran, Ayatollah Khamenei pointed to the preparedness of Iran’s military forces, and said, “The response of the Iranian nation to any foreign aggression will be regrettable for the enemy.”

The Supreme Leader underlined that the increasing threats by the enemy show that the US-led western sanctions have not been effective and they have understood it themselves.

Addressing the arrogant powers, Ayatollah Khamenei said, “Instead of threatening other countries, go and deal with your wretched economic conditions and think of you debts.”

The Supreme Leader underlined that the Zionist regime has been imposed on the region, "Anything that is gained with force will not last long and this regime will not last either."

Also in December, Commander of the Islamic Revolution Guards Corps (IRGC) Major General Mohammad Ali Jafari underlined that Iran will give a crushing response to any possible aggressor.

Major General Jafari deplored the US president’s repeated rhetoric of “military option against Iran is on the table, as “ludicrous” and said, “Repetition of such an absurd sentence by the officials of the US and the fake and evil Zionist regime (of Israel) sounds funny to the Iranian nation.”

The IRGC commander went on to say that the US or Israeli officials are totally incapable of taking any military action against Iran, but at the same time affirmed that any “stupid measure” by the enemies would compel Iran to consider the options it has on the table.

“Lots of options are on the table for Iran, and they (enemies) will receive crushing responses, one of which would be elimination of the Zionist regime,” he warned.'

 Another article guaranteed to induce a restful night's sleep here

David Singer: Floundering Obama Needs To Grab Bibi's 1984 Lifeline With Both Hands

"Palestine – Obama Lacks Understanding and Vision" is the latest article by Sydney lawyer and international affairs analyst David Singer.

He writes:

'President Obama’s interview with Jeffrey Goldberg on 2 March exposed the President as a leader lacking in understanding and vision – bound to a 20-year-old negotiating process that has proved an abject failure and will continue to do so until Obama finally declares it dead and buried.

The President still clings to the vain hope that the framework agreement for peace being drafted by Secretary of State Kerry will be accepted by Israel and the PLO – allowing the long drawn out negotiating processes established under the Oslo Accords, Bush Roadmap and Annapolis to continue until a peace agreement is executed between Israel and the PLO – matching those signed by Israel with Egypt in 1979 and Jordan in 1994.

The interview exposed Obama’s flawed knowledge concerning the following crucial issues that are critical to properly understanding the conflict and positing its possible resolution:

1. The President claimed that the conflict had gone on “for decades” – rather than for the last 130 years – indicating the President is ignoring earlier international decisions made on Palestine including the San Remo Conference and the Treaty of Sevres in 1920, the League of Nations in 1922, the Treaty of Lausanne 1923, the Peel Commission in 1937, the British White Paper 1939, the United Nations in 1945 and 1947, and the unification of Judea and Samaria with Transjordan in 1950 following the invasion of Palestine by six Arab armies in 1948.

2. The President spoke of the “Palestinian territories” – rather than the “disputed territories” - where internationally recognized sovereignty has remain undetermined since 1948.

3. The President referred to an existing “Palestinian Authority” – which had ceased to exist on 3 January 2013.

4. The President agreed with this claim by Goldberg: “It’s been the official position of the United States for decades that settlements are illegitimate”

Elliott Abrams – Senior Fellow for Middle Eastern Studies at the Council on Foreign Relations – dismisses this urban myth:

“The U.S. position has fluctuated over time. In the Reagan years, the United States said the settlements were "not illegal." The Clinton and George H.W. Bush administrations avoided the legal arguments but criticized the settlements frequently. President George W. Bush called the larger settlement blocs "new realities on the ground" that would have to be reflected in peace negotiations.

More recently, the official U.S. attitude has been more critical. In 2011, the Obama administration vetoed a UN Security Council resolution calling the settlements "illegal" but former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice then denounced "the folly and illegitimacy" of continued Israeli settlement activity. "The United States of America views all of the settlements as illegitimate," Secretary of State John Kerry said in August 2013.”

Who is feeding the President with misleading and false information to justify these comments to Goldberg?

The President’s lack of vision became obviously apparent with his following comment:

“I have not yet heard, however, a persuasive vision of how Israel survives as a democracy and a Jewish state at peace with its neighbors in the absence of a peace deal with the Palestinians and a two-state solution. Nobody has presented me a credible scenario.”

Amazingly – with the State Department evidently unable to present Obama with any credible scenarios in the event of the collapse of the “two-state solution” – President Obama then challenged Israel’s Prime Minister Netanyahu to come up with a plausible alternative:

“If he [Netanyahu] does not believe that a peace deal with the Palestinians is the right thing to do for Israel, then he needs to articulate an alternative approach. And as I said before, it’s hard to come up with one that’s plausible.”

Netanyahu had articulated an alternative approach at the United Nations on 11 December 1984 – one which apparently has gone missing from the State Department’s extensive archival records:

“Clearly, in Eastern and Western Palestine, there are only two peoples, the Arabs and the Jews. Just as clearly, there are only two states in that area, Jordan and Israel. The Arab State of Jordan, containing some three million Arabs, does not allow a single Jew to live there. It also contains 4/5 of the territory originally allocated by this body’s predecessor, the League of Nations, for the Jewish National Home. The other State, Israel, has a population of over four million, of which one sixth is Arab. It contains less than 1/5 of the territory originally allocated to the Jews under the Mandate… It cannot be said, therefore, that the Arabs of Palestine are lacking a state of their own. The demand for a second Palestinian Arab State in Western Palestine, and a 22nd Arab State in the world, is merely the latest attempt to push Israel back into the hopelessly vulnerable armistice lines of 1949.”

Netanyahu’s recounting of history, geography and demography present at least two credible – and plausible – scenarios for President Obama to consider:

1. Reunifying the heavily populated Arab areas of the West Bank (Areas “A” and “B” designated under the Oslo Accords) with Jordan – as existed between 1950-1967

2. Direct negotiations between Israel and Jordan – the two successor States to the Mandate for Palestine – to redraw the existing international boundary between their respective States.

Jordan’s King Abdullah needs to step up to the plate – and Obama must not let him refuse to do so.

President Obama – presently sinking in murky political quicksand – can still be saved by grabbing Netanyahu’s 1984 lifeline with both hands.' [Emphasis added]

"The Jewish People Know The Cost Of Being Defenceless Against Those Who Would Exterminate Us" (video)

"We shall never let it happen again!"

Anticipating his forthcoming meeting with President Obama, scheduled for later this month, Bibi Netanyahu (addressing the AIPAC Conference in Washington via video link) tells it like it is regarding Iran and the Bomb.

And regarding terror groups and the acquisition of deadly weapons from, for instance, Syria's stockpile.

As well as the need for peace with the Palestinians to be "grounded in reality ... and security".

Meanwhile, Canadian Foreign Minister John Baird has delivered a gung-ho speech to AIPAC (report here)

Mitt Romney's Foreign Policy Adviser On Israel & The Middle East (video)

The USA's former UN ambassador John Bolton tells interviewer Lee Lazerson on Jewish Life Television that Romney's concern for Israel's security is both emotional and tangible ("The US-Israel relationship is going to be a cornerstone of his foreign policy"), talks of the significance of Jerusalem as Israel's capital, and Obama's credibility problem when his record on the Middle East is examined.  Bolton goes on to discuss the dangerous current situation in that region generally and the consequent challenge for the United States and Israel. Regarding Iran's nuclear ambitions: "It's certainly not for peaceful use.... This has been a weaponisation programme from the beginning ..."  He also discusses Israel's options ...

And here's Bibi, rightly asking a pertinent question regarding Iran:

For more on that see here

Don't Vote For Obama!: A Democrat Politician's Urgent Warning To American Jews (video)

"It's a disease; it has to be dealt with," says New York State Assemblyman Dov Hikind, himself a Democrat, of American Jewry's tendency to vote Democrat and to give priority to domestic issues such as gay marriage despite the grave danger that a second term of the Obama administration poses to Israel.

"I do not trust the President of the United States with regard to the security of the State of Israel," he tells Fox News, warning in impassioned tones that with Israel's very survival in dire peril American Jews should not vote for Obama.

This interview shocked Democrats across America.  For Israel's sake, let's hope it jolts America's Jews into taking Hikind's advice.

Bibi Netanyahu Talks To Obama About Iran (video)

The footage is, of course, from the Israeli Prime Minister's meeting with President Obama yesterday.

"Our Best Ally In The World": Allen West On Israel (video)

The war hero and Republican Congressman from Florida (just back from Israel) believes the fate of Israel and the USA are "inextricably intertwined" (to quote the reporter), with "Islamic totalitarianism" the common enemy:

 Regarding the present incumbent of the White House and his attitude to Israel, a concoction short, to the point, and quite possibly on the ball:

Obama & Netanyahu: The Experts Disagree

Via the Jewish Telegraphic Agency, two op-eds, two very different perspectives.

From Morton Klein, national president of the Zionist Organization of America, who concludes his article:

'One of my most revealing experiences was a meeting I attended, along with 40 other Jewish leaders, with President Obama at the White House in March. The president told us, according to my notes: “You must speak to your Israeli friends and relatives and search your souls to determine how badly do you really want peace. Israelis think this peace business is overrated; their life is good, their economy is good, and things are quiet.”

Several times he emphasized that “the PA is sincere in wanting a peaceful settlement” and that “Israel has not sufficiently tried to make an acceptable offer.” He asked, “Is the Netanyahu government serious about territorial concessions?”

Things may get better or worse -- more likely the latter -- but one thing is clear: Obama and Israel are not of one mind, or anywhere close to being so.'

Read all the article:  http://www.jta.org/news/article/2011/08/16/3089009/op-ed-obama-and-israel-are-not-on-the-same-page

But from Marc Stanley, chair of the National Jewish Democratic Council, this conclusion:

'So are critics being fair to President Obama when they intentionally misquote him and spread lies about his positions? Are they being fair when they portray a rift between the U.S. administration and the Israeli government in the face of clear evidence to the contrary? And are they helping Israel by trying to use Israel as a wedge issue for partisan gain?

While some work to tear down the bipartisan pro-Israel consensus that we’ve built over decades, Obama and Netanyahu continue to work as partners in every sense to secure Israel and ensure lasting peace for the Israeli people. On top of the extensive list of agreements regarding policy and security cooperation, add the fact that Netanyahu has reiterated his support for this longtime basis for negotiations.

Don’t listen to the noise; look at the record.  Prime Minister Netanyahu and President Obama are truly on the same page.'

Read all the article: http://www.jta.org/news/article/2011/08/15/3088992/op-ed-is-obama-being-treated-fairly-on-israel