Why Isn't the Palestinian Authority Moderate?
Why don't Arab Leaders Obey the New York Times?

"The NY Times] simply cannot admit that Israel has just security concerns and real reasons to doubt the other side's reliability."

By Barry Rubin May 31, 2009

So dreadful was the performance of Palestinian Authority (PA) leader Mahmoud Abbas during his meeting with President Barack Obama that even the New York Times took notice. Usually, the Palestinians are exempt from any hint of the real world criteria applied to others.

But according to the May 30, Times editorial, the meeting was “a reminder of how much the Palestinians and leading Arab states, starting with Saudi Arabia and Egypt, must do to help revive foundering peace negotiations.”

The peace negotiations, of course, foundered almost a decade ago when then PA leader Yasir Arafat rejected a two-state solution, an historical fact that the Times and much of the Western political elite seems not yet to have absorbed. Indeed, it was that very fact that has led to the failure of any peace process and all the bloodshed since.

Naturally, given its peculiar view of the world, the Times cannot quite blame anyone but Israel and George W. Bush for this failure:

“We have sympathy for Mr. Abbas, the moderate-but-weak leader of the Fatah party. Israel, the Bush administration and far too many Arab leaders have failed to give him the support that he needs to make the difficult compromises necessary for any peace deal.”

This is the kind of paragraph by the way that should lead to reflection by anyone who was actually serious and not blinded by the strange brew that passes for the dominant ideology in Western intellectual circles nowadays. It is after all a set of beliefs which insists that Abbas—who wrote a doctoral dissertation denying that the Holocaust happened and prefers demanding all Palestinians can go live in Israel even if this stance prevents them from getting their own independent state—is better than Netanyahu. Abbas is branded “moderate” while Netanyahu is always called hardline.

Exactly what has Abbas done as the PA leader to be considered moderate, or at least moderate except in comparison to Hamas? If he had his way, he would make a deal with Hamas which would make him behave a lot more like Hamas rather than having Hamas become moderate.

At least, the Times added on this occasion: “That’s no excuse, however, for the depressing passivity that Mr. Abbas displayed” in calling for the United States to wait until Hamas joined his government or Netanyahu made concessions for nothing in return.

It is somewhat humorous that while Netanyahu has been unfairly and inaccurately blasted for supposedly refusing to talk with the Palestinians it is the Palestinians who openly refuse to talk to Israel.

At any rate, there's nothing funnier than a newspaper editorial writer telling a dictator that he "must" do something. But why, why is Abbas so passive? Why doesn’t Abbas do what the Times wants:

“He must keep improving those forces. He must redouble efforts to halt the constant spewing of hatred against Israel in schools, mosques and media. He must work harder to weed out corruption. Unless Mr. Abbas’s government does more to improve the lives of Palestinians it will surely lose again to Hamas in elections scheduled for January.”

Those elections won’t be held at all, of course, for precisely that reason. But suppose Israel gives up land and authority to Abbas, he doesn't mend his ways, and then Hamas--as the Times warns could well happen--takes over an independent state so as to wage warfare against Israel all the more effectively and on two fronts?

The Times might spare a moment to consider that possibility. Israeli leaders must do so: U.S. leaders should do so.

But the real reason Abbas doesn't obey the Times is that he likes the spewing of hatred--which conforms in part with his own views--and has nothing personally against corruption. In many future editorials, the Times will no doubt never equate such behavior with Israel's refusal to risk its existence on the good intentions of Mr. Abbas. In fact, if the newspaper were serious it would say: we know that he won't change his behavior and that's why Israel can't bet its survival on his leading a peace-loving Palestinian state at the present time.

It is also interesting that the Times views Abbas’s weakness as largely due to Israel and the previous U.S. president. The real factors include his own character, his lack of political skills, his own hardline views, his failure in making any effort to prepare his people for a compromise peace, and the radicalism of Fatah itself. Indeed, to a large degree Abbas—and his prime minister Salam Fayyad—are merely “moderate” fronts which allows Fatah to seek continued Western support and funding.

The Times analysis cries out for a simple answer to the following question as well: What could or should Israel and Bush have done to strengthen Abbas? After all, a previous view of the Times was the need to help Arafat by rushing ahead with negotiations. Then when Arafat destroyed the Camp David meeting in 2000 it was explained that this was a terrible mistake and that he needed infinite time. Does it bear any responsibility for the thousands of lives lost due to the mistaken pushing and naivete about the process in the 1990s?

The Bush administration did hurt Abbas in one way, which was to encourage relatively fair elections to be held in the Gaza Strip which Hamas won. If this is what bothers the Times, however, it should say so. Or perhaps Israel hurt Abbas by not staying in the Gaza Strip and keeping settlements there since its pullout unintentionally emboldened Hamas. One would like to see the Times explain that it is now advocating Israel should do the same thing in the West Bank, followed by a roughly similar outcome.

But the Times does hold true to the belief that the Palestinians don’t really exist. They have no ideology or goals or doctrines or views of their own. It is only Netanyahu’s “refusal…to commit to a two-state solution or halt settlement activity [which] is feeding militancy and strengthening Mr. Abbas’s Hamas rivals.”

Again, the slightest reflection on this claim would show that Yitzhak Rabin, Shimon Peres, Ehud Barak, Ariel Sharon, and Ehud Olmert all did endorse a two-state solution with the result that militancy certainly didn’t decrease and Hamas got stronger any way.

Please remember this: since all of Hamas and much of Fatah opposes a permanent two-state solution which accepts Israel's existence, the prospect of this outcome doesn't make them more quiet and moderate but rather more active and etremist in a bid to block such a solution. The same applies to Iran, Syria, Hizballah, the Muslim Brotherhoods, and others, including millions of Arabs and Muslims.

They are not going to say: Obama is wonderful! He's helping us get a Palestinian state. They are going to say: Obama is evil and those cooperating with him are traitors. They are giving away most of our rightful land and ensuring the survival of Israel. Let's kill those who are selling us out. Failing to understand this reality is a major and dangerous fallacy on the part of Western policymakers today.

The Times’ strategic blindness is especially visible in a passage that doesn’t quite make sense unless one takes that kind of thinking into account:

“When Mr. Obama visits Saudi Arabia and Egypt next week he must urge leaders to do more. They could help ratchet up pressure on Mr. Netanyahu with preliminary — but symbolically important — steps like opening commercial offices in Tel Aviv and holding publicly acknowledged meetings with Israeli officials.”

But how does that rachet up pressure on Netanyahu? It’s the exact opposite, as the Arab leaders understand very well. The truth is the Times refuses to say what is essential here: if Israel is going to be called on to make sacrifices, take risks, and give concessions, the Arabs have to prove their positive intentions. If Netanyahu saw such things happening, he wouldn't feel "pressured," he'd simply respond with compromises of his own.

The newspaper simply cannot admit that Israel has just security concerns and real reasons to doubt the other side's reliability (not to mention the fact that even if one favors a Palestinian state with its capital in east Jerusalem, Israel's capital is West Jerusalem, not Tel Aviv).

The editorial ends by saying:

“For eight years, Arab leaders and the Palestinians complained bitterly because President George W. Bush wasn’t willing to invest in Middle East peace. Now that they have an American president who is willing, they finally have to do their part.”

This is disingenuous. It is the Times--far more than Arab leaders--which has been complaining. Why didn't it have "sympathy" for Bush's obvious problem: how and why should he put the emphasis on a peace process when the Palestinians and Arab states--who supposedly are the ones desperately demanding it--won't cooperate.

Indeed, why should Obama do so now?

So here is what’s really important:

Suppose the Arab states do little or nothing, suppose the PA doesn’t stifle incitement, remains corrupt, continues to be intransigent. Will there ever come a time when the Times concludes that this isn’t working because the PA, Fatah, and most Arab states don’t want to make peace?

Will they ever write “We have sympathy for Mr. Netanyahu” (or even if there is a prime minister more to their liking by then) because he has to deal with an intransigent PA which doesn’t meet its commitments and spews hatred, Arab regimes which prefer to keep the conflict going, and radical Islamist forces hoping to have the chance to commit genocide?

Will this U.S. government do so?

Let's wait and see.
---------
Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. See the GLORIA/MERIA site at www.gloria-center.org.

Diehl: Abbas playing a waiting game.

In our meeting Wednesday, Abbas acknowledged that Olmert [unbeknownst to the public, made a peace offer.] In all, [according to the details revealed by Abbas] Olmert's peace offer was more generous to the Palestinians than either that of Bush or Bill Clinton; ... Abbas turned it down [flat]. --Jackson Diehl

By Jackson Diehl, Deputy Editorial Page Editor, Washington Post
Friday, May 29, 2009

Mahmoud Abbas says there is nothing for him to do.

True, the Palestinian president walked into his meeting with Barack Obama yesterday as the pivotal player in any Middle East peace process. If there is to be a deal, Abbas must (1) agree on all the details of a two-state settlement with the new Israeli government of Binyamin Netanyahu, which hasn't yet accepted Palestinian statehood, and (2) somehow overcome the huge split in Palestinian governance between his Fatah movement, which controls the West Bank, and Hamas, which rules Gaza and hasn't yet accepted Israel's right to exist.

Yet on Wednesday afternoon, as he prepared for the White House meeting in a suite at the Ritz-Carlton in Pentagon City, Abbas insisted that his only role was to wait. He will wait for Hamas to capitulate to his demand that any Palestinian unity government recognize Israel and swear off violence. And he will wait for the Obama administration to force a recalcitrant Netanyahu to freeze Israeli settlement construction and publicly accept the two-state formula.

Until Israel meets his demands, the Palestinian president says, he will refuse to begin negotiations. He won't even agree to help Obama's envoy, George J. Mitchell, persuade Arab states to take small confidence-building measures. "We can't talk to the Arabs until Israel agrees to freeze settlements and recognize the two-state solution," he insisted in an interview. "Until then we can't talk to anyone."

For veterans of Israeli-Palestinian peace talks, Abbas's bargaining position will be bone-wearyingly familiar: Both sides invariably begin by arguing that they cannot act until the other side offers far-reaching concessions. Netanyahu suggested during his own visit to Washington last week that the Palestinians should start by recognizing Israel as a Jewish state, though he didn't make it a precondition for meeting with Abbas.

What's interesting about Abbas's hardline position, however, is what it says about the message that Obama's first Middle East steps have sent to Palestinians and Arab governments. From its first days the Bush administration made it clear that the onus for change in the Middle East was on the Palestinians: Until they put an end to terrorism, established a democratic government and accepted the basic parameters for a settlement, the United States was not going to expect major concessions from Israel.

Obama, in contrast, has repeatedly and publicly stressed the need for a West Bank settlement freeze, with no exceptions. In so doing he has shifted the focus to Israel. He has revived a long-dormant Palestinian fantasy: that the United States will simply force Israel to make critical concessions, whether or not its democratic government agrees, while Arabs passively watch and applaud. "The Americans are the leaders of the world," Abbas told me and Post Editorial Page Editor Fred Hiatt. "They can use their weight with anyone around the world. Two years ago they used their weight on us. Now they should tell the Israelis, 'You have to comply with the conditions.' "

It's true, of course, that if Obama is to broker a Middle East settlement he will have to overcome the recalcitrance of Netanyahu and his Likud party, which has not yet reconciled itself to the idea that Israel will have to give up most of the West Bank and evacuate tens of thousands of settlers. But Palestinians remain a long way from swallowing reality as well. Setting aside Hamas and its insistence that Israel must be liquidated, Abbas -- usually described as the most moderate of Palestinian leaders -- last year helped doom Netanyahu's predecessor, Ehud Olmert, by rejecting a generous outline for Palestinian statehood.

In our meeting Wednesday, Abbas acknowledged that Olmert had shown him a map proposing a Palestinian state on 97 percent of the West Bank -- though he complained that the Israeli leader refused to give him a copy of the plan. He confirmed that Olmert "accepted the principle" of the "right of return" of Palestinian refugees -- something no previous Israeli prime minister had done -- and offered to resettle thousands in Israel. In all, Olmert's peace offer was more generous to the Palestinians than either that of Bush or Bill Clinton; it's almost impossible to imagine Obama, or any Israeli government, going further.

Abbas turned it down. "The gaps were wide," he said.

Abbas and his team fully expect that Netanyahu will never agree to the full settlement freeze -- if he did, his center-right coalition would almost certainly collapse. So they plan to sit back and watch while U.S. pressure slowly squeezes the Israeli prime minister from office. "It will take a couple of years," one official breezily predicted. Abbas rejects the notion that he should make any comparable concession -- such as recognizing Israel as a Jewish state, which would imply renunciation of any large-scale resettlement of refugees.

Instead, he says, he will remain passive. "I will wait for Hamas to accept international commitments. I will wait for Israel to freeze settlements," he said. "Until then, in the West Bank we have a good reality . . . the people are living a normal life." In the Obama administration, so far, it's easy being Palestinian.

The two-state solution illusion

May 27, 2009

“There is no partner on the Palestinian side,” Toameh says.


While Ottawa’s political leaders were meeting on Parliament Hill Tuesday with Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas, a group of businessmen (no women, for some reason) met for lunch in downtown Calgary with Khaled Abu Toameh, the Arab-born West Bank and Gaza correspondent for the Jerusalem Post. And while the Conservatives condemned Israel's settlements as an obstacle to a peaceful "two-state solution", with Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff and Abbas also mouthing support for the same vision for Israel and the Palestinians, Toameh couldn’t help but chuckle. “I laugh when they talk about a two-state solution,” he said. “It’s unreal. It’s not going to work. But we all have to say we support it, maybe because that’s what [U.S. President Barack] Obama wants.”

Toameh—in town as a guest of the Frontier Centre for Public Policy—doesn’t dismiss the idea for the same reasons as Hamas, which considers Israel a temporary, alien cancer to be mercilessly excised from the Muslim Middle East, not co-existed with. He dismisses it because, as those living in the territories well know, the Palestinians cannot even co-exist with themselves, let alone with Israel. Since Yassir Arafat died—“the only good thing he ever did,” Toameh says—life for the average Palestinian has gone from miserable to worse; the territories descended into low-intensity civil war, with 2,000 Palestinians killed in the last three years amidst the political and revenge-motivated attacks of Hamas on Fatah and Fatah on Hamas, as well as the marginal mayhem of terrorist groups such as the Islamic Jihad Movement in Palestine, Al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades and the Popular Resistance Committees. For the first time, more Palestinians are killed from internecine violence than in conflicts with Israel. Election promises first by Abbas and then by Hamas of an end to corruption, lawlessness, poverty, and failure have all proven lies, Toameh points out: each has assumed power—Fatah in the West Bank, Hamas in Gaza—only to show themselves to be as abusive, crooked and ineffectual in building a civil society as Arafat was. Neither party enjoys credibility or actually governs in any real sense the anarchic territories, where unemployment exceeds 60%—though Hamas is at least closer to legitimacy, enjoying far more popular support than Abbas does (Palestinians see Western support for Fatah as Zionist meddling, he says, driving them further into the arms of Hamas and other jihadists). “Abbas doesn’t even have power in downtown Ramallah, where he works and lives,” he says.

A two-state solution sounds pleasant to Western ears. It seems the proper thing for Canadian politicians to say. Certainly the media would pillory Harper and Ignatieff were they to refuse to play along. But were Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to endorse the plan tomorrow—as Barack Obama wants as precondition to helping Israel resist Iranian nuclear agression—it would be utterly meaningless. “There is no partner on the Palestinian side,” Toameh says. Israel's West Bank settlements are no obstacle, he adds; they are a red herring: a minor issue that Jerusalem will easily handle—based on its readiness to dismantle its settlements in the past—when the moment is right. That time is not now, and is not coming soon. Because, in today's environment, whatever proposed peace agreement is backed by Abbas would only be instantly rejected by Hamas, and any deal with Hamas—were any possible—reflexively rejected by Fatah. And neither group has much validity in citizens' eyes, he reports. In fact, Toameh mischievously suggests Netanyahu might be clever to try what Obama wants and publicly back a two-state plan immediately, if only to put the Palestinians and international peace-plan backers “in a corner” by revealing to all how truly impossible implementing anything of the sort would be under the current circumstances.

The international community’s error, says Toameh, is that it seems to think statehood is something to be handed to Palestinians, like a gift. It is, he believes, an undeserved one. “I believe a state is not something we should be given, it is something we should earn,” says the West Bank-born journalist. Far from demonstrating a capability to create a functioning, responsible civil society, he says, Palestinians have only proven their willingness to tolerate chaos, mob-rule and terror. They watched as, instead of building hospitals and schools and infrastructure with the billions sent to Ramallah and Gaza, Arafat lined his own pockets, Fatah fattened its cronies, and Hamas purchased weapons. On the one hand, Palestinians have fallen again and again for rotten leadership, which in turn, do their best to suppress the emergence of more responsible alternatives. On the other, Toameh seems to suggest that the Palestinians are getting the government they deserve. “Everything is going in the wrong direction, largely because of the failure of Palestinians to hold [their] government accountable,” he says.

This is not a happy fact for Toameh. He’s convinced that with the right leadership following the death of Arafat’s terror-minded kleptocracy, and with so much enthusiasm on the part of the international community—including Israel—to help create a modern, functional Palestinian state, there is no reason that, with the implementation of democratic, transparent and accountable institutions, the Palestinians could not have built themselves a new Hong Kong or Singapore. Were Western donor countries to insist upon those very elements in exchange for all their aid dollars, they could have helped make it so. Instead Canada, the U.S. and Europe have merely sponsored one lousy dictator over another. And instead, the Palestinians have opted to make for themselves a new Afghanistan, a savage playground of corrupt warlords and Islamist fanatics. The world already has enough states like that. And any so-called solution that proposes to create another is no solution at all.

New York: More than a thousand attend rally for Shalit

05.27.09,

More than a thousand people, mostly young adults, held a rally opposite the Red Cross Headquarters in New York City on Wednesday in protest of the conditions of captive Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit's imprisonment.


"We are fighting for Gilad's human rights. How can it be that Hamas prisoners in Gaza receive visitations and proper (living) conditions while Gilad is rotting in jail without our knowing how he is," Protest organizer Hagit Hadar told Ynet.

 

Stop ignoring Islam's antisemitic doctrine: Bronx bomb plot  reminds us of a core religious problem

By Andrew Bostom
Special to NYDailyNews.com       Wednesday, May 27th 2009,

"These were people who were eager to bring death to the Jews and the Jewish community." Assistant U.S. Attorney Eric Snyder provided this apt characterization of the four converts to Islam whose plans to bomb a Bronx synagogue and a Jewish community center were thwarted.

Richard Williams, uncle of the arrested plotter Onta "Hamza" Williams, lamented that his nephew, a Baptist who converted to Islam, "…wasn't raised this way. All this happened when he became a Muslim in prison." Indeed, Warith Deen Umar, a Muslim chaplain who worked for 25 years in the New York State prisons and was considered a highly influential cleric, reportedly boasted that this vast incarceration system was, "...the perfect recruitment and training ground for radicalism and the Islamic religion." During his chaplaincy, Umar also repeatedly gave sermons fomenting Jew hatred, witnessed by prison staff.

But beyond all this, the obvious question persists - although dutifully avoided by our learned religious, media and political elites in this sorry age of Islamic correctness: What Islamic teachings might these American Muslim converts have learned, whether in prison, or elsewhere, which caused them to target their American Jewish neighbors, specifically, for mass killing? Simply put, it is impossible to comprehend this ugly phenomenon without understanding the core, mainstream Islamic theology - still unreformed and unrepentant - which has inspired hatred of Jews since the advent of Islam?

For over a thousand years, Al-Azhar University in Cairo, Egypt, has served as the academic shrine - much as Mecca is the religious shrine - of the global Muslim community. Al Azhar University and its mosque represent the pinnacle of Islamic religious education.

A front page New York Times story published Saturday Jan. 10, 2009, included extracts from the Friday sermon (the day before) at Al Azhar mosque by Egyptian-government appointed cleric Sheik Eid Abdel Hamid Youssef. Referencing well-established antisemitic motifs from the Koran (citations provided, below), Sheikh Youssef intoned:

"Muslim brothers, God has inflicted the Muslim nation with a people whom God has become angry at [Koran 1:7] and whom he cursed [Koran 5:78] so he made monkeys and pigs [Koran 5:60] out of them. They killed prophets and messengers [Koran 2:61/3:112] and sowed corruption on Earth. [Koran 5:33/5:64] They are the most evil on Earth. [Koran 5:62 /63]"

In authoritative classical and modern Koranic interpretations, the Koran's central antisemitic theme - its eternal curse for "prophet killing" and violating Allah's commands - is coupled to Koranic verses 5:60 and 5:78, which describe the Jews' transformation into apes and swine (5:60), or simply apes (i.e. verses 2:65 and 7:166), having been "...cursed by the tongue of David, and Jesus, Mary's son" (5:78). The Muslim prophet Muhammad himself repeats this Koranic curse in a canonical hadith (sacred collections of Muhammad's words and deeds).

Moreover, just before subduing the Medinan Jewish tribe Banu Qurayza and orchestrating the mass execution of their adult males, Muhammad invoked Koran 2:65/7:166, addressing these Jews, with hateful disparagement, as "You brothers of apes." Finally, Islamic end of times theology teaches that the dawning of the messianic era cannot begin until the Jews are violently exterminated en masse. Both Shiite and Sunni Muslims invoke the infamous hadith attributed to Muhammad: "The last hour would not come unless the Muslims will fight against the Jews and the Muslims would kill them until the Jews would hide themselves behind a stone or a tree and a stone or a tree would say: 'Muslim, or the servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me; come and kill him.'" Each Friday this genocidal hadith is quoted in sermons across the Islamic world, including among U.S. Muslim communities.

In February 2008, Franco Frattini, the European Union official responsible "for combating racism and antisemitism in Europe," revealed that Muslims - who comprise 4% of the European population - were responsible for fully half (50%) of the documented antisemitic incidents in continental Europe. Thus, on a population percentage basis, Muslims in Western Europe already accounted for roughly 25 times the number of Antisemitic incidents as their non-Muslim European counterparts.

When the late 23 year-old Parisian Jew Ilan Halimi was being tortured to death in February 2006, his Muslim captors reportedly phoned his family and made them listen to the recitation of verses from the Koran, interspersed with Ilan's background screams of agony. In the heart of Western Europe, Halimi's torturers-murderers did not invoke any non-Islamic sources of anti-Jewish hate - only the Koran.

Unless and until we confront the menace of theologically-motivated Islamic Jew hatred, we are missing the point. Despite continuous interfaith dialogue sessions, Jewish leaders in Europe and America never demand a mea culpa from their Muslim interlocutors for the living legacy of doctrinal Islamic Jew hatred, whose ugly consequences are evident on a daily basis. Their dereliction of duty is shameful.

Bostom (www.andrewbostom.org) is the author of "The Legacy of Islamic Antisemitism."

Iran's Ahmadinejad rejects Western nuclear proposal
Mon May 25, 2009 11:15am EDT

"Our talks (with major powers) will only be in the framework of cooperation for managing global issues and nothing else. We have clearly announced this," Ahmadinejad said."The nuclear issue is a finished issue for us," he told a news conference.

By Parisa Hafezi and Zahra Hosseinian

TEHRAN (Reuters) - Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on Monday rejected a Western proposal for it to "freeze" its nuclear work in return for no new sanctions and ruled out any talks with major powers on the issue.

The comments by the conservative president, who is seeking a second term in a June 12 election, are likely to further disappoint the U.S. administration of President Barack Obama, which is seeking to engage Iran diplomatically.

The United States, Russia, China, France, Germany and Britain said in April they would invite Iran to a meeting to try and find a diplomatic solution to the nuclear row.

The West accuses Iran of secretly developing atomic weapons. Iran, the world's fifth-largest oil exporter, denies the charge and says it only wants nuclear power to generate electricity.

Breaking with past U.S. policy of shunning direct talks with Iran, Obama's administration last month said it would join nuclear discussions with Tehran from now on.

Ahmadinejad proposed a debate with Obama at the United Nations in New York "regarding the roots of world problems" but he made clear Tehran would not bow to pressure on the nuclear issue.

"Our talks (with major powers) will only be in the framework of cooperation for managing global issues and nothing else. We have clearly announced this," Ahmadinejad said.

"The nuclear issue is a finished issue for us," he told a news conference. "From now on we will continue our path in the framework of the (U.N. nuclear watchdog) agency."

He was asked about a so-called "freeze-for-freeze" proposal first put forward last year under which Iran would freeze expansion of its nuclear program in return for the U.N. Security Council halting further sanctions against Tehran.

....

Netanyahu: No new W. Bank settlements
May. 24, 2009 THE JERUSALEM POST

Amid a flurry of comments among politicians regarding the possible evacuation of numerous unauthorized outposts in the West Bank, Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu vowed on Sunday not to build new settlements while assuring that "natural growth" will not go unanswered.

"We are obliged to protect the law," he said during the weekly cabinet meeting. "We won't establish new settlements, but there is no logic in not providing an answer to natural growth."

Prior to the meeting, Defense Minister Ehud Barak said that nearly two dozen illegal outposts in the West Bank will be dismantled, with force if necessary.

"There are 26 illegal outposts - declared as such by the Talia Sasson Commission - which the [Ariel Sharon] government promised the Americans would be evacuated," he told ministers. "But this isn't the issue between us and the Americans, and us and the Palestinians, rather first and foremost amongst ourselves.

"This is an issue of the rule of law in the state, and the authority of the law over its citizens," Barak continued. "We have evacuated three outposts, come to an understanding with another, and have not allowed any additional outposts to be constructed.

"The 22 additional outposts must be taken care of now, and in a responsible and correct way," the defense minister said, "first by trying to work something out with negotiations, and if that's not possible, through unilateral means, including the use of force."

Arrested Islamists planned to attack Jews in Morocco

May 21, 2009 Agence France Presse

RABAT (AFP) — A group of alleged Islamists recently arrested in Morocco planned to attack Jewish interests in the country, a court source said Thursday, citing the charges against them.

The suspects, alleged to be members of a cell that was part of the radical Islamist movement Salafia Jihadia, were also preparing attacks against Moroccan security services, the source said.

Details of the alleged attack plans were not available.

The cell -- Jamaat Al Mourabitine Al Jodod, or New Fighters Group -- allegedly began operating in March 2008 in southern Morocco and sought to recruit militants from Koranic schools with the intention of infiltrating political parties.

Authorities announced their arrest on May 12 and they face charges including forming a criminal gang with the aim of carrying out "terrorist" acts. They are being held in jail.

"Police dismantled the cell as part of a regular operation in the battle against terrorism," the court source said.

Copyright © 2009 AFP. All rights reserved. More »

Brazilian police thwart neo-Nazi plot to bomb synagogues

May 22, 2009

WASHINGTON (JTA) -- Brazilian police said they thwarted a plan by neo-Nazis to bomb two synagogues.

Police arrested 14 men and released them pending an investigation into a plot to bomb the synagogues in the city of Porto Alegre, spokesmen said on Thursday.

Police seized explosive devices, knives and Nazi literature in the operation.

“I have no doubt that we have aborted a major tragedy,” Paulo Cesar Jardim, an inspector, was quoted as saying by The Associated Press. Police said the men belonged to a group, “Neuland,” established in 2002 and comprising about 50 people.

Jardim described the members as “extremely intelligent, well-organized and very dangerous criminals who prey on Jews and gays in the name of racial purity.”

Bronx terrorists ‘wanted to commit jihad’
May 21, 2009

WASHINGTON (JTA) – The four men who planned to blow up two synagogues in the Bronx and shot down U.S. military planes said they "wanted to commit jihad," the New York Police Commissioner said.

James Cromitie, David Williams, Onta Williams and Laguerre Payen, all of Newburgh 60 miles north of New York, were arrested Wednesday night. Payen is a native of Haiti. All four of the men are Muslim, and three are recent converts to Islam, according to reports.

“They stated that they wanted to commit jihad,” Police Commissioner Raymond W. Kelly said Thursday morning during a news conference at the Riverdale Jewish Center. “More information about their motives I’m sure will be developed as the case progresses, but right now, they stated they wanted to make jihad. They were disturbed about what was happening in Afghanistan and Pakistan, that Muslims were being killed. They were making statements that Jews were killed in this attack and that would be all right — that sort of thing.”

Kelly said the men, who are scheduled to be arraigned Thursday morning in Federal District Court, were not acting on behalf of any terrorist organizations and described them as "petty criminals" with multiple arrests for minor crimes.

According to the U.S. attorney’s statement, an informant working with the FBI this month provided the four men with a disabled anti-aircraft missile launcher and disabled explosives. The men on Wednesday planted the fake explosives, which they believed to be real, in cars parked outside Riverdale Temple, a Reform synagogue, and the Riverdale Jewish Center, an Orthodox synagogue.

Last month, according to the statement and to the criminal complaint, the defendants photographed several synagogues and a Jewish community center in the Riverdale section of the Bronx as well as the Air National Guard Base at Newburgh.

Cromitie, who according to the complaint told the informant that his parents once lived in Afghanistan, allegedly expressed an interest in working with the Pakistan-based Islamist terrorist group, Jaish-e-Mohammed.

“While the weapons provided to the defendants by the cooperating witness were fake, the defendants thought they were absolutely real," said acting U.S. Attorney Lev Dassin said in the statement. "The defendants planned to strike military planes with surface-to-air guided missiles and to destroy a synagogue and a Jewish community center with C-4 plastic explosives.”

NBC: 4 arrested in plot to bomb NYC targets
Suspects were under heavy surveillance, authorities say

WASHINGTON - Four men have been arrested in a plot to attack several targets in the New York City area, including synagogues, federal and local authorities told NBC News Wednesday.

Authorities said the four men have long been under investigation and there was little danger they could actually have carried out their plan, NBC's Pete Williams reported.

Investigators say the four, described as Black Muslims from the Bronx, had planned to place bombs at various targets. But New York city police and federal agents got wind of the plot and kept the men under careful surveillance.
Story continues below ↓advertisement | your ad here

In fact, officials say, the men recently bought what they thought were explosives, which they put in storage lockers outside the city. But what the men did not know is that the material they bought was actually harmless, sold to them by informants posing as explosives dealers.

Officials emphasize that the men never had actual bombs and could not have pulled off any attack.

Two years ago, two Muslims pleaded guilty to plotting to attack synagogues in Los Angeles. But officials said that they knew of no connection between those arrests and this latest plot in New York.

This breaking news story will be updated.

Peace isn't Arab goal

By Jeff Jacoby, Globe Columnist | May 20, 2009

WHO FAVORS a two-state solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict?

President Obama does, of course, as he made clear in welcoming Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to the White House on Monday. So does former president George W. Bush, who began advocating Palestinian statehood in 2002 and continued until his final days in office. The Democratic Party's national platform endorses a two-state solution; the Republican platform does, too. The UN Security Council unanimously reaffirmed its support a few days ago, and the European Union is strongly in favor as well.

Pope Benedict XVI called for a Palestinian state during his recent visit to the Holy Land, thereby aligning himself - on this issue, at least - with the editorial boards of The Boston Globe, The New York Times, The Washington Post, and The Los Angeles Times. And, for that matter, with most Israelis. A new poll shows 58 percent of the Israeli public backing a two-state solution; prominent supporters include Netanyahu's three predecessors - former prime ministers Ehud Olmert, Ariel Sharon, and Ehud Barak - as well as president Shimon Peres.

The consensus, it would seem, is overwhelming. As Henri Guaino, a senior adviser to French President Nicolas Sarkozy, put it on Sunday: "Everyone wants peace. The whole world wants a Palestinian state."

It isn't going to happen.

International consensus or no, the two-state solution is a chimera. Peace will not be achieved by granting sovereignty to the Palestinians, because Palestinian sovereignty has never been the Arabs' goal. Time and time again, a two-state solution has been proposed. Time and time again, the Arabs have turned it down.

In 1936, when Palestine was still under British rule, a royal commission headed by Lord Peel was sent to investigate the steadily worsening Arab violence. After a detailed inquiry, the Peel Commission concluded that "an irrepressible conflict has arisen between two national communities within the narrow bounds of one small country." It recommended a two-state solution - a partition of the land into separate Arab and Jewish states. "Partition offers a chance of ultimate peace," the commission reported. "No other plan does."

But the Arab leaders, more intent on preventing Jewish sovereignty in Palestine than in achieving a state for themselves, rejected the Peel plan out of hand. The foremost Palestinian leader, Haj Amin al-Husseini, actively supported the Nazi regime in Germany. In return, Husseini wrote in his memoirs, Hitler promised him "a free hand to eradicate every last Jew from Palestine and the Arab world."

In 1947, the Palestinians were again presented with a two-state proposal. Again they spurned it. Like the Peel Commission, the United Nations concluded that only a division of the land into adjacent states, one Arab and one Jewish, could put an end to the conflict. On Nov. 29, 1947, by a vote of 33-13, the UN General Assembly adopted Resolution 181, partitioning Palestine on the basis of population. Had the Arabs accepted the UN decision, the Palestinian state that "the whole world wants" would today be 61 years old. Instead, the Arab League vowed to block Jewish sovereignty by waging "a war of extermination and a momentous massacre."

Over and over, the pattern has been repeated. Following its stunning victory in the 1967 Six Day War, Israel offered to exchange the land it had won for permanent peace with its neighbors. From their summit in Khartoum came the Arabs' notorious response: "No peace with Israel, no negotiations with Israel, no recognition of Israel."

At Camp David in 2000, Ehud Barak offered the Palestinians virtually everything they claimed to be seeking - a sovereign state with its capital in East Jerusalem, 97 percent of the West Bank and Gaza Strip, tens of billions of dollars in "compensation" for the plight of Palestinian refugees. Yasser Arafat refused the offer, and launched the bloodiest wave of terrorism in Israel's history.

To this day, the charters of Hamas and Fatah, the two main Palestinian factions, call for Israel's liquidation. "The whole world" may want peace and a Palestinian state, but the Palestinians want something very different. Until that changes, there is no two-state solution.

Jeff Jacoby can be reached at jacoby@globe.com

New Palestinian government takes flak from Hamas, Fatah

New Palestinian Government Sworn In
By VOA News 19 May 2009

A new Palestinian government in the West Bank has been sworn in. The new cabinet took the oath of office Tuesday at Palestinian Authority headquarters in the West Bank town of Ramallah.

The government consists of about two dozen ministers and is composed mainly of members of the Palestinian faction Fatah - but none from its rival Hamas.

Hamas officials on Tuesday called the new government "illegal" and said it poses an obstacle to reconciliation talks between the two factions.

Officials say Western-backed Palestinian Prime Minister Salam Fayyad will maintain his position in the new government and will head the cabinet.

Ramallah: Fatah debates ban of new Palestinian government

05.20.09

The Fatah faction is currently convened in Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas' Ramallah office, to discuss in motion to ban the new Palestinian government, headed by Prime Minister Salam Fayyad.

Fayyad's government was sworn in on Tuesday, sans Fatah members in attendance. Fatah ordered its delegates to the Palestinian Parliament not to serve under Fayyad. (Ali Waked)

Detailed Analysis of Obama-Netanyahu Meeting/Part 2 What Netanyahu Said

By Barry Rubin

Obviously, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s job was to make a good impression including the flattery of President Barack Obama. He thus thanked him:

“For your friendship to Israel and your friendship to me. You’re a great leader--a great leader of the United States, a great leader of the world, a great friend of Israel, and someone who is acutely cognizant of our security concerns. And the entire people of Israel appreciate it, and I speak on their behalf.”

But this is more than flattery. Netanyahu is defining him as a great leader in part because he is a great friend of Israel. In other words, he is locking him in on his commitments to what Obama called an “extraordinary relationship.” This is the standard which the American president has set for the relationship and Netanyahu will hold him to it.

He also wants to define common interests: “We share the same goals and we face the same threats.” This happens to be true though it may take some time for Obama to recognize it.

Netanyahu also wants to stake out his own identity as a peacemaker:

“The common goal is peace. Everybody in Israel, as in the United States, wants peace. The common threat we face are terrorist regimes and organizations that seek to undermine the peace and endanger both our peoples.”

But how is peace to be obtained? Who is the common enemy?

A. The Iran issue

“In this context, the worst danger we face is that Iran would develop nuclear military capabilities. Iran openly calls for our destruction, which is unacceptable by any standard. It threatens the moderate Arab regimes in the Middle East. It threatens U.S. interests worldwide. But if Iran were to acquire nuclear weapons, it could give a nuclear umbrella to terrorists, or worse, it could actually give terrorists nuclear weapons. And that would put us all in great peril.”

This is broadening out the threat beyond Israel to encompass U.S. interests and those of moderate Arab regimes, as I have long argued.

So Netanyahu reinforced what he wanted to, without mentioning the engagement part:

“So in that context, I very much appreciate, Mr. President, your firm commitment to ensure that Iran does not develop nuclear military capability, and also your statement that you’re leaving all options on the table.”

B. Israel-Palestinian Negotiations

On this issue, Netanyahu stressed his eagerness to cooperate, his “desire to move the peace process forward.” Indeed, he was ready to move very fast: “And I want to start peace negotiations with the Palestinians immediately. I would like to broaden the circle of peace to include others in the Arab world, if we could….”

Here came Netanyahu’s most quoted lines, which should be quoted fully:

“I want to make it clear that we don’t want to govern the Palestinians. We want to live in peace with them. We want them to govern themselves, absent a handful of powers that could endanger the state of Israel. And for this there has to be a clear goal. The goal has to be an end to conflict. There will have to be compromises by Israelis and Palestinians alike. We’re ready to do our share. We hope the Palestinians will do their share, as well. If we resume negotiations, as we plan to do, then I think that the Palestinians will have to recognize Israel as a Jewish state; will have to also enable Israel to have the means to defend itself. And if those conditions are met, Israel’s security conditions are met, and there’s recognition of Israel’s legitimacy, its permanent legitimacy, then I think we can envision an arrangement where Palestinians and Israelis live side by side in dignity, in security, and in peace.”

Here is Netanyahu’s view of the two-state solution. If the Palestinians meet Israeli conditions, then there will be the “side by side” arrangement Obama has raised.

This is critical: a two-state solution is not something given as a present at the beginning of negotiations, it is a reward for the proper compromises that enable such a peace to succeed.

That is the key point of the Israeli position, regarding not just Netanyahu but in practice across much of the political spectrum.

Netanyahu fully recognizes the interrelationship of issues and says both are important:

“It would help, obviously, unite a broad front against Iran if we had peace between Israel and the Palestinians. And conversely, if Iran went nuclear, it would threaten the progress towards peace and destabilize the entire area, and threaten existing peace agreement.”

And so he concludes, “We see exactly eye to eye on this—that we want to move simultaneously and then parallel on two fronts: the front of peace, and the front of preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear capability.”

Many might view this as papering over differences but it really isn’t. The point Netanyahu makes is that the two countries agree in principle whatever differences there are on details. And after all, this is the same basic position Obama has stated, though there is a bit of reversal on apparent priorities.

And then Netanyahu raises another key Israeli point: It is quite possible to make things far worse:

“If we end up with another Gaza -- the President has described to you there’s rockets falling out of Gaza -- that is something we don’t want to happen, because a terror base next to our cities that doesn’t call -- recognize Israel’s existence and calls for our destruction and asks for our destruction is not arguing peace.

“If, however, the Palestinians recognize Israel as the Jewish state, if they -- if they fight terror, if they educate their children for peace and to a better future, then I think we can come at a substantive solution that allows the two people to live side by side in security and peace and I add prosperity, because I’m a great believer in this.”

What is the point, after all, of pushing through a two-state solution which:

--Makes Palestine a radical Islamist state tied to Iran and Syria.

--Creates a Palestine in which every school, mosque, and media institution teaches Palestinians that all of Israel is theirs and they must strive to conquer it. This would be a Palestine full of incitement to violence against Israelis which will inspire scores of people to become terrorists and thousands of others to support them.

--Sets off a new Israel-Palestine cross-border war, with the Palestine government either looking the other way or actively assisting terrorists.

--Creates a Palestine that invites in Iranian, Syrian, or other armies, or gets missiles from them targeted at Israeli cities.

--Extends the conflict another generation by using the state as a base for a “second stage” to finish off Israel.
And if Israel were to take risks and make concessions will they be reciprocated? And if the United States and Europe makes promises to Israel will they be kept?

After all, the 1990s’ peace process taught Israelis the answer was “no” on both counts.

This is Israel’s central point: peace, yes, but only a real, lasting, and stable situation which makes things better rather than worse.

A two-state solution only if it isn’t a two-mistake anti-solution
--------------
Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. See the GLORIA/MERIA site at www.gloria-center.org.

Detailed Analysis of the Obama-Netanyahu Meeting/Part 1: Obama’s Statement

By Barry Rubin, director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. See the GLORIA/MERIA site at www.gloria-center.org. May 19, 2009

So what did President Barack Obama say after the meeting with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and what does it mean?

First, Obama went to great lengths to stress his belief in the special relationship between the two countries, knowing his fealty to it has been (understandably and rightfully) challenged. He consciously escalated it by calling it an “extraordinary relationship” adding “historical ties, emotional ties,” “only true democracy of the Middle East,” “a source of admiration and inspiration for the American people.” He then went on to say Israel’s security “is paramount” in his policy.

No signal to Arab regimes or Iran here of eroding support. This is the part they will look at and he knew it. This is not mere boiler plate. By setting the bar so high he is saying that the relationship is central and important, one not to be lightly undermined. That doesn’t mean he won’t do anything in that direction but it is publicly limiting himself from making any fundamental shift.

Of course, he and his administration can, and will, justify things they do as being for Israel’s own good. But again, opening with this statement is important and very purposeful.

A. The Iran Issue

He then focused on “the deepening concern around the potential pursuit of a nuclear weapon by Iran.” Some have focused on his following remark that Netanyahu “has been very vocal in his concerns about” this as if Obama was being sarcastic, but he added this “is a concern that is shared by his countrymen and women across the political spectrum.” In other words, he is associating America’s stance with this view.

A key word, of course, is “potential.” Does this mean he doesn’t believe Tehran is trying to get nuclear weapons? No, but he is arguing that the outcome is still open, that is his belief he can talk them out of it.
That, of course, is a mistake.

But Obama added:

“Iran obtaining a nuclear weapon would not only be a threat to Israel and a threat to the United States, but would be profoundly destabilizing in the international community as a whole and could set off a nuclear arms race in the Middle East that would be extraordinarily dangerous for all concerned, including for Iran.”
That’s a pretty strong statement. He then spoke of how the United States will try to talk Iran out of doing this without foreclosing tougher actions in future.

Whatever concerns one has about this—and I have them—this is the best possible statement one could have expected out of this American president. Remember he is not just talking to Netanyahu but to the Iranian regime and the whole region in so defining the U.S. stance.

Obama even added:

“The one thing we’re also aware of is the fact that the history, of least, of negotiation with Iran is that there is a lot of talk but not always action and follow-through. And that’s why it is important for us, I think, without having set an artificial deadline, to be mindful of the fact that we’re not going to have talks forever. We’re not going to create a situation in which talks become an excuse for inaction while Iran proceeds with developing a nuclear -- and deploying a nuclear weapon. That’s something, obviously, Israel is concerned about, but it’s also an issue of concern for the United States and for the international community as a whole.”

Here, he is saying he isn’t naïve and won’t let Iran fool him. Whether that’s true in practice remains to be seen but at least he is aware of this issue.

On another issue, however, he still doesn’t get it, asked whether his efforts at talking and compromising might be perceived by America’s enemies as weakness he responded:

“Well, it’s not clear to me why my outstretched hand would be interpreted as weakness.”

Unfortunately, this shows he doesn’t understand the Middle East. His basic mantra is: toughness has been tried and hasn’t worked so let’s try being nice. If Obama is ever going to avoid disaster in the region, much less accomplish anything, he’s going to have to get beyond this simple-minded concept.

B. Israel-Palestinian

On Israeli-Palestinian negotiations, Obama said it was in everyone’s interest “to achieve a two-state solution in which Israelis and Palestinians are living side by side in peace and security.”

I think the way this was phrased is very important. The great majority of Israelis can agree—even Netanyahu, in my opinion, would do so—that a two-state solution that really worked would be a good outcome.

The problem is that most Israelis don’t believe at this point that a two-state solution would work because the Palestinian Authority, Fatah, Hamas, Iran, Syria, Hizballah and other forces either would ensure it never came about in the first place or would be quickly destabilized.

So the way Obama put it—and it was deliberate—is not in contradiction to Israeli views and interests.
Note also how he phrased his discussion of something else:

“Those obligations [of both sides] were outlined in the road map; they were discussed extensively in Annapolis.”

Remember that Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman was criticized for saying that Israel adhered to the road map but not to Annapolis. This position accepts that view. The road map presents the obligations; Annapolis is non-binding, a mere discussion. That phrasing was very deliberate.

And then of course Obama added that everyone should seize this opportunity for progress and mentioned five specific points, a list weighted in Israel’s favor: assures Israel’s security, stops terrorism and rocket attacks, and economic development for the Palestinians (which is Netanyahu’s emphasis) along with having an independent Palestinian state.

Indeed, Obama went even further in accommodating Netanyahu’s standpoint. He did not only—despite what I have read in some analyses—talk about Israeli concessions or obligations but also very much about Palestinian ones, his:

“Recognition that the Palestinians are going to have to do a better job providing the kinds of security assurances that Israelis would need to achieve a two-state solution; that the leadership of the Palestinians will have to gain additional legitimacy and credibility with their own people, and delivering services. And that’s something that the United States and Israel can be helpful in seeing them accomplish.”

This is something extremely important and he even said that he would convey this point to Mahmoud Abbas, leader of the PA, when he visited Washington.

On Israel’s side he said settlements have to be stopped—though there are no new settlements or expanding of settlements in territorial terms, a point that often is forgotten. There has to be reconstruction of Gaza along with an end to rocket attacks, which means a loosening of border controls.

This is not so difficult for Israel to accomplish: close down some outposts, remove new settlement efforts, and revise the border controls on Gaza. These are all things Netanyahu is quite prepared to do to maintain good relations with the United States.

Another important point on which Obama just doesn’t get it because of lack of knowledge about the Middle East regards linkage:

“To the extent that we can make peace with the Palestinians -- between the Palestinians and the Israelis, then I actually think it strengthens our hand in the international community in dealing with a potential Iranian threat….Imagine how much less mischief a Hezbollah or a Hamas could do if in fact we had moved a Palestinian-Israeli track in a direction that gave the Palestinian people hope. And if Hezbollah and Hamas is weakened, imagine how that impacts Iran’s ability to make mischief, and vice versa.”

As I have explained elsewhere, such efforts would actually strengthen Iran, Hizballah and Hamas because any compromise agreement—even assuming such a thing were to be possible—would inflame radicalism. Again, failing to understand that, Obama doesn’t get the Middle East….Yet, at least.
Overall, though, the meeting was a success. It is important to emphasize that this was not just true on the atmospherics or the surface. Obama’s original ideology and the original intentions of his administration have been modified by taking into account Israel’s views and interests as well as some touch of reality about the region.
In other respects, it has not been so modified. The needle has moved from “catastrophic” to “very bad” on the region in general, and from “confrontational” to “pretty good” on the bilateral U.S.-Israel front. The rest depends on whether the administration insists on putting the priority on its ideas or on its experiences in future.

Transcript of the Obama and Netanyahu press conference

Commentary: Decoding Bibi and Barack

Netanyahu on Iran: Israel has the right to defend itselfPublished: 05.18.09, 23:27 / Israel News

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said that Israel has the right to defend itself against Iran. Netanyahu's statement was made to Israeli reporters in Washington following the prime minister's meeting with US President Barack Obama. (Yitzhak Benhorin, WASHINGTON)

Obama: No deadline on talks to stop Iran nuclear program
May. 18, 2009 Hilary Leila Krieger and Jpost staff , THE JERUSALEM POST

The United States will not adhere to "artificial deadlines" when negotiating to end Teheran's nuclear ambitions, but talks must not be an excuse for inaction, and that tougher sanctions may be imposed to keep Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, President Barack Obama said following a meeting with Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu at the White House.

"I believe that it is not only in interest of the international community [that Iran cease its nuclear activities,]" Obama told reporters following the meeting. "I firmly believe it is not in Iran's interest to develop nuclear weapons. It would trigger a nuclear arms race in the Middle East, and it would destabilize the region."

"Iran can achieve security, international respect, and prosperity for its people through other means," the president promised. "I'm prepared to make what I think to be a persuasive argument [regarding this matter]."

However, the United States would not continue talks with Iran forever, Obama said, and even as he suggested that America would assess its policy of engagement by the end of the year to see if progress has been made.

In his remarks, Netanyahu praised the president's remarks on Iran, saying that he appreciated the American "commitment on the matter."

"The worst danger we face is that Iran develops nuclear capabilities," the premier said. "Iran openly calls for our destruction, which is unacceptable by our standards. If Iran acquires nuclear weapons, it would put us all in peril."

Both leaders also talked about the importance of continuing peace negotiations with the Palestinians. Obama stressed the need for a "two-state solution," a phrase that Netanyahu pointedly did not use in his own remarks. For his part, the prime minister said that "the terminology would take care of itself," and talked about two peoples living side-by-side in peace, never mentioning, however, a Palestinian state.

Netanyahu said that "compromise" would be necessary from both sides, and that Israel is willing to take those steps.

Asked about recent comments by Israeli officials who stated that progress with the Palestinians was contingent on progress with curbing Iran's nuclear ambitions, Obama said he saw the issue of linkage the other way around. He suggested that improvement with the Israel-Palestinian conflict would make it easier to enlist broader support with the international community to keep Iran from acquiring weapons, but nodded his head when Netanyahu added that neither country was linking the policy between the two issues.

Obama called the meeting, which was extended well beyond its originally scheduled time, "extraordinarily productive."

Anti-Semitic violence erupts in Buenos Aires

May 18, 2009 www.jta.org

BUENOS AIRES (JTA) -- A violent anti-Semitic demonstration erupted in downtown Buenos Aires during a public celebration of Israel's 61st anniversary.

On late Sunday afternoon, shortly after Jewish families and their non-Jewish neighbors began Independence Day celebrations at a “Buenos Aires Celebrates” event, a group of about 20 people came out of a subway depot with anti-Semitic banners and signs and fighting broke out.

According to the organizers, a number of Jews were beaten and required medical attention, the French news agency AFP reported.

“In the middle of the cultural festival, the group attacked with complete impunity," Aldo Donzis, the DAIA Jewish local political umbrella institution president, told JTA. "Five police officers who were standing in a corner took a long time before acting. Two people from the public were hurt as well as a policeman. Many of the aggressors ran away, but five of them were caught by the policemen and others from the public who chased them.”

DAIA officials said the group will take legal action against the five aggressors.

“It was really a very violent act,” said Donzis.

The Israeli festival, held a block away from the central Plaza de Mayo, is part of a series of events "celebrating Buenos Aires' diversity and the pluralism that builds our identity,” Claudio Avruj, the head of the city’s Institutional Relations General Direction office, told JTA. A Greek festival was held in March and a Russian celebration is planned for June.

The demonstration lasted a few minutes and the celebration -- which included Israeli music, poetry, crafts and dance -- continued as scheduled.

“People stayed and redoubled the will to celebrate,” said Avruj.

Predictions favor positive meeting btw Obama, Netanyahu

Yogi Berra said it best: "It's tough to make predictions, especially about the future."

There is a meeting scheduled for Monday between President Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu. All sorts of dire speculation is circulating about the meeting, given the differences in approach between the two participants. There are in fact parties that would enjoy nothing better than to see a clash between Obama and Netanyahu, mirrored by a clash between the US and Israel.

But most speculation, as of today, seems to be that no head-on collision will occur. Here are three indicators supporting that more positive prediction:

Obama won't be throwing Israel under the bus. (Part I)by Meryl Yourish

And DebkaFile's Washington infighting mutes Netanyahu-Obama differences

Most of all, the following from Cong. Robert Wexler

Wexler: Obama, Netanyahu not headed for clash
May. 10, 2009 Herb Keinon , THE JERUSALEM POST

Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and US President Barack Obama are not headed for a "train wreck," but rather will "figure out how to work collaboratively" during their meeting next week, US Congressman Robert Wexler, a close political ally of Obama and a stalwart Israel supporter, told The Jerusalem Post on Sunday.

Wexler, who in March 2007 was the first Jewish politician outside of Obama's home state of Illinois to endorse his presidential campaign, said after emerging from a meeting with Netanyahu that both the prime minister and Obama understand that "cooperatively we can enhance each other's strategic interest, better than we can separately."

Wexler, a liberal Democrat from South Florida, dismissed concern that has been reflected in the media in recent weeks that Israeli-US ties are headed for a crisis.

"I can say unequivocally that the anxiety is not warranted," said Wexler, who has spoken to the US president about Middle East issues, and speaks regularly with top White House staffers dealing with the matter, including National Security Adviser Gen. (ret.) James Jones.

He arrived in Israel on Friday for a series of meetings in Jerusalem and in the Palestinian Authority, and will return to Washington on Monday.

"I am in constant contact with those in the administration responsible for policy in this region, and nothing could be further from the truth," he said, regarding reports that the US and Israel are on a collision course.

"As someone who was with Barack Obama from the very beginning of his campaign, I am not going to be surprised or fall prey to the too often false representation of now President Obama; and likewise I think the degree of angst also misrepresents Prime Minister Netanyahu's policies as well," said Wexler, who spoke of Obama's pro-Israeli credentials as one of the featured speakers at the Democratic National Convention in Denver last summer.

"These two men are not headed for a train wreck," he said. "They are not. Both men want the relationship to be as strong, if not stronger - if that is possible - than it has been in the past."

Wexler, who has been in Congress since 1997, has a long-standing relationship with Netanyahu, as well as with Obama.

Wexler said that while he did not expect Obama to pressure Netanyahu in their meeting next Monday, but rather to lay out his view of US policy toward Iran and the Israeli-Palestinian track, he did expect the US under Obama to get considerably tougher with the Saudis.

"The Saudis have had a bit of a free ride in Washington of late," Wexler said. "They get to argue that they proposed the Arab peace initiative. I think that most Israelis have issues, exceptions, to the Arab peace initiative, and so do I, and we, in America. But it is time to test them."

He said it was time to say to Saudi King Abdullah, "You have provided an outline to normalization and how we get there. Israel has put forth some idea in terms of what they can do. What are you willing to do, King Abdullah? We are not going to only hear from you only at the end of the process, that is not how you build trust on the Israel and American sides. What, King Abdullah, are you willing to do next week?"

Wexler said that, rather inexplicably, the Saudis had not made good on financial pledges and commitments to bolster the PA and the government of Fuad Saniora in Lebanon. While the Saudi failure to help the moderates in the PA and in Lebanon was counterintuitive and counterproductive, that was exactly what was happening on the ground, he said.

"Some people have suggested that the Saudis are entertaining a new dynamic or relationship with Syria that would result in Syria being less attached to Iran. But as laudable as that goal may be, it is a bizarre way to try to achieve it," Wexler said.

"People say very loosely that Israelis must take risks for peace," he added. "Well, what risk is the king of Saudi Arabia willing to take? And if he is not willing to take any risk for peace, then what does he bring to the table?" he asked.

The US would not only call out the Saudis about this, but "insist" on the Saudis taking immediate action to show their commitment to the diplomatic process. The Obama administration, he said, "will insist upon it to the point where if it is not met with a satisfactory response, then we will find out once and for all what value Saudi Arabia and the Arab League present to this process. And it is better to learn that early, not late."

Despite linkage some key Obama administration figures have made in recent weeks between progress on the Israeli-Palestinian track and stopping Iran's nuclear march, Wexler said there was no "package."

"There is no quid pro quo, there is no package," he said. "However, it would be absurd to conclude that progress or lack of progress on the Israeli-Palestinian track does not have ramifications or impact upon the ability to be successful in thwarting Iran's nuclear program."

It would be naïve, he said, "to think that issues that are happening at the same time do not impact on one another." But he did not think Obama would "pressure" Netanyahu.

"I think President Obama will present a compelling case as to the direction the US will take with regard to Iran and the Israeli-Palestinian track, and will listen to Prime Minister Netanyahu make his case, and the two leaders will figure out how we will work collaboratively. I don't think it is a question of pressure," Wexler said.

Alluding to the large number of US-Israeli meetings that have been taking place in recent weeks in preparation for the Obama-Netanyahu talks, Wexler said, "I think the communication between the parties has been open and clear enough that both principals understand the parameters in which they are operating, and will make certain at the end of their meeting and in their public statement that they are close enough to be able to demonstrate to the world that Israel and the US continue to have an unbreakable bond, and that collaboratively we will pursue on mutual interests."

Wexler said Obama would present Netanyahu with "an American policy with respect to Iran that is designed to thwart the Iranian nuclear program."

No one in Washington had come to terms with an Iranian nuclear weapon, and "there is no contingency plan that is being operated upon in Washington regarding acceptance of an Iranian nuclear program, just the opposite. America is implementing a process of carrots and sticks, of engagement with Iran that respects the urgency of the situation and which I believe will be time-limited," he said.

Obama would provide Netanyahu with "clarity" on the issue at their meeting, even if he didn't give a precise date as to when the engagement with Iran would end if the Iranians did not end their uranium enrichment, Wexler said.

"I think the president is going to lay out a strong policy of engagement that is rooted in realism, and predicated on the fact that an Iranian nuclear weapon is unacceptable to the United States," he said. "And I think he is going to outline a policy that has one design, and that is to provide both the incentives and consequences of continuing to pursue nuclear weapons."

Asked whether he thought Obama would give an okay for military action if his policy failed, Wexler said, "I don't think we need to address that hypothetical situation yet, other than to say that the president has said repeatedly that a military option with respect to an Iranian nuclear program is not off the table, and I don't know how more direct he could be in a responsible fashion than that."

This article can also be read at
[ Back to the Article ]

"If only Israel did this or that ...."

What's the "If Only Israel" - syndrome?
Posted by David Harris, Executive Dir., American Jewish Committee


It's the misguided notion, peddled in the name of Israel's best interests by some in the diplomatic, academic, and media worlds, that if only Israel did this or that, peace with its neighbors would be at hand. But since it doesn't, then Israel constitutes the principal, perhaps only, real obstacle to a new day in the Middle East.

Striking, isn't it?

Poor Israel. If only it had the visual acuity of these "enlightened" souls, then all would be hunky-dory. After all, according to them, Israel holds all the cards, yet refuses to play them.

The thinking goes: Why can't those shortsighted Israelis figure out what needs to be done - it's so obvious to us, isn't it? - so the conflict can be brought to a screeching halt?

Thus, if only Israel froze settlements. If only Israel removed checkpoints. If only Israel recognized the Hamas government in Gaza. If only Israel stopped assuming the worst about Iran's "pragmatic" leadership, which just wants a nuclear weapon for defensive purposes. If only Israel got beyond its Holocaust trauma. If only Israel ______ well, you can fill in the blank.

The point is that, for sufferers of IOI, it essentially all comes down to Israel.

And the IOI syndrome has only been strengthened by the advent of the new Israeli government, of course.

After all, media outlets from the Associated Press to CBS News to Der Spiegel have already branded Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu as "hardline" from the get-go. Their word choice simply reinforces the notion that the conflict is all about alleged Israeli intransigence.

At moments like this, it's important to underscore a few basic points too often lost in the din.

First, the Netanyahu government follows on the heels of three successive Israeli governments that sought to achieve peace based on a two-state settlement with the Palestinians - and failed. Each of those governments went far in attempting to strike a deal, but ultimately to no avail.

Prime Minister Ehud Barak, joined by President Bill Clinton, tried mightily to reach an agreement with PLO Chairman Yasser Arafat. The answer was a thunderous rejection, accompanied by the launching of a new wave of terror attacks on Israel.

And, not to be forgotten, a unilateral Israeli withdrawal from southern Lebanon also took place during the Barak era. It was met by the entrenchment of Hizbullah, committed to Israel's destruction, in the emptied space. No good deed goes unpunished!

Prime Minister Ariel Sharon defied his own Likud Party - indeed, he left it to create a new political bloc - and faced down thousands of settlers and their supporters to leave Gaza entirely. It was the first chance ever for Gaza's Arab residents to govern themselves.

Had Gazans seized the opportunity in a responsible manner, they could have created unstoppable momentum for a second phase of withdrawal from the West Bank. Instead, Gaza quickly turned itself into a terrorist redoubt, realizing Israelis' worst fears.

Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, joined by Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni and urged on by Washington, pressed hard for a deal with the Palestinians on the West Bank. According to Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat, the most recent Israeli offer "talked about Jerusalem and almost 100 percent of the West Bank." Not only was the offer not accepted, but there was not even a counteroffer from the Palestinian side.

Prime Minister Netanyahu inherits a situation in which (a) Hamas holds the reins of power in Gaza and a growing arsenal; (b) Hizbullah is continuing to gain strength in Lebanon; (c) the Palestinian Authority failed to take Olmert's outstretched hand and make a deal; (d) indirect talks between Israel and Syria, brokered by Turkey, did not produce an accord on Olmert's watch; and (e) Iran continues its march toward nuclear weapons capability, while trumpeting its support for Syria, Hamas, and Hizbullah.

So before Prime Minister Netanyahu gets further lectures on what needs to be done from New York Times or Financial Times editorial writers or columnists, or from American Jewish groups who profess to love Israel more than Israel loves itself, or from some European leaders eager for a deal at practically any cost, perhaps we should take some stock of what’s transpired - and why.

There have been three successive and bold Israeli efforts to create a breakthrough - and three successive failures.

The vast majority of Israelis are desperately hungry for peace and understand the considerable price the country will have to pay in territory and displaced population. Poll after poll proves their readiness, but only if they are assured that lasting peace will be the outcome.

Israelis don't have to be pushed, prodded, nudged, cajoled, or pressured to seek a comprehensive peace beyond its current treaties with Egypt and Jordan.

They have lived with the absence of peace for 61 years, and know better than anyone else the jarring physical and psychological toll it has inflicted on the nation.

Rather, they have to be convinced that the tangible rewards justify the immense risks for a small state in a tough area. Those rewards begin with its neighbors' acceptance of Israel's rightful place in the region as a Jewish state with secure and recognized borders.

And that, far more than settlements, checkpoints, or any of the other items on the IOI bill of particulars, gets to the essence of the conflict.

The Gaza disengagement demonstrated that settlements and checkpoints can be removed when the time comes.

But unless and until Israel's neighbors recognize its inherent legitimacy, and stop viewing it as a temporary interloper that can be defeated militarily or swamped by Palestinian "refugees," then whatever the IOI crowd insists upon will be a secondary issue in the real world.

Unless and until this recognition is reflected in Palestinian and other Arab textbooks, where children have been taught for generations that Israelis are modern-day Crusaders to be driven out, then what hope is there for the future?

Unless and until the Palestinian Authority succeeds in building a serious governing structure, including an enhanced capacity and political will to combat Palestinian terrorism, then Israel will have no choice but to operate in the West Bank to prevent attacks against its civilians.

And unless and until the forces seeking Israel’s annihilation - from Iran's current regime to Hamas to Hizbullah - are marginalized or replaced by those committed to coexistence, then there will always be a long shadow cast over the road to peace. Some would argue that this view gives the spoilers too much power over the process. I believe it simply acknowledges the inescapable and ominous reality that Israel faces.

As Prime Minister Netanyahu makes his first visit to Washington since his election earlier this year, and as the IOI chorus once again raises the decibel level, let's hope that cooler heads prevail.

Israel doesn't need sanctimonious lectures on peace. It needs genuine partners for peace. Without them, peace remains elusive. With them, peace becomes inevitable.

President proclaims Jewish American Heritage Month

THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
For Immediate Release May 12, 2009
JEWISH AMERICAN HERITAGE MONTH, 2009
- - - - - - -
BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
A PROCLAMATION

The Jewish American tradition exemplifies the strength of the American immigrant tradition. Since Jews arrived in New Amsterdam in 1654, Jewish Americans have maintained a unique identity just as they have enmeshed themselves in the fabric of the United States. This month we celebrate this inspiring and unifying narrative.
Jewish Americans across the United States practice the faith and celebrate the culture of their ancestors. Across the Nation every day, individuals emulate their forebears by seeking to perform mitzvot, the hundreds of commandments set forth in the Torah. The term "mitzvah" has come to mean "good deed," and many Jews have adopted these practices to serve their communities. Other mitzvot include observing holidays, such as Passover, which marks the exodus from Egypt; and Yom Kippur, a time to contemplate and seek forgiveness for the sins of the past year; and Shabbat, the weekly day of rest.

The focus on preserving traditions is a notable characteristic of Jewish culture. Many Jewish religious and cultural practices have developed and adapted over the millennia, yet the fundamental exhortation to ensure that long-cherished ways of life are passed on to future generations remains as strong as ever before. Many Jewish Americans carry on this belief as they instill these traditions in their children.

Seeking to preserve their culture and start anew, Jewish immigrants have departed familiar lands to pursue their own American dreams for more than 300 years. During some periods, Jews sought refuge in the United States from the horrors and tragedies of persecution, pogroms, and the Holocaust. During other times, they came to seek better lives and greater economic opportunities for themselves and their children.
Jewish Americans have immeasurably enriched our Nation. Unyielding in the face of hardship and tenacious in following their dreams, Jewish Americans have surmounted the challenges that every immigrant group faces, and have made unparalleled contributions. Many have broken new ground in the arts and sciences. Jewish American leaders have been essential to all branches and levels of government. Still more Jewish Americans have made selfless sacrifices in our Armed Forces. The United States would not be the country we know without the achievements of Jewish Americans.

Among the greatest contributions of the Jewish American community, however, is the example they have set for all Americans. They have demonstrated that Americans can choose to maintain cultural traditions while honoring the principles and beliefs that bind them together as Americans. Jewish American history demonstrates how America's diversity enriches and strengthens us all.

NOW, THEREFORE, I, BARACK OBAMA, President of the United States of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and the laws of the United States, do hereby proclaim May 2009 as Jewish American Heritage Month. I call upon all Americans to commemorate the proud heritage of Jewish Americans with appropriate ceremonies and activities.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this twelfth day of May, in the year of our Lord two thousand nine, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and thirty-third.

BARACK OBAMA

Why the Obama administration has it backwards on Iran

DON'T BLAME ISRAEL

By ALAN M. DERSHOWITZ


May 9, 2009 --

"The task of forming an international coalition to thwart Iran's nuclear program will be made easier if progress is made in peace negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians, White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel has said, according to sources in Washington. Israeli TV stations had reported Monday night that Emanuel had actually linked the two matters, saying that the efforts to stop Iran hinged on peace talks with the Palestinians." - Jerusalem Post, May 4

Rahm Emanuel is a good man and a good friend of Israel, but in a highly publicized recent statement he linked American efforts to stop Iran from developing nuclear weapons to Israeli efforts toward establishing a Palestinian state. This is dangerous.

I have long favored the two-state solution, as do most Israelis and American supporters of Israel. I have also long opposed civilian settlements deep into the West Bank. I hope that Israel does make efforts, as it has in the past, to establish a Palestinian state as part of an overall peace between the Jewish state and its Arab and Muslim neighbors.

Israel in 2000-2001 offered the Palestinians a state in the entire Gaza Strip and more than 95% of the West Bank, with its capital in Jerusalem and a $35 billion compensation package for the refugees. Yassir Arafat rejected the offer and instead began the second intifada in which nearly 5,000 people were killed. I hope that Israel once again offers the Palestinians a contiguous, economically-viable, politically independent state, in exchange for a real peace, with security, without terrorism and without any claim to "return" 4 million alleged refugees as a way of destroying Israel by demography rather than violence.

But the threat from a nuclear Iran is existential and immediate for Israel. It also poses dangers to the entire region, as well as to the US - not only from the possibility that a nation directed by suicidal leaders would order a nuclear attack on Israel or its allies, but from the likelihood that nuclear material could end up in the hands of Hezbollah, Hamas or even Al Qaeda. Recall what Hashemi Rifsanjani said to an American journalist:

[Rifsanjani] "boast[ed] that an Iranian [nuclear] attack would kill as many as five million Jews. Rafsanjani estimated that even if Israel retaliated by dropping its own nuclear bombs, Iran would probably lose only fifteen million people, which he said would be a small 'sacrifice' from among the billion Muslims in the world."

Israel has the right, indeed the obligation, to take this threat seriously and to consider it as a first priority. It will be far easier for Israel to make peace with the Palestinians if it did not have to worry about the threat of a nuclear attack or a dirty bomb. It will also be easier for Israel to end its occupation of the West Bank if Iran were not arming and inciting Hamas, Hezbollah and other enemies of Israel to terrorize Israel with rockets and suicide bombers.

In this respect, Emanuel has it exactly backwards: if there is any linkage, it goes the other way - defanging Iran will promote the end of the occupation and the two-state solution. Threatening not to help Israel in relation to Iran unless it moves toward a two-state solution first is likely to backfire.

After all, Israel is a democracy and in the end the people decide. A recent poll published in Haaretz concluded that 66% of Israelis favored a preemptive military strike against Iran's nuclear facilities, with 75% of those saying they would still favor such a strike even if the US were opposed.

Israel's new government will accept a two-state solution if they are persuaded that it will really be a solution - that it will assure peace and an end to terrorist and nuclear threats to Israeli citizens. I have known Prime Minister Netanyhu for 35 years and I recently had occasion to spend some time with Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman. I am convinced that despite their occasional tough talk, both want to see an end to this conflict.

Israelis have been scarred by what happened in Gaza. Israel ended the occupation, removed all of the settlers, and left behind millions of dollars worth of agricultural and other facilities designed to make the Gaza into an economically-viable democracy. Land for peace is what they sought. Instead they got land for rocket attacks against their children, their women and their elderly. No one wants to see a repeat of this trade-off.

Emanuel's statements were viewed with alarm in Israel because most Israelis, though they want to like President Obama, are nervous about his policies toward Israel. They are prepared to accept pressure regarding the settlements, but they worry that the Obama Administration may be ready to compromise, or at least threaten to compromise, Israel's security, if its newly elected government does not submit to pressure on the settlements.

Making peace with the Palestinians will be extremely complicated. It will take time. It may or may not succeed in the end, depending on whether the Palestinians will continue to want their own state less than they want to see the end of the Jewish state. Israel should not be held hostage to the Iranian nuclear threat by the difficulty of making peace with the Palestinians. Israel may be rebuffed again, especially if Palestinian radicals believe that such a rebuff will soften American action against Iran. In the meantime, Iran will continue in its efforts to develop nuclear weapons.

That cannot be allowed to happen, regardless of progress on the ground toward peace with the Palestinians. These two issues must be delinked if either is to succeed. There are other ways of encouraging Israel to make peace with the Palestinians. Nuclear blackmail is not one of them.

Alan M. Dershowitz is the author of "The Case Against Israel's Enemies" (Wiley).

Islamic Radicals Blame Jews for Swine Flu
(Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center)

For Hamas, Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood, Iran, and Arab cartoonists, the spread of swine flu and the panic it caused was an opportunity to associate the disease with Jews and Zionists in order to incite hatred against the Jewish people and the State of Israel.
On May 6, the Hamas organ Felesteen charged "that Zionists began spreading the disease."
Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood published an anti-Semitic video on April 30 titled "Swine Flu or Jew Flu," in an attempt to associate swine flu with the Jews.

Benny Morris: Secular Palestine, the myth

"The phrase ... "a secular, democratic Palestine" ...serves merely as camouflage for the goal of a Muslim Arab-dominated polity to replace Israel." -- Benny Morris

The myth of a secular Palestine

Benny Morris, National Post Tuesday, May 12, 2009

The Palestinian national movement started life with a vision and goal of a Palestinian Muslim Arab-majority state in all of Palestine -- a one-state "solution" -- and continues to espouse and aim to establish such a state down to the present day. Moreover, and as a corollary, al-Husseini, the Palestinian national leader during the 1930s and 1940s; the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), which led the national movement from the 1960s to Yasser Arafat's death in November, 2004; and Hamas today --all sought and seek to vastly reduce the number of Jewish inhabitants in the country, in other words, to ethnically cleanse Palestine. Al-Husseini and the PLO explicitly declared the aim of limiting Palestinian citizenship to those Jews who had lived in Palestine permanently before 1917 (or, in another version, to limit it to those 50,000-odd Jews and their descendants). This goal was spelled out clearly in the Palestinian National Charter and in other documents. Hamas has been publicly more reserved on this issue, but its intentions are clear.

The Palestinian vision was never -- as described by various Palestinian spokesmen in the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s to Western journalists -- of a "secular, democratic Palestine" (though it certainly sounded more palatable than, say, the "destruction of Israel," which was the goal it was meant to paper over or camouflage). Indeed, "a secular democratic Palestine" had never been the goal of Fatah or the so-called moderate groups that dominated the PLO between the 1960s and the 2006 elections that brought Hamas to power.

Middle East historian Rashid Khalidi has written that "in 1969 [the PLO] amended [its previous goal and henceforward advocated] the establishment of a secular democratic state in Palestine for Muslims, Christians and Jews, replacing Israel." And Palestinian-American journalist Ali Abunimah has written, in his recent book, One Country: "The PLO did ultimately adopt [in the late 1960s or 1970s] the goal of a secular, democratic state in all Palestine as its official stance."

This is hogwash. The Palestine National Council (PNC) never amended the Palestine National Charter to the effect that the goal of the PLO was "a secular democratic state in Palestine." The words and notion never figured in the charter or in any PNC or PLO Central Committee or Fatah Executive Committee resolutions, at any time. It is a spin invented for gullible Westerners and was never part of Palestinian main-stream ideology. The Palestinian leadership has never, at any time, endorsed a "secular, democratic Palestine."

The PNC did amend the charter, in 1968 (not 1969). But the thrust of the emendation was to limit non-Arab citizenship in a future Arab-liberated Palestine to "Jews who had normally resided in Palestine until the beginning of the Zionist invasion" -- that is, 1917. True, the amended charter also guaranteed, in the future State of Palestine, "freedom of worship and of visit" to holy sites to all, "without discrimination of race, colour, language or religion." And, no doubt, this was music to liberal West-ern ears. But it had no connection to the reality or history of contemporary Muslim Arab societies. What Muslim Arab society in the modern age has treated Christians, Jews, pagans, Buddhists and Hindus with tolerance and as equals? Why should anyone believe that Palestinian Muslim Arabs would behave any differently?

Western liberals like, or pretend, to view Palestinian Arabs, indeed all Arabs, as Scandinavians, and refuse to recognize that peoples, for good historical, cultural and social reasons, are different and behave differently in similar or identical sets of circumstances.

So where did the slogan of "a secular, democratic Palestine" originate? That goal was first explicitly proposed in 1969 by the small Marxist splinter group the Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine (DFLP). According to Khalidi, "It was [then] discreetly but effectively backed by the leaders of the mainstream, dominant Fatah movement ... The democratic secular state model eventually became the official position of the PLO." As I have said, this is pure invention. The PNC, PLO and Fatah turned down the DFLP proposal, and it was never adopted or enunciated by any important Palestinian leader or body -- though the Western media during the 1970s were forever attributing it to the Palestinians. As a result, however, the myth has taken hold that this was the PLO's official goal through the late 1960s, 1970s and 1980s.

And today, again, and for the same reasons -- the phrase retains its good, multicultural, liberal ring -- "a secular, democratic Palestine" is bandied about by Palestinian one-state supporters. And a few one-statists, indeed, may sincerely believe in and desire such a denouement. But given the realities of Palestinian politics and behaviour, the phrase objectively serves merely as camouflage for the goal of a Muslim Arab-dominated polity to replace Israel. And, as in the past, the goal of "a secular democratic Palestine" is not the platform or policy of any major Palestinian political institution or party.

Indeed, the idea of a "secular democratic Palestine" is as much a nonstarter today as it was three decades ago. It is a nonstarter primarily because the Palestinian Arabs, like the world's other Muslim Arab communities, are deeply religious and have no respect for democratic values and no tradition of democratic governance.

And matters have only gotten worse since the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s. For anyone who has missed the significance of Hamas's electoral victory in 2006 and the violent takeover of the Gaza Strip in 2007, a mere glance at the West Bank and Gaza today (and, indeed, at Israel's Arab minority villages and towns) reveals a landscape dominated by rapidly multiplying mosque minarets, the air filled with the calls to prayer of the muezzins and alleyways filled with hijab-ed women. Only fools and children were persuaded in 2006-07 that Hamas beat Fatah merely because they had an uncorrupt image or dispensed aid to the poor. The main reasons for the Hamas victory were religious and political: the growing religiosity of the Palestinian mass-es and their "recognition" that Hamas embodies the "truth" and, with Allah's help, will lead them to final victory over the infidels, much as Hamas achieved, through armed struggle, the withdrawal of the infidels from the Gaza Strip in 2005.

-Excerpted from One State, Two States by Benny Morris. Published by Yale University Press. © 2009 by Benny Morris. Reprinted by permission of Yale University Press.