The "IgNobel" Policy of the European Union on the Middle East

The "IgNobel" Policy of the European Union on the Middle East

by Michael Curtis

http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/3522/european-union-middle-east

The Czechs apparently realized that the UN Resolution enabling the Palestinians to be regarded as an observer non-member state was not only a unilateral action by the Palestinians in violation of the Oslo Accords, but also a direct violation of previous commitments — some even to the EU itself — to enter only into bilateral negotiations to determine final status arrangements. Ironically, instead of promoting peace, the Resolution encourages the Palestinian Authority not to negotiate with the Israelis or compromise on a reasonable solution -- in the belief that it can get more from bypassing Israel and going straight to the EU and the UN.

Although the Nobel Prize for Peace, which was awarded to the European Union, the economic and political amalgamation of 27 European states, on December 10, 2012, can be proud of some of its successes -- peace has certainly been kept after centuries of warfare among the European nations; France and Germany have been reconciled after long enmity, and the former Soviet bloc countries in Eastern Europe have been harmoniously integrated into the European structure -- the EU has failed to achieve a genuine economic and monetary union; has been unable to complete its currency union, and it is even more dubious that the EU has contributed to peace in the Middle East in any way that warrants a prestigious award, or that it has been helpful in efforts to resolve the Arab-Israeli conflict.

The latest example of the last failures occurred in the vote on November 29, 2012, in the UN General Assembly, on the Resolution to accord the Palestinian Authority the status of a "non-member observer state." All the EU members voted for the Resolution, which was approved 138-9 with 41 abstentions, except for the Czech Republic which voted against, and other countries, especially Germany which abstained. Ironically, the Resolution is counterproductive: instead of promoting peace, it encourages the Palestinian Authority not to negotiate with the Israelis or compromise on a reasonable solution -- in the belief that it can get more from bypassing Israel and going straight to the EU and the UN.

Even though the EU lacks a coherent foreign policy, and the member states have taken different positions on various issues, such as the Lebanese war in1982; the1996 proposals on a peace plan, and the Iraq war in 2003, the various declarations of the EU have led to a certain kind of coherence in the attitude towards Israel in particular, and the Arab-Israeli conflict in general. The EU has favored peaceful negotiations and a two state solution, but it has continually criticized the building of Israeli settlements, and considered them illegal under international law.

The Israeli settlements, which exist on state or public land, are under dispute as the question of sovereignty over them remains to be decided by direct Israeli-Palestinian negotiations. They are not an obstacle to peace; rather, they have been, and are being, newly used by the United Sates, and consequently the Palestinians, to excuse the Palestinians for refusing to enter into peace negotiations. This land was often offered in exchange for negotiations, peace and recognition, all three of which have been continually rejected by the Arabs since the Khartoum Conference of September 1967, three months after the Six Day War. In a defensive action, Israel took possession of east Jerusalem and the West Bank [of the Jordan River} , following its capture by Jordan in the 1948-49 five-nation Arab invasion of Israel on the day after its birth.

After multiple rejections to exchange "land for peace," the Israelis may well be wondering if they are actually expected to hold this land in perpetuity in case one day the Arabs might feel like returning to a negotiating table. It should be noted by the EU that Israel has evacuated its citizens from other formerly settled land in the Gaza Strip; that it might help to avoid aggression if the aggressors had to pay some penalty for their actions; that to the Palestinians - as they repeat, the land is theirs "from the [Jordan] river to the [Mediterranean] sea" -- to Arab and Muslim countries and even at times to the UN [see EyeonTheUN.org, Features, UN Map with no Israel], all of Israel is considered a settlement, and that construction of settlements around the area of Jerusalem did not prevent the 300 negotiation sessions that took place between Israel and the Palestinian Authority between the November 2007 Annapolis Conference talks and 2008.

The EU has also refused to recognize Israel's annexation of east Jerusalem as legitimate, and has repeated on many occasions the right of the Palestinian people to exercise fully its right to self-determination. Although unwilling to disagree too strongly with the United States, the EU has attempted from time to time to offer alternative proposals to deal with the Arab-Israeli conflict.

The first statement by the European group on the conflict was issued at the meeting on November 6, 1973 of the foreign ministers of the nine governments which then made up the members of the European Community. The statement declared that acquisition of territories by force was inadmissible, that Israel should end the territorial occupation of Arab land it had maintained since the conflict of 1967, and that in any settlement of the conflict, account had to be taken of the legitimate rights of the Palestinians. In subsequent declarations, the EC spoke of a just and lasting solution necessitating a "homeland for the Palestinian people."

The European Commission went farther in its Venice Declaration of June 13, 1980, which stated that, "the Palestinian people be allowed to exercise fully its rights to self-determination," and that the Palestine Liberation Organization would have to be associated with the peace negotiations. It has consistently held that Israeli settlements were illegal under international law. The Venice Declaration was followed by a number of other statements, from countries which later became members if the European Union -- all of them critical in some fashion of Israel, and all endorsing the rights of Palestinians.

European countries have been critical of what they claimed was the "disproportionate" response to the missile attacks from Hamas in Gaza by Israel in its Operation Cast Lead in 2008 -- without voicing equal criticism of the terrorists launching those missiles. Similarly, the Europeans disapproved of Israel's sea blockade of Gaza to prevent the delivery of weapons to people sworn to the destruction of Israel -- without comment on the large number of missiles and rockets being smuggled into Gaza, presumably to be used by the ruling terrorist group there, Hamas, to fulfill its outspoken pledge to destroy Israel.

The EU played no part in the 1991 Madrid peace conference, but it did -- together with the United States, the United Nations, and Russia -- become a member of the Quartet on the Middle East, which was established in Madrid in 2002 to mediate the peace process.

The EU and Israel have disagreed on a number of issues. They have criticized, among other matters, Israeli building in the area of Jerusalem, the settlements in the West Bank, the construction of the Israeli security fence, and the opening of the Hasmonean tunnel in September 1996, in addition to the Israeli right to east Jerusalem, which under Jordanian rule had not only been closed to Israelis, but massively desecrated. (Gravestones from the Mount of Olives, for example, were taken to be used as the floors of Jordanian latrines.) Further disputes involved the closing of Orient House, the PLO's headquarters in Jerusalem, which was being used to receive foreign representatives, thus converting it into a virtual Palestinian foreign ministry. The EU did on December 10, 2012 denounce "as unacceptable" the statement by Hamas leaders that denied Israel's right to exist, but at the same time also condemned Israeli plans for further construction of settlements.

Not surprisingly, Israel has considered the European attitude and policy as lacking impartiality, if not displaying outright hostility.

Economic relations between the two sides have been uneven, as well, with trade arrangements alternating with calls for boycotting Israeli products. Economic ties go back to 1964 between Israel and the then European Economic Community, and to the 1995 Association Agreement, ratified in 2000, and formally linked by the Association Council, in which each party granted the other preferential treatment in economic, commercial, and technological matters. The EU is Israel's largest market for exports and its second largest source of imports, after the US. Israeli exports to the EU became exempt from customs duties but this did not apply to goods produced in settlements.

Although the Action Plan of December 9, 2004 suggests areas of interaction -- among them, greater political cooperation; promotion of human rights; aiding multiculturalism; and opposition to antisemitism, racism, xenophobia, and Islamophobia -- these suggestions have rarely been put into practice. Despite a few perfunctory European criticisms of Palestinian actions, bias toward the Arab and Palestinian point of view, in both policy decisions and in rhetoric, seems inherent in the European attitude,

The Europeans are now acutely aware of the growing Arab and Muslim presence in their own countries, and the consequent political and social dilemmas this has created -- as well as the growing Arab economic investment there. The Europeans have, both directly and through UNRWA, supplied aid to Palestinian refugees, and given money and loans to the Palestinian authorities. The Europeans have economic interests in the Arab countries, which supply reasonably priced and stable oil imports, investment capital, and whose residents are consumers of European products. The Europeans are bound by institutional relations and policies, which include the global Mediterranean policy, a European Neighborhood policy of 2004, the Euro-Arab Dialogue, and the Barcelona process (Euro-Mediterranean partnership) launched in 1995, which aims at economic development, as well as supposedly at democratic reform. In all of these links, the EU has indicated its opposition to Israeli settlements, or modification of the status of Jerusalem.

If the ties between the EU and Arab countries are medium-warm and binding, the ties between the EU and Israel are less so. The EU often refers to Israeli actions as "disproportionate," blames Israel for lack of progress in peace talks, and rarely supports Israel's right of self-defense. The EU always appears "deeply dismayed" and seems to oppose strongly most of Israeli plans.

The excessive criticism is evident in the statements on Middle Eastern affairs made by Catherine Ashton, the EU's High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy. She has been persistent in her criticism of Israel. Among her more recent utterances was a speech on October 25, 2012, at the Arab League's headquarters in Cairo, where she said that, "[Israeli] settlements are illegal, constitute an obstacle to peace and threaten to make a two-state solution impossible." Will no one tell her that the settlements are not the obstacle to peace in the Middle East, and that the Palestinians, who are so eager to make unilateral decisions, are not yet willing to engage in negotiations for a two state solution or anything else?

The EU has yet to appreciate the reality that the conflict continues because of the refusal of the Palestinians to accept the right of the State of Israel to exist. The Czechs, on the contrary, apparently realized that the UN Resolution enabling the Palestinians to be regarded as an non-member observer state was not only a unilateral action by the Palestinians in violation of the Oslo Accords, but also a direct violation of previous commitments -- some even to the EU itself -- to enter only into bilateral negotiations to determine final status arrangements. For its role in Middle East affairs alone, the EU does not deserve the Nobel Peace Price. The Nobel Committee might more appropriately have sent a donation to the Czech Republic for its truly noble act.

The Death of Liberal Zionism

The Death of Liberal Zionism

By Ronn Torossian

Liberal Zionism may indeed need a coffin. Proof of this is best seen through the microcosm of two young, passionate, eloquent, and outspoken Jews who were born in the early 1970s — in 2012, they have challenged conventional norms on Israel.

American journalist Peter Beinart and Israeli politician Naftali Bennett are modern examples of two people who could not be further apart on their politics, nor on their influence. Beinart is an extremist liberal with fringe viewpoints and a small following; Bennett is a conventional conservative with a large and growing constituency.

Beinart’s book “The Crisis of Zionism” has been celebrated by the liberal media, yet the book has sold terribly. His argument that Jews are turned off because of the tension between liberalism and Zionism has been rejected by the Jewish community en masse.  Beinart continues to push a message of BDS (Boycott, Divestment & Sanctions) as he stands with anti-Semites in advocating a boycott of those parts of Israel he deems to be “non-democratic.” While his fringe viewpoints are given widespread attention via the “Open Zion” blog at Newsweek/The Daily Beast his influence is restricted mainly to the media, as American Jewry has not accepted his viewpoints.  In Israel, the polls show the left being trounced in upcoming elections.

A 2012 UJA community survey found that 74% of all New York City’s Jewish children are Orthodox, and it shows that liberal Jews are having fewer children, and do not provide meaningful Jewish education.  They intermarry, assimilate and largely disappear as Jews.  Yet rather than deal with American Jewish assimilation which continues at upwards of 60 percent, Beinart says “the great American Jewish challenge of our age” is “saving liberal Zionism.” It is doubtful that Beinart can view the thriving Orthodox community as a breeding ground for liberal Zionism.

Israel, the “Start-Up Nation” that it has handily become and has brought so much to the world, certainly does not need an American Jew to save the failed policies of liberal Zionism. While Beinart foolishly claimed that “Jewish fortunes have radically changed,” he overlooked Hamas, Toulouse and the rampant hatred toward Jews throughout Europe.  That growing anti-Semitism has helped foment the increasingly right-wing philosophy of Zionism today.

Beinart was right about his concept of the “generational discord” which older Jewish leaders are unable to capture from the younger generations.  The new, young leader who has emerged is the furthest thing from liberal Zionism; religious Zionist Naftali Bennett.  He is a smart, eloquent 40 year old who formerly served as executive director of the settlement council. Bennett is a self-made multi-millionaire who leads the Jewish Home political party which is projected to be the third largest political party in the upcoming Israeli elections.

The face of success of Israel’s economic powerhouse, Bennett understands public relations and digital media, is media savvy and concerned about the importance of world Jewry. A political conservative, he is the son of American immigrants to Israel and cognizant of the new leadership which Jews worldwide need. Even as Prime Minister Netanyahu is labeled as “conservative” by worldwide media, the Prime Minister’s biggest challenge is from Bennett, who served as his chief of staff and is to the right of Netanyahu politically.

In sharp contrast to Beinart, Bennett understands that Israel is a self-sufficient country, and not a banana republic of the United States or any other nation. Bennett advocates that Israel annex Judea and Samaria. As he says, the world already refuses to recognize Jerusalem or the Golan Heights as Israel, and yet life in Israel goes on. A strong and secure Israel is the Jewish priority, and not the ever-elusive “peace”  which Bennett deems impossible in this (and our children’s) generation.

Unlike foolish Beinart who believes if the world boycotts Israeli “settlements”  everything will be dandy, Bennett realistically understands that the obstacles to peace for the Arabs and radical Islamists who control the regions surrounding Israel, is not merely Judea and Samaria, but rather Jews and the presence of the entire State of Israel.  Zionism today doesn’t delineate that Jews need to be victims, and a proud, active people are increasingly representative of that fact.

The next generation of Jewish leaders worldwide is made up of young people like Naftali Bennett, Knesset Deputy Speaker Danny Danon, and others who spread the important message of a strong Israel.  In America, liberal Judaism is withering away with its disappearing population, and authentic Judaism grows. While extremists like Beinart and his liberal ilk attract media attention, good old fashioned Zionism grows and thrives.

 http://frontpagemag.com/2012/ronn-torossian/the-death-of-liberal-zionism/

An Oldie that fits well with the previous post.. Ex-President for Sale

An Oldie that fits well with the previous post..
Ex-President for Sale

by Alan M. Dershowitz

It now turns out that Jimmy Carter--who is accusing the Jews of buying the silence of the media and politicians regarding criticism of Israel--has been bought and paid for by Arab money.  In his recent book tour to promote Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid, Carter has been peddling a particularly nasty bit of bigotry.  The canard is that Jews own and control the media, and prevent newspapers and the broadcast media from presenting an objective assessment of the Arab-Israeli conflict, and that Jews have bought and paid for every single member of Congress so as to prevent any of them from espousing a balanced position.  How else can anyone understand Carter’s claims that it is impossible for the media and politicians to speak freely about Israel and the Middle East?  The only explanation – and one that Carter tap dances around, but won’t come out and say directly – is that Jews control the media and buy politicians.  Carter then presents himself as the sole heroic figure in American public life who is free of financial constraints to discuss Palestinian suffering at the hands of the Israelis.

Listen carefully to what Carter says about the media: the plight of the Palestinians is “not something that has been acknowledged or even discussed in this country... You never hear anything about what is happening to the Palestinians by the Israelis.” He claims to have personally “witnessed and experienced the severe restraints on any free and balanced discussion of the facts.”  He implies that the Jews impose these “severe restraints.”  He then goes on to say that the only reason his book--which has been universally savaged by reviewers--is receiving such negative reviews is because they are all being written by “representatives of Jewish organizations” (demonstrably false!).  So much for the media.

Now here is what he says about politicians:

“It would be almost politically suicidal for members of Congress to espouse a balanced position between Israel and Palestine, to suggest that Israel comply with international law or to speak in defense of justice or human rights for Palestinians. Very few would ever deign to visit the Palestinian cities of Ramallah, Nablus, Hebron, Gaza City or even Bethlehem and talk to the beleaguered residents.”

Each of these claims is demonstrably false, as I have shown in detail elsewhere. The plight of the Palestinians has been covered more extensively, per capita, than the plight of any other group in the world, certainly more than the Tibetans and the victims of genocides in Darfur and Rwanda.  Moreover, Carter totally ignores the impact of Arab oil money and the influence of the Saudi lobby.  In numerous instances where the Arab lobbies have been pitted against the Israeli lobby, the former has prevailed.

Even beyond these nasty canards, the big story that the media and political figures in America have missed is how grievously they, themselves have been insulted and disrespected by our self-righteous former president.  Carter is lecturing The New York Times, The Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times, CNN, and the major networks about how they are incapable of reporting the news objectively because they are beholden to some Jewish cabal.  He is telling Pulitzer Prize winning writers such as Tom Friedman and Samatha Power that they did not deserve their prizes.  He is telling George Will that his reporting is controlled by his Jewish bosses (sound a little bit like Judith Regan?).  And he is denying that Anderson Cooper is capable of filing an honest report from the West Bank. 

As far as our legislators are concerned, he is accusing Barack Obama, John McCain, Hillary Clinton, and Patrick Leahy of being bought and paid for by the Israeli lobby.  On Planet Carter, even congressmen with no Jewish constituents would be committing political suicide by taking a balanced position on the Middle East.  What an outrageous insult to some of the best journalists and most independent political figures in the world. 

At the bottom, Carter is saying that no objective journalist or politician could actually believe that America’s support for Israel is based on moral and strategic considerations and not on their own financial self-interest.  Such a charge is so insulting to every honest legislator and journalist in this country that I am amazed that Carter has been let off the hook so easily.  Only the self-righteous Jimmy Carter is capable of telling the truth, because only he is free of financial pressures that might influence his positions. 

It now turns out that the shoe is precisely on the other foot.  Recent disclosures prove that it is Carter who has been bought and paid for by anti-Israel Arab and Islamic money.

Journalist Jacob Laksin has documented the tens of millions of dollars that the Carter Center has accepted from Saudi Arabian royalty and assorted other Middle Eastern sultans, who, in return, Carter dutifully praised as peaceful and tolerant (no matter how despotic the regime). And these are only the confirmed, public donations. 

Carter has also accepted half a million dollars and an award from Sheik Zayed bin Sultan al-Nahyan, saying in 2001: "This award has special significance for me because it is named for my personal friend, Sheik Zayed bin Sultan al-Nahyan." This is the same Zayed, the long-time ruler of the United Arab Emirates, whose $2.5 million gift to the Harvard Divinity School was returned in 2004 due to Zayed's rampant Jew-hatred. Zayed's personal foundation, the Zayed Center, claims that it was Zionists, rather than Nazis, who “were the people who killed the Jews in Europe” during the Holocaust. It has held lectures on the blood libel and conspiracy theories about Jews and America perpetrating Sept. 11.

Another journalist, Rachel Ehrenfeld, in a thorough and devastating article on "Carter’s Arab Financiers," meticulously catalogues Carter’s ties to Arab moneymen, from a Saudi bailout of his peanut farm in 1976, to funding for Carter’s presidential library, to continued support for all manner of Carter’s post-presidential activities.  For instance, it was the Bank of Credit and Commerce International (BCCI), founded in Pakistan and fronted by a Saudi billionaire, Gaith Pharaon, that helped Carter start up his beloved Carter Center.  According to Ehrenfeld:

“BCCI's origins were primarily ideological. [Agha Hasan] Abedi wanted the bank to reflect the supra-national Muslim credo and ‘the best bridge to help the world of Islam, and the best way to fight the evil influence of the Zionists.’

As Ehrenfeld concluded:

“[I]t seems that AIPAC's real fault was its failure to outdo the Saudi's purchases of the former president's loyalty. There has not been any nation in the world that has been more cooperative than Saudi Arabia," The New York Times quoted Mr. Carter June 1977, thus making the Saudis a major factor in U. S. foreign policy.

”Evidently, the millions in Arab petrodollars feeding Mr. Carter's global endeavors, often in conflict with U.S. government policies, also ensure his loyalty.”

It is particularly disturbing that a former president who has accepted dirty blood-money from dictators, anti-Semites, Holocaust deniers, and supporters of terrorism should try to deflect attention from his own conflicts of interest by raising the oldest canard in the sordid history of anti-Semitism: namely, that Jews have dual loyalty and use their money improperly to influence the country they live in, in favor of the country to which they owe their real allegiance.  Abraham Foxman responded to Carter’s canard as follows: 

As disturbing as Carter’s simplistic approach is, however, even more disturbing is his picking up on the Mearsheimer -Walt theme of Jewish control of American policy, though in much more abbreviated form and not being the focus of his work. Referring to U.S. policy and the “condoning” of Israel’s actions, Carter says: “There are constant and vehement political and media debates in Israel concerning its policies in the West Bank but because of powerful political, economic, and religious forces in the U.S., Israeli government decisions are rarely questioned or condemned, voices from Jerusalem dominate our media, and most American citizens are unaware of circumstances in the occupied territories.” In other words, the old canard and conspiracy theory of Jewish control of the media, Congress, and the U.S. government is rearing its ugly head in the person of a former President.

As noted above, the most perverse aspect of Carter’s foray into bigotry is that as he pours this old wine into new bottles he is himself awash in Arab money.  When a politician levels these kinds of cynical accusations against others, it would seem incumbent on him to show that his own hands are clean and his own pockets empty. 

Accordingly I now call upon Carter to make full public disclosure of all of his and the Carter Center’s ties to Arab money.  If he fails to do so, I challenge the media to probe deeply into his, his family’s, and his Center’s Arab ties so that the public can see precisely the sources and amounts of money he has received and judge whether it has corrupted the process of objective reportage and politics by Carter and others who have received such funds.  Finally, I ask the appropriate government agencies to conduct an investigation into whether Carter should be required to register as a lobbyist for foreign interests. 

Let’s stop invoking discredited ethnic stereotypes, look at the hard facts, and actually see who’s being bought and sold. 

http://politics.gather.com/viewArticle.action?articleId=281474976879837

The Aptness of Jimmy Carter

The Aptness of Jimmy Carter

HIs name seems to fit his personality.

Tabitha Korol

The word, “jimmy,” means to pry open, as with a crowbar, an apt label for the former-president Carter, who uses his Carter Center (allegedly created to work for democracy, human rights, peace negotiations) to intrude, to meddle, to the detriment of those very goals.

Carter is a family name of English origin and an occupational name given to one who transports goods by cart or wagon. Another aptonym (a name suited to its bearer), Carter transports tales, propaganda, and the Palestinian narrative worldwide to oppose democratic Israel, while profiting handsomely from Saudi funds.


Former-president Jimmy Carter declared in USA Today, that the Israeli government is expansionist and “flagrantly disregarded” clearly stated US policies, once again condemning the only democratic, sovereign nation in the Middle East that must protect her citizens against constant military and terrorist attacks and international meddling. His belief in self-determination extends only to Palestinians, not Israelis.

Where all other countries have free rein over their own development and defense, Carter judges Israel by regulations designed to inhibit Israel’s growth, assault her border integrity, and ultimately embolden the Palestinians’ path to Israel’s destruction.


Of what is Israel pronounced so guilty by Carter’s standards? Surely not threatening jihad against Western civilization, not funding terrorism, not firing thousands of rockets at civilians. This religious man bears false witness as he accuses Israel of apartheid, of illegally expanding her borders, and more. He denounces Israel for constructing towns and villages on biblical and historical Judea and Samaria, where Jews have lived for thousands of years. These territories are Israel’s land, created and purchased under absolutely legal circumstances, never to be deemed Palestinian in any future negotiations.


Upon the establishment of Israel’s statehood in 1948, five Arab nations attacked Israel with the expectation of obliterating the new state. Israel lost Judea and Samaria to Jordan for 19 years, and Jews were forbidden entry into the newly named 'West Bank' and east Jerusalem. When the Arabs attacked again in 1967, Israel regained her land, but Carter, loyal to his benefactors, speaks only for Arab control.

He never addresses the thousands of years of Jewish history or Israel’s recapture, Muslim terrorism, Muslim destruction of Jewish synagogues and neighborhoods, or Muslims’ killing Jews and Christians. He lies about the status of the 20% Arab-Israelis who hold full citizenship within the Jewish state, attend schools, work in professions and serve in parliament, and he forsakes the human rights of Muslims who suffer severely at the hands of their co-religionists.

Carter rails only against Jerusalem for Jews.


Carter knowingly deceives when he says, “All Arab nations have offered peace to Israel.” Resolution 242 grants Israel the right to inhabit Judea and Samaria until there is a permanent and fair peace – Arabs have never offered a lasting peace. Israel’s wars have always been defensive. Resolutions 242 and 338 have deliberately omitted Jerusalem until final status negotiations, and Israel holds full sovereignty over the undivided Jerusalem with the right to build therein.

And, despite Jimmy’s threat to file a complaint against Israel for building in “occupied territories,” legal scholars agree that a country may seize and occupy territory when acting in self-defense and securing safety for her citizens.


With continuing duplicity, Carter audaciously assures that Hamas’s terror chief, Khaled Meshaal, agreed to accept the right of Israel to live in peace alongside a viable and independent Palestinian state. He makes no mention of Meshaal’s promise of conquest of Jerusalem, Haifa, Tel Aviv, even as a November, 2012 Palestinian art exhibit showed a Palestine without Israel in the UN’s public entrance in New York.


Carter wrote that the new housing, in a section between Ma’aleh Adumim and Jerusalem, known as E-1, severs the West Bank – a false statement designed to sow hate and create conflict.

This man conceals his own and Hamas’s true intentions - that four to five million Palestinians expect to invade and conquer Israel, and exile the Jews from their historic capital.  Carter brings only harm and sorrow, using the USA Today vehicle to spread the damaging drivel without first vetting its authenticity. The American public expects a return to journalism ethics, corrections, and truth.   


http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/12663#.UOCw2pPjlR4

Did We Hurt Your Feelings, Israel Bashers? Too Bad

Did We Hurt Your Feelings, Israel Bashers? Too Bad

One sided blame, calls for boycotts, questioning Israel's right to exist - those are common Israel-basher pasttimes. Why are they complaining?

Dr. Harold Goldmeier

There is an old expression that says “Don’t spit on me, and tell me it’s raining.” That is exactly what some Jewish critics of Israeli policy toward the Palestinians and Arabs do when they cry about being called anti-Semitic for their activities and policy positions.

Professor Eva Illouz of the Hebrew University is the latest to take up the cudgel offended at the reaction she is getting from supporters of Israel. In a recent article in The Forward, she lumps herself in with Peter Beinart, Noam Chomsky, Judith Butler, Avi Shlaim, and Shlomo Sand, for doing “nothing more than (exercising) the right to think and evaluate critically the accomplishments and failures of the state of Israel.”

There is too little space here to document the depths of depraved criticism her fellow travellers heap on Israel, the one-sided blame they cast, and their calls for actions against Israel that can only lead to Israel’s defeat and disappearance. This is the group that the distinguished Professor proudly claims to be her like-minded colleagues.

I am not being facetious in calling her distinguished. Professor Illouz won the Best Book Award prize, and her works on emotions, culture, and communication are translated into 15 different languages. In fact, all of the people in her clique are recognized experts in their fields of study. They are international award-winning intellectuals, and, in other circumstances, Jews over which we "kvell". However, they put their talents and energies into exoteric diatribes against the Jewish State without a scintilla of sweat for her sworn enemies and their murderous agenda.

Chomsky, son of Hebrew teachers and a former kibbutznik, wages war for decades against Israel with vile and scurrilous claims. His recurring theme is that the creation of Israel was “wrong and disastrous.” He regularly compares Israel’s actions to those of the Nazis.

Butler preceded Beinart in the boycott, disinvestment, and sanctions campaign against Israel. She coined the colorful and sympathetic attributions of Hamas and Hizbullah as progressive and social movements. She is an executive member of a freedom theatre in Jenin. Its most famous playwright and director was Juliano Mer-Khanis, gunned down by Palestinian nationalists. He was driving with his one year old son in the car when Mafia-like gunmen carried out their death sentence for his crime of being an Israeli-Palestinian bringing culture and messages of peace through art to his people (see my comments, Life In Israel, April, 2011).

Butler can only visit an “Israeli institution or an Israeli cultural event,” she has said, “in order to use the occasion to…” bring attention to the brutality Israel wreaks on the Palestinians. All this despite Israel’s love and guarantees for freedom of speech where people are not murdered for their views or their sexual orientation.

The noxious exhalations of this liege of miserable intelligentsia are reflections, not of their dutiful commitment to the sustenance of Israel or the Jewish people, nor the exercising of their right and obligation to honestly criticize the democratic state when they believe it wrongheaded, misguided, or worse. Their opinions do not come from a place of true concern for the fate of the Jews.

Theirs is not guilt of anti-Semitism by association, but guilt by collaboration with those who solely wish for the utter destruction of Israel and the Jews.

The good Professor Illouz self-identifies with the anti-Semitic Chomsky, et al. These anti-Israel, anti-Zionist, euthanasic haters, give gravitas to the BDS movement, the Holocaust deniers, the no acceptance ever of Israel’s right to exist crazies; they swirl around those with a Jewish identity, accomplishments, and world renown acclaim, like bees on honey exuberating in the pother of one-sided anger and hate.

Supporters and legitimate critics of Israel’s policies and actions through the democratic process must never stop exposing these people for what they believe.

On the other hand, I want to adopt as an action plan the Daniel Gordis manifesto that claims
“ It doesn’t matter if they are in Israel or outside, or if they are Jewish or not. If they are working to end Israel, or to end it as a Jewish and democratic State, then they are our enemies, plain and simple. There are enemies who cannot be loved or compromised into submission, and you need to recognize that…. you need to show us that you care about Israel more than you care about dialogue with Israel's enemies.(emphasis added).” I would love to be able to just ignore you.

To paraphrase President Kennedy, I will apologize for calling your kind anti-Semitic if you will apologize for being so.

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/12664#.UOCwJ5PjlR4

Polls and flying pigs

Polls and flying pigs

Two new polls are being widely quoted in the media as showing that Israelis — even voters for  right-wing parties — want to make a two-state deal with the Palestinians. For example, Barak Ravid writes in Ha’aretz[subscription],

Two opinion surveys conducted by different Israeli pollsters in December show that most Likud-Beiteinu and the further-right Habayit Hayehudi voters would support a peace agreement establishing a demilitarized Palestinian state based on the 1967 borders, Israel’s retention of major settlement blocs and a division of Jerusalem. The two polls also revealed that two thirds of all Israelis support such an agreement…

The Abraham Center commissioned parallel polls from Mina Tzemach’s Dahaf and from pollster Rafi Smith on the Israeli public’s views about peace with the Palestinians. The firms were aware of each other’s polls. Each poll asked one question: If the government of Israel presented a public referendum on a peace agreement that would end the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, to be implemented only after the Palestinians held up all the obligations at their end, especially the war on terror, and the United States approved of the agreement, would you support it or not?

The principles of the agreement as presented to respondents were for two states – Israel for the Jewish people and Palestine for the Palestinians, with Palestinian refugees having the right to return only to their new country. The Palestinian state would be demilitarized and its boundaries would be based on the 1967 lines with exchanges of equal-sized territory. Those exchanges would take into consideration Israel’s security needs and would retain the large settlement blocs in Israeli hands…

When it came to the general public, Mina Tzemach’s poll revealed that 67 percent supported such an agreement and 21 percent opposed it, while Rafi Smith’s poll showed 68 percent in favor and 25 percent against. The surveys found that the general public’s support for the agreement rose to 75 percent (Dahaf ) and 80 percent (Rafi Smith ) when augmented by various other “improvements” such as a defense alliance with the United Sates, disarmament of Hamas and an end to its rule in Gaza, and Arab states’ willingness to enact full diplomatic relations with Israel.

Does this mean, as the Left suggests, that it is the intransigence of the Netanyahu government that is holding Israel back from making peace? Does it mean that with a little more pressure from the US, such an agreement is possible?

Of course not. What it means is that Israelis really, really want peace and most would give up territory in return, if peace were attainable by doing so.

The poll question presumes that the PLO state would be demilitarized and the Palestinians would “hold up all their obligations [first].” How demilitarization could be enforced and how the Palestinians could be prevented from violating the agreement — as they have violated almost every agreement they made with Israel since 1993 — are not specified. As for the idea that Hamas would disarm and give up control of Gaza, it’s far more likely that Hamas will end up in control of Judea and Samaria too.

In addition to the practical issues above, the question assumes that thePalestinians would sincerely agree to Israel retaining the settlement blocs, to demilitarization, to abandoning their demand for ‘right of return’, to recognizing Israel as the state of the Jewish people, etc., when they have consistently rejected these ideas when presented as concrete peace proposals. Polls among Palestinians consistently show that they support violent ‘resistance’ until Israel has been replaced by an Arab state.

An acquaintance called this an “if pigs could fly poll.” There is as little chance of the conditions being fulfilled as there being a porcine airlift, so it has no real-world application, except insofar as it shows that even right-wing Israelis dream of peace. But we knew that.

Yet another recent poll, also conducted by Dr. Mina Tzemach, showed that 83% of Israelis believe that withdrawal to pre-1967 boundaries wouldn’t bring peace. That is why they vote for the Likud and rightward.

So why the flying pigs? The Ha’aretz article linked above helps us understand:

The polls were commissioned by the S. Daniel Abraham Center for Middle East Peace in Washington D.C. Abraham, who made his fortune with Slim-Fast diet products, is considered a major contributor and close to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. He is also known to be close to President Shimon Peres and to former Prime Minister Ehud Olmert. However, Abraham has met with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on almost every visit to Israel over the past four years.

The Abraham Center is headed by former Congressman Robert Wexler, who is close to President Barack Obama and was very active in the latter’s recent presidential campaign. According to one assessment, Wexler may be appointed to a senior position in the Obama administration in the coming months.

It tells us that the Obama Administration has not given up on its plan to create a Palestinian state in Judea, Samaria and Gaza, and to divide Jerusalem. Just wait: the poll will be presented as ‘proof’ that the majority of Israelis want it to!

http://fresnozionism.org/2012/12/polls-and-flying-pigs/

Violating Vatican Vows: David Singer On The Pontiff, the Patriarch, & Palestine

Violating Vatican Vows: David Singer On The Pontiff, the Patriarch, & Palestine

Sydney lawyer and international affairs analyst David Singer's latest post is entitled "Palestine: Violating Vatican Vows".

He writes:

'Diplomatic relations between Israel and the Vatican are set to considerably cool following the Pope granting a private audience to Mahmoud Abbas on 17 December.

Their meeting came at a time of growing political crisis engendered by the passage of the UN General Assembly resolution on 29 November that reaffirmed

"the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination and to independence in their State of Palestine on the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967"

The Pope seemingly overlooked any discussion of the implications of this integral part of the resolution that also recognised the State of Palestine as a non-member observer state in the General Assembly –  a view confirmed by the following communique issued by the Vatican:

"The cordial discussions made reference to the recent Resolution approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations by which Palestine was recognised as a Non-member Observer State of the aforementioned Organisation. It is hoped that this initiative will encourage the commitment of the international community to finding a fair and lasting solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which may be reached only by resuming the negotiations between the Parties, in good faith and according due respect to the rights of both."

The Pope was apparently unaware that the only matter left  to be negotiated between the parties as a result of "this initiative " was the timing of the eviction of 600,000 Jews currently living in this " State of Palestine" as defined by the General Assembly.

Abbas had made this racist view very clear on 28 July 2010 when Wafa – the official Palestinian news agency –  reported the following remark by Abbas in Cairo:

"I'm willing to agree to a third party that would supervise the agreement, such as NATO forces, but I would not agree to having Jews among the NATO forces, or that there will live among us even a single Israeli on Palestinian land."

Could the Pope have failed to understand that the Resolution also left no room for negotiating the boundaries of this  "State of Palestine" –  that the General Assembly had preemptively  determined that it should comprise 100per cent of the territory won from Jordan by Israel in the 1967 Six Day War?

Would cordial discussions have occurred had the Pope taken the opportunity to urge Abbas to recognise Israel as the Jewish National Home and offer Palestinian citizenship to those Jews who did not want to leave their current homes?

Resumption of negotiations by "the Parties in good faith and according due respect to the rights of both" in such circumstances is a pure pipe dream.

The Abbas audience was a papal faux pas for several reasons.

First – the Pope should not have blessed the audience with overt political significance by accepting from Abbas the gift of a mosaic of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem bearing the inscription that it was presented to him by "the President of the State of Palestine" - a farcical nomenclature that had only been sanctioned that very day by the Chief of Protocol at the UN - Yeocheol Yoon.

Secondly –  the Pope was clearly violating clause 11(2)  of the 1993 Fundamental Agreement Between The Holy See And The State Of Israel which provides:

"The Holy See, while maintaining in every case the right to exercise its moral and spiritual teaching-office, deems it opportune to recall that owing to its own character, it is solemnly committed to remaining a stranger to all merely temporal conflicts, which principle applies specifically to disputed territories and unsettled borders."

Remaining a stranger to this temporal conflict would have allowed the Pope to escape any criticism as a result of this inappropriate audience.

Thirdly – Article 2.2 of the Fundamental Agreement further avers:

"The Holy See takes this occasion to reiterate its condemnation of hatred, persecution and all other manifestations of antisemitism directed against the Jewish people and individual Jews anywhere, at any time and by anyone"

Failing to condemn the "President of the State of Palestine" during the audience for his known manifestations of antisemitism makes a mockery of the Fundamental Agreement.

Fourthly – The Pope's political foray no doubt inspired his own appointed nominee as the top Roman Catholic cleric in the Holy Land, the Latin Patriarch Fouad Twal, also to make a political statement in his annual pre-Christmas homily.

Archbishop Twal told his followers at his headquarters in Jerusalem's Old City that this year's festivities were doubly joyful, celebrating:

"the birth of Christ our Lord and the birth of the state of Palestine. The path (to statehood) remains long, and will require a united effort,"

Archbishop Twal –  who was born in Jordan – had told Vatican Radio on 21 June 2008:

"The majority of our priests, nuns, schools families are in Jordan. We need a link to Jordan…"

That link will certainly not come from the State of Palestine designated by the UN General Assembly – since its realisation is simply not going to eventuate.

Archbishop Twal also told in an interview on 22 June 2008:

"If you want to touch Jews, Muslims, Christians, Jordanians, Palestinians, Cypriots, Europeans all together ... then you have to consider every comma"

The Archbishop would have done well to have remembered this sage advice before uttering his Christmas Eve message - understanding that what he said would not touch at least 600,000 Jews – but cause them immeasurable hurt.

Indeed those who are playing charades with the newly crowned President of the State of Palestine are engaging in a world of make believe – where the words and commas in the Mandate for Palestine, the Montevideo Convention, Article 80 of the United Nations Charter, Security Council Resolution 242, the Oslo Accords and the Bush Roadmap – are apparently no longer worth the paper they are written on.

One can now add the Fundamental Agreement between the Holy See and the State of Israel to these discarded international agreements.

This does not bode well for any possible peaceful resolution of the long running conflict between Jews and Arabs.

The last Pope to bear Pope Benedict’s name –  Benedict XV – enthusiastically endorsed the Jews’ right to reconstitute their national home in what was then Palestine when he told Zionist leader Nahum Sokolov at an audience in 1917 :

"Nineteen hundred years ago Rome destroyed your homeland and when you seek to rebuild it, you seek a path which leads via Rome… Yes this is the will of Divine Providence, this is what the Almighty desires."

Violating Vatican vows this time round is certainly not going to entice Israel to beat a path to Rome as it continues to reconstitute the Jewish National Home in its ancient, biblical and internationally sanctioned homeland.'

http://daphneanson.blogspot.com/2012/12/violating-vatican-vows-david-singer-on.html