Now available for mobile phones!

If you wish to view the blog on mobile phone, click here.

Would you like to comment on postings?
Join the Jewish Current Events page on Facebook.

Wednesday, September 29, 2010

Netanyahu: I am committed to peace with Palestinians

http://www.jpost.com/Israel/Article.aspx?id=189633    September 29, 2010
 
After meeting with US Middle East Envoy George Mitchell in Caesarea on Wednesday, Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu said that he and his government are committed to reaching a peace agreement with the Palestinian leadership.

"There are many obstacles on the road to peace," the prime minister said before meeting with Mitchell. "There are many skeptics. There is one way to prove them right. That is not to try."


"We are committed and I am committed to trying to get to a peace agreement that will secure Israel’s security and other vital national interests," he said. "That is my goal and that is our policy."

The prime minister continued, "We will continue to pursue it [a peace agreement], I very much look forward to continuing it, with Abu Mazen, because we have an historic mission to continue those good talks, to arrive at an historic peace. That is our effort," he declared. "that is our policy and that is our goal."

Mitchell brought a message to the Israeli and Palestinian peoples, as well as their leaderships, that US President Obama and US Secretary Clinton remain totally committed to comprehensive peace in the Middle East. That is, to an agreement between Israel and the Palestinians, an end to this conflict once and for all time, to an Israel and Syria, to an Israel and Lebanon, and the full normalization of relations between Israel and all of its neighbors in the region.

Mitchell added that while he understands that the path will and has included many hurdles, the US is determined more than ever to realize the common objective of Middle East peace and security, and that the US will "continue its efforts in that regard, undeterred and undaunted by the difficulties."

Sunday, September 26, 2010

Mitchell enables another week's time to negotiate re: settlement construction



Moratorium ends, but major building not expected
By HERB KEINON   09/27/2010 00:48 Jerusalem Post

October 4 Arab League meeting looms as new deadline, while US, Israeli, PA officials continue search for acceptable bridging formula

Israel’s 10-month moratorium on new construction in the West Bank settlements expired at midnight Sunday, but Israel and the Palestinian Authority have agreed to devote another week to finding a compromise that will keep the recently relaunched direct talks from breaking down over the issue.

During this period, PA President Mahmoud Abbas will not announce that he is quitting the talks, and, because of Succot, there is not expected to be any sudden, major construction boom in the settlements – even though theoretically work could start immediately on some 2,000 housing units for which all the permits have already been granted.



The idea of buying another week’s time to negotiate emerged from various meetings US envoy George Mitchell held over the weekend with Abbas and Defense Minister Ehud Barak, who were both in New York.

Source: http://www.jpost.com/International/Article.aspx?ID=189336&R=R1

Thursday, September 23, 2010

[excerpts] Remarks of President Barack Obama's Address to the United Nations General Assembly

Excerpts relate to the President's remarks about the war on terrorism, Iran and the Arab-Israeli conflict.

Remarks of President Barack Obama-As Prepared for Delivery [Remarks may have deviated from the speech as prepared for delivery]
Address to the United Nations General Assembly September 23, 2010

...
 Men, women and children have been murdered by extremists from Casablanca to London; from Jalalabad to Jakarta.
....

Now let me be clear once more: the United States and the international community seek a resolution to our differences with Iran, and the door remains open to diplomacy should Iran choose to walk through it. But the Iranian government must demonstrate a clear and credible commitment, and confirm to the world the peaceful intent of its nuclear program.

...

 Last year, I pledged my best efforts to support the goal of two states, Israel and Palestine, living side by side in peace and security, as part of a comprehensive peace between Israel and all of its neighbors. We have travelled a winding road over the last twelve months, with few peaks and many valleys. But this month, I am pleased that we have pursued direct negotiations between Israelis and Palestinians in Washington, Sharm el-Sheikh and Jerusalem.

Now, many are pessimistic about this process. The cynics say that Israelis and Palestinians are too distrustful of each other, and too divided internally, to forge lasting peace. Rejectionists on both sides will try to disrupt the process, with bitter words and with bombs. Some say that the gaps between the parties are too big; the potential for talks to break down is too great; and that after decades of failure, peace is simply not possible.

But consider the alternative. If an agreement is not reached, Palestinians will never know the pride and dignity that comes with their own state. Israelis will never know the certainty and security that comes with sovereign and stable neighbors who are committed to co-existence. The hard realities of demography will take hold. More blood will be shed. This Holy Land will remain a symbol of our differences, instead of our common humanity.

I refuse to accept that future. We all have a choice to make. And each of us must choose the path of peace. That responsibility begins with the parties themselves, who must answer the call of history. Earlier this month, at the White House, I was struck by the words of both the Israeli and Palestinian leaders. Prime Minister Netanyahu said, "I came here today to find an historic compromise that will enable both people to live in peace, security, and dignity." President Abbas said, "We will spare no effort and we will work diligently and tirelessly to ensure these negotiations achieve their cause."

These words must be followed by action, and I believe that both leaders have the courage to do so. But the road that they have to travel is difficult, which is why I call upon Israelis and Palestinians - and the world - to rally behind the goal that these leaders share. We know there will be tests along the way, and that one is fast approaching. Israel's settlement moratorium has made a difference on the ground, and improved the atmosphere for talks. Our position on this issue is well known. We believe that the moratorium should be extended. We also believe that talks should press on until completed. Now is the time for the parties to help each other overcome this obstacle. Now is the time to build the trust - and provide the time - for substantial progress to be made. Now is the time for this opportunity to be seized, so that it doesn't slip away.

Peace must be made by Israelis and Palestinians, but each of us has a responsibility to do our part as well. Those of us who are friends of Israel must understand that true security for the Jewish state requires an independent Palestine - one that allows the Palestinian people to live with dignity and opportunity. And those of us who are friends of the Palestinians must understand that the rights of the Palestinian people will be won only through peaceful means - including genuine reconciliation with a secure Israel.

Many in this hall count themselves as friends of the Palestinians. But these pledges must now be supported by deeds. Those who have signed on to the Arab Peace Initiative should seize this opportunity to make it real by taking tangible steps toward the normalization that it promises Israel. Those who speak out for Palestinian self-government should help the Palestinian Authority politically and financially, and - in so doing - help the Palestinians build the institutions of their state. And those who long to see an independent Palestine rise must stop trying to tear Israel down.

After thousands of years, Jews and Arabs are not strangers in a strange land. And after sixty years in the community of nations, Israel's existence must not be a subject for debate. Israel is a sovereign state, and the historic homeland of the Jewish people. It should be clear to all that efforts to chip away at Israel's legitimacy will only be met by the unshakeable opposition of the United States. And efforts to threaten or kill Israelis will do nothing to help the Palestinian people - the slaughter of innocent Israelis is not resistance, it is injustice. Make no mistake: the courage of a man like President Abbas - who stands up for his people in front of the world - is far greater than those who fire rockets at innocent women and children.

The conflict between Israelis and Arabs is as old as this institution. And we can come back here, next year, as we have for the last sixty, and make long speeches about it. We can read familiar lists of grievances. We can table the same resolutions. We can further empower the forces of rejectionism and hate. We can waste more time by carrying forward an argument that will not help a single Israeli or Palestinian child achieve a better life. We can do that.

Or, we can say that this time will be different - that this time we will not let terror, or turbulence, or posturing, or petty politics stand in the way. This time, we will think not of ourselves, but of the young girl in Gaza who wants to have no ceiling on her dreams, or the young boy in Sderot who wants to sleep without the nightmare of rocket fire. This time, we should draw upon the teachings of tolerance that lie at the heart of three great religions that see Jerusalem's soil as sacred. This time we should reach for what's best within ourselves. If we do, when we come back here next year, we can have an agreement that will lead to a new member of the United Nations - an independent, sovereign state of Palestine, living in peace with Israel.
...


Tuesday, September 21, 2010

Fayyad unable to commit to 'two states for two peoples'


WASHINGTON  – Palestinian Prime Minister Salam Fayyad left a meeting with Deputy Foreign Minister Daniel Ayalon outraged on Tuesday following a dispute about terminology to be used in the meeting summary.


The dispute followed Ayalon's demand that the meeting summary refer to the notion of "two states for two peoples," rather than just "two states." 



"I wanted that at the very least it will note two states for two peoples. I demanded to know what they meant. One Palestinian state and one bi-national state, or another Palestinian state?," the deputy minister told Ynet. "I made it clear that we were out of the picture if the summary didn’t say two states for two peoples."

Source: http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3958403,00.html   9/21/10

TIP: NY politicians demand a full 180 from Ahmadinejad

Governor David Paterson, Senator Kirsten Gillibrand and other elected officials and community leaders gathered at a press conference yesterday to call for a tougher response to the Ahmadinejad regime. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is in New York City and addressed the Millennium Development Goals Conference today.

Senator Gillibrand announced that she will be introducing new legislation, The Gulf Security and Iran Sanctions Enforcement Act, which brings a new level of public and government scrutiny to the activities of the Iranian government and multinational companies doing business with Iran.

Watch the press conference now.

  • Other officials who appeared and spoke at the press conference included Reps Ackerman, Crowley, Engel, Maloney, Nadler, Weiner; NYS Comptroller DiNapoli; Public Advocate de Blasio; NYC Council Speaker Quinn; Manhattan Borough President Stringer; State Senator Krueger and Councilwoman Gail Brewer.

Media coverage of the event included:

NY's Congressional Delegation Take On United Nations In Advance of Ahmadinejad Visit The New York Observer, September 20, 2010

Gov. Paterson and city lawmakers lead Ahmadinejad protests outside UN New York Post, September 20, 2010

NY Politicians Speak Out Against Ahmadinejad CBS Channel 2 News, September 20, 2010

Get more coverage of the Iran180 press conference

Iran180 is a movement of people and organizations who have come together as a unified voice to demand a 180 by the Iranian government on their pursuit of nuclear weapons and the treatment of their citizens.

Iran180.org has already collected over fifteen thousand signatures signing on to its online petition proclamation, and will be holding a "street event" at 10:00 AM, Thursday September 23rd at Dag Hammarskjöld Plaza to protest Ahamadinejad. Everyday New Yorkers are invited to attend and "send a message to Mahmoud." Details are available at www.iran180.org or on Facebook at www.facebook.com/Iran180.

You can still sign the Iran180 Declaration and send to a friend.

Thank you for your support!

Visit us on Facebook and at Iran180.org

Sign the Iran180 Declaration

http://cts.vresp.com/c/?JewishCommunityRelat/046033ff16/b630f2504f/2e682d806e

Visit Iran180 on Facebook

http://cts.vresp.com/c/?JewishCommunityRelat/046033ff16/b630f2504f/a452a5d864

French Canadian antisemitism

Political cartoon from the French Canadian press [ Sept. 20, 2010]  appears to insinuate that Jews control the Canadian legislature.  

Sunday, September 19, 2010

PLO ambassador: stage in deligitmizing Israel

Peace talks are stage
in delegitimizing "rebellious, racist" Israel
http://www.palwatch.org/main.aspx?fi=157&doc_id=3188

by Itamar Marcus and Barbara Crook

The PLO's ambassador to Lebanon says that the current peace talks "are not a goal," but just another stage in the Palestinian attempt to undermine Israel's legitimacy. The Palestinian Authority official daily reported that the Ambassador Abdullah Abdullah described the peace talks as part of a broader process to isolate Israel, "threaten its legitimacy" and present it as a "rebellious, racist state."

Abdullah indicated that this goal to call attention to Israel's "war crimes" and isolate it, as was done to South Africa, is already being realized: "Many Israelis in senior positions are afraid to travel to European countries lest they be put on trial for their crimes."

Following are the Palestinian goals for the peace talks, according to the PLO Ambassador Abdullah Abdullah:

"The PLO's representative in Lebanon, Ambassador Abdullah Abdullah, emphasized yesterday that the Palestinian-Israeli negotiations, which have started in Washington, are not a goal, but rather another stage in the Palestinian struggle... He believes that Israel will not be dealt a knock-out defeat, but rather an accumulation of Palestinian achievements and struggles, as happened in South Africa, to isolate Israel, to tighten the noose on it, to threaten its legitimacy, and to present it as a rebellious, racist state. He noted that Israel faces international isolation with doubt cast on its legitimacy, because of its actions and the war crimes which it has carried out. He added, 'Many Israelis in senior positions are afraid to travel to European countries lest they be put on trial for their crimes.'"
[Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, Sept. 9, 2010]
 
 
 

Thursday, September 16, 2010

Bard: Time magazine promotes myth about Israel

Time magazine purports to explain why Israel doesn't want peace: That's a dangerous lie

 
As the author of a book on myths and facts about the Arab-Israeli conflict, I am often asked to identify the most prevalent myth. The answer can be found on the cover of the recent edition of Time magazine, which purports to explain "Why Israel Doesn't Care About Peace."

This assertion reinforces the views of the Arab lobby, especially State Department Arabists, who often work in tandem with foreign interests to frustrate broader U.S. policy goals. They have long believed that Israelis don't know what's best for themselves and must be forced, like recalcitrant children, to capitulate to the demands of the Arabs for their own good.

The Arabists, especially concerned that the creation of a Jewish state would jeopardize our access to Saudi oil, initially tried to prevent the creation of Israel altogether. Since 1948, their consistent posture has been that U.S. interests are best served by distancing the United States from Israel in order to improve our ties with Arab states.

We now have more than six decades of experience, which has utterly refuted this view. During these decades, we've seen U.S.-Israel relations grow closer without adversely affecting either our ties with Arab allies or oil supplies. Moreover, the true threats to U.S. interests have been external powers - the Soviet Union, regional provocateurs like the Iranians, inter-Arab rivalries (e.g., Syria and Lebanon) and terrorism, all of which the Arabists either ignored or downplayed.

Although their fears proved unfounded - the Arab states, especially the Saudis, need our support a lot more than we need theirs - the Arabists have never abandoned the view of U.S. Middle East policy as a zero-sum game in which it is impossible to have  close ties with both Israel and the Arab states. Many are therefore convinced that the United States must save Israel from itself by imposing a peace settlement aimed at satisfying American interests in the Arab world. Consequently, they have advocated pressuring Israel to make concessions to the Palestinians they hope will end the conflict they believe makes our lives difficult in the region.

Unfortunately, this view has come to be shared by many American liberals, including some liberal Jews. The idea promoted by people like Daily Beast commentator Peter Beinart is that Israel needs "tough love" from its American Jewish supporters - because Israelis are too stupid, immature or politically constrained to make decisions people 6,000 miles see as in their best interests. They also naively believe that by piling on with other critics of Israel they can change the policy of Israel's democratically elected leaders.

Israelis need to be pushed now, according to Time, because Israelis are enjoying prosperity and see peacemaking as a low priority. To the contrary, as any serious observer knows, Israelis have not enjoyed a day of peace in 62 years and crave peace more desperately than any other people on Earth.

You can go back as far as the 1937 Peel partition plan to find the first example of Zionists offering to share land with their neighbors. As recently as two years ago, Israel's prime minister offered the Palestinians a state in nearly 97% of the West Bank to go along with the entire Gaza Strip that Israel already evacuated. In between, Israel has offered a variety of other compromises to which the Arab answer has repeatedly been no recognition or peace with Israel.

It is true that Israelis are not in the rush to diplomacy favored by the Arab lobby and adopted by President Obama. It is not that they do not want peace, however, but rather that they have no faith in the Palestinians. What evidence, they ask, can anyone present to suggest that if they did capitulate to every demand of the Palestinians, peace would ensue? Mahmoud Abbas does not control the Gaza Strip, where 40% of the Palestinian people live and the Hamas rulers have made clear they want Israel to withdraw not to the 1967 borders but to the Mediterranean Sea. As we saw from the recent terror attacks, Abbas does not even fully control the West Bank, so what good is his signature on any peace agreement?

Israelis will have to live with the consequences of their decisions for decades to come. What if the "moderate" Abbas is replaced in 10 years by a Hamas-like extremist government? In that decade the quality of weapons will have improved and suddenly Tel Aviv, Jerusalem and Ben-Gurion Airport will be in the cross hairs of Palestinian rockets.

The Arabists only care that a Palestinian state is created in a year, not whether it will be a threat to Israel then or at any time in the future. Israelis, however, do have to take these possibilities into consideration. It is this calculation that is most affecting Israeli attitudes today. They are no less interested in peace than ever before; they simply want to be sure that before they make decisions that may endanger their security, their partners are equally committed to peace - and the United States has their back.

Bard is a foreign policy analyst whose latest book is "The Arab Lobby: The Invisible Alliance That Undermines America's Interests in the Middle East" (HarperCollins Publishers).

Source: http://www.nydailynews.com/opinions/2010/09/16/2010-09-16_time_magazine_purports_to_explain_why_israel_doesnt_want_peace_thats_a_dangerous.html


Tuesday, September 14, 2010

Lozowick: Blindness to Palestinian aggression harms the negotiations

Commentary by Yaacov Lozowick

 "Why is this reciprocity not crystal clear? Because it isn't, you know."

Tuesday, September 14, 2010     http://yaacovlozowick.blogspot.com/2010/09/terms-of-negotiations.html

Terms of Negotiations

Up front, unambiguous, and with no obfuscations: I'm in favor of the continuation of the settlement freeze. Not in Modi'in Illit, which will remain in Israel no matter what, and certainly not in any part of Jerusalem. But in all the places we know we'll leave some day - and let's define them broadly, not narrowly - I'm in favor of the freeze. I'd be in favor of it even if there were no negotiations: we know that someday we're going to disband those settlements, so there's no rational point in building in them, is there. So let's stop.

On that level, I've got no problem with
the American position that since negotiations have finally started it would be a bad idea to interfere by building in the settlements. So long as the negotiations may possibly lead to peace, no changes should be made in the disputed areas.

By either side.

So while there's no problem with Palestinians building in areas we all know will eventually be part of their state (the corollaries of Midi'in Illit), it should be clear to all sides and the international community that the Palestinians, too, must refrain from actions which harm the negotiations. Things such as
firing rockets at Israeli civilians, shooting at their cars, or stoning Israeli civilians. Shhh! There are negotiations going on, and all sides must refrain from harming them.

Why is this reciprocity not crystal clear? Because it isn't, you know.

Update: Khaled Abu Toameh (a Palestinian) says the same,
only with greater fervor.

Debka: Today's Middle East negotiations

A headline review of today's news from Debka.com

Before leaving Sharm el-Sheikh, Netanyahu, Abbas, Clinton met again
after first round of talks ended in 40 minutes

* Mitchell: Extending West Bank building moratorium makes sense, but it
is a sensitive political issue in Israel

* We have asked Abbas for steps to promote continuation of talks

* First, Netanyahu talked to Clinton, Abbas to Mubarak

* Fifteen Israeli cabinet ministers plus Knesset Speaker publish open
letter against moratorium

* Hamas military chief Al Jabry says only fire will exorcize conflict
with Israel

* Palestinian state must extend from "Sea to Jordan"

Rosner's FAQs on Sharm Talks

 
Tuesday Sep 14, 2010

Rosner's Domain: Sharm talks FAQ

Posted by SHMUEL ROSNER

1. Why wouldn't Netanyahu agree to continued freeze?

He should not - for two reasons.

One is political: opponents of freeze will make the life of the Netanyahu government much more difficult. True - Netanyahu is quite strong politically speaking. But he the PM needs to spend a lot of time and energy on preserving the coalition he will not have time and energy for other, more important things.

One is even more important: The Netanyahu government went out of its way and agreed to freeze construction for ten months. It was understood by all parties involved that in September construction will resume. Such understandings should be honored. Not because of pride or principle. They should be honored, because if they aren't no future understandings will have any credibility.

2. So why the Americans keep pushing for freeze?

Sadly, because they have little else they can do to. Secretary Clinton doesn't want the talks to blow-up before they even start - and since the Palestinians threaten to leave the table if construction resumes, the Americans have no choice but to push.

3. Will it blow up that soon?

 It might, but one needs to be careful: Israeli-Palestinian peace talks have long history, most of it history of moving from one "crisis" to another. Those wanting to see peace talks will have to stomach a lot of such make-or-break, do-or-die, take-it-or-I-will-leave moments. In other words: This isn't crisis, it is just another day of peace talks.

4. Do Israelis care about peace?

Time's cover story aside (It is just so pathetic that I couldn't even bring myself to explain why such story should not be published by respectable magazine. If you want something to read about it - try the American Jewish Committee's fine analysis of its content) - Israelis really don't care. Well, they do care about peace, but not about the talks. I've noticed this morning that radio-news editors had listed the Sharm talks as item number four on the agenda. That's pretty low for all the brouhaha and the dignitaries involved.

5. Why don't they care?

The answer is quite obvious.

6. Do Palestinians care?

As far as I can tell, the answer is no - for the same reason. By the way, Israeli-Palestinian talk is the classic case of something to which the media is paying more attention than the public (if you need proof, you can find it here).

 

Monday, September 13, 2010

Controversial suggestion precedes start of 2nd round of talks


Clinton urges Israel to extend settlement freeze

On eve of second round of direct peace talks to be held in Egypt, US stateswoman advises steps be taken to ensure continued negotiations, asserts agreement on core issues would eliminate debate on settlements

AFP Published:  09.14.10
       

US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton headed Monday to the Middle East urging both Israel and the Palestinians to find ways to clear the "hurdle" posed by a looming expiration on the Jewish settlement construction moratorium.


Flying to the Egyptian Red Sea resort of Sharm el-Sheikh, Clinton repeated US President Barack Obama's call on Friday for Israel to extend the 10-month moratorium on settlements that is due to expire on September 26.


But she left the door open to creative solutions, urging both sides to make reciprocal gestures that would maintain the momentum in the direct negotiations that were launched in Washington on September 2.


Clinton was due to hold the second round of negotiations in Egypt with both Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas. She was also to meet President Mubarak of Egypt, a key Arab mediator.


"We believe that the moratorium should be extended," the chief US diplomat told reporters before her plane landed in Shannon, Ireland for refuelling.


"At the same time we recognize that an agreement that could be forged between the Israelis and the Palestinians on actions that would be taken by both sides that would enable the negotiations to continue is in the best interests of both sides," she said.


"This has to be understood as an effort by both the prime minister (Netanyahu) and the president (Abbas) to get over a hurdle posed by the expiration of the original moratorium in order to continue negotiations," she said.


'A lot of ways to achieve goal'
The Palestinians have warned that if the moratorium is not extended, the negotiations could come to a complete halt.


Clinton laughed aloud at what she saw as the irony of the Arabs sharply criticizing her late last year when, during a trip to Jerusalem, she praised as "unprecedented" the partial moratorium on settlements that Netayahu offered.


"I took my fair share of the criticism," the chief US diplomat said.


"It was an unprecedented decision by an Israeli government and now we're told that negotiations can't continue unless something that was viewed as being inadequate continues as well," she said.


"I think there's a lot of ways to get to the goal. Remember the goal is to work toward agreement on core issues like borders and territory that would, if agreed upon, eliminate the debate about settlements," she said.


"Because some areas would be inside Israel and some areas would not be," she said.


'Time not on either side'
Clinton refused to discuss specific steps each side might take to boost the momentum in the negotiations.


"In the next two days, I think there will be a lot that will be discussed by both sides about what they need and about what they can offer to keep going," she said.


Besides Egypt, Clinton was due for talks with both leaders in Jerusalem and the West Bank town of Ramallah.


Clinton said "time was ripe" for a solution to the decades-old Palestinian-Israeli conflict.


"If you listen to both leaders, they recognize time is not on either of their sides," she said.


Netanyahu, she said, has made it clear that Israel faces severe security challenges as the Iranian-backed Hezbollah in Lebanon and Iranian-backed Hamas acquire more dangerous missiles and rockets.


As for Abbas, she said he has long called for a two-state solution but must prove to the Palestinian people he can achieve the goal through negotiations rather than armed resistance.


When Clinton brokered the launch of direct negotiations on September 3 in Washington, both sides agreed to resolve within a year the core issues of Israeli security, borders of a Palestinian state, the fate of Palestinian refugees and the status of Jerusalem.



The Palestinians want a state in the West Bank and Gaza, with east Jerusalem as its capital. Netanyahu has embraced a two-state solution, but has shown no sign on yielding on Jerusalem as the undivided capital of the Jewish state.



Ynet learned that despite threats made by senior Palestinian Authority officials to quit the talks if the building freeze is not extended, the Palestinians in fact have decided not make such a move should construction in the large settlement blocks resume. However, the PA has asked the US to respond firmly to cases in which Israel builds outside these areas.



In talks on Tuesday, Netanyahu will place two main demands on the table. The first is that any agreement struck between the parties represent an end to the conflict and an end of Palestinian demands placed on Israel. He will also demand that Israel's security be ensured and that Israel be recognized as a Jewish state, a matter that has already received significant opposition among senior PA leaders.

 Source: http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3953697,00.html

Netanyahu: Israel Must Be Recognized as Jewish State

 

  • Netanyahu: Israel Must Be Recognized as Jewish State
    Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu told the Israeli Cabinet on Sunday:
  •  "On Tuesday, I will leave for Sharm a-Sheikh, for an additional meeting with Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas, in the framework of the direct talks. Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak will host, as well as attend, the meeting, which will also be attended by U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Senator Mitchell. I believe that if the Palestinian leadership adheres to continuous negotiations, despite the obstacles that are coming up on every side, and if it is serious and determined in its intention to advance towards peace, just as we are serious, then it will be possible to - within a year - reach a framework that will be the basis for a peace settlement."

  •     "A peace agreement is based - first of all - on the recognition of Israel as the national state of the Jewish People....We say that the solution is two states for two peoples, meaning two national states, a Jewish national state and a Palestinian national state. To my regret, I have yet to hear from the Palestinians the phrase 'two states for two peoples.' I hear them saying 'two states,' but I do not hear them recognizing two states for two peoples."  (Prime Minister's Office)
  • As summarized on the September 13, 2010  www.dailyalert.org
     

    Saturday, September 11, 2010

    Why the U.S. was attacked on 9-11-01


    People forget.  Why were we attacked on 9-11? See bin Ladin's fatwa ( 1998 ) in the name of the World Islamic Front requiring the killing of Americans. http://www.fas.org/irp/world/para/docs/980223-fatwa.htm

    Jihad Against Jews and Crusaders
    World Islamic Front Statement

    23 February 1998

    Shaykh Usamah Bin-Muhammad Bin-Ladin
    Ayman al-Zawahiri, amir of the Jihad Group in Egypt
    Abu-Yasir Rifa'i Ahmad Taha, Egyptian Islamic Group
    Shaykh Mir Hamzah, secretary of the Jamiat-ul-Ulema-e-Pakistan
    Fazlur Rahman, amir of the Jihad Movement in Bangladesh

    Praise be to Allah, who revealed the Book, controls the clouds, defeats factionalism, and says in His Book: "But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the pagans wherever ye find them, seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war)"; and peace be upon our Prophet, Muhammad Bin-'Abdallah, who said: I have been sent with the sword between my hands to ensure that no one but Allah is worshipped, Allah who put my livelihood under the shadow of my spear and who inflicts humiliation and scorn on those who disobey my orders.

    The Arabian Peninsula has never -- since Allah made it flat, created its desert, and encircled it with seas -- been stormed by any forces like the crusader armies spreading in it like locusts, eating its riches and wiping out its plantations. All this is happening at a time in which nations are attacking Muslims like people fighting over a plate of food. In the light of the grave situation and the lack of support, we and you are obliged to discuss current events, and we should all agree on how to settle the matter.

    No one argues today about three facts that are known to everyone; we will list them, in order to remind everyone:

        First, for over seven years the United States has been occupying the lands of Islam in the holiest of places, the Arabian Peninsula, plundering its riches, dictating to its rulers, humiliating its people, terrorizing its neighbors, and turning its bases in the Peninsula into a spearhead through which to fight the neighboring Muslim peoples.

        If some people have in the past argued about the fact of the occupation, all the people of the Peninsula have now acknowledged it. The best proof of this is the Americans' continuing aggression against the Iraqi people using the Peninsula as a staging post, even though all its rulers are against their territories being used to that end, but they are helpless.

        Second, despite the great devastation inflicted on the Iraqi people by the crusader-Zionist alliance, and despite the huge number of those killed, which has exceeded 1 million... despite all this, the Americans are once against trying to repeat the horrific massacres, as though they are not content with the protracted blockade imposed after the ferocious war or the fragmentation and devastation.

        So here they come to annihilate what is left of this people and to humiliate their Muslim neighbors.

        Third, if the Americans' aims behind these wars are religious and economic, the aim is also to serve the Jews' petty state and divert attention from its occupation of Jerusalem and murder of Muslims there. The best proof of this is their eagerness to destroy Iraq, the strongest neighboring Arab state, and their endeavor to fragment all the states of the region such as Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Sudan into paper statelets and through their disunion and weakness to guarantee Israel's survival and the continuation of the brutal crusade occupation of the Peninsula.

    All these crimes and sins committed by the Americans are a clear declaration of war on Allah, his messenger, and Muslims. And ulema have throughout Islamic history unanimously agreed that the jihad is an individual duty if the enemy destroys the Muslim countries. This was revealed by Imam Bin-Qadamah in "Al- Mughni," Imam al-Kisa'i in "Al-Bada'i," al-Qurtubi in his interpretation, and the shaykh of al-Islam in his books, where he said: "As for the fighting to repulse [an enemy], it is aimed at defending sanctity and religion, and it is a duty as agreed [by the ulema]. Nothing is more sacred than belief except repulsing an enemy who is attacking religion and life."

    On that basis, and in compliance with Allah's order, we issue the following fatwa to all Muslims:

    The ruling to kill the Americans and their allies -- civilians and military -- is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it, in order to liberate the al-Aqsa Mosque and the holy mosque [Mecca] from their grip, and in order for their armies to move out of all the lands of Islam, defeated and unable to threaten any Muslim. This is in accordance with the words of Almighty Allah, "and fight the pagans all together as they fight you all together," and "fight them until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in Allah."

    This is in addition to the words of Almighty Allah: "And why should ye not fight in the cause of Allah and of those who, being weak, are ill-treated (and oppressed)? -- women and children, whose cry is: 'Our Lord, rescue us from this town, whose people are oppressors; and raise for us from thee one who will help!'"

    We -- with Allah's help -- call on every Muslim who believes in Allah and wishes to be rewarded to comply with Allah's order to kill the Americans and plunder their money wherever and whenever they find it. We also call on Muslim ulema, leaders, youths, and soldiers to launch the raid on Satan's U.S. troops and the devil's supporters allying with them, and to displace those who are behind them so that they may learn a lesson.

    Almighty Allah said: "O ye who believe, give your response to Allah and His Apostle, when He calleth you to that which will give you life. And know that Allah cometh between a man and his heart, and that it is He to whom ye shall all be gathered."

    Almighty Allah also says: "O ye who believe, what is the matter with you, that when ye are asked to go forth in the cause of Allah, ye cling so heavily to the earth! Do ye prefer the life of this world to the hereafter? But little is the comfort of this life, as compared with the hereafter. Unless ye go forth, He will punish you with a grievous penalty, and put others in your place; but Him ye would not harm in the least. For Allah hath power over all things."

    Almighty Allah also says: "So lose no heart, nor fall into despair. For ye must gain mastery if ye are true in faith."

    Tuesday, September 7, 2010

    Rasmussen: 77% of Americans agree: recognize the Jewish state


    Poll of Americans: 77%:7% agreement must require recognition of Israel's right to exist as Jewish state 

     National Survey of 1,000 Likely Voters Conducted September 2-3, 2010 By Rasmussen Reports

    www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/toplines/pt_survey_toplines/september_2010/toplines_middle_east_peace_talks_september_2_3_2010

    1* How closely have you followed recent news stories about Middle Eastern
    peace talks?

    35% Very closely

    42% Somewhat closely

    19% Not very closely

    2% Not at all

    1% Not sure

    2* As part of a Middle Eastern peace agreement, should Palestinian leaders
    be required to acknowledge Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state?

    77% Yes

    7% No

    16% Not sure

    3* As part of a Middle Eastern peace agreement, should Israel be required to
    accept the creation of a Palestinian state?

    51% Yes

    27% No

    22% Not sure

    4* How likely is it that Palestinian leaders will acknowledge Israel's right
    to exist as a Jewish state?

    6% Very likely

    19% Somewhat likely

    45% Not very likely

    19% Not at all likely

    11% Not sure

    5* How likely is it that Israel will accept the creation of a Palestinian
    state?

    6% Very likely

    36% Somewhat likely

    38% Not very likely

    9% Not at all likely

    10% Not sure

    NOTE: Margin of Sampling Error, +/- 3 percentage points with a 95% level of
    confidence




    As part of a Middle Eastern peace agreement, should Palestinian leaders
    be required to acknowledge Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state

    Pipes: It's wrong to target all Muslims


    Daniel Pipes call upon those who oppose Islamism (al-Qaeda, Hamas ) to avoid targeting all Muslims.  It's wrong and indefensible to target all Muslims. //Mark Finkelstein  jcrc@dmjfed.org

    Pipes states:

    " I have one concern:[some of those who oppose Islamism are taking on an] increasing anti-Islamic tone. Misled by the Islamists' insistence that there can be no such thing as "moderate Islam," my allies often fail to distinguish between Islam (a faith) and Islamism (a radical utopian ideology aiming to implement Islamic laws in their totality). This amounts not just to an intellectual error but a policy dead-end. Targeting all Muslims conflicts with basic Western notions, lumps friends with foes, and ignores the inescapable fact that Muslims alone can offer an antidote to Islamism. As I often note, radical Islam is the problem and moderate Islam is the solution [to defeating Islamism.]"

    Source: http://www.danielpipes.org/pubarticle.php?id=650


    Monday, September 6, 2010

    Send New Year greeting to an IDF soldier

    Send a letter with one click to a lone soldier for the Jewish New Year http://bit.ly/a6LqBH
    Sent on the Sprint® Now Network from my BlackBerry®

    Sunday, September 5, 2010

    Friday, September 3, 2010

    Viewpoints on peace expressed by two ambassadors

     
    Israel's Ambassador to the United States,  Michael Oren, expressed optimism in the peace talks.
     
    In an opinion editorial, he writes:   Is there any reason for optimism?

    Indeed, there is. For the first time in history, most Arab leaders view a Middle Eastern state other than Israel - Iran - as their major enemy. The Israeli government under Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is strong, stable and deeply committed to resolving the conflict based on two states for two peoples, Israeli and Palestinian. In the West Bank, Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas is working to restore law, order and economic prosperity while similarly pledging to pursue the two-state solution. And President Barack Obama has placed achieving peace at the top of his foreign policy agenda. Never before, perhaps, have conditions been so conducive for a breakthrough.

     
     
    Palestinian Ambassador to Iran, Salah Zawawi, expressed his opinion, as well.
     
     Tehran, Sept 2, IRNA -- Palestine’s Ambassador to Tehran, Salah Zawawi, said on Thursday:  “With reliance upon Grace of Almighty God and through solidarity of world Muslims, we hope to witness complete eradication of [ Israel] the fabricated regime in due course.”
     
     
    Comments to jcrc@dmjfed.org
     

    Thursday, September 2, 2010

    Agha and Malley: Palestinian leader hardpressed to implement a peace agreement

    Authors argue that because Palestinians lack a strong, legitimate central authority, " Palestinians would find it difficult to implement an agreement," argues Agha and Malley

    At Mideast Peace Talks, a Lopsided Table - Hussein Agha and Robert Malley (Washington Post)

    • Staggering asymmetries between the Israelis and Palestinians could seriously imperil the talks. Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu is the head of a stable state with the ability to deliver on his commitments. Celebrations of supposed institution-building notwithstanding, Palestinians have no robust central authority. Their territory is divided between the West Bank and Gaza. On their own, Palestinians would find it difficult to implement an agreement.
    • Participation in direct talks was opposed by virtually every Palestinian political organization aside from Fatah, whose support was lethargic. Abbas' decision to come to Washington is viewed skeptically even by those who back him. If Abbas reaches a deal, many will ask in whose name he was bartering away Palestinian rights. If negotiations fail, most will accuse him of once more having been duped. Abbas will be damned if he does and damned if he doesn't.
    • The demographic threat - the possibility that Arabs soon might outnumber Jews, forcing Israel to choose between remaining Jewish or democratic - is exaggerated. Israel already has separated itself from Gaza. In the future, it could unilaterally relinquish areas of the West Bank, further diminishing prospects of an eventual Arab majority.

      Hussein Agha is a senior associate member of St. Antony's College at Oxford University. Robert Malley is Middle East program director at the International Crisis Group and was special assistant to the president for Arab-Israeli affairs from 1998 to 2001. 

    • Source:  summary by dailyalert.org on Sept. 2, 2010 .  Article from http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/09/01/AR2010090105656.html