Jackie Mason Speaks Out! (videos)

He may be a stand-up comedian, but Jackie Mason isn't jesting when he warns about the indefensibility of those 1967 lines:

A tad old for me, and my heart's already lost to Gene Simmons.  Still, Jackie is one helluva guy ...

A Veteran American Jewish Leader On Obama And Israel ...

In my previous post I mentioned the high levels of support among American Jews for Israel, and although I focused on the recent CAMERA poll conducted by Frank Luntz, I provided the link to an article posted last month by Jerusalem Post columnist Caroline Glick.

In that article, Ms Glick observes, inter alia:

'Over the past year or so, American Jewish opponents of Israel like writer and activist Peter Beinart have sought to intimidate and demoralize Israelis by telling us that American Jews either no longer support us or will stop supporting us if we don't give in to all the Arabs' demands.

But statistical evidence exposes these threats as utter lies. According to mountainous survey evidence, the American Jewish community writ large remains deeply supportive of Israel. Two surveys released last year by the American Jewish Committee and Brandeis University's Cohen Center for Modern Jewish Studies showed that three quarters of American Jews care deeply about Israel and that Israel is an important part of their Jewish identity. The Brandeis survey notably showed that young American Jews are no less likely to support Israel than they were in the past.

In fact, American Jews under 30 are more hawkish about the Palestinian conflict with Israel than Jews between the ages of 31-40 are.

According to the Brandeis survey, 51 percent of American Jews oppose a future division of Jerusalem, while a mere 29% would support it.

Younger Jews are more opposed to the capital's partition than older Jews are.

It is notable that the Brandeis survey found that political views do not impact American Jews' support for Israel. This is striking because among Americans at large, polls show Republicans are significantly stronger supporters of Israel than Democrats. But not among Jews.

"Liberals felt no less connected than conservatives and were no less likely to regard Israel as important to their Jewish identities. These observations hold true for both younger and older respondents," the Brandeis survey report explained.

Across the board, American Jews blame the Palestinians for the absence of peace and believe there is little chance that there will be peace between Israel and the Palestinians in the foreseeable future. Seventy-five percent agreed with the statement, "The goal of the Arabs is not the return of occupied territories but rather the destruction of Israel"; 94% said the Palestinians should be required to accept the Jewish state's right to exist.'

She then goes on to deplore the fact that, despite these figures, across America  "Jewish communities are failing to prevent anti-Zionist Jews from hijacking communal funds and facilities to finance anti-Israel activities", and gives many examples of such lamentable occurrences.

For the two polls cited see:
http://www.brandeis.edu/cmjs/pdfs/still.connected.08.25.10.3.pdf
http://www.jta.org/news/article/2010/09/01/2740757/study-shows-american-jewish-attachment-to-israel-holds-steady

It remains to be seen, of course, whether the overwhelming majority of American Jews will persist in their love affair - to many dedicated Zionists their liaison dangereuse - with Barack Obama into next year's presidential election, but, for good or ill, it seems likely.

One man who fears so is veteran communal leader Harvey Schechter.

Before his retirement in 1993, following a career of over 40 years, Mr Schechter was the Anti-Defamation League's Southwest Region Director.  Below are extracts from his "Open Letter to My Fellow Jews and to All Americans" which he wrote on 27 May in his newsletter Schechter Sez. (Hat tip: DW)

Explaining that from President Obama he "never expected anything good, particularly with respect to ... Israel," he notes that about 78 per cent of American Jews voted for Obama in 2008, and predicts, with regret, that  "Obama will get the lion's share" of their votes in 2012, Schechter continues:

'.... This attachment to the Democratic Party traces back to the passionate love America's Jews developed for President Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1932 because of the liberal things he said and did during the Great Depression and his vigorous opposition to Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, and Imperial Japan.  Before 1932, large numbers of Jews voted Socialist and even Republican, the party of Abraham Lincoln, because in New York where more than a million Jews lived, the Democrats were under the control of corrupt Tammany Hall.  That changed with Roosevelt's victory in 1932.

     Right now there is great turmoil in the American Jewish community and especially in Israel because of the speech President Obama delivered at the State Department a few days ago when he made reference to the 1967 borders as the starting point for land swaps between Israel and the Palestinians.   As Rabbi Shmuley Boteach just wrote,

". . . the president's claims to naiveté are ridiculous.  To his detractors Obama is many things, but he is no fool.  He knew full well that to publicly call for a return to the '67 lines was a bomb waiting to detonate.  Obama knew the demand to return to the pre-Six Day War borders spoke directly to the Palestinian narrative."

I agree completely with Rabbi Boteach.....

     When Obama did his 1967 shtick, Mort Zuckerman, publisher of U.S. News & World Report, angrily accused Obama of "betraying Israel." Former Democratic Congressman and famous New York City former Mayor Ed Koch said he will not vote for Obama in 2012.  Of course, November 2012 is almost eighteen months away and anything can happen.

     If you watched Obama's face and body language when Israel's Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu spoke at the White House when Obama had to listen to a lecture about the realities in the Middle East, he was obviously boiling mad as Netanyahu in essence told him he didn't know what he is talking about....

     Several liberal commentators and columnists were outraged and said that Netanyahu was ungracious and inappropriate for delivering those comments in a public setting.  [Al Beeb reporters and presenters, predictably, made barbed comments of that sort, from Jeremy Bowen and Mark Mardell down - D.A.] It must also have been very painful for Obama even though he was in England to hear about the brilliant, passionate, and informative speech Netanyahu delivered to a joint meeting of the Congress to genuine thunderous applause and getting about twenty-five standing ovations from Democrats and Republicans alike.

     And good old Hillary Clinton, our esteemed Secretary of State, looks like an absolute fool hav[ing] said a week or so ago that Bashar Assad, the murdering, brutal dictator of Syria is a "reformer."  Yes, she called Assad a "reformer."  How can anyone ever believe them?

     When Democratic Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid spoke to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), he was magnificent.  I never thought I would say this about Senator Reid, but he was outstanding in his understanding of what is at stake in the Middle East between Israel and her Arab neighbors, and he said it forcefully and convincingly.  Maybe the man in the White House ought to sit down with his Senate Majority Leader and have him explain the situation between Israel and the Arabs.

     Again and again, we Jews are asked to explain the devotion of so many Jews to the Democratic Party which has paid and still pays homage to the likes of Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton who in my opinion are enemies of the Jewish people and of Israel.  Would they be so tolerant of the equivalent of Jackson and Sharpton in the Republican party?  Of course not. Our Liberalism came to us with our mother's milk.  For most American Jews, their synagogue is the Democratic party;  their faith is Liberalism;  and their Moses is Obama.

     TO MY FELLOW AMERICANS:  Please know that the hatred of Israel in the Arab world is equaled only by their hatred of you and of America.  The Jews may be their first target, but all of us are on their hit list.  The 9/11 attack was an attack on America!

     For the record, Israel gave up land for peace.  It gave back the Sinai Peninsula.  Now there is the possibility of serious threats from the Sinai.  What did Egypt's President Anwar Sadat get for signing a peace treaty with Israel?  He got back the Sinai Peninsula, a Nobel Prize for Peace, and deadly bullets from members of his own army.

     Israel gave Gaza to the Palestinians.  What did it get in return?  Thousands of deadly rockets raining down on its citizens.  If President Abbas of the Palestinian Authority repudiates his alliance with Hamas, he knows he will suffer Sadat's fate - a hail of bullets.

     Israel also gave back territory in Southern Lebanon.  What did it get in return?  Thousands of deadly rockets fired by Hezbollah on Israel.

     Dear Friends:  How long would we sit quietly while thousands of rockets poured down on us from Mexico and from Canada? Now you know what Israel is living with.

A friend sent me a marvelous cartoon of Obama meeting with the Queen of England who says to him, "I believe the borders of Britain and the U.S. should be based on the pre-1776 lines with mutually agreed swaps."

One picture is sure worth a thousand words.'

Obama: For Israel's Sake, Best Not Given A Second Term?

In the National Review Online, Stanley Kurtz (author of Radical-in-Chief, published in 2010) has a long and searching article examining President Obama's record regarding the Palestinians, and tellingly entitles it "Pro-Palestinian-in-Chief" - with the subtitle "Obama's hard-Left tilt is real".

Dr Kurtz begins:

'It’s time to revisit the issue of President Obama’s Palestinian ties. During his time in the Illinois state senate, Obama forged close alliances with the most prominent Palestinian political leaders in America. Substantial evidence also indicates that during his pre-Washington years, Obama was both supportive of the Palestinian cause and critical of America’s stance toward Israel. Although Obama began to voice undifferentiated support for Israel around 2004 (as he ran for U.S. Senate and his national visibility rose), critics and even some backers have long suspected that his pro-Palestinian inclinations survive.

The continuing influence of Obama’s pro-Palestinian sentiments is the best way to make sense of the president’s recent tilt away from Israel. This is why supporters of Israel should fear Obama’s reelection. In 2013, with his political vulnerability a thing of the past, Obama’s pro-Palestinian sympathies would be released from hibernation, leaving Israel without support from its indispensable American defender.

 To see this, we need to reconstruct Obama’s pro-Palestinian past and assess its influence on the present. Taken in context, and followed through the years, the evidence strongly suggests that Obama’s long-held pro-Palestinian sentiments were sincere, while his post-2004 pro-Israel stance has been dictated by political necessity.'

 And after taking us carefully through the evidence he concludes:

'The record is clear. Obama’s heritage, his largely hidden history of leftist radicalism, and his close friendship with Rashid Khalidi, all bespeak sincerity, as Obama’s other Palestinian associates agree. This is not to mention Reverend Wright — whose rabidly anti-Israel sentiments, I show in Radical-in-Chief, Obama had to know about — or Obama’s longtime foreign-policy adviser Samantha Power, who once apparently recommended  imposing a two-state solution on Israel through American military action. Decades of intimate alliances in a hard-Left world are a great deal harder to fake than a few years of speeches at AIPAC conferences.

 The real Obama is the first Obama, and depending on how the next presidential election turns out, we’re going to meet him again in 2013.'

 This is a hair-raising article.

Read it all here: http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/268159/pro-palestinian-chief-stanley-kurtz?page=4

"Fighting Literally For His Country's Survival": Israel's "Warrior Statesman"



Bibi in combat gear, when in his 20s

Rae Abileah, the CodePink activist who heckled Netanyahu's speech before Congess yesterday, prompted this well-justified observation from the Israeli Prime Minister:

“You know, I take it as a badge of honour, and so should you, that in our free societies you can have protests. You can’t have these protests in the farcical parliaments in Tehran or Tripoli."

The reaction was more thunderous applause, of the kind that frequently punctuated his speech, along with many standing ovations from his listeners.

And no wonder.  Netanyahu is a superb speaker, an attractive presence, and his deep sense of history, and of purpose, is palpable.

He made numerous profoundly moving and inspiring statements. 

Such as:

"In an unstable Middle East, Israel is the one anchor of stability. In a region of shifting alliances, Israel is America’s unwavering ally. Israel has always been pro-American. Israel will always be pro-American.

You don’t need to export democracy to Israel. We’ve already got it. You don’t need to send American troops to defend Israel. We defend ourselves. You’ve been very generous in giving us tools to do the job of defending Israel on our own....


Support for Israel’s security is a wise investment in our common future. For an epic battle is now unfolding in the Middle East, between tyranny and freedom. A great convulsion is shaking the earth from the Khyber Pass to the Straits of Gibraltar. The tremors have shattered states and toppled governments. And we can all see that the ground is still shifting. Now this historic moment holds the promise of a new dawn of freedom and opportunity. Millions of young people are determined to change their future. We all look at them. They muster courage. They risk their lives. They demand dignity. They desire liberty....

 So today, the Middle East stands at a fateful crossroads. Like all of you, I pray that the peoples of the region choose the path less traveled, the path of liberty. No one knows what this path consists of better than you. This path is not paved by elections alone. It is paved when governments permit protests in town squares, when limits are placed on the powers of rulers, when judges are beholden to laws and not men, and when human rights cannot be crushed by tribal loyalties or mob rule.

Israel has always embraced this path, in the Middle East has long rejected it. In a region where women are stoned, gays are hanged, Christians are persecuted, Israel stands out. It is different.

.... We have a free press, independent courts, an open economy, rambunctious parliamentary debates....

 Courageous Arab protesters, are now struggling to secure these very same rights for their peoples, for their societies. We're proud that over one million Arab citizens of Israel have been enjoying these rights for decades. Of the 300 million Arabs in the Middle East and North Africa, only Israel’s Arab citizens enjoy real democratic rights. I want you to stop for a second and think about that. Of those 300 million Arabs, less than one-half of one-percent are truly free, and they're all citizens of Israel!

 This startling fact reveals a basic truth: Israel is not what is wrong about the Middle East. Israel is what is right about the Middle East....

Israel fully supports the desire of Arab peoples in our region to live freely. We long for the day when Israel will be one of many real democracies in the Middle East.

Fifteen years ago, I stood at this very podium, and said that democracy must start to take root in the Arab World. Well, it's begun to take root. This beginning holds the promise of a brilliant future of peace and prosperity. For I believe that a Middle East that is genuinely democratic will be a Middle East truly at peace.

But while we hope and work for the best, we must also recognize that powerful forces oppose this future. They oppose modernity. They oppose democracy. They oppose peace.

Foremost among these forces is Iran. The tyranny in Tehran brutalizes its own people. It supports attacks against American troops in Afghanistan and Iraq. It subjugates Lebanon and Gaza. It sponsors terror worldwide.

When I last stood here, I spoke of the dire consequences of Iran developing nuclear weapons. Now time is running out, and the hinge of history may soon turn. For the greatest danger facing humanity could soon be upon us: A militant Islamic regime armed with nuclear weapons.

Militant Islam threatens the world. It threatens Islam. I have no doubt that it will ultimately be defeated. It will eventually succumb to the forces of freedom and progress. But like other fanaticisms that were doomed to fail, militant Islam could exact a horrific price from all of us before its inevitable demise....

Now the threat to my country cannot be overstated. Those who dismiss it are sticking their heads in the sand. Less than seven decades after six million Jews were murdered, Iran’s leaders deny the Holocaust of the Jewish people, while calling for the annihilation of the Jewish state.

Leaders who spew such venom, should be banned from every respectable forum on the planet. But there is something that makes the outrage even greater: The lack of outrage. In much of the international community, the calls for our destruction are met with utter silence. It is even worse because there are many who rush to condemn Israel for defending itself against Iran’s terror proxies....

As for Israel, if history has taught the Jewish people anything, it is that we must take calls for our destruction seriously. We are a nation that rose from the ashes of the Holocaust. When we say never again, we mean never again. Israel always reserves the right to defend itself.

 My friends, while Israel will be ever vigilant in its defense, we will never give up on our quest for peace. I guess we’ll give it up when we achieve it. Israel wants peace. Israel needs peace. We've achieved historic peace agreements with Egypt and Jordan that have held up for decades.

 I remember what it was like before we had peace. I was nearly killed in a firefight inside the Suez Canal. I mean that literally. I battled terrorists along both banks of the Jordan River. Too many Israelis have lost loved ones. I know their grief. I lost my brother [Yonatan Netanyahu, pictured left, the hero of Entebbe, in 1976].

.... This is not easy for me. I recognize that in a genuine peace, we will be required to give up parts of the Jewish homeland. In Judea and Samaria, the Jewish people are not foreign occupiers. We are not the British in India. We are not the Belgians in the Congo.

This is the land of our forefathers, the Land of Israel, to which Abraham brought the idea of one God, where David set out to confront Goliath, and where Isaiah saw a vision of eternal peace. No distortion of history can deny the four thousand year old bond, between the Jewish people and the Jewish land....

We've helped the Palestinian economy by removing hundreds of barriers and roadblocks to the free flow of goods and people. The results have been nothing short of remarkable. The Palestinian economy is booming. It's growing by more than 10 per cent a year.

 Palestinian cities look very different today than they did just a few years ago. They have shopping malls, movie theaters, restaurants, banks. They even have e-businesses. This is all happening without peace. Imagine what could happen with peace. Peace would herald a new day for both peoples. It would make the dream of a broader Arab-Israeli peace a realistic possibility.

So now here is the question. You have to ask it. If the benefits of peace with the Palestinians are so clear, why has peace eluded us? Because all six Israeli Prime Ministers since the signing of Oslo accords agreed to establish a Palestinian state. Myself included. So why has peace not been achieved? Because so far, the Palestinians have been unwilling to accept a Palestinian state, if it meant accepting a Jewish state alongside it.

You see, our conflict has never been about the establishment of a Palestinian state. It has always been about the existence of the Jewish state. This is what this conflict is about. In 1947, the United Nations voted to partition the land into a Jewish state and an Arab state. The Jews said yes. The Palestinians said no. In recent years, the Palestinians twice refused generous offers by Israeli Prime Ministers, to establish a Palestinian state on virtually all the territory won by Israel in the Six Day War.

.... They were simply unwilling to end the conflict. And I regret to say this: They continue to educate their children to hate. They continue to name public squares after terrorists. And worst of all, they continue to perpetuate the fantasy that Israel will one day be flooded by the descendants of Palestinian refugees.

So it is therefore absolutely vital for Israel’s security that a Palestinian state be fully demilitarized. And it is vital that Israel maintain a long-term military presence along the Jordan River. Solid security arrangements on the ground are necessary not only to protect the peace, they are necessary to protect Israel in case the peace unravels. For in our unstable region, no one can guarantee that our peace partners today will be there tomorrow.

.... Peace cannot be imposed. It must be negotiated. But it can only be negotiated with partners committed to peace.

And Hamas is not a partner for peace. Hamas remains committed to Israel's destruction and to terrorism. They have a charter. That charter not only calls for the obliteration of Israel, but says ‘kill the Jews wherever you find them’. Hamas’ leader condemned the killing of Osama bin Laden and praised him as a holy warrior. Now again I want to make this clear. Israel is prepared to sit down today and negotiate peace with the Palestinian Authority. I believe we can fashion a brilliant future of peace for our children. But Israel will not negotiate with a Palestinian government backed by the Palestinian version of Al Qaeda.

 So I say to President Abbas: Tear up your pact with Hamas! Sit down and negotiate! Make peace with the Jewish state! And if you do, I promise you this. Israel will not be the last country to welcome a Palestinian state as a new member of the United Nations. It will be the first to do so."

(See the entire speech and read the entire transcript here: http://elderofziyon.blogspot.com/2011/05/full-text-of-bibs-speech-before.html)

 In contrast to the predictably negative reaction of Al Beeb, a terrific op-ed in the London Daily Telegraph by Nile Gardiner paid fulsome tribute to the "barnstorming ... magnificent address" by "a warrior statesman fighting literally for his nation's survival" and observed:

"Israel deserves our full support as a greatly valued friend and partner – it is a tremendous force for freedom and liberty amidst a sea of tyranny and despotism, and a vital bulwark in the face of Islamist terrorism."

As for Obama's prescribed formula, there are trenchant critiques in The Wall Street Journal  ("Obama’s Peace ‘a War Formula’"  by Bret Stephens, that paper's foreign affairs editor and deputy editorial page editor: http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/144480) and by Professor Barry Rubin.

Barry Rubin summarises the danger inherent in the situation thus:

"1. Israel gives up all West Bank first and then negotiates on borders.

2. Israel loses leverage for getting something in exchange for basically accepting 1967 borders.

3. Encourages the PA--as has now happened--to demand Israel accepts 1967 borders before negotiating.

4. Would rule out the Jordan Valley security zone he wants.

5. Palestinians don't have to accept an end of conflict, no right of return, or Israel as a Jewish state in exchange for getting a big thing they want. In short, Israel is being pressed toward a concession. What is the PA pressed to do? To talk with Israel and thus get a big concession!

6. In discussing swaps, Obama didn't mention settlement blocs so he has dropped assurances to Israel that it would get specific pieces of land it wants.

7. And of course he cannot be depended upon to back Israel on its needs but he can be depended on to demand more Israeli concessions.

8. The regional situation is very dangerous and it is not a time to be turning over territory to an unstable, hostile entity."

Read his entire piece: http://pajamasmedia.com/barryrubin/2011/05/25/why-the-issue-of-land-landed-president-obama-in-trouble-with-israel/

"The President Is Talking Utter Nonsense": More Tough Talk On Obama's AIPAC Speech

Regular readers of this blog will know that I'm a fan of Sydney lawyer and international affairs analyst David Singer.  Here, via the antipodean J-Wire service, is his hard-hitting take on Obama's latest iniitiative. The article is entitled "Palestine - Obama Continues to Fudge on America's Commitment to Israel".

Writes David Singer:

President Obama in an address to the AIPAC Policy Conference on 22 May has failed to redress the enormous damage done by him to America’s integrity and reputation during his speech three days earlier at the State Department.  Addressing the State Department Obama then stated:

“We believe 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.. “

This statement amounted to the repudiation of an American written commitment given by President George Bush (the Bush Letter) to Israel‘s then Prime Minister Ariel Sharon on 14 April 2004 which stated:

“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. In light of new realities on the ground, including already existing major Israeli populations centers, it is unrealistic to expect that the outcome of final status negotiations will 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 is realistic to expect that any final status agreement will only be achieved on the basis of mutually agreed changes that reflect these realities.”

America’s commitment in the Bush Letter was clear and unambiguous.

America would support Israel’s refusal to withdraw from 100% of Gaza, the West Bank and East Jerusalem – as the Arabs had been demanding since 1967.

The amount of such land to be retained by Israel would be determined by mutually agreed changes that reflected the realities existing at the time negotiations were completed

No mention was made that those mutually agreed changes would require Israel to make land swaps of Israeli sovereign territory in exchange for land retained by Israel in the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem.

The importance of these American commitments to Israel was stressed in a speech given in the Knesset by Prime Minister Sharon on 22 April 2004 when he stated:

“The political support we received during my visit to the United States is an unprecedented accomplishment for Israel. Since the establishment of the State, we have not received such vast and staunch political support, as was expressed in the President’s letter.”

President Bush’s letter was subsequently approved by the US Senate and House of Representatives on 23 June and 24 June 2004.

Obama’s apparent attempt to abrogate this American commitment in his statement on 19 May resulted in trenchant criticism from Israel and many members of the American Congress forcing him to clarify his position on 22 May.

In doing so President Obama did not climb out of the diplomatic hole he had dug for himself and America three days earlier – but only managed to slide further down it taking America’s integrity and reputation even lower with him.

President Obama told the AIPAC delegates and many Congressmen present and keen to hear his explanation:

“And it was my reference to the 1967 lines — with mutually agreed swaps — that received the lion’s share of the attention, including just now. And since my position has been misrepresented several times, let me reaffirm what “1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps” means. By definition, it means that the parties themselves -– Israelis and Palestinians -– will negotiate a border that is different than the one that existed on June 4, 1967. That’s what mutually agreed- upon swaps means. It is a well-known formula to all who have worked on this issue for a generation. It allows the parties themselves to account for the changes that have taken place over the last 44 years. It allows the parties themselves to take account of those changes, including the new demographic realities on the ground, and the needs of both sides. The ultimate goal is two states for two people: Israel as a Jewish state and the homeland for the Jewish people and the State of Palestine as the homeland for the Palestinian people — each state in joined self-determination, mutual recognition, and peace”

With the greatest respect the President is talking utter nonsense.

“Agreed upon swaps” surely means an agreed exchange of something for something else.

President Obama clearly was breaching the Bush Letter in stating that his Government’s belief now was that Israeli sovereign territory would have to be swapped for territory retained by Israel in the West Bank or East Jerusalem.



By M. Langfan http://www.marklangfan.com/

 President Obama’s belief in 2011 is totally irrelevant. President Obama is committed in 2011 to supporting whatever decision Israel makes on how much of the West Bank and East Jerusalem it will ultimately withdraw from – nothing more nothing less.

To continue to support the concept of “mutually agreed swaps” only makes matters even worse so far as restoring America’s integrity and reputation is concerned.

It is clear President Obama does not like the terms of the Bush Letter. But he – and America – are bound by it if America‘s integrity and reputation is to be maintained .

Obama’s explanation smacks of a pathetic attempt to try and retrospectively substitute the words “mutually agreed changes” in the Bush Letter with the words “mutually agreed exchanges”.

Surely Congress will react with even greater fury at President Obama’s latest remarks to try and massage the meaning of the Bush Letter to give it a meaning that was never intended.

Israel made a historic – and highly controversial – political decision to unilaterally withdraw from Gaza as a condition of obtaining the Bush Letter. Israel paid dearly for that decision when tens of thousands of its civilian population were subsequently murdered, wounded or traumatized following that disengagement.

It is inconceivable that America should seek in any way to diminish or circumvent the commitments it made under the Bush Letter.

Words have meaning and in this case their meaning brooks only one interpretation.

Obama’s attempt to subvert their meaning must be resisted until he recants and states without qualification or ambiguity that he – as America’s President – and America still stands by what President Bush signed and its Congress ratified.

Tough Takes on Obama

Addressing the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) today, President Obama clarified his position on the 1967 lines:

 Notwithstanding periodic outbursts of applause, as Jennifer Rubin explains in "Obama double downs at AIPAC," her astute Washington Post article on the speech, its reception, and its deficiencies, there were, very significantly, boos at a particular juncture.

She points out:

'It is not “well known” what the deal will be because the right of return, the demand to flood Israel with the children and grandchildren of Arabs who fled during the war of aggression on the infant Jewish state, and the security arrangements are the core of the matter. Moreover, Obama misquoted himself by insisting he said the parties “will negotiate a border that is different than the one that existed on June 4, 1967.” No, he said it was U.S. policy that the deal would stem from the 1967 lines.

He then disingenuously said he’d always meant “it is the right and responsibility of the Israeli government to make the hard choices that are necessary to protect a Jewish and democratic state for which so many generations have sacrifice.” And there was some pablum about the current situation not being sustainable, the U.S. commitment to Israel and Obama’s fondness for the nation whose bargaining position he has undermined.

The problems in the speech include: 1) Obama made it clear the United States is willing to give away Israel’s bargaining position for nothing in return; 2) Obama never even mentioned the right of return; 3) He did not reiterate specifically the necessity of a military presence in the Jordan Valley. You see, only Israel’s expected concessions are “well known”; 4) Israel can’t be expected to negotiate with those who want to destroy it, but negotiations need to resume; and 5) if anything Obama underscored that the United States has differences with Israel — but it’s between “friends.”'

Read all of her piece here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/post/obama-double-downs-at-aipac/2011/03/29/AFhx9C9G_blog.html

The following article, entitled Palestine - Obama sinks America's Integrity and Reputation, is by the always incisive David Singer, a Sydney lawyer and founder of the International Analysts' Network.  It comes via the antipodean J-Wire service.  I've posted the video at the end before, but it's as well to remind people again how narrow and vulnerable Israel was prior to its stunning victory in the Six Day War; not for nothing did Abba Eban term its pre-war boundaries the "Auschwitz borders".

Writes David Singer:

'Remarks made by President Obama at the State Department in Washington on 19 May indicate he is prepared to honour some – but not all – commitments made to Israel by former American President George W Bush in his letter to Israeli Prime Minister Sharon on 14 April 2004 (the Bush Letter).

President Obama first stressed the following points:

1. It is up to the Israelis and Palestinians to take action. No peace can be imposed upon them — not by the United States; not by anybody else.

2. What America and the international community can do is to state frankly what everyone knows — a lasting peace will involve two states for two peoples: Israel as a Jewish state and the homeland for the Jewish people, and the state of Palestine as the homeland for the Palestinian people, each state enjoying self-determination, mutual recognition, and peace.

President Obama was indeed confirming America’s written commitment to Israel in the Bush Letter

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

This commitment – made now by two American Presidents to Israel – has been repeatedly rejected by the Palestinian Authority, Fatah, the PLO, Hamas and the Arab League. But it is a commitment that America has no intention of abandoning.

However President Obama ignored another commitment in the Bush Letter when he then told his State Department audience:

"We believe 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.. "

This statement is contrary to the following statement appearing in the Bush Letter:

"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. In light of new realities on the ground, including already existing major Israeli populations centers, it is unrealistic to expect that the outcome of final status negotiations will 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 is realistic to expect that any final status agreement will only be achieved on the basis of mutually agreed changes that reflect these realities."

Bush had clearly committed to back Israel’s position that sovereignty in 100% of the land occupied in the Six Day War by Israel would not be ceded in any ultimate peace settlement.

Obama was obviously trying to wheedle his way out of this Bush commitment by some semantic toe stepping. – suggesting that

1. any loss of such territory to Israel could be compensated by an equivalent swap of existing Israeli sovereign territory and

2. this swap could still lead to the creation of secure borders for Israel.

Israel was certainly not prepared to let Obama back peddle from the terms of the Bush Letter .

The Israeli rebuttal was swift and came just one day later when Israel’s Prime Minster told President Obama during a meeting at the White House:

"I think for there to be peace, the Palestinians will have to accept some basic realities. The first is that while Israel is prepared to make generous compromises for peace, it cannot go back to the 1967 lines — because these lines are indefensible; because they don’t take into account certain changes that have taken place on the ground, demographic changes that have taken place over the last 44 years."

Those concerned to ensure that American presidential commitments made to third parties are honored and upheld by their successors should be as equally worried as Israel at Obama’s apparent attempt to breach such a fundamental presidential commitment.

The price Israel paid to secure the Bush Letter was its decision to unilaterally disengage from Gaza in 2005. This disengagement exposed Israel’s civilian population living in its southern region to the threat of continuing indiscriminate missile and terrorist attacks from Gaza without any Israeli military forces being retained in Gaza any more to prevent, defend and respond to any such attacks. 8000 Israeli citizens were forced to evacuate their homes and businesses established in Gaza over the preceding 38 years.

This is indeed what happened after Israel disengaged from Gaza in 2005 – with disastrous consequences for both civilian populations in Israel and Gaza and for those 8000 Israelis who had evacuated Gaza..

Jeopardizing its security on the entire Gaza front required Israel to be absolutely assured of American commitment to Israel’s security on the West Bank front. That assessment saw the refusal to cede sovereignty in 100% of the West Bank and East Jerusalem as being non-negotiable.

America’s decision to stand by and support Israel on this fundamental territorial issue is critical.

Israel’s Government in 2008 had unsuccessfully explored the possibility of land swaps with the Palestinian Authority – but those negotiations ended inconclusively and are now in total lock down.

Exploring land swaps might again be considered by Israel in future negotiations. The current Israeli Government shows no intention to do so. But that will have to be Israel’s decision – not America’s.

America’s view – now or later – regarding land swaps is irrelevant under the Bush Letter.

President Obama’s statement will no doubt be seen by some to indicate a shift in America’s position – perhaps made in an attempt to induce the Palestinian Authority to resume the stalled negotiations with Israel.

Obama’s position will be viewed by Israel and its supporters as a shift that does no honor to America and badly damages its reputation and integrity.

The Bush commitment was made for an Israeli commitment that has resulted in the death, injury and traumatisation of tens of thousands of Israelis.

Obama’s attempt to minimize or modify that commitment in any way must be firmly and publicly resisted by Israel and its supporters in the American Congress – which had voted overwhelmingly in favor of President Bush signing the Bush Letter in the first place.

Doing so will certainly help restore America’s reputation for honesty and transparency in its dealings with third parties – and for standing by and remaining staunchly committed to the decisions of its presidents.

Aren’t these indeed cardinal democratic principles which Obama – as leader of the world’s leading democracy – is sworn to uphold?'

The Power of Palestinian Propaganda - with more than a little help from Al Beeb

Having warned of the danger posed by Iran, two British pundits go on to say:

"But European opinion had already taken note ... that the only crucial issue in the Middle East dispute is that of the self-determination of the Palestinian Arabs.  PLO propaganda has been extraordinarily successful in spreading this view, and Israeli propaganda - until recently - has been extraordinarily slow to react to it. 

The most crucial issue, since the United Nations Partition Plan of 1947, has been the adamant refusal of the Arab world to accept the existence of the State of Israel. For this refusal provoked the first of all the Arab-Israeli wars and in the next two decades there was no attempt to give the Palestinian Arabs self-determination....

Palestinian Arab self-determination has become a parrot's cry in much of the press of Western Europe.  Every time it is used, there should be a reminder that, after the 1948 war, the Kingdom of Jordan occupied what remained of the Arab state proposed in the UN Partition Plan.  Jordanian occupation was initially recognised, indeed, only by Britain and Pakistan.  But the states of the Arab League made no attempt to intervene or even protest - when it would have been perfectly possible to set up an Arab state in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, with its capital in East Jerusalem.  Only since Israeli occupation of these areas took place, in 1967, did other Arabs discover the sanctity of Palestinian Arab "rights".'

Those words were written over 30 years ago, by Terence Prittie (1913-85), who was a prominent pro-Israel British author and journalist, perhaps best remembered for his book Whose Jerusalem?, and Walter Nelson.  Their article, "Europe and Peace," appeared in the Australia/Israel Review (June 6-20, 1979), pp. 14-15.

Is it any wonder that when Binyamin Netanhayu met Barack Obama today he gave the stony-faced American president what Al Beeb sneeringly described as "a long history lesson"?

A long history lesson is something the BBC could do with, judging from the half truths, distortions, and even outright revisionism that characterises its reportage on the Middle East - and  the following map on its website is one of the latest examples (hat tip: reader Roger).

Al Beeb's reportage where Israel is concerned consists of sins of both commission and omission.

The map is an example of the latter.  As Roger points out, in showing the land "occupied" by Israel since 1967, Al Been neglects to tell us that neither Gaza nor the West Bank were under the aegis of the Palestinians (or, as they were then called, before the brilliant makeover that conned the ignorant, Palestinian Arabs) but of Egypt and Jordan respectively.

(Update: And as commenter Davieboy points out, Israel is no longer occupying Gaza!)

Just shoddiness on Al Beeb's part?  Or malevolence?

Whatever the case, as with their ongoing reluctance to tell the public the genocidal nature of the Hamas Charter, and just as they habitually neglect to remind the public that the Arabs were responsible for all the wars Israel has fought, so the the BBC has left unfulfilled in this instance - by design or accident - a moral obligation to present the facts in a scrupulously honest manner, so that listeners, viewers, and website readers will not be misled into false assumptions.

It's part of a pattern.

Last year, in that sanctimonious, self-serving way of Al Beeb's, no less a personage than Helen Boaden, director of BBC News, wrote, with not a hint of irony:

"impartiality is in our DNA - it's part of the BBC's genetic make-up. Anyone who thinks differently doesn't really understand how the organisation works and how seriously we take issues around balance and impartiality." http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/helen_boaden/

Risible.

But also shamelessly mendacious.

For the national broadcaster is aiding and abetting those whose aim is to demonise, delegitimise, and destroy the Jewish State.

As the always impressive Netanyahu told Obama in that latest icy meeting:

 "Israel cannot go back to 1967 lines.  We can’t go back to the indefensible lines.... We don’t have a lot of margin for error.  History will not give the Jewish people another chance."

Al Beeb's Website Continues Its Anti-Israel Bias

The BBC's outrageous bias against Israel has been well-documented, and in some respects its widely-read news website is the worst offender of all, as well as being arguably the most effective in demonising Israel, since it reaches many millions worldwide.

BBC Jerusalem correspondent Wyre Davies, who used to be the corporation's Wales correspondent, does not yet appear to have become infected with Bowenitis, or Israel Demonising Reportage, from his boss, Middle East editor Jeremy Bowen. 

On Al Beeb's website today, Wyre Davies gives a straightforward enough account of Binyamin Netanyahu's reaction to Obama's speech that calls for a Palestinian State on the basis of the 1967 borders. (http://connect.in.com/government-of-india/article-mideast-upheaval-heaps-pressure-on-netanyahu-543215-3a834865d44da0364e60cad6a5c783e71e6af261.html)

However, on a separate page, somebody - presumably the websites's Middle East editor, who I believe is an Arab, has taken excerpts from Mr Davies's report, and entitled it "Analysis". (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-13465133)

It thus turns the original report into something it certainly is not, but does serve the purpose of taking a swipe at Israel and Israel's supporters:

"In many ways the Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, should be a man content with his lot. He is on a high-profile visit to Washington where he will be met with a firm handshake and warm words from President Barack Obama.

In a historic address to a joint-session of Congress next week, he can expect to be repeatedly applauded as he describes how his government tirelessly searches for peace.

And at the annual conference of Aipac - the American pro-Israel lobby - he will be feted as a hero and beacon of light in an otherwise hostile region.

But at home, in a dramatically changing Middle East, the Israeli leader appears increasingly out-manoeuvred and out of step with the attempts of others to resolve the frustrating and long-standing stalemate in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict."

Worse, in an accompanying unattributed piece, beneath the sub-heading "Arab Spring",  we're told:

 'Israel's claim to being the only democratic state in the region has also been undermined by the dramatic developments of the "Arab Spring" anti-government uprisings, our correspondent [Wyre Davies] adds.'

That does distort what Davies wrote, taking it out of context and adding a spin.

The fact that democracy still has to be accomplished in those Arab countries, and that the spectre of an Islamist takeover looms over Egypt, does not occur to Al Beeb, so keen is it to use every cudgel it can manifacture to beat Israel again and again.

And, as is its wont, Al Beeb 's website placed a little piece of Palestinian propaganda contained in the report is repeated in bold type as a stand-alone eye-catcher for maximum impact - in this case Hamas Foreign Minister Mohamed Awad saying: "Obama didn't say anything about the suffering of the Palestinian people, who are suffering for more than 63 years."

Just as Al Beeb (on the website or anywhere else) never says anything about Hamas's avowed genocidal intentions towards Israel, or provides us with proper analysis of why Israel fears that the 1967 borders are indefensible.  (Note the inevitable inverted commas round Wyre Davie's reference to

Evidently, they are too intent on trying to portray Netanyahu as "yesterday's man", to use the phrase Al Beeb's Obama-besotted North America editor Mark Mardell employs today.

For Netanyahu's reaction to Obama's speech see: http://www.pmo.gov.il/PMOEng/Communication/Spokesman/2011/05/spoketguva190511.htm

"Obama Has Thrown Israel Under The Bus" - or has he? (video)

And see this, from Allen West: http://west.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=4216:congressman-allen-west-response-to-president-barack-obamas-call-for-a-two-state-solution-in-israel&catid=73:press-releases&Itemid=2

Has the Obama Administration Failed Again? No Freeze, No Talks, No Competence

This critique of Obama’s Middle East policy is by Professor Barry Rubin, director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal (I've added the cartoon):

While the outcome still isn't clear, it seems that a new example of failure and humiliation is unfolding for the Obama Administration's Middle East policy.

It appears increasingly unlikely that the president's high-profile effort to restart Israel-Palestinian talks will succeed during the remainder of 2010 or even well beyond that time.

This Administration has had a very clear idea of what it wanted to achieve:

1. A comprehensive Israel-Palestinian and Arab-Israeli peace.

2. Getting rid of the Arab-Israeli conflict in the belief that this will reduce terrorism and strengthen US power in region and US interests.

3. Getting rid of the conflict to get Arab support on Iraq, Iran, and Afghanistan.

The embarrassment is taking place due to faulty assumptions about these goals and how to achieve them:

- That a high-profile effort would serve U.S. interests. By showing American engagement on the issue, the Administration thought it would please Arab and Muslim-majority countries so as to gain their support on other issues. This didn't work.

- That, at best, a high-profile campaign would be likely to succeed in bringing rapid progress toward comprehensive peace. That obviously isn't working.

- That, at minimum, they could at least get the two sides to sit down to pretend talks where nothing actually happened but at least it could be portrayed as a diplomatic achievement. Even that isn't working and that's really embarrassing.

Part of the problem is due to the Administration's additional wrong assumption that the Palestinians are eager to negotiate and get a state plus the belief that the current Palestinian Authority (PA) leadership could deliver a deal. In fact, both of these ideas are wrong, too. The PA leadership can't - and doesn't want to - deliver even on holding talks that go nowhere.

Read the rest: http://www.gloria-center.org/gloria/2010/12/obama-administration-failed-again-no-freeze-no-talks