Diplomatic Assault More Dangerous than Hamas

By Michael Oren, former Israeli Ambassador to the USA

In his address to the United Nations General Assembly, Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas proved that he is not a partner for peace.  And a Palestinian leader who accuses the State of Israel, which arose from the ashes of the Holocaust, of committing genocide in Gaza, apartheid and ethnic cleansing, has no intention of becoming a partner for peace either.

In his previous General Assembly speeches, Abbas denied the Jewish people's historical connection to the Land of Israel and Jerusalem. But this time he conveyed an unprecedented message: He does not want negotiations - not even American-brokered talks - and is not interested in durable pace based on security arrangements and mutual recognition...

Abbas' plan basically sets an impossible ultimatum for Israel : He has asked the UN Security Council to impose a nine-month period of negotiations, during which the core issues will be discussed based on the 1967 borders, without security arrangements and with a solution to the refugee problem.  If Israel refuses to accept these conditions - and there is not a single Israeli government, even a left-wing one, which will be prepared to accept them - Abbas will turn to the International Criminal Court in order to impose sanctions on Israel as an occupying force of a UN member state...

We must not forget that we are not operating in a void. The United States and President Barack Obama are currently dealing with significant threats in our region, led by ISIS . When Obama said in his UN address that the establishment of a Palestinian state was part of the war on ISIS, he was basically demonstrating how the regional challenges are only increasing the pressure on Israel...

We must not wait for the point in which we have lost control over our future. Our approach is to initiate for our future.

Mahmoud Abbas’s Dangerous Grandstanding

Washington Post Editorial Board, September 29  

For full article go to   http://tinyurl.com/m5azgul  

  

THE GOOD news from the Middle East is that the truce between Israel and Hamas in the Gaza Strip has held for a month, and Hamas appears ready to make concessions to avoid a resumption of fighting. Last week the Islamist movement renewed its agreement with the secular Fatah party to turn over Gaza’s government and security control of its borders to the West Bank-based Palestinian Authority. Though it’s not clear that the accord will last, Hamas is emerging as the loser of the summer war. According to Israel, as much as 80 percent of Hamas’s military arsenal has been destroyed, and its poll ratings among Palestinians are sinking as it fails to deliver the gains it promised from the conflict.

Hamas’s diminution might seem to create new possibilities for agreement between Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Mr. Abbas, after all, denounced Hamas’s embrace of carnage and refused to support a simultaneous uprising in the West Bank. Yet Mr. Abbas delivered a bridge-burning speech to the U.N. General Assembly last week, mendaciously accusing Israel of “a new war of genocide” and declaring that a return to negotiations was “impossible.”

For several years Mr. Abbas has oscillated between half-hearted participation in peace talks and attempts to advance the Palestinian cause through unilateral action at the United Nations. The latter initiatives have no chance of substantive success and risk being self-defeating, as the Palestinians should have learned from Mr. Abbas’s last such gambit in 2012. Then their lobbyists were unable to win enough support for a U.N. Security Council resolution even to force a U.S. veto, and a compensatory symbolic measure in the General Assembly provoked Israel to impose painful financial sanctions.

Mr. Abbas nevertheless is trying the Security Council again, after refusing to respond to a U.S. framework for peace talks painstakingly developed by Secretary of State John F. Kerry. He proposes a resolution that would mandate the creation of a Palestinian state based on Israel’s 1967 borders in a set period of time; when it is voted down or vetoed by the United States, the Palestinians hint that they will seek a war crimes investigation of Israel by the International Criminal Court. That, in turn, would almost certainly prompt retaliatory sanctions by Mr. Netanyahu’s government and possibly by Congress, which supplies the Palestinian Authority with much of its funding.

Mr. Abbas has repeatedly rejected violence, and he has convinced a series of U.S. and Israeli negotiators that he has a realistic view of the terms for a Palestinian state. Yet he has now rejected platforms for a settlement on two occasions from two U.S. presidents. He persists in grandstanding gestures that he must know will only delay the serious negotiations that must precede the creation of a Palestinian state and that undermine those in Israel who support such talks. He has spoken for years of retiring but, at 79, he clings to his post four years after his elected term expired. Hamas has done the most harm to Palestinians and their cause in recent years. But Mr. Abbas has done little good.

Palestinians: BDS Activists Are Troublemakers, Criminals

The Palestinian Authority's move against the BDS activists shows that it considers the movement a threat to Palestinian interests.

A Palestinian Authority official in Ramallah explained that BDS and its followers make the Palestinians appear as if they are all radicals who are only interested in boycotting and delegitimizing Israel.

"No, we do not support the boycott of Israel." — Mahmoud Abbas, President, Palestinian Authority.

At university campuses in the US, Canada, Australia and Europe, they are hailed as heroes campaigning for Palestinian rights. But in Ramallah, ironically, activists belonging to the anti-Israel Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions [BDS] movement are seen by the Palestinian Authority [PA] as trouble-makers and law-breakers.

See full report at http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/4334/palestinians-bds-trial 

Kerry Misleads the Palestinians

FACT:-   Israel never agreed to releasing pre-Oslo Israeli Arab terrorists as part of the 4th round of releases and Secretary of State John Kerry misled the Palestinians and told them that Israel had agreed to release them.

This is not something told reporters by tertiary sources. It isn't even something told on background not for attribution.

It is something that senior Israeli ministers have said for attribution. Further, they have said this in interviews broadcast on Israel Radio over the past week.

Again:  the 4th release as far as the Palestinians are concerned includes the Israeli Arabs.  And this wasn't going to happen in a vacuum.

PM Netanyahu made this clear from the start.

This is a mess caused by Secretary of State Kerry's decision to apparently make the assumption that he could easily force PM Netanyahu to release the Israeli Arabs.

But PM Netanyahu was absolutely honest in explaining that it would take very special and unique circumstances to make it possible for the Cabinet to approve the release of the Israeli Arab terrorists.

Abbas to Kerry: Please Beg Me More!

Khaled Abu Toameh  April 4, 2014 

http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/4248/abbas-kerry-beg

Abbas is convinced that it is only a matter of time before U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry rushes back to the region in yet anther desperate effort to "salvage the peace process."
In recent weeks, according to Palestinian officials, Kerry has literally been "begging" Abbas to agree to an extension of the peace talks after the end of April.

Abbas and the Palestinian Authority leadership have concluded that the Obama Administration is prepared to do almost anything to show some kind of "victory" in the peace process between Palestinians and Israelis. Palestinian demands therefore have continued to increase almost every day.

Palestinian Authority [PA] leader Mahmoud Abbas is now waiting to see what the U.S. Administration will offer him in return for refraining from pursuing his bid to join various international treaties and institutions.

In recent weeks, according to Palestinian officials, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry has literally been "begging" Abbas to agree to the extension of the peace talks after the end of April.

Hours after Abbas signed the applications for joining a number of international bodies and treaties, he received an urgent phone call from Kerry asking him to refrain from further moves that could "derail" the peace process.

Abbas is convinced that it is only a matter of time before Kerry rushes back to the region in yet another desperate effort to "salvage the peace process."

On Wednesday night, Abbas and the PA leadership received the first sign that the U.S. Administration was nervous and confused following the PA's surprise decision to join 15 international organizations and treaties.

Kerry's envoy, Martin Indyk, invited Chief PLO negotiator Saeb Erekat and Israeli Justice Minister Tsipi Livni to an emergency meeting in Jerusalem to find ways of preventing the "collapse" of the peace talks in the wake of Abbas's decision to apply for the memberships.
The meeting lasted for several hours and, according to Palestinian sources in Ramallah, Indyk and Livni "reprimanded" Erekat for surprising Israel and the U.S. Administration with the new decision.

So far, however, Abbas does not seem to be satisfied with what his emissary, Erekat, heard from Indyk and Livni. Abbas is therefore expected to step up pressure on the two parties in the coming days and weeks, if he can, in the hope of extracting as many concessions as possible.Abbas dispatched Erekat to the meeting to see what the Americans and Israelis are prepared to offer him in return for suspending this bid.

Abbas and the Palestinian Authority leadership have concluded that the Obama Administration is prepared to do almost anything to show some kind of a "victory" in the peace process between Palestinians and Israelis. Palestinian demands have therefore continued to increase almost every day.

Realizing how desperate Kerry is to achieve an extension of the talks, Abbas decided that this was the right time to set new conditions, such as the release of jailed Fatah militia leader Marwan Barghouti and Ahmed Sa'adat, Secretary-General of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine. Barghouti is in prison for his role in terrorist attacks against Israelis during the second intifada. Sa'adat is serving a lengthy prison term for his role in the assassination of Israel's Tourism Minister Rehavam Ze'evi.

As Kerry increased his pressure on the Palestinians to agree to an extension, Abbas added two more conditions: the release of hundreds of Palestinian prisoners and a complete cessation of construction in settlements and east Jerusalem neighborhoods.

Abbas has also made it clear that his decision to join international organizations and treaties does not mean that he is interested in a "clash" with the U.S. Administration.

Abbas is right. Of course he does not want a "clash" with President Barack Obama and Kerry. Rather, Abbas wants the two men to continue begging him not to walk out of the peace process and turn their entire Middle East policy into another blunder. He wants them to exert pressure on the Israeli government to accept both his old and new demands.


Abbas apparently thinks he is moving in the right direction, and that Obama and Kerry have no choice but to accept his demands and intensify U.S. pressure on Israel. Abbas does not want totally to walk out of the peace talks at this stage. He feels that he can still extract further concessions from the Israelis and Americans, and that his decision to join 15 international organizations and treaties has left the U.S. Administration in a state of panic that the peace talks might fail. Now he is waiting to see what price Obama and Kerry are willing to pay to avoid that scenario.

"Bye-Bye London"

I live here in Israel and yet receive reports daily from all walks of life in the UK about the changing attitudes towards Israel and Jews in that country.

Having discussed this issue with the UK Ambassador and his staff at various meetings, the usual canards are spouted that ”we are exaggerating”, the incidents are carried out by fringe elements” and “basically everything is OK in the UK”. In fact the Ambassador fails to understand why more Israelis are not prepared to study in UK universities since “there really are no problems”!!

Just who is he trying to kid??

The blog below is yet another instance of how the herd mentality is inexorably gaining momentum not just amongst the rabble rousers but also amongst the “chattering classes” and the “upper crust” of UK society.

 

 

Bye-bye London

Caroline Glick January 21, 2013, 11:27 AM

In an interview with Haaretz in November 2010, British novelist Martin Amis said the following about discussions of Israel in his motherland:

I live in a mildly anti-Semitic country, and Europe is mildly anti-Semitic, and they hold Israel to a higher moral standard than its neighbors. If you bring up Israel in a public meeting in England, the whole atmosphere changes. The standard left-wing person never feels more comfortable than when attacking Israel. Because they are the only foreigners you can attack. Everyone else is protected by having dark skin, or colonial history, or something. But you can attack Israel. And the atmosphere becomes very unpleasant. It is traditional, snobbish, British anti-Semitism combined with present-day circumstances.

After participating last week in a debate in London about Israeli communities beyond the 1949 armistice lines organized by the self-consciously pretentious Intelligence Squared debating society, I can now say from personal experience that Amis is correct. The public atmosphere in England regarding Israel is ugly and violent. 

The resolution we debated read: "Israel is destroying itself with its settlement policy. If settlement expansion continues Israel will have no future."

My debating partner was Danny Dayan, the outgoing head of the Yesha Council. 

We debated Daniel Levy, one of the founders of J-Street and the drafter of the Geneva Initiative, and the son of Lord Michael Levy, one of Tony Blair's biggest fundraisers; and William Sieghart, a British philanthropist who runs a non-profit that among other things, champions Hamas. Levy has publicly stated that Israel's creation was immoral. And Sieghart has a past record of saying that Israel's delegitimization would be a salutary proces and calling for a complete cultural boycott of Israel while laudingHamas. 

We lost overwhelmingly. I think the final vote tally was something like 500 for the resolution and 100 against it.

A couple of impressions I took away from the experience: First, I can say without hesitation that I hope never to return to Britain. I actually don't see any point. Jews are targeted by massive anti-Semitism of both the social and physical varieties. Why would anyone Jewish want to live there?

As to visiting as an Israeli, again, I just don't see the point. The discourse is owned by anti-Israel voices. They don't make arguments to spur thought, but to end it, by appealing to people's passions. 

For instance, in one particularly ugly segment, Levy made the scurrilous accusation that Israel systematically steals land from the Palestinians. Both Dayan and I demanded that he provide just one example of his charge. And the audience raged against us for our temerity at insisting that he provide substantiation for his baseless allegation. In the event, he failed to substantiate his allegation.

   

At another point, I was asked how I defend the Nazi state of Israel. When I responded by among other things giving the Nazi pedigree of the Palestinian nationalist movement founded by Nazi agent Haj Amin el Husseini and currently led by Holocaust denier Mahmoud Abbas, the crowd angrily shouted me down. 

I want to note that the audience was made up of upper crust, wealthy British people, not unwashed rabble rousers. And yet they behaved in many respects like a mob when presented with pro-Israel positions. 

I honestly don't know whether there are policy implications that arise from my experience in London last week. I have for a long time been of the opinion that Israel shouldn't bother to try to win over Europe because the Europeans have multiple reasons for always being anti-Israel and none of them have anything to do with anything that Israel does. As I discuss in my book, these reasons include anti-Semitism, anti-Americanism, addiction to Arab oil, and growing Muslim populations in Europe. 

I was prepared to conduct a civilized debate based on facts and reasoned argumentation. I expected it to be a difficult experience. I was not expecting to be greeted by a well-dressed mob. My pessimism about Europeans' capacity to avail themselves to reasoned, fact-based argumentation about Israel has only deepened from the experience. 

One positive note, I had a breakfast discussion last Wednesday morning with activists from the Zionist Federation of Britain. The people I met are committed, warm, hardworking Zionists. I wish them all the best, and mainly that means, that I hope that these wonderful people and their families make aliyah. 

While their work is worthwhile, there is no future for Jews in England.

"In our hearts we are all Hamas."

Anat Berko. Gatestone Institute. 20 December '12.

Link: http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/3507/fatah-hamas

As one veteran Fatah member said, "In our hearts we are all Hamas."


Contrary to what many people think, there is no profound division between Fatah and Hamas. Palestinians often shuttle from one to the other; members of the same family belong to different groups. Jibril Rajoub, for example, is often interviewed by the Israeli media as representing Fatah (Palestinian Authority), while his brother, Naif, was a minister in the de-facto Hamas administration.

Before 2007, when Hamas took over the Gaza Strip and suppressed the Fatah presence there, there was a considerable amount of back-and-forth between the organizations. On one occasion a Fatah operative in jail smiled and said he found it hard to say which organization he belonged to. "There are days," he said, "when I go to sleep Fatah and wake up Hamas..."

Last week, masses of people marched through the streets of the West Bank holding green signs with Hamas slogans, all with Fatah's blessing, and chanting, "death to the Jews," and "death to Israel." As one veteran Fatah member said, "In our hearts we are all Hamas."

Mahmoud Abbas's so-called "pragmatism" is music to Western ears, but not to the Arabs'.

Thus, when he came back from the UN with the title of "president of Palestine" in his pocket, he allowed Hamas and others to hold parades and rallies, released Hamas prisoners, and has given instructions that those planning terrorist attacks against Israel are to be left to do as they please.

Today the Palestinian Authority can barely stay afloat, and every mass march organized to palliate Hamas can slide into factional Palestinian violence and anti-Israeli terrorism.

Hamas, with the help recently and willingly given it by Mahmoud Abbas, will take over, just as it took over the Gaza Strip. Israel can never accept a radical Islamist emirate in the West Bank of the sort Hamas has created in the Gaza Strip, any more than Paris, London or Washington could accept al-Qaeda or the Taliban in Monaco, Wales or Virginia.

This time, no one can promise that Israeli soldiers will continue to act as bodyguards for Palestinian leaders when their lives are threatened. That movie, which we have all seen, is no longer playing.

Israel's response to the November 29, 2012 UN Vote

By:- Ambassador (ret.) Yoram Ettinger, "Second Thought”

The November 29, 2012 UN vote to upgrade the Palestinian Authority (PA) to a "non-member observer state” – in violation of the 1993 Oslo Accords - was an expected derivative of Israel's policy towards the PA since 1993 – critical concessions, retreats, indecisiveness, submission to pressure and appeasement.

What has Israel done since 1993?

Unprecedented Israeli concessions – such as
a) the legitimization, importation and the arming of 60,000 Palestinian terrorists from Sudan, Iraq, Yemen, Libya, Syria, Lebanon, Jordan and Tunisia  b) the evacuation of Gaza and 40% of Judea and Samaria – resulted in unprecedented Palestinian hate-education and incitement, terrorism and non-compliance.

The flabbier the Israeli policy and the frailer the Israeli response to Palestinian terrorism, the more flagrant is the Palestinian abrogation of agreements.
For instance:-
a) 270 Israelis were murdered by Palestinian terrorists between 1978 and the 1993 signing of the Oslo Accords, compared with some 2,000 murdered since Oslo, mostly by PLO terrorists.
b) In 2000, Prime Minister Barak offered to uproot all Jewish settlements; Mahmoud Abbas and Arafat responded with unparalleled wave of suicide-bombings in the pre-1967 area of Israel.
c) Prime Minister Sharon's 2005 uprooting of 25 Jewish settlements in Judea and Samaria and Gaza induced an unprecedented barrage of missiles on pre-1967 Israel.
d) Israel's inaction in the face of the 2009-2012 amassing of long-range missiles in Gaza triggered a daily barrage of missiles at pre-1967 Israel.

The post-Oslo conduct by Mahmoud Abbas and Arafat – role models of intra-Arab subversion and international terrorism, Holocaust deniers and allies of the Communist Bloc, Khomeini, Saddam Hussein Bin Laden, North Korea and Hugo Chavez - has reaffirmed that the PLO does not change its spots, only its tactics. Mahmoud Abbas is not troubled by the size – but by the existence – of the Jewish State in the Middle East.

The systematic Palestinian effort to leverage terrorism and diplomacy, in order to eliminate the Jewish State, behooves Israel to resurrect the steadfastness and defiance which characterized most Israeli Prime Ministers from Ben Gurion (1948) through Shamir (1992).

What should Israel do?

a) Israel should extend Jerusalem's municipal lines, which is a prerequisite for the transformation of Jerusalem's steady decline into long term growth, through a dramatic upgrade of Jerusalem's infrastructures of transportation, industry and housing.

b) Greater Jerusalem should stretch from Gush Etzion and Nokdim (south) to the Dead Sea (east), Mt. Ba'al Hazor (northeast) and Kiryat Sefer (northwest),

c) Israel should embrace the former Supreme Court Justice Edmond Levy Report. The July 2012 report reconfirmed that according to international law, Judea and Samaria are not "occupied territory,” since no foreign entity was sovereign in the area in 1967. The 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention is not applicable since it prohibits the coerced transfer of people to settlements, while Israeli settlers have settled of their own volition. Israeli settlements in Judea and Samaria are legal. The Jewish State's historical and legal rights in Judea and Samaria are based on the 1922 British Mandate. These rights were preserved by Article 80 of the U.N. Charter, which provides continuity of Jewish rights in the Jewish Homeland. And, the report calls on Israel to allow construction in the settlements, enabling Israelis to directly purchase land in Judea and Samaria.

d) The Israeli law should be applied – and transportation infrastructure should be upgraded in area C, which is controlled exclusively by Israel according to the Oslo Accords.

e) All VIP benefits, by Israel, to all Palestinian officials should be annulled, pending the elimination of hate-education and incitement from the PA education, divinity and media sectors.

Such steps would trigger international resentment and possibly sanctions. However, pre-1993 Israeli defiance, under harsher circumstances, was initially condemned, but then rewarded with an enhanced posture of deterrence and respect. It demonstrated that Israel would not sacrifice dire national interests on the altar of convenience and wishful-thinking. For example, Prime Minister Ben Gurion defied the 1948/1949 US pressure/embargo to refrain from a declaration of independence, to "end occupation of the Negev” and to avoid the incorporation of – and construction in – Jerusalem and declaring it the capital of Israel. Prime Minister Eshkol dared the 1967 US pressure against preempting Egypt and the reunification of – and construction in – Jerusalem. Prime Minister Golda Meir withstood the 1970 US pressure to repartition Jerusalem, authorizing the construction of four more neighborhoods, the home of some 150,000 Israelis. Prime Minister Begin defied the 1981 US threats and punishments, applying Israel's laws to the Golan Heights. Prime Minister Shamir rebuffed US pressure to freeze settlements, but US-Israel strategic cooperation expanded unprecedentedly.

Will contemporary Israeli leaders follow in the footsteps of Ben Gurion – Shamir? Or, will they sustain the self-destructive Oslo state of mind, ignoring the Palestinian reality and that in the Middle East either you eat from – or become part of – the menu?

He Wants the Whole Thing

Naturally there has been a lot of talk and analysis of the speeches by Abbas and Netanyahu at the United Nations last week. The following letter from a friend of mine sums up the reactions of so many.

What is it about “Let's sit down and talk” that Mahmud Abbas doesn't understand?

He gives a tear-jerker speech to the UN laden with all of the politically correct jargon:

Democracy (never mind the fact that he hasn't allowed elections for the last two years because he's afraid he'll be booted out of office).

The colonial occupiers (never mind the fact that Jews have a historical claim to the Land of Israel that goes back 2,500 years).

The plight of refugees (never mind the fact that more than 850,000 Jews who had lived in Arab countries for centuries were evicted from their homes when Israel was established).

In the wake of this speech, the Quartet then proposes that the Israelis and Palestinians meet within a month with an agenda for talks.

The prime minister of Israel says Yes. What does Abbas say? What the Palestinians have always said. "No".

That No is just another is a series of Nos that began in Khartoum in September 1967 when, at an Arab League summit, a resolution was issued calling for "no peace with Israel, no recognition of Israel, no negotiations with it."

In 2000, Israel and the Palestinians signed the Oslo Agreements that would have established a Palestinian state. When the terms were about to be implemented, what did the Palestinians say? No.

In 2008, Israel unilaterally withdrew from Gaza with the goal of moving toward the establishment of a Palestinian state. What did the Palestinians say? No.

This is beginning to sound like a scenario in a marriage counselor's office. One spouse drags the other to therapy. When prompted to talk about the problems between them, the second spouse folds his or her hands and says, No.

Why? Because deep down, the second spouse doesn't want the marriage to work. He or she wants the spouse to just get out of the house and leave it, all of its furnishings, and the bank account to him or her.

Deep down, what Abbas wants is not independent ownership of part of the house.

He wants the whole thing.

Well Wouldn't You Know?

(Thanks to Rhonda Spivak)

Although few would say so publicly, every one of the handful of East Jerusalem Arabs I spoke with in the last two weeks said that he would rather live under Israeli sovereignty than under Mahmoud Abbas’s Palestinian Authority.

In the Arab market in the Old City of Jerusalem, I met Asem, who sells soccer jerseys and sports wear. In his shop, there is a soccer jersey with the name PALESTINE in big letters on a blue background. Asem tells me there is no national soccer team for PALESTINE, but "but we have the shirt.”

But, although he sells a soccer jersey saying PALESTINE, Asem is in no rush to have East Jerusalem become the capital of a Palestinian state under PA President Abbas. When I ask him if he would prefer to live under Abbas in a state of Palestine, rather than under Israeli sovereignty, he gives me the opposite answer of what I expected.

“No, I would rather live under Israelis than under Abbas. Abbas is a thief like Arafat was. But I would rather have Abbas than King Abdullah.”

When I ask him why he prefers to stay under Israeli rule than PA rule, he answers, “At least here I can say what I want. In Syria, if you say what you want, you can go missing forever. In Jordan too. And under Abbas, too. It is chaos there [under PA rule]. Abbas can stay in Ramallah, and stay out of Jerusalem.”

Asem’s Palestinian friend in the shop nodded in agreement. Asem did say that it’s not that he liked Israel per se, but that if given the choice, he prefers it to being ruled by the PA. He continued, “There are some nice homes in Ramallah. You know who lives in them. Abbas and his people. Not all of the other Palestinians. They are kept poor.”

Akram, a taxi driver living in Wadi Joz in East Jerusalem echoed Asam’s sentiments in wanting to remain under Israeli instead of Palestinian rule.
“Abbas, he should stay in Ramallah and not come to Jerusalem. We don’t need him here. We are different than Palestinians in Ramallah and elsewhere. They [the PA] are all “mamzerim’[bastards] and corrupt. I want to be Israeli. I have my Israeli identity card and I want to get my bituach leumi [national insurance benefit]. Who knows what it would be like to live under PA rule? But I don’t want to try it.”

Wadi Joz is a neighborhood where religious Jews have been trying to buy homes.
“There are Arabs who will sell for a lot of money but they do it quietly so no one will know. They make the deal but they make the possession date a long time away,” says Akram, who is pleased to tell me that his brother is entering the Israeli police force.

Moussa, a taxi driver waiting outside the Western wall tells me his name is “Moshey,” which is the Hebrew name for Moussa. Moussa is also definitive that he doesn’t want East Jerusalem to be a capital of a Palestinian state under Mahmoud Abbas. “It’s a balagan there in the West Bank [under Abbas]. I would keep my Israeli identity card...Baruch Hashem, I should live under the Israelis... It wouldn’t be better under Abbas.”

When Moussa says the words “ Baruch Hashem”, I can’t quite believe my ears. Did I hear you correctly saying Baruch Hashem, just like religious Jews do? Moussa smiles. “Yes, I speak like everyone else around here. I guess I picked up the expression.”

Firas, an Arab, who lives in Jerusalem’s Abu Tor neighborhood also says he isn’t in any rush to be under the PA, and is fine with the fact that there are “both Jews and Arabs who live in Abu Tor.”

“Who knows what kind of State there will be under Abbas. All my life I’ve lived under Israeli rule, so I don’t know anything else. But I don’t think my life would be better under the PA,” he says.

The Freeze - Peace or Appeasement?

The government announced freeze on building construction in Judea and Samaria is resulting in a lot of debate on whether this is simply an attempt at appeasement of the Obama administration or a real attempt to get the Palestinians arond the negotiating table.

Yoram Ettinger writing in a local paper ssems to express the fears of so many of the average citizen, he writes:-

1. A freeze will not soften – but will intensify - President Obama's criticism of "settlements" in particular and Israeli policy in general. For instance, Prime Minister Netanyahu's June 14, 2009 Two-State-Solution-speech triggered exacerbated pressure by Obama. Moreover, Netanyahu's willingness to exchange hundreds of Palestinian terrorists for Gilad Shalit was followed by US pressure to release more terrorists.

2. A freeze will not moderate – but will whet the appetite of - the PLO (Abbas) or Hamas (Haniyeh); it will radicalize their demands and fuel their terrorism. Former Prime Minister Barak's sweeping concessions, offered to Arafat and Abbas in October 2000, were greeted by the PLO-engineered Second Intifada. Furthermore, Prime Minister Olmert's unprecedented offer of concessions (including the return of some 1948 refugees) was rebuffed by Abbas.

3. A freeze re-entrenches the misperception of Jewish presence in Judea and Samaria as an obstacle to peace. It diverts attention and resources from the crucial threat to peace: Abbas-engineered hate education - the manufacturing line of terrorists - and Arab rejection of the existence – and not just the size – of the Jewish state.

The full article can be read at http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3812533,00.html

"Peace in our time" -who is kidding who?

There is a major humanitarian problem in Israel. Sderot has borne over 50% of all missiles launched over the last few years and 20% of the town’s 20,000 population has left

Now with the escalation in the use of Grad missiles smuggled into Gaza via Egypt when the border was breached, Ashkelon and its environs are now under attack – this represents around 250,000 citizens of the State of Israel. 7 citizens of Sderot have killed, 4 of those under 18 years old













The main consequence of this daily attack is TRAUMA - a large percentage of Israeli families are now traumatized, a state that is likely to continue for many years even if the attacks stopped today.

The effects are.
- Loss of business / unemployment
- Inability to work
- Children’s education is suffering
- Mental health problems well above the average
- People having to be constantly aware of their surroundings in order to take cover in 15 secs

Kassams and Grads are rockets, not missiles, and thus cannot be targeted specifically. That makes it a weapon of terror.

Captured Israeli soldiers are prisoners of war. Unlike prisoners in Israeli jails, he receives no human rights under Geneva Conventions. No Red Cross visits.

The media is constantly being used, abused and manipulated, eg the spoofs or Pallywood productions. Hamas leaders holding a government meeting by candlelight, as daylight cuts across the photo from a slit in the curtain!

And is there a humanitarian crisis in Gaza? Life is not easy for the average Palestinian in the Gaza Strip but in the 8.5 months since Hamas took control of the Gaza strip 17,246 trucks carrying 397,439 tons of food and essential goods have passed through the various crossings in spite of Hamas’ attempts to sabotage the crossings. And goods are crossing daily

We are all wanting PEACE Isn’t it time for the Palestinians to prove they want peace and not just complain about the Israelis. Israel left Gaza, a painful and risky action with no demands on the other side. It is time that the Palestinians made one - just one - similar gesture of substance.

But is this the case NO!!

In an in-depth interview published today in the Jordanian daily Al-Dustur, Abbas said

Here are some highlights from that interview: Al-Dustur, February 28, 2008

The Arab Situation
"Now we are against armed conflict because we are unable. In the future stages, things may be different... "

We reject the Jewishness of the state
The Palestinian President emphasized his rejection of what is described as the Jewishness of the state [Israel], and said: "We rejected this proposal at the Annapolis conference last November in the USA, and the conference was almost aborted because of it..."

The Resistance (Terror?)
The Palestinian President spoke about the resistance, saying: "I was honored to be the one to shoot the first bullet in 1965 [Fatah terror against Israel began in 1965] ,and having taught resistance to many in this area and around the world, defining it and when it is beneficial and when it is not... we had the honor of leading the resistance.We taught everyone what resistance is, including the Hezbollah, who were trained in our camps [i.e. PLO camps in the 60s and 70s]."

Recognition of Israel
"I don't demand that the Hamas movement recognize Israel. I only demanded of the [Palestinian] national unity government that would work opposite Israel in recognition of it. And this I told to Syrian President Bashir Assad, and he supported this idea."

Just how can peace be around the corner with these attitudes?

Here We Go Round the Mulberry BUSH

Fatah as “Moderate”, now who is kidding who? Arlene Kuschner asks in regard to a possible peace agreement http://israelbehindthenews.com/pdf/ModerateFatah.pdf,
a) are the Palestinians able to do it?
b) do the Palestinians actually intend to do it

First of all, the new logo “commemorating” 43 years of Fatah shows Israel yet again not existing in their mindset.

The intentions of Abbas and Fatah, writes Kuschner point toward continued intransigence,
support of terrorism and hostility to Israel.

Let’s just remind ourselves of a few facts:-
a) from a security perspective Fatah is weak in the West Bank and Hamas is getting stronger
b) the 19 UNRWA refugee camps in Judea and Samaria, which are hotbeds of terrorist activity, are controlled exclusively by armed militias and Palestinian security forces are not permitted entry.
c) the Palestinian press and TV constantly refer to war rather than peace.
d) Mahmoud Abbas, president of the Palestinian Authority, has a reputation amongst the Palestinians as a weak and ineffectual leader, unable to deliver and so weak that he is afraid to leave Ramallah.

Whilst Abbas is presenting the picture of moderation and peace that the West want to hear, the intentions seem to be just the opposite and the various meetings held since Annapolis point toward intransigence, support of terrorism and continued hostility to Israel.

Friday sermons broadcast on PA (Abbas-controlled) radio that call for complete Muslim control of the area and “victory” through conflict.

Abbas has done nothing to prepare his people for compromise, but instead leads them to believe they can realise all their aspirations. Neither Abbas nor his spokesmen and negotiators are willing to recognize Israel as a Jewish state, Saeb Erekat claiming no State is created on the basis of religion. Yet he must know that many Arab nations officially adopt Islam

The picture painted for foreign consumption is one of Abbas and the Fatah standing against a terrorist Hamas and providing the region with a distinct moderate alternative. The reality is that there are connections between Fatah and Hamas now, which, by all indications, will only grow stronger.

Isn't it time for Bush to look at the realities on the ground?

Annapolis - still here? - Is one permitted to yawn?

“The King is in his altogether, his altogether and altogether as naked as the day when he was born,” sings Danny Kaye. The parley at Annapolis needs someone to say it as it really is.
The Arab States, having been cajoled into attending the conference are quite happy to continue with their 3 “no’s” of yesteryear and no-one is prepared to say anything. They must be laughing from kafiyah to kafiyah. The Israeli press cannot meet representarives of the Arab States, Zippi Livni is being snubbed by the same Arab States and claiming she is a “pariah”.

And why should they? Israel is quite prepared to go on giving and conceding and unless I have missed something, I haven’t read of anything Abbas is conceding. And why should he? He is not in a position to implement anything otherwise his life is in danger.

Another anology appeared in the Jerusalem Post in an Op-Ed this week by Michael Freund http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1195546743793&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull. Why try to be inventive when, in these few words, he captures the view of 68% of Israelis according to recent opinion polls. He writes, watching the carnival unfold at Annapolis this week, I am inspired to reach for Lewis Carroll's classic Alice in Wonderland, where the main character falls down a rabbit-hole into a world far removed from our own, one where the rules of logic and common sense simply do not apply.

And how about the Mad Tea Party, where the March Hare, the Hatter and the Dormouse crowd together at the table and proceed to lambast and insult Alice to her face? With that image in mind, consider how Israel has been greeted by various Arab participants at the Annapolis gathering.
Saudi Foreign Minister Saud al-Faisal declared that he would not even shake Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's hand, and on Monday, the Saudi embassy in Washington expelled Israeli journalists from its premises for seeking to attend a press conference.

The outcome of this process, like the trial presided over by the King and Queen of Hearts at the book's end, is a foregone conclusion. In the story, at the very opening of the hearings, before even a word of evidence has been presented, the King turns to the jury and declares, "Consider your verdict."

And that, quite sadly, is what Annapolis and the process it is meant to spawn, is all about. For everyone, it seems, including many members of our own government, views Israel as the party which must submit to the other side's demands, regardless of whether truth, justice and morality would dictate otherwise.

However, Alice's nightmare finally comes to an end when she can stand it no longer. Turning to the Queen and her assembled guests, the newly-assertive young girl realizes the folly of the proceedings around her, before telling them, "Who cares for you? You're nothing but a pack of cards!"

It was, after all, just a bad dream, one which fizzled away as soon as Alice came to her senses and stood up to her would-be aggressors. May Israel and its leaders finally do the same, and realize that fantasy worlds such as Peaceland exist only in their imagination.

What to Do Now About the Palestinian Authority?

Khaled Abu Toameh, Palestinian, has produced several documentaries on the Palestinians for the BBC and other international networks. The headlines below are based on his presentation at the Institute for Contemporary Affairs in Jerusalem on May 24, 2007 - before the Hamas takeover of Gaza in mid-June.

To read the full presentation go to http://www.jcpa.org/JCPA/Templates/ShowPage.asp?DRIT=1&DBID=1&LNGID=1&TMID=111&FID=377&PID=0&IID=1619&TTL=What_to_Do_Now_About_the_Palestinian_Authority?

· Within a few months after Abbas came to power, Palestinians started realizing that he was not delivering. Instead of fighting corruption, he surrounded himself with the same Arafat cronies. There was a decrease of perhaps 30-40 percent in the level of corruption but an upsurge in internal violence.

· The January 2006 election that brought Hamas to power was mostly about: "Let's punish these Fatah thieves." Hamas was building schools and kindergartens and clinics, while the PLO was building a casino and villas for its leaders. I believe some 30-35 percent of the Palestinians who voted for Hamas did so as a vote of protest because they were unhappy with the way the Palestinian Authority was running the show.

· Let Mahmoud Abbas and the PLO and Fatah start rebuilding their institutions, reform themselves, get rid of the corruption, and come up with a new list of candidates. Then run in another free and democratic election and offer the Palestinians a better alternative to Hamas.

· The Palestinians do not need more guns and military training. If the U.S. has $86 million and wants to help the Palestinians, then help them build civil institutions, help them build freedom, educate them about good things. What's the point in taking 200 Presidential Guards to Jericho to train them? Who are they going to fight at the end of the day? In Gaza they were defeated.

· What should Israel do at this stage? Nothing. There is no one to deal with on a serious basis on the Palestinian side. Abbas doesn't even have control over his own Fatah militias. Israel should just sit and wait. Don't repeat the mistake of unilateralism, when Israel left Gaza to Hamas and Islamic Jihad and al-Qaeda-affiliated groups.

· It is ironic that the West is supporting the guys who are suppressing the moderates and people who want democracy. The West is actually undermining its own goals.