Shorts: Cohen’s incredible remark, no freeze yet

Source:  Fresno Zionism

Here are a couple of things to think about today:

First, for the absolutely most unadulterated 200-proof bullshit in the world of Mideast punditry, it is impossible to beat Roger Cohen, who was actually paid something by the NY Times to write this:

But what of Iran? Netanyahu wants Obama to build a credible military threat. Ascendant Republicans bay for war. Clinton has to persuade Israel the best way to disarm Iran is by removing the core of Tehran’s propaganda — the plight of stateless Palestinians.

Imagine:

– Mr. President Ahamdinejad, listen, great news!

– What? Did the Zionists move back to Poland?

– No, but almost! Obama persuaded them to dismantle all the settlements and move back within the 1948 lines. A Palestinian state has been declared, with its capital in al-Quds!

– Allah be praised! Now we won’t need those atomic weapons — quick, sell the uranium on Ebay. Nasrallah can close up shop and go home — who will want to join Hizballah now?  Stop sending money to Hamas — they are dancing in the street now that Palestinians aren’t stateless. And Assad might as well dump his missiles, too.

This business of trying to control the entire Middle East and its oil resources, overthrow the governments of Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Egypt, establish a Shiite caliphate, humiliate the US and wipe the Zionists off the map was tiresome — I’m glad we can stop, now that the Palestinians have a state.

And get Obama on the phone — thanks to him, we can finally have good relations with the Great Sat– er, America. What a man he is!

***

There’s no freeze agreement yet, and the US has apparently not put its promises into writing. And anyone who remembers the way Hillary Clinton announced that the oral commitments made by the Bush Administration were not ‘enforceable’ knows that you can’t trust these people otherwise. Daled Amos has a good summary here of the way the carrots seem to be evaporating from the Obama Administration’s carrot and stick offer.

and

from Daled Amos:

TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 16, 2010

The Incredible Shrinking Offer Clinton Made To Netanyahu

Remember that offer resulting from that marathon session between Netanyahu and Hillary Clinton? It was supposed to offer the kinds of goodies that were just enough for Bibi to get his cabinet to approve the 3-month extension of the settlement freeze, bring Abbas back to the peace talks, and get the talks on their way on a one-year trip to peace.

What happened?

Well, for starters--it turns out that something that was on the table previously was actually taken off the table by Clinton:

What is different about the current U.S. package from a draft version that was presented to the Israelis in September and October is that the latest one does not explicitly mention the U.S. agreeing to a long-term Israeli Defense Forces presence in the Jordan Valley – on the West Bank/Israel’s eastern front with Jordan, [Washington Institute for Near East Policy’s David] Makovsky said.

An Israeli presence there in the Jordan Valley is a key strategic point for Israel, but one that Abbas has objected to, preferring an international force (probably modeled after the UNIFIL presence in Lebanon, based on its record of enforcing UN Resolution 1701).

Secondly, what about those 20 F-35 fighter jets? The US is now hedging on those promised jets to Israel:

Supporters of the freeze have cited the US offer to give Israel 20 F-35 joint strike fighter jets worth $3 billion as a critical reason to support the deal; the initial details of which were hammered out last Thursday between Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

But when quizzed about the weapons offer, State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley said, “We are committed to maintaining Israel’s qualitative edge in the region – but beyond that, I’m not going to comment."

Not surprisingly, Netanyahu is insisting that he will not bring the proposed US offer before the cabinet until he has it in writing:

The official said Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu will present the offer to his Cabinet only upon receiving written guarantees which "reflect the understandings reached during his talks with Hillary Clinton in New York."

That insistence may be in response to a further change in Clinton's offer. Arlene Kushner writes that the US may be trying to take back another promise Clinton made to Netanyahu:

A charge has been made by one Israeli official that the discontent on the Palestinian Arab side is keeping the US administration from finalizing the proposal to Israel. Tension between Israel and the US has been reported with regard to the Israeli demand that everything be in writing. According to this official, the US would like to water down the original understanding -- removing the promise that no further freeze would be expected of Israel -- in deference to Palestinian Arab demands.

One can only wonder what--if anything--will be left of Clinton's promises to Netanyahu by the time the final written copy appears before Bibi's cabinet.

At one point, the claim was that with Clinton's promises in hand, a vote to continue the moratorium would be a sure thing, albeit by a razor-thin margin.

But now, one wonders how many of those promises the US is willing to actually stand by and put into writing.

At the very least, it does not make Hillary Clinton look good.

I guess that means now she knows how Obama feels.

Daled Amos

My note:

The other day I had a conversation with someone and our talk was about America keeping its promises to Israel.  Surely, there would be great retribution if a nation did not keep its promises to another nation ....

Well, Israel has experienced broken promises in the past; and even now, before the day ends, there could be more disappointments from those we should be able to trust ... those who call themselves "friend" ...

Unless it is in writing, with many witnesses, preferably in front of the WORLD news media and NOT behind closed door, it would be best not to put all your eggs into one basket!  

Security for Israel would mean under the Divine hand of the G-d of Israel (with a whole lot of witnesses here on earth) ...

Bee Sting

A unilateral declaration of statehood?

Secretary of State Clinton with a Palestinian flag. What would the US do?

There has been a certain amount of talk about the possibility of a unilateral declaration of the state of ‘Palestine’ within the 1949 armistice lines. Nobody knows what would actually happen if the Palestinian Authority proceeds along this course, but some interesting questions come up:


The Arabs have enough votes in the UN General Assembly to pass almost any resolution that they want. But the Security Council, which is the only UN body that can actually enforce a resolution — by means of sanctions or even military force — is subject to the veto of any of its permanent members: the US, UK, France, Russia and China. What would these nations do?


What would the US do? Barry Rubin says that some Israeli officials expect that the Obama Administration will go all-out to ‘solve’ the Arab-Israeli conflict after the midterm elections. Since this is defined almost entirely in terms of getting a Palestinian state, and there is no overlap between Arab and Israeli positions that can bring this about through negotiations, the US might choose to support a unilateral declaration — or at least abstain.


Would Gaza be part of ‘Palestine’ and if so would Hamas be part of its government?


How many countries would recognize ‘Palestine’?


What would happen next? Would Palestinian authorities immediately demand that all Jewish settlements be evacuated? Would there be a time limit? Would the Palestinians try to expel Jews by force, as the Jordanians did in 1948? Would it try, in particular, to take possession of East Jerusalem (a casus belli if I ever saw one)?


If ‘Palestine’ becomes a sovereign state, it will have the ability to make alliances and even invite foreign troops into its territory to ‘defend’ it.


Such a declaration would be advantageous for the Arabs — if they could pull it off — because it would get them territory without requiring any concessions at all to Israel. ‘Palestine’ could continue to demand that refugees be allowed to ‘return’ to Israel, it could militarize, it could defend its airspace, etc. And it could continue to engage in ‘resistance’ against Israel.


‘Palestine’ already has a constitution, which has gone through several drafts. It tries to take into account the competing visions of Arab nationalism and Islamism that characterize the various factions in Palestinian Arab politics:

Article (1)
The State of Palestine is a sovereign, independent republic. Its territory is an indivisible unit based upon its borders on the eve of June 4, 1967, without prejudice to the rights guaranteed by the international resolutions relative to Palestine. All residents of this territory shall be subject to Palestinian law exclusively.
Article (2)
Palestine is part of the Arab nation. The state of Palestine abides by the charter of the League of Arab States. The Palestinian people are part of the Arab and Islamic nations. Arab unity is a goal, the Palestinian people hopes to achieve.
Article (3)
Palestine is a peace loving state that condemns terror,occupation and aggression. It calls for the resolution of international and regional problems by peaceful means. It abides by the Charter of the United Nations.
Article (4)
Jerusalem is the capital of the state of Palestine and seat of its public authorities.
Article (5)
Arabic and Islam are the official Palestinian language and religion. Christianity and all other monotheistic religions shall be equally revered and respected. The Constitution guarantees equality in rights and duties to all citizens irrespective of their religious belief.
Article (6)
The Palestinian flag, motto, seals, emblems, and national anthem shall be determined by law.
Article (7)
The principles of Islamic Shari’a are a major source for legislation. Civil and religious matters of the followers of monotheistic religions shall be organized in accordance with their religious teachings and denominations within the framework of law, while preserving the unity and independence of the Palestinian people.

Some things are notable here:


Although the leadership has firmly and consistently rejected the idea of recognizing Israel as a Jewish state, ‘Palestine’ is defined as having an ‘official religion’ and its laws will be based on Shari’a! Note also that Article 3 condemns ‘occupation’. I don’t think they were thinking of the Chinese occupation of Tibet when they wrote this.


Hindus and Buddhists, who are not considered “monotheists,” will not be “revered and respected” in ‘Palestine’, should they choose to live there. Article 7, if interpreted in keeping with the traditional principles of Islam, implies that the monotheists will pay a special tax while non-monotheists will be required to accept Islam or leave.

Article (12)
Palestinian nationality shall be regulated by law, without prejudice to the rights of those who legally acquired it prior to May 10, 1948 or the rights of the Palestinians residing in Palestine prior to this date, and who were forced into exile or departed there from and denied return thereto. This right passes on from fathers or mothers to their progenitor [sic -- they mean 'progeny']. It neither disappears nor elapses unless voluntarily relinquished. A Palestinian cannot be deprived of his nationality. The acquisition and relinquishment of Palestinian nationality shall be regulated by law. The rights and duties of citizens with multiple nationalities shall be governed by law.
Article (13)
Palestinians who left Palestine as a result of the 1948 war, and who were denied return thereto shall have the right to return to the Palestinian state and bear its nationality. It is a permanent, inalienable, and irrevocable right.
The state of Palestine shall strive to apply the legitimate right of return of the Palestinian refugees to their homes, and to obtain compensation, through negotiations, political, and legal channels in accordance with the 1948 United Nations General Assembly Resolution 194 and the principles of international law.

According to this document, there will be even more ‘Palestinians’ than are recognized today by UNRWA, which allows Palestinian status to descend only to those with ‘Palestinian’ fathers. And the state of ‘Palestine’, as part of its constitution, calls for a right of return.


It’s interesting that Article 13 says that ‘Palestinians who left Palestine as a result of the 1948 war’ will have the right of return to the Palestinian state. There were between 550,000 and 700,00 of them in 1948, and there are far fewer today. The rest of the 4.5 million Arabs with refugee status, therefore, will either go to Israel or stay in refugee camps. This is consistent with the Arab position since 1949 — ‘refugees’ will never be allowed to have a home until Israel is destroyed.


Will they do it? My guess is quite possibly, if they think they can get US support. Remember, their goal is the replacement of Israel with ‘Palestine’, not a state alongside Israel. A partition agreement that Israel could accept to would include demilitarization, various security features, and limitations on sovereignty, at least for a time. It would also rule out an influx of ‘refugees’ and would put the Arabs on the wrong side of international law if they violate it.


And the US? Who knows? Foreign policy under this administration is neither consistent nor rational.

Source/Link:  FRESNO ZIONISM

Gilad Shalit and the Chilean miners

The 33 Chilean miners were underground for 69 days. Much of the world focused its attention on them, while no effort or cost was spared to get them out into the light after the nightmarish accident that buried them.

Gilad Shalit has been underground for one thousand, five hundred and seventy-four days today (he was taken on June 25, 2006).


He is alone in a bunker somewhere in Gaza, without 32 friends, without communication with his family, and probably believes that he has been forgotten.


His entombment was not an accident, like the explosion that trapped the miners. It was a purposeful act perpetrated by creatures that I can confidently call the scum of the earth.


The President of Chile personally involved himself in the project to free the miners. Other world leaders supported it as well.


In the case of Shalit, the current President of the US applied pressure to Israel to end Operation Cast Lead in time for his inauguration, without rescuing Shalit or overthrowing the Hamas regime. Later, the US, UN, EU etc. combined to force Israel to end its limitation on goods flowing into Gaza, thus legitimizing Hamas and guaranteeing its continuation in power.


A way to save Shalit is to make his continued captivity so painful for Hamas leaders that they will be happy to release him. There are ways to do this: perhaps a complete cutoff of fuel, electricity, and water to Gaza, with the understanding that the embargo will be lifted the instant Shalit is safe. If there is a ‘humanitarian crisis’ as a result, it will be entirely the fault of Hamas.


The people and authorities in Chile did not simply declare the miners dead and move on. They used extraordinary means to save them. So should we.


Source:  Fresno Zionism






Note:

Hamas In Their Own Voices

HAMAS is NOT a government - it is a terrorist organization.  For more information and videos on Hamas, see:


http://www.squidoo.com/Hamas-terrorist-group

A Brief Message to Turkey from Tel Aviv, Israel - VIDEO

Turkey whole truth 2/ Shimi Limor

The last 10 days - June 12, 2010

 FresnoZionism

The last 10 days have surprised me.

I thought I was cynical about the way humans are capable of believing things that are contradicted by what they see with their own eyes, but apparently I was naive.

I realized that the phenomenon of ideologues only hearing the voices of their own side was much more extensive than I’d thought.

I saw that the amount of ignorance, stupidity and viciousness in the world, especially the supposedly better-educated part of it, was far, far greater than than I had imagined in my worst nightmares.

I saw that a form of atavistic hatred that I had thought was dying out in ‘civilized’ society was alive and breathing heavily.

I saw some ‘critics of Israeli policy’ drop their masks, because it has now become acceptable to admit that the real problem, in the words of Charles Krauthammer, is “Those Troublesome Jews“.

When Helen Thomas dropped hers (OK, maybe it had been slipping for some time), she was greeted with some official condemnation and massive grass-roots support. Rabbi David Nesenoff, who taped her telling Israeli Jews to “go home, to Poland and Germany,” has received over 25,000 hate mails, some of which can be seen on his website.

There’s a Security Council “Presidential Statement,” a vicious Human Rights Council resolution, demonstrations and rallies against Israel all over the world — even in Fresno, California — a surge of antisemitic incidents in France and other places, threats from Turkey, Iran and Syria, and suggestions from Barack Obama that Israel’s policies are ‘unsustainable’ and must change in the direction of concessions to Hamas.

What precipitated the explosion was that a group of violent Turkish Islamists, in an operation probably planned and certainly supported by the Erdoğan regime, mobbed and beat Israeli soldiers in an attempt to take hostages, resulting in the serious injury of several soldiers and the death of 9 of the Turks.

Hardly a legitimate reason for the worldwide explosion of anti-Israel hatred, or the diplomatic pressure being applied to Israel by friends and enemies alike.

Compare Israel’s actions in enforcing a blockade against the remarkably vile Hamas with the behavior of the Iranian regime last year, when the Ahmadinejad-Khamenei regime stole the election and then beat, murdered, arrested, tortured and raped dissidents who pointed this out.

World reaction then, and especially the response from the Obama administration, was tepid. Many similar comparisons can be made.

Several members of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors have introduced a resolution condemning Israel and calling for the president to work toward “ending the siege” of Hamas-ruled Gaza. San Francisco, the gay capital of the world, is being asked to support Hamas — I know they would not put it this way, but that’s what it is about — which advocates the death penalty for homosexuality. Indeed, gay Palestinians do their best to escape both Hamas and the Palestinian Authority, to Israel, one of the few places that a gay Arab can live in peace.

My wife would explain this by saying “there must be something in the water,” but if so, it’s in the water all around the world.

Here’s how one observer explains it:

…in the last two decades especially, the Left has made anti-Semitism respectable in intellectual circles. The fascistic nature of various Palestinian liberation groups was forgotten, as the “occupied” Palestinians grafted their cause onto that of American blacks, Mexican-Americans, and Asian-Americans. Slurring post-Holocaust Jews was still infra dig, but damning the nation-state of Israel as imperialistic and oppressive was considered principled. No one ever cared to ask: Why Israel and not other, far more egregious examples? In other words, one could now focus inordinately on the Jews by emphasizing that one’s criticism was predicated on cosmic issues of human rights and justice. And by defaming Israel the nation, one could vent one’s dislike of Jews without being stuck with the traditional boorish label of anti-Semite.
So an anti-Semitic bigot like Helen Thomas could navigate perfectly well among the top echelons of Washington society spouting off her hatred of Israel, since her animus was supposedly against Israeli policies rather than those who made them. Only an inadvertent remark finally caught up with her to reveal that what she felt was not anger growing out of a territorial dispute, but furor about the nature of an entire people who should be deported to the sites of the Holocaust. — Victor Davis Hanson, “Helen Thomas, Turkey, and the Liberation of Israel”

Don’t use anything more lethal than paintball guns

Fresno Zionist

Washington Post:

The Obama administration said Wednesday that it hadwarned Israel’s government repeatedly to use “caution and restraint” with half a dozen aid boats bound for the Gaza Strip before Israeli commandos raided the flotilla this week in an operation that killed nine people.
“We communicated with Israel through multiple channels many times regarding the flotilla,” P.J. Crowley, a State Department spokesman, said in a statement issued in response to a question from The Washington Post. “We emphasized caution and restraint given the anticipated presence of civilians, including American citizens.”

“Don’t use anything more lethal than paintball guns,” the Israelis were warned. “Think how bad it would look if you accidentally shot some Nobel laureates or members of the European Parliament among the humanitarian peace activists on board.”

OK, I made the last part up. But doesn’t it seem that the US is micro-managing Israeli policy more than ever lately?  And not for the better, if you believe, for example, that pressure from the incoming Obama Administration aborted Operation Cast Lead before the final push that would have overthrown Hamas. Or if you think that forbidding Jewish building in Jerusalem is bad for Israel’s sovereignty in its capital. Or if you worry about a radar installation on Israeli soil that is supposed to protect Israel, but which Israelis are forbidden to enter.

Obama Administration officials and advisors are starting to say that close relations with Israel are a liability to US policy.

Well, guess what? It appears that the reverse is true.


Remember when the Bush I Administration told Israel to hold still while Saddam Hussein dropped his Scuds on Tel Aviv? Today we have the ‘red light’ against an attack on the Iranian nuclear facilities (possibly such an attack would be impractical, but a red light nevertheless).

Here is my idea for how the US could promote peace in the Mideast: simply get out of the way and let Israel defend itself. Israel is not expansionist. There’s no downside except that the Arabs and Iran will dislike the US. But they do that already.

My note:

It is evident from the past year's comments pouring out of the White House that Obama is no friend to Israel.  This is obvious to even the most casual observer.  Therefore, with all the wisdom in Israel, among its leaders, I would ask why they allow themselves to follow Obama's lead when it comes to protecting the Land of Israel and its civilians.  WHY?  Unlike the Arab countries surrounding Israel, Israel has the capabilities and the young lions to defend every inch of its land and people - so, following the lead of one who wishes you harm (Obama and Abbas, Hamas, Hizbollah, Iran, etc.) ... why, dear Israel, do you arm your soldiers with paint ball guns?  


Time to take the lead and do what is necessary, for Israel, not what you think will appease others - there is no allowance for appeasement and concessions if you truly value the lives of all Israelis, and this, I know you do - time to take out the more lethal weapons and ignore advice from those who defend the haters of Israel.


Bee Sting

Investigate Turkish Treachery! and more..

 fresnozionism.org

Investigate Turkish Treachery!

I know I promised not to write more about this, but it will not go away.

Speaking to CNN’s Larry King [last week], Obama said, “You’ve got loss of life that was unnecessary. So we are calling for an effective investigation of everything that happened. I think the Israelis are going to agree to that — an investigation of international standards — because they recognize that this can’t be good for Israel’s long-term security.  — YNet

I don’t know what he means by ‘of international standards’, but I agree that there absolutely needs to be an investigation.


However — and I say this in all seriousness — it is not Israel which should be investigated. It’s quite clear what Israel did (you can watch the video if you haven’t already), and why it was done.


What needs to be investigated is the vicious attack on the boarding party: who financed and organized the perpetrators, how they got on the ship, and what their connection was to the Turkish regime.
Here are some facts:

1. An initial analysis of statements taken from passengers aboard the Turkish ship Mavi Marmara after it was towed to the port of Ashdod show that operatives belonging to the radical Islamic Turkish IHH led the violent confrontation with the IDF.
2. The statements confirmed that the violence met by the IDF soldiers was not spontaneous but rather an organized, premeditated action carried out by a hard core of 40 IHH operatives (among the 500 passengers). The operatives, who acted according to a clearly-defined internal hierarchy, boarded the ship in the port of Istanbul without undergoing a security inspection (as opposed to the other passengers, who boarded in Antalya after a full inspection).
3. The IHH operatives’ preparations included handing out walkie-talkies as they boarded the ship, taking over the upper deck, setting up a situation room for communications, and a briefing given to the operatives two hours before the confrontation by IHH head Bülent Yildirim, who was on board the ship and commanded his men. IHH operatives wore ceramic vests and gas masks, and were armed with large quantities of cold weapons which they had prepared from equipment found on board (knives, axes, metal cables, metal pipes used as clubs, wrenches, etc.). They were also equipped with box cutters which had been prepared on the upper deck in advance.
4. The passengers, including the IHH operatives, stated that there were close relations between the organization and Turkish Prime Minister Tayyip Erdoğan and that the Turkish government was involved in preparations for the flotilla. The statements reinforce the original assessment that the objective of the flotilla was not merely to bring humanitarian aid to the Gaza Strip, but focused on provocation and a violent confrontation with Israel.
5. According to statements from the passengers, Turkish Prime Minister Tayyip Erdoğan maintains close contacts with IHH. The flotilla set sail with the full knowledge and agreement of Erdoğan, who expressed personal interest in its success and his intention to exploit it promote his status in Turkey and the Arab-Muslim world. Passengers said that before the flotilla set sail, Prime Minister Erdoğan constructed a scenario based on a possible confrontation with Israel which he could use to further his own needs. The statements were supported by descriptions found in files on laptop computers belonging to the passengers.

There’s much more. I think that only a thorough, impartial international investigation can determine the facts. And if it is determined that elements of the Turkish regime were responsible or even knew about the plan in advance, they should be held to account — perhaps by the International Criminal Court.


But even this may not be the worst of it. Barry Rubin, who has excellent connections in Turkey, writes,

There is a widespread story, which cannot yet be verified but seems to be more than a rumor, for why this tragedy might have happened. People ask: Why did the Israeli soldiers land on a ship where they should have expected to be received with a violent attack?
According to some people who are in a position to know, here’s the reason: Erdoğan assured Israel that the ship’s passengers were peaceful and there would be no violence. That’s why Israel approached taking and diverting the ship in the manner it did.

Keep in mind that Erdoğan went into a full-bore diplomatic and propaganda attack immediately after the incident. If this report turns out to be true, then this affair will make its mark in the annals of diplomatic treachery.

Turkish PM Erdoğan explains his motives.

Helen Thomas and the Definitive Answer to Why the First Holocaust Happened

NewsRealBlog

2010 June 5

by Jeanette Pryor

 

On January 27, 1998, Yehuda Bauer, Director of Research at Yad Vashem, concluded his Holocaust commemoration address at the Bundestag in Germany with the following:

“Thou shalt not be a perpetrator.”

“Thou shalt not be a victim.”

“And Thou shalt never, but never be a bystander.”

It is remarkable that Bauer saved the strongest admonition for bystanders.
On Friday May 27, at the White House Jewish Heritage Celebration, Helen Thomas, the “Dean” of the White House Press Corps, answered a journalist’s request for an opinion on Israel:

“Tell them to get the hell out of Palestine. Remember, these people are occupied and it’s their land…not German and not Poland.”
“So, where should they go?”
“Go home. Poland, Germany.”
“So, you think the Jews should go back to Poland and Germany?”
“And America and everywhere else.”

Helen Thomas is a perpetrator.  Perpetrator, because the most important aspect of the War Against Israel is the War to erode American support for Israel, the War for public opinion.  As in Vietnam, the Marxist Press in America will bring about the fall of Israel and the annihilation of her people long before and more surely than those seeking the physical destruction of the Gaza Blockade.

In spite of this, Helen does not fully explain the “Why” of the Holocausts.  Within hours of Thomas’ Reichstag-worthy revelation, the video evidence circled the globe.  It is safe to assume that the people who come in daily contact with Helen knew what she said.

These journalists and reporters, as every educated American, have seen pictures of the Holocaust; they have probably looked in horror at images of the selection at Auschwitz, the mass-shootings in Ukraine, the portraits of Eichmann and Mengele.  This contemplation probably led to self-reassuring oaths that, “Had I been there, I would have resisted.  I would have spoken out.  The Nazis were evil monsters. HOW could this have happened?”

Certainly, the White House Press Corps is full of those who have thus reacted to the Nazi Holocaust.  And yet, they will sit down to dinner with Helen Thomas.  They will continue to say, “Good Morning,” to her, and will treat her like an icon worthy of respect.  She will stoop in her throne in the Press Corps galley.  She will not be shunned in the halls of the White House, and senators and representatives will still curry her favor or, at the very worst, attribute her rant to notorious spunk.

This is why the Holocaust happened.  A dozen average men and women weighed their careers against the consequence of protest and permitted the penetration of respectable society by anti-Semitism. The looming destruction of Israel is not to be attributed to hate-filled sectarian ideologues like Thomas, but to the reporters and journalists who will avoid nasty personal consequences, and refuse to treat her with the utter contempt she merits.  If ever Eichmann and Mengele and Goebbels deserved to be shunned as enemies of civilization, then likewise a woman pretending to exemplify investigative excellence while suppressing the truth of the Jews’ tri-millennial claim to a homeland in the Holy Land, ought to be ostracized by anyone with a conscience.

The path to the first Holocaust was that of politically justified anti-Semitism.  Hitler began his crusade against the Jews under the pretext that they had caused, through self-interest, the defeat of Germany in the First World War.  We, fleeing precipitously towards a Second “Final Solution,” witness a similar attempt to disguise racial hatred of the Jews as dissenting political opinion.  We hear words such as “occupation, apartheid, human rights violations,” only because they camouflage an embarrassing, crass hatred.  Penetration of respectable society by this “classy, political” anti-Semitism is the first step to Genocide.

The choice to become a bystander faces each member of the White House Press Corps.  Together, they should demand Helen Thomas’ expulsion from their midst, if they wish to retain their integrity and honor.

Should authorities refuse, for the obvious reason that anti-Semitism has been given the green light (no pun intended) by the example of the Administration, then it is the personal responsibility of each member to treat the “Queen,” and her supporters as they claim they would have treated the last batch of Selectors who favored deporting the Jews to their “homeland” in the ovens of Poland.

 ani ma'amin

This song was composed by a young man on the cattle-train to the death camps. He taught it to two young men and asked them to "bring it" to his rabbi(of Modzhiz). The two succeeded to jump off and the train.They survived the war and kept their promise - came to America and sang it to that man's rabbi. The rabbi burst in crying. Though he never heard the song before, he recognised who made it. That young man perished in the Holocaust, but his song and his spirit live on. Yehe zichro baruch.

Obama: We want to strengthen Lebanese armed forces…

yalibnan.

U.S. President Barack Obama for the first time has met Lebanese President Michel Suleiman. Their discussions at the White House on Monday focused largely on efforts to prevent another outbreak of violence between Israeli forces and Hezbollah fighters in Lebanon.

President Obama said that what happens in Lebanon has an impact far beyond its borders

Source: Dalati & Nohra

.

“Obviously, Lebanon is a critical country in a critical region,” said President Obama. “And we want to do everything we can to encourage a strong, independent and democratic Lebanon.”

He said he spoke with President Suleiman about the implementation of a United Nations Security Council Resolution passed in 2006 that was intended to end fighting between Israeli and Hezbollah forces in Lebanon.

Mr. Obama said there has been progress, but not enough. He noted that while there might be differences between Washington and Beirut on the situation in the region, the two see eye-to-eye on the best approach.

“President Suleiman and I are not going to agree on every issue with respect to how Israel, Lebanon, the Palestinians, Syria are interacting,” said Mr. Obama. “What we do share is a commitment to resolve these issues through dialogue and negotiations as opposed to through violence.”

During their talks at the White House, President Suleiman urged the Obama administration to put more pressure on Israel. President Obama said the Israelis have reason to be worried about arms transfers to Hezbollah.

“President Suleiman emphasized his concerns with respect to Israel,” said President Obama. “I want to be clear that I emphasized to him our concerns about the extensive arms that are smuggled into Lebanon that potentially serve as a threat to Israel.”

Hezbollah has argued that it needs arms because the Lebanese government is incapable of protecting the country. As a result, President Suleiman was expected to urge the Obama administration to speed up delivery of weapons to the Lebanese army.

President Obama gave no guarantees in public. But he did talk in general terms about the importance of military aid to Lebanon.

“We want to strengthen Lebanese armed forces so that they can help to secure the sovereignty and the territory of Lebanon,” said Mr. Obama.

Mr. Obama alluded to a Lebanese cedar tree that was planted on the White House grounds 30 years ago. He said it is strong and thriving, and represents the friendship between the two countries.

Source: VOA

http://www.yalibnan.com/2009/12/15/obama-we-want-to-strengthen-lebanese-armed-forces/

Note:  Can it get any worse?  Oh, I'm sure it can, very shortly!  Bee Sting

Turning the clock back to 1948

fresno zionism

US policy toward Israel has always been ambivalent, at best. Truman struggled with his State Department, particularly Secretary George Marshall, to recognize the state of Israel. Eisenhower was furious when Israel conspired with France and England to invade the Sinai in 1956, and threatened economic sanctions to force a withdrawal (he also promised that the US would guarantee free passage through the strait of Tiran, a promise the US broke in 1967). Ronald Reagan sold AWACS aircraft to Saudi Arabia against strident Israeli objections, and George H. W. Bush forced Israel to take no action while Iraqi Scud missiles were crashing into Tel Aviv.

The US has never accepted Israeli rights to Jerusalem — even West Jerusalem — and since the 1970’s, policy has been to try to undo the results of the 1967 war and return Israel to the 1949 armistice lines.

Having said that, the US was generous with military aid after 1967, particularly during the Cold War when Israel served as a bulwark against Soviet influence in the region. But keep in mind that aid money was spent to buy weapons from US contractors, so this was not all done out of love for the Jewish state.

There is reason to think that the present administration has decided to implement an even more aggressive policy. Apparently it’s been decided that it is not possible to undo 1967 without also undoing 1948.

The failure of Oslo, of Sharon’s unilateral withdrawal and of other diplomatic initiatives have produced a consensus in Israel that today there is no practical way to implement a two-state solution. At the same time, Fatah has escalated demands rather than becoming more moderate (or perhaps Fatah’s mask of moderation has fallen away). And of course, Hamas controls Gaza and 40% of the Palestinian population.

In any event, the Obama administration seems to have come to the conclusion that a sovereign Israel can’t be cajoled or even  pressured to accept an agreement with the Palestinians that it regards (correctly) as suicidal. So the approach will be to remove Israel’s independent volition — in effect to go back to the solution the State Department had pushed in 1948, a US-controlled “Trusteeship.”

This is what is meant in practice by the “American peace plan” which was created by Obama’s highly Israel-hostile Mideast team of Jones, Scowcroft, Brzezinski, Berger, Kurtzer, Power, etc.

Here is how Eliyakim HaEtzni explains it:

Alex Fishman, in an article in “Yediot Achronot” from April 9th, details what Obama presented to Netanyahu for his
signature [at their last meeting]:

• The withdrawal of the IDF from all the Arab cities of Judea and Samaria and a large proportion of the countryside, precluding all future Israeli military operations in those areas (pretty much the only way of preventing terrorist attacks against Israeli targets);
• Allowing the Palestinian Authority to resume operations unhindered in Jerusalem;
• Obligating Israel to cease any present or future building in Arab neighborhoods of Jerusalem, amounting to the de facto division of the capitol [sic].

In addition, Obama demanded that Netanyahu continue the building freeze in Judea and Samaria indefinitely and hand over parts of Area C to the Ramallah authorities, changing its status to Area A, which prohibits Israelis from setting foot there. Obama required Netanyahu to relinquish the northern Dead Sea and parts of the Jordan Valley to enable the PA to develop tourism there.
All this must take place immediately, before the beginning of negotiations, while the negotiations themselves will determine the final border and, according to the American timetable, will be signed and sealed within two months….
First by forcing Netanyahu to create in Jerusalem, Judea, and Samaria conditions under which the territory is de facto handed over to the Arabs, and then by giving him a few months to play at the farce of negotiations, with the predetermined result of arriving at the American “peace plan.”
And that’s not all. There’s the Quartet’s declared intent to base the forced “peace” on foreign armies. The Americans and Europeans are offering Israel the services of foreign troops as a beneficence in response to Israel’s complaint that it will no longer be able to defend itself within the borders of the Green Line. Their answer to this is “security guarantees” backed up with a military presence in the Jordan Valley and along the Green Line. They tell us that their intention is to defend us from the Arabs while they tell the Arabs that their intention is to defend them from us. In effect, this military presence will tie our hands and will prevent the Israeli government from taking any independent military action. From then on, Israel will be a sovereign nation in name only. In fact, Israel will be a protectorate under international control, led by America.

HaEtzni is a right-winger, a “settler advocate.” Nevertheless, his analysis can’t be faulted. Given the incompatibility between Palestinian demands and Israeli security, there is no way that the Palestinian state so sought by the Obama Administration can be brought into existence except against Israel’s will.

Obama has threatened that if the “proximity talks” don’t bear fruit by September/October he will produce the “American proposal” and call for a summit led by the hostile Quartet to beat Israel into submission. Perhaps he thinks that a foreign policy ’success’ (he has never had one) will help the Democrats in November’s election.

Note:  The respsonse on fresno zionism :

Shalom Freedman says:

May 1, 2010 at 11:27 am

If all of this is true then Israel clearly has to change its policy, and diplomatic line now. It cannot maintain as it has been doing that all is alright with its relation with the United States. It has to expose the complete one- sidedness of the Obama position, and stand against it. It should do this as early as possible. This hopefully would so increase domestic American opposition to the American policy as to stop it from being put into effect.