 Tuesday Sep 14, 2010 Rosner's Domain: Sharm talks FAQPosted 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 Time's cover story aside (It is just so pathetic that I couldn't even bring myself to explain why such story should not be published by respectable magazine.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). |
Tuesday, September 14, 2010
Rosner's FAQs on Sharm Talks
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
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu told the Israeli Cabinet on Sunday:
"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)
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
Sent on the Sprint® Now Network from my BlackBerry®