Goldstone v. Dore Gold debate covered live on internet, Nov. 5

On Thursday, Richard Goldstone ( Chair of the Goldstone Gaza War Report, deemed biased by the U.S.) and Dore Gold will be appearing together at Brandeis.  ( Gold is a former Israeli UN Ambassador to the UN)

 "The Challenge of the UN Gaza  Report"       Thursday, Nov. 5   4 pm Iowa time

                                                                                                                                                                          

The forum -- the first, and possibly only, occasion when Goldstone and a senior Israeli figure will publicly discuss the report – will be presented live on the Brandeis University web site at http://www.brandeis.edu/streaming. Film of the forum will be archived on the Brandeis web site after the event.

Please help inform others.

 

Israel's leadership on the U.S. - Israel relationship

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu: September 23, 2009 On CNN

"Let me tell you something about President Obama, because I think this should be fully appreciated. He stood before the entire Muslim world. I don't know if a billion people heard him, but hundreds of millions of people in Muslim countries heard him. And he said: 'The bond between America and Israel is unshakeable. We are absolutely committed to Israel's security.'"

"Israel has a terrific friend in America and the American people, and I want the American people to know that they have a terrific friend in Israel. In the Middle East, you don't have that many friends, but we're definitely right at the top of the list."

“I think that President Obama’s commitment to Israel has been expressed very loud, very clearly by him. And I think this reflects the underlying friendship between our two countries. It’s very strong.”

The Jerusalem Post on September 23, 2009

“[In President Obama's U.N. speech ]I found many things that were very good for us. First of all, he said, ‘Let’s return to peace talks without preconditions,” and that’s what I’ve been saying for the last six months.”

“I was happy that just like yesterday [in the tripartite meeting with Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas], that was the central message.”

Netanyahu also said that in the General Assembly speech, the US president had “expressed his resolute support for a Jewish state, [for Israel] as the country for the Jewish people.”

“I think that’s the core of the conflict, or more precisely, the core of the solution to the conflict. I was happy to hear this in front of the world, the Arab world and the Palestinian people.”


Israel’s Ambassador to the United States Michael Oren - October 21, 2009 to the National Jewish Democratic Council

On President Obama:

“This is a president who has gone to Cairo, has made a speech in which for the first time in history, an American leader introduced the idea of Israel’s legitimacy to the heart of the Arab World. And I think it’s very important. ... Read our lips: we are very grateful for this. We are cognizant of the contributions that the president has made for Israel’s security and legitimacy.”

On Iran:

“That has been our unwavering policy. ...We support President Obama in his outreach to the Iranians.”

“The Obama administration is cooperating with us and communicating with us with incredible clarity on all of these issues with an immense amount of cooperation and understanding. I can report unequivocally on this.”

On the Goldstone Commission’s Report:

“The administration came out with a statement against Goldstone that was from our perspective just perfect – condemned it as a travesty of justice, upheld Israel’s right not just to defend itself, but to investigate itself during its own military operations.”

“We know that the United States and the Obama administration stands foursquare beside us in this fight against the Goldstone Commission.”

On Maintaining Israel’s “Qualitative Military Edge (QME)”:

“We found that our ‘QME’ has been eroded. Several months ago, we came to the Obama administration and said, ‘Listen, we have a problem here.’ And the administration’s reaction was immediate: we are going to address this issue, we are going to make sure that we maintain your ‘QME,’ and now we have opened up an entire dialogue [on this issue].... It was just so warm and immediate, that response.”

“We are developing missile defense systems together with the United States. The very high ranking State Department official who deals with this issue told me the other day our relations are excellent, but excellent is not good enough for us; we want better than excellent. And right now, as we sit here today, there is a joint maneuver between the United States armed forces and the IDF – ‘Juniper Cobra.’ There are a thousand American servicemen and women today in Israel or off Israel’s coast practicing these systems with us and trying them out. What greater embodiment of the US-Israel strategic relationship.”

On Turkey’s Withdrawal from Joint Military Exercises with the United States and Israel:

“Within 24 hours that Turkey made that announcement, the Obama administration said it wasn’t going to participate in those maneuvers either. It was very, very helpful for us.”


Israeli President Shimon Peres: October 8, 2009

During a meeting with US envoy George Mitchell, Peres said Israel has “full faith in Obama’s policies….”

George Mitchell's Mission Impossible - Efraim Inbar

American diplomacy can hardly make a dent in the schism within Palestinian society that is the main stumbling block for progress in peace-making. As long as Islamist Hamas has a powerful grip on the Palestinian ethos and Palestinian aspirations, and as long as its ruthless rule over Gaza continues, Palestinian politics are hostage to the extremists and are unable to move toward an historic compromise with the Jewish-Zionist national movement. Palestinian society, be it in the West Bank or Gaza, is not entertaining reconciliation with the Jews. The shaheed (martyr) is still the role model in the Palestinian media and education system. The writer is professor of political science at Bar-Ilan University and director of the Begin-Sadat (BESA) Center for Strategic Studies. (BESA-Bar-Ilan University)

From: www.dailyalert.org

Iran fails to accept UN uranium enrichment plan

Published: 10.23.09,

State TV says Iran wants to buy nuclear fuel it needs for a research reactor rather than accept a UN-drafted plan to ship much of its uranium to Russia for further enrichment.


Friday's report quotes an unnamed source close to Iran's negotiating team as saying Tehran is waiting for a response to its proposal to buy nuclear fuel for the reactor, which is used to make radioactive medical isotopes. (AP)

Iran lawmaker rejects nuke deal to ship uranium

Oct 22, 9:48 AM (ET)

By NASSER KARIMI


TEHRAN, Iran (AP) - Iran's deputy parliament speaker on Thursday dismissed an internationally backed draft plan to have Tehran ship its uranium abroad for enrichment, the official IRNA news agency reported.

The remarks by Mohammad Reza Bahonar were the first reaction in Tehran on the proposal, presented Wednesday after three days of talks between Iran and world powers in the Austrian capital, Vienna.

The plan is seen by international community as a way to curb Iran's ability to build a nuclear weapon. Iran says its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes only.

Tehran is expected to decide by Friday on whether to approve the plan that calls for shipping Iran's uranium to Russia for enrichment to a level that renders it suitable as nuclear fuel for energy production - not for nuclear weapons.

"The United States demanded Iran ship uranium abroad, in return for getting fuel back," Bahonar said, according to IRNA. "But Iran does not accept this."

Iran's parliament will not vote on the draft plan and Bahonar does not speak for the government, which is to decide on the matter.

But it's unclear if his comments could reflect high-level resistance to the deal or the opinions of some influential politicians in Iran.

There has been no response so far to the offer from Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who has final say on all state matters, or President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

The proposal may meet resistance by some Iranian leaders because it weakens Iran's control over its stockpiles of nuclear fuel and could be perceived as a concession to the United States, which took part in the Vienna talks with France and Russia.

Under the Vienna-brokered draft, Iran is required to send 1.2 tons of low-enriched uranium to Russia in one batch by the end of this year, French Foreign Ministry spokesman Bernard Valero said Thursday.

After further enrichment in Russia, the uranium will be converted into fuel rods that would be returned to Iran. Valero said France would be the one making that conversion.

"France is an active party to this accord," Valero said, stressing that Paris is still a player in the proposal despite Iranian criticism of any French role in the plan earlier this week.

Valero, in an on-line briefing, also said the proposal drafted in Vienna allows Iran to pursue production of radio-isotopes for medical purposes, "while constituting a useful gesture that could contribute to reducing tensions over the nuclear issue."

He gave no further details.

In Washington, State Department spokesman Ian Kelly said the draft agreement was "a very positive step."

Over the past days, both Iran's head of atomic energy department Ali Akbar Salehi and Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki reiterated that Iran would not give up its rigts to uranium enrichment.

That suggests Iran plans to keep its enrichment facilities active, an assurance against the fears that the fuel supply from abroad could be cut off.

Salehi said Tuesday in an interview with a local newspaper said that Iran was willing to get fuel from abroad and that further enrichment has no economic feasibility for Iran. "It has an economic aspect. For us purchasing enriched uranium is easier than its enrichment" domestically, he said.

Iran needs only 660 pounds (300 kilograms) of 20 percent-enriched uranium for its Tehran plant in 30 years. The plant has been producing radioisotopes for medical purposes over the past decades.

Iran has already arranged its facilities to produce fuel for its planned nuclear power plant at a 3.5 percent enrichment rate. The plant, built by Russia, is scheduled to begin operations before the end of the year.

---

US to UN: recognize Israel's legitimacy

Ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice: "[U.N.] Member states must
once and for all replace anti-Israeli vitriol with recognition of
Israel's legitimacy and right to exist in peace and security."

Feds: Boston terror suspect planned to kill officials, attack mall


Investigators have charged a man with conspiring to provide material support to terrorists and other crimes, the acting U.S. attorney for Massachusetts said Wednesday.

Another terrorist attack on U.S. soil foiled.

Goldstone Gaza War Report endorsed by the UN Human Rights Council doesn't hold Hamas in violation of humanitarian laws

Quote: "Israel is mentioned explicitly with regards to tens of alleged human rights violations; Hamas is not mentioned in connection with any war crimes."

See: Despite his claims, Goldstone didn’t hold Hamas accountable for terror
By Jonathan Dahoah Halevi


The Hamas de-facto administration and its leaders are never accused of responsibility for terrorism and firing rockets. Rather, nebulous “Palestinian armed groups” are responsible. The theme is repeated in the report’s few references to Palestinian terrorism.

 

Netanyahu: " We want to make peace with the Palestinians and we will"

http://twitter.com/Presidentconf09   Live Twittering in English from Pres. Peres' Conference in Jerusalem.

Live video, but no English:  at: http://twurl.nl/c5jxdd

A must watch.

JCRC: UNHRC endorsement of flawed report demonstrates bias against Israel

The JCRC of the Jewish Federation of Greater Des Moines, along with The Jewish Council for Public Affairs, deplores today's U.N. Human Rights Council's endorsement of Richard Goldstone's report on Israel's actions defending itself against Hamas.

Jewish Community Relations Commission of the Jewish Federation of Greater Des Moines Contact: Mark S. Finkelstein, Director of Community Relations jcrc@dmjfed.org

The following statement was issued by the Jewish Council of Public Affairs (JCPA), online at www.jewishpublicaffairs.org

JCPA: Goldstone Report Flawed; Demonstrates U.N. Bias against Israel

Posted by JCPA October 16, 2009

NEW YORK - Friday's United Nation Human Rights Council's endorsement of the deeply flawed Goldstone Report is a set-back for peace efforts in the region as it calls into question Israel's right of self-defense, says a leading Jewish advocacy organization.

The Jewish Council for Public Affairs (JCPA) and its Israel Advocacy Initiative (IAI), a joint project of UJC/The Jewish Federations of North America and JCPA, deplores today's U.N. Human Rights Council's endorsement of Richard Goldstone's report on Israel's actions defending itself against Hamas. JCPA notes this is the sixth time the Human Rights Council has singled out Israel in a special session in its three-year existence.

Andrea Weinstein, chair of the Jewish Council for Public Affairs, released the following statement expressing dismay with today's vote in Geneva:

"We deplore the United Nation's Human Rights Council decision, which, in effect, condemns Israel for defending its citizens against a terrorist regime. For years, Hamas and other terrorist groups have sought to destroy Israel by firing thousands of rockets, inciting fear and killing innocent men, women and children. After numerous unsuccessful diplomatic attempts to end the attacks, Israel, as any nation under siege, had not just a right, but a duty to protect its citizens.

It is unfortunate that the Goldstone Report will only serve as a rallying call for those who are indifferent to Israel's legitimate security needs and to the search for a lasting peace in the region.

We express our appreciation to those nations, including our own, which stood up against this witch-hunt and opposed this resolution. As this report moves forward within the United Nations, we are hopeful those same nations and others will continue to fight back against an anti-Israel initiative that puts the fundamental principle of self-defense in jeopardy."

-------------------

Commentary on the Goldstone Report: "It looks like law, but it's just politics" by Warren Goldstein, October 14, 2009

Peres: Goldstone Report is a mockery of history

President Peres' reply to the Goldstone Mission Report

16 Sep 2009 President Shimon Peres: "Those in pursuit of peace have justice on their side. Those who monger war will forever be criminals." STATEMENT BY PRESIDENT SHIMON PERES: “GOLDSTONE MISSION REPORT IS A MOCKERY OF HISTORY” The Goldstone Mission report is a mockery of history. It fails to distinguish between the aggressor and a state exercising its right for self defense. War itself is a crime. The aggressor is the criminal. The side exercising self-defense has no other alternative. The Hamas terrorist organization has opened war and perpetrated other horrible crimes. For years, Hamas carried out attacks against the children of Israel, sending suicide bombers into city centers, injuring and killing civilians. They fired over 12,000 rockets and mortar shells at towns and villages with one clear aim - to kill innocent civilians. The report legitimizes terrorist activity, the pursuit of murder and death. The report disregards the duty and right of self defense, held by every sovereign state as enshrined in the UN Charter. Israel withdrew all of its troops and settlers from the Gaza Strip, opened the border crossings and actively supported its reconstruction. The Israeli presence in Gaza was terminated. But after Israel completed its redeployment from Gaza, a murderous and illegitimate terror group violently revolted against the legitimate Fatah leadership, overthrowing it by force. Hamas operatives murdered Fatah leaders, at times throwing them from rooftops in broad daylight. While Hamas continued firing, Israel employed, time and time again, the diplomatic channels, including many appeals to the UN – in an attempt to bring about a cessation of rocket fire. Israel redeployed and terminated its presence in Gaza. Hamas responded with incessant rocket fire aimed at killing children, women and innocent civilians. Instead of building Gaza and caring for the welfare of its citizens, Hamas built tunnels to attack Israel, cruelly using children and innocent Palestinians to hide terrorists and ammunition. Hamas terrorists built rocket launching pads and storage facilities near schools, in mosques and kindergartens. They booby-trapped urban neighborhoods and used Palestinian children as human-shields in order to hide terrorists and war materiel. The State of Israel was forced to defend itself. It acted out of obligation to its citizens, like any sister state in the family of nations would. Israel has been criticized for its actions against Hizbullah attacks from Lebanon and Hamas attacks from the Gaza Strip, as well as for building the security barrier in the West Bank to prevent suicide bombers from entering the country. This criticism did not stop the rockets from hitting the South and the North, nor did it stop terrorists from blowing themselves up in our central cities. IDF operations enabled economic prosperity in the West Bank, relieved southern Lebanese citizens from the terror of Hezbollah and have enabled Gazans to have normal lives again. Those in pursuit of peace have justice on their side. Those who monger war will forever be criminals. Members of the Goldstone Mission would have never compiled such a report if their children resided in Sderot and suffered the terrorism of daily rocket fire.

"The Goldstone Mission is unjust and wanting in truth. It has, therefore, harmed the prospects for peace in the Middle East."

--Warren Goldstein, who has a PhD. in Human Rights Law, is the chief rabbi of South Africa

It looks like law, but it's just politics

Oct. 14, 2009
WARREN GOLDSTEIN , THE JERUSALEM POST excerpt

Much has been written and said about the inaccuracies, shortcomings and the moral inversion of the United Nations Human Rights Council's Mission presided over by Judge Richard Goldstone and his three fellow members. Most critics have understandably addressed the political and military issues involved. It is important, however, also to deconstruct the Goldstone Mission's Report from a legal point of view.

This is so because the report uses the veneer of respectability that comes with legal methodology, and with the presence of an internationally respected judge, to gain credibility. Law is a very powerful weapon to give respectability to contemptible actions and opinions. The South African Apartheid Government was very legalistic in its approach to racial oppression, and was punctilious about promulgating proper laws, and about maintaining a fully functioning judiciary to give the façade of respectability to its repugnant policies.

The United Nations, through its various organs, but particularly through its Human Rights Commission, uses the superficial veneer of law and legal methodology to give credence and credibility to its anti-Israel agenda. The Goldstone Mission is a case in point. Careful analysis reveals that the legalities utilized are merely a cover for a political strategy of deligitimizing Israel. Judge Goldstone claims that the Mission "is not a judicial enquiry [but is] a fact-finding mission."

This is a distinction without a difference. The Mission's Report makes numerous factual findings, and some legal, just as if it were a judicial body.

Why Palestinian Incitement Matters So Much

By Jonathan Rosenblum excerpt

[Palestinian] incitement and demonization [of Israel] are not just one more treaty violation. They reflect the failure of the Palestinians since the beginning of Oslo to create a constituency for peace with Israel, to educate the Palestinian population to the idea of living side-by-side with a Jewish state. Such an education would have included Palestinian leaders telling their people that they too would have to make painful concessions for peace, that all the so-called refugees and their descendants will not return to Israel, that the clock cannot be turned back entirely to 1947 or even 1966. That has never happened. Even worse, there has been no education to accept the existence of Israel in any borders or to renounce once and for all the dream of throwing all the Jews into the sea.

Napolitano says al Qaeda-type terrorists are in the U.S.

Walid Phares

"It is fair to say there are individuals in the United States who ascribe to Al Qaeda-type beliefs," DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano told Bloomberg

Walid Phares comment: "No kidding, they are really here inside the United States? And by ...the way what are al Qaeda-type beliefs? Can we explain further to the US public how to identify these beliefs? That would be helpful.."Read More

Napolitano Says Al Qaeda-Type Terrorists in U.S. - Political News - FOXNews.com

Source: www.foxnews.com

Law enforcement authorities are tracking terrorists with Al Qaeda leanings in the U.S., Homeland security Secretary Janet Napolitano told Bloomberg Television.

 

The Cruel Dilemma Facing the Jews of Israel

Mort Zuckerman, Editor, U.S. News & World Report

Posted: October 8, 2009

  

The Jews of Israel are facing a cruel dilemma. They came home to find peace and safety in their homeland of Israel; to find an end to that vulnerable status of a perpetual wandering minority; an end to exile, alienation, and powerlessness; and the beginning of a normal national existence. Instead, they found neighbors who were not reconciled to their living again together in this tiny piece of land the Jews have regarded as home for 4,000 years. How do you share a home with someone who says, "You have no right to be here"?

The Arab assault on the Jews that began immediately and has continued for more than half a century made it clear the Jews could not control 2 million Arabs without eroding the moral character of their tiny state and, with that, its support in the world. So leader after leader decided to end the Israeli occupation of Palestine and any pretense that Israel could become a binational state in which one people ruled another. After Yitzhak Rabin and Shimon Peres promoted the Oslo agreements, Ehud Barak, Ariel Sharon, and Ehud Olmert, prime ministers all, made dramatic proposals in search of a live-and-let-live relationship with the Palestinians -- and all were rejected. They offered to withdraw from the West Bank and Gaza in words and withdrew from them in deeds. Did this bring peace? No, it brought terrorist attacks by suicide bombers who menaced any kind of normal life within Israel. Prime Minister Sharon voluntarily withdrew every last Jewish settler and soldier from Gaza. It meant forcing close to 10,000 Jews out of their homes. Did it bring peace? Did the Gazans say, "Good riddance," and get on with building their own society? No, they hunted the Jews who had left. They turned Gaza into a launching pad for thousands of rockets against the Jewish people. Never even for one day did they cease. This was true even before Hamas seized control. Then, when Hamas did take control, the terrorism escalated.

In yet another effort to find peace, the Israelis risked their own security by dismantling security barriers and checkpoints -- down from 147 to 14 in the West Bank -- and so providing mobility for people in commerce. They have "not been getting much credit for it," in the words of former British Prime Minister Tony Blair, but the economic results are dramatic. Wages in the West Bank were up 24 percent in 2008 over 2007; agricultural exports from the Palestinian Authority to Israel increased from 30,000 tons in 2007 to 92,000 tons in 2008; the number of permits for Palestinians to work in Israel rose from 21,000 to 23,000.

The trouble has been the absence of any responsible governance among the Palestinians -- no capacity to deal with terrorism and violence, no command-and-control structure, no political backing for Palestinian officers to go after sensitive targets, and no legal apparatus to try those who might be arrested. Terrorist operatives have gone in one door one day and out the next. So when successive American administrations have pushed for negotiation between the parties, the Americans have all discovered, as the Israeli columnist Nahum Barnea put it, "that they want an Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement more than the Israelis and the Palestinians want it."

The Obama administration began unwisely. The president made an uncompromising demand for a full freeze on construction in the settlements, imposing no requirement on the Arabs. That missed the real point of contention. According to a recent poll of Palestinians, halting construction in the settlements is not important to them. The evacuation of the settlement outposts is much more important to them. For the Israeli public, the settlement issue was a nonstarter without a compensating concession by the Palestinians. In any event, the previous Olmert government had greatly reduced permits for construction settlements, and very few permits remain.

Now the administration has initiated a more promising policy. At September's three-way summit in New York, it achieved an agreement by all parties to commence negotiations with no preconditions. Everything is on the table.

Israel is now committed fully to two states for two peoples. At the United Nations, Obama voiced his unreserved support for Israel as the state of the Jewish people, one of the core issues. The peace negotiations were to begin in a matter of weeks.

Obama's previous efforts had been rebuffed. His speech in Cairo in June, which he thought would open a door to the Muslim world, did not gain any takers. The Arab rulers refused to enter the room, and most kept their distance. According to a recent poll released by the International Peace Institute, public hostility to the United States and to Obama remained high, and it appeared that only 1 in 6 Palestinians has a positive opinion of America, and only 1 in 4 has a positive opinion of Obama. The only one who responded to Obama was Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, who made public his commitment to have two states for two peoples. Here we had a government built around right-wing parties yet able to pass a resolution supporting the two-state solution.

Netanyahu's approach holds that peace will come from the bottom up, not the top down. It is both about economic development and about bringing security under control. The PA had been paralyzed, its security organizations scattered and ineffective, so it was left to the Israeli Defense Forces to control things on the ground while the terrorists hid. Several hundred gang leaders created chaos in the territories, holding back commercial and economic life, demanding protection money, killing and wounding Arabs and Jews alike. The PA simply didn't have the capacity to deal with these gangs.

A new approach came from Israel's General Security Services in 2007. The GSS director approached the Palestinian prime minister, Salam Fayyad, offering the wanted men a deal. If they ended their involvement in terrorism and violence, gave up their weapons, and placed themselves under the protection of the PA, they would be taken off the wanted list and would neither be arrested nor killed.

There was to be a three-stage trial period. First, the wanted men would be under the protection of the security services, restricting their movements; second, they would be given relative freedom of movement in the area; and third, they would be allowed to return home and live a normal life as long as they adhered to the terms of the agreement.

The plan worked. Nine rounds of wanted men who have been processed, almost 80 percent of the members of the original list of gang leaders, have left the world of crime and terrorism, and the ground is quiet. Now terrorists from other organizations such as Islamic Jihad and the Popular Front have approached the Palestinian security organizations wanting to come in from the cold and get on the list of parolees. They want to go home, and they are willing to abandon terrorist attacks and crime.

The security organizations that had lacked control over the territory were suddenly in charge. Add to this the projects of American Lt. Gen. Keith Dayton, who, also in 2007, began training the special Palestinian forces and helped begin security cooperation with Israel. The new security forces began to take over responsibilities for the cities. Nablus was the first city, Jenin the second. Terrorist activities in these cities virtually collapsed, as the terrorist infrastructures were located and dismantled and the public police took over on the ground and, this time, did it seriously.

Today, Hamas is as much of a danger to the PA as it is to Israeli citizens. In fact, these Palestinian security services have now confronted wanted Hamas operators and done it much more brutally than the IDF would have done it. As Ben Caspit reported in Maariv, an Israeli newspaper, "The Palestinians are not fighting for us but for themselves. They are not protecting our lives, but their own. The terrible scenes from Hamas's takeover of Gaza, the executions in the streets, the kneecapping, the officer who was thrown off the 15th floor have all done their part." The Fatah organization realized that if it did not hit Hamas with all its might, Hamas would hit it.

This doesn't mean that the terrorism capability of these organizations is completely gone, but the success has fed on itself. Most of the credit is due to Fayyad, the Palestinian prime minister. He has changed the way things are done. He asserts he will be the Ben Gurion of the Palestinians -- i.e., he will build the foundations of a state before the Palestinians declare a state, so that when they do, the infrastructure of governance will exist. A critical part is that the PA is starting to exert control over the territories.

The president, Mahmoud Abbas, has also gained confidence as the leader of Fatah. He has focused on consolidating his own authority and gaining the upper hand over the rival Hamas movement, breaking both its social infrastructure and its terrorist network. Now his popularity is growing. In a recent poll, he was supported by 55 percent, compared with only 32 percent in support of Ismail Haniyeh, the leader of Hamas in Gaza; 64 percent believe that Haniyeh is harmful to the interests of the Palestinians.

This progress will take more time. The Israelis will not buy words; they will buy only deeds. They will not accept the West Bank as a platform for rocket attacks that could reach every major Israeli population center. That is why they believe that the IDF should have complete freedom of action in the West Bank to respond to terrorism and crime. That is why the only Palestinian state that Israel can accept is, in Blair's words, "one that is secure and properly governed."

The peace process must be the beginning of the future, not the beginning of the end. There is still a ways to go, but the progress being made by the Palestinians, especially in terms of controlling the terrorists and criminal gangs, is one of the most promising developments to have occurred in decades.

PM Netanyahu Congratulates US President Obama Upon His Winning the Nobel Peace Prize

09/10/2009

Dear Mr. President, Congratulations on winning the Nobel Prize for Peace.   You have already inspired so many people around the world, and I know that this award also expresses the hope that your Presidency will usher in a new era of peace and reconciliation.  Nowhere is such a peace needed more than in the Middle East, a region that has been long marked by terror and bloodshed.   I look forward to working closely with you in the years ahead to advance peace and to give hope to the peoples of our region who deserve to live in peace, security and dignity. With respect, Benjamin Netanyahu

New York Times Magazine Whitewashes Palestinian Kids' TV
By Eric Rozenman, for CAMERA.org October 7, 2009 Selected excerpts.

"Can the Muppets Make Friends in On the West Bank?" avoids the real story — 16 years of anti-Israel incitement, based largely on distortion and outright falsehood, aimed at Palestinian Arab children by both the Fatah-controlled Palestinian Authority broadcasting and the Hamas-run Al-Quds channel. ...


Hamas TV preaches the need for Palestinian children to eliminate the filthy Jews.... PA TV children's shows routinely teach that Haifa, Tiberias, Jaffa and other Israeli cities are part of "Palestine" and that "resistance" (terrorism) is laudable.

Palestinian Media Watch (www.pmw.org.il) has chronicled the coverage.

[In her article, the author offers] no explanation of the intifada, no intimation of Palestinian responsibility....

[The author] skates over a 1990s effort to produce a joint Israeli-Palestinian version of Israeli Television's ... spin-off of American public broadcasting's "Sesame Street." She notes that "the official Palestinian TV station was unwilling to show 'Shara'a Simsim' because it was produced jointly with 'Rechov Sumsum,' the Israeli version of 'Sesame Street.'"

Tehran, Damascus stir up Hamas-Israeli Muslim riots on Temple Mount

DEBKAfile Exclusive Report

October 4, 2009, 11:12 PM (GMT+02:00)

Hundreds of radical Muslims, Palestinian and Israeli, rioted on Jerusalem's Temple Mount Sunday, Oct. 4, for the third day in a row, forcing Israeli police, battling flying bottles and rocks, to shut the shrine down to Muslim worshippers, Jewish Succoth festival pilgrims and tourists. Temple Mount remains sealed off Monday to prevent Muslims hurling rocks on the Jewish Priests Blessing ceremony taking place below at the Western Wall. Only Muslims over 50 with Israeli IDs and women will be admitted.

Incoming intelligence is reported by DEBKAfile's counter-terror sources as fingering Iran and Syria as the hands behind the troubles and their likely escalation. As directives streamed to their Palestinian pawns and radical Israel Arab Muslim elements, the Assad regime cancelled without notice Palestinian Authority leader Mahmoud Abbas' visit to Damascus Tuesday, Oct. 6.

The Syrians accuse Abbas of collaborating with the Israeli military and American CIA and putting his security forces at their disposal. They could hardly welcome him while stirring up what they are calling "The Battle for Defending al Aqsa" (the ancient Muslim mosque).

Israeli security circles are alert to the potential of the Temple Mount mob action to flare up into a fresh Palestinian uprising on the West Bank, like the one Yasser Arafat ignited in 2000 over Jewish visits to the Biblical Temple site led by former prime minister Ariel Sharon on Sept. 19 of that year.

According to our sources, Iran and Syria are resolved to derail the process of reconciliation unfolding between the rival Palestinian factions, Fatah and Hamas, under Egyptian and Saudi sponsorship. The Syrian president Bashar Assad is opposed to this process more fiercely even than Tehran and is determined to scotch it.

Far from erupting spontaneously, the riots were carefully planned for more than a month in covert contacts between Palestinian Hamas operatives and heads of the Israeli Muslim movement, under the guidance of Syrian and Iranian secret agents. They succeeded in bringing Palestinian Islamists and Israeli Arab radicals together for the first time for a joint violent anti-Israel operation, dubbing it Operation Murbitun (Guardians of the Walls).

Thousands of young Palestinians and Israeli Arabs were quietly spirited into Jerusalem during the weeks before the outbreaks. They were divided into "platoons" of 150-200 men each and entrusted with watching over al Aqsa around the clock "to prevent its occupation by settlers, right-wingers and the Israeli police." The call to "everyone who can to come and defend the Muslim shrine" spread like wildfire. Abbas' Fatah had no choice but to jump into the "jihad."

Sunday night, gangs from the Palestinian village of Issawiyeh in northeastern Jerusalem rolled flaming tires onto the Jerusalem-Maaleh Adummim highway and hurled bottle bombs at passing traffic and border police called in to reopen the road.

The unrest predicted for Jerusalem in the coming days is expected to spread to other Arab communities, including those in Israel's heartland in the north.

Copyright 2000-2009 DEBKAfile. All Rights Reserved. www.debka.com

Only film footage of Anne Frank emerges

July 22 1941. The girl next door is getting married. Anne Frank is leaning out of the window of her house in Amsterdam to get a good look at the bride and groom. It is the only time Anne Frank has ever been captured on film. At the time of her wedding, the bride lived on the second floor at Merwedeplein 39. The Frank family lived at number 37, also on the second floor. The Anne Frank House can offer you this film footage thanks to the cooperation of the couple.

Film in now archived on YouTube.com


(hat tip: Israellycool.com via margosmaid.blogspot.com)

Hamas chief: Shalit video deal a 'triumph' of armed struggle

Hamas Gaza chief Ismail Haniyeh said on Friday that a deal exchanging Palestinian prisoners for a videotape of abducted Israel Defense Forces soldier Gilad Shalit was a 'triumph' of the armed resistance against Israel.  

 

Ha'aretz,  October 2, 2009

Speaking in front of an assembled Gaza crowd, the Hamas strongmen congratulated the families of the female prisoners released earlier Friday, saying Hamas would not rest until all the Palestinian prisoners jailed in Israel would be released.

"This is a day of great hope. We welcome our incarcerated sisters on this blessed day in a deal between the Israeli enemy and the victorious Hamas battalions," Haniyeh said.

"This is an amazing accomplishment to the Palestinians who captured Shalit," he added, saying it was "a great triumph to the resistance."

Speaking to the Palestinian prisoners still jailed in Israel, the Hamas Gaza chief said that the Palestinian were a people "who does not forget its prisoners and my government will not give up on your freedom," adding that "the armed forces will not give up on your honor."

Earlier Friday, Israel Radio had reported that the militant organization was planning to hold a victory parade, urging Palestinians to take to the streets to celebrate the release of Palestinian prisoners exchanged with Israel for a videotape of Shalit.

In addition, Channel 10 reported that Hamas activists had said they were barred by Palestinian security forces from participating in celebrations taking place in the Fatah-controlled West Bank.

Israel ordered the release of 19 Palestinian woman prisoners earlier Friday after it had verified that the video of Shalit it received earlier had indeed met its demands.

Members of the Israeli negotiating team for Shalit's release viewed the footage to ensure it met Israel's demands - primarily with regard to how recently it was filmed. Israel Defense Forces Chief of Staff Gabi Ashkenazi has also viewed the video.

As soon as it was determined that the tape did indeed meet requirements, the Palestinian prisoners were transferred to Red Cross vehicles which finalized their release by transporting them over the border with the West Bank.

 

No Peace Without Compromise
By Mitchell Bard

The conflict between Israel and the Palestinians is complex and yet its solution can be boiled down to one word – compromise.

Throughout the history of negotiations, first Zionists and later Israelis have accepted this reality and repeatedly made and offered compromises, but the conflict has persisted because the Palestinians have never been willing to do the same. In fact, if you look at their negotiating position today, it is as recalcitrant as it was nearly a century ago.

Israeli Position

Since the early 20th century, it has been clear that the only way to satisfy the competing demands of Jews and Arabs in Israel/Palestine was to divide the land. For more than 70 years, since Britain’s Lord Peel first proposed partitioning Palestine into a Jewish and an Arab state, the Jews have accepted a two-state solution to the conflict.

Palestinian Position

To this day, the Palestinians do not accept the legitimacy of a Jewish state in what they consider Palestine.

Israeli Position

When the United Nations voted to partition Palestine into Jewish and Arab states, the Zionists accepted a compromise that left them with a national home in less than 20 percent of the area originally promised to them by the British.

Palestinian Position

The Palestinians rejected the offer of an Arab state and joined with Israel’s neighbors in a war to exterminate the Jews. They lost. One consequence of their decision was that hundreds of thousands of Palestinians became refugees.

Israeli Position

After 1948, Israel offered to allow as many as 100,000 Palestinians to return in exchange for a peace agreement with the Arab states.

Palestinian Position

The Palestinians and Arab leaders rejected any offer that implied the recognition of Israel. Palestinian refugees were confined by their Arab brothers to refugee camps and prevented from becoming citizens (except in Jordan, which recently decided to strip them of their citizenship). Jordan and Egypt occupied territory now claimed by the Palestinians, but the Palestinians never demanded an end to the occupation or independence. Palestinians formed terror groups that have engaged in a violent campaign against Israelis and Jews around the world to the present day.

Israeli Position

After a series of provocations and an act of war (Egypt’s blockade of Israeli shipping in the Gulf of Aqaba), Israel attacked Egypt, Syria and Jordan (after King Hussein ignored warnings to stay out of the fighting and shelled Jerusalem) and captured the West Bank and Gaza Strip. It immediately offered to return most of the territory in exchange for peace.

Palestinian Position

The Arabs responded to Israel’s peace overture with three noes: “no peace with Israel, no negotiations with Israel, no recognition of Israel.”

Israeli Position

In 1979, Israel signed a peace treaty with Egypt, dismantled settlements and other Israeli installations in the Sinai and returned the territory to the Egyptians. The Palestinians were offered autonomy, a formula for limited self-determination in the short-run that inevitably would have led to statehood.

Palestinian Position

The Palestinians rejected the autonomy proposal and refused to participate in negotiations.

Israeli Position

In 1993 and 1995, Israel and the PLO signed the Oslo accords with the aim of creating a Palestinian state within five years. Israel agreed to gradually withdraw from most of the West Bank and Gaza Strip in exchange for peace. Israel withdrew from approximately 80 percent of Gaza and 40 percent of the West Bank and turned over most civil authority to the Palestinian Authority.

Palestinian Position

Terrorism continued unabated and escalated by the mid-90s.

Israeli Position

Israel agreed in 1998 to withdraw from another 13 percent of the West Bank in return for a Palestinian promise to outlaw and combat terrorist organizations, prohibit illegal weapons, stop weapon smuggling, and prevent incitement of violence and terrorism.

Palestinian Position

The Palestinians once again failed to fulfill their promise to end terror and sabotaged the plan for additional Israeli redeployments.

Israeli Position

In 2000, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak offered to withdraw from 97 percent of the West Bank and 100 percent of the Gaza Strip. In addition, he agreed to dismantle 63 isolated settlements. In exchange for the 3 percent annexation of the West Bank, Israel would increase the size of the Gaza territory by roughly a third. Barak also made previously unthinkable concessions on Jerusalem, agreeing that Arab neighborhoods of East Jerusalem would become the capital of the new state. The Palestinians would maintain control over their holy places and have “religious sovereignty” over the Temple Mount. The proposal also guaranteed Palestinian refugees the right of return to the Palestinian state and reparations from a $30 billion international fund that would be collected to compensate them.

Palestinian Position

Yasser Arafat rejected the proposal without even making a counter offer. Arafat, according to chief U.S. negotiator Dennis Ross, was not willing to end the conflict with Israel. The Palestinians subsequently instigated a five-year war of terror that claimed more than 1,000 Israeli lives.

Israeli Position

In 2005, Israel decided to evacuate every soldier and citizen from the Gaza Strip. This painful disengagement uprooted 9,000 Israelis from their homes. At the request of the Palestinians, Israel razed all the settlements to make room for what the Palestinians said would be high-rise apartments for refugees living in camps. American Jews bought greenhouses from the Israelis and gave them to the Palestinians so they would have a ready-made multimillion dollar export economy and businesses that could employ hundreds of Palestinian workers. By ending the “occupation” and removing the settlements, Israel was testing the oft-expressed view that these were the obstacles to peace. The expectation in Israel was that the Palestinians would take the opportunity to build the infrastructure of a state and, since they no longer had any justification for “resistance,” they would have the chance to show they could coexist beside Israel and set the stage for future compromises on the West Bank.

Palestinian Position

The Palestinians objected to the disengagement and refused to cooperate with the Israeli plan to withdraw. Since the evacuation, the Palestinians have not laid a single brick in the former settlements to build housing for refugees. The greenhouses were vandalized and the chance for taking over Israeli exports was lost. The few greenhouses that remained intact were converted to Hamas terrorist training camps. Instead of building the infrastructure for a state, the Palestinians had a civil war that led to the takeover of Gaza by Hamas. Instead of getting peace in exchange for territory, Israel was bombarded over the next three years with 10,000 rockets and mortars.

Israeli Position

Despite what virtually all Israelis viewed as the failure of the disengagement experiment, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert restarted negotiations with the Palestinians and offered to withdraw from approximately 94 percent of the West Bank, with 4.5 percent of the remainder to be received in a swap for land now in Israel. Another 1.5 percent of the territory would be used for passages to a Mediterranean port and Gaza. Olmert reportedly proposed a form of international (Arab states plus Israel and Palestine) control of the Holy Basin (the Old City) and a joint committee to administer East Jerusalem until permanent arrangements were settled.

Palestinian Position

Abbas rejected the deal. Palestinian chief negotiator Saeb Erekat said later, “First [the Israelis] said we would [only have the right to] run our own schools and hospitals. Then they consented to give us 66% [of the occupied territories]. At Camp David they offered 90% [actually 97%] and [recently] they offered 100%. So why should we hurry, after all the injustice we have suffered?” Echoing the three noes of 1967, Palestinians declared at the Fatah conference in Bethlehem in August 2009: no negotiations with Israel, no recognition of Israel as a Jewish state and no end to the armed struggle against Israel.

Israeli Position

Israel has offered compromises on all the final status issues:

Borders – UN Security Council Resolution 242 called for Israel to withdraw from territory – not all territory – it captured in 1967 in exchange for secure and defensible borders and peace. Israel has already withdrawn from 94 percent of the territory it captured in 1967. It has given up 100 percent of the Gaza Strip and nearly half the West Bank. As noted above, as recently as 2008, Israel offered to withdraw from 94 percent of the remaining territory in the West Bank.

Palestinian Position

The Palestinians insist that Israel withdraw to the 1967 border.

Israeli Position

Refugees – Israel has allowed roughly 200,000 Palestinians into Israel since Oslo and has agreed to take in an additional number on a humanitarian basis. Israel also supports the return of refugees to an eventual Palestinian state and the payment of compensation to the refugees from an international fund. Israel also expects that the Jews forced to flee from Arab countries be compensated.

Palestinian Position

The Palestinians demand the right of all refugees to live in Palestine, including what is now the State of Israel. They do not acknowledge the claims of Jewish refugees.

Israeli Position

Settlements – Israel has already dismantled all the settlements it built in the Sinai and in Gaza. It has also dismantled four settlements in Samaria. Israel has in the past offered to dismantle most settlements in the West Bank and has, at various times, frozen settlement construction in the course of peace negotiations in the hope of reaching a final agreement. Prime Minister Netanyahu has also offered a temporary settlement freeze.

Palestinian Position

The Palestinians demand that all settlements be dismantled from the West Bank and Jerusalem. While they maintain that Arabs have the right to live in Israel, they deny the right of Jews to live in Judea and Samaria.

Israeli Position

Jerusalem – Israel maintains that Jerusalem is its eternal capital and has resisted Palestinian demands that the city be divided. Still, Barak offered to allow the Palestinians to establish their capital in Eastern Jerusalem and offered a compromise over control of the Temple Mount. Olmert also offered to compromise on Jerusalem.

Palestinian Position

The Palestinians have rejected all Israeli compromises on Jerusalem and insist that although there has never been an Arab capital in Jerusalem, they should be allowed to establish one there.

Conclusion

Israel has a long history of compromising and continues to offer concessions in the interest of peace. The Palestinian’s have an equally long history of refusing to compromise. As President Obama seeks to restart peace talks between Israel and the Palestinians it is clear where the emphasis must be placed if he hopes to succeed in ending the conflict.

Shalit video deal: Red Cross visits Palestinian prisoners slated for release

Two delegates from international relief organization meet with female prisoners to be released in exchange for video "sign of life" of Hamas-held soldier, Gilad Shalit

Daniel Edelson 10.01.09 Ynetnews.com

Two Red Cross representatives arrived at the Hasharon Prison Thursday, to interview the 19 female Palestinian prisoners scheduled to be released in exchange for a proof of life video of kidnapped IDF soldier Gilad Shalit.


Marc Linning, who oversees the Red Cross division charged with the welfare of Palestinian prisoners held in Israel, told Ynet that the visit is expected to last about two hours and is meant to ensure that none of the women fear persecution upon returning to their homes.


The Red Cross, he added, must ensure that they do not fear for their safety and that they return to their townships of their own accord. Released prisoners, he said, "Sometimes experience harsher things outside of prison."


Lining further said that the Red Cross will monitor the women's reintegration in society, and if need be, provide them with the necessary documentation proving they were in an Israeli prison.


When asked why no Red Cross delegate has been to see Gilad Shalit, Lining said that the situation of the Hamas-held solider was "entirely different."


Lining welcomed the imminent deal and said his organization would continue to do everything in its power to ensure Shalit is treated properly.