THERE WAS never any chance for peace because the Palestinians have no interest in making peace with Israel. As the West's favorite Palestinian "moderate," Fatah leader and Palestinian Authority chairman Mahmoud Abbas said in an interview with Egypt's Dream TV on October 23, "I've said it before and I'll say it again. I will never recognize the 'Jewishness' of the State [of Israel] or a 'Jewish state.'" That is, Abbas will never make peace with Israel.

...

So why do the likes of Sarkozy and Obama hate Netanyahu? Why is he "a liar?" Why don't they pour out their venom on Abbas, who really does lie to them on a regular basis? The answer is because they prefer to blame Israel rather than acknowledge that their positive assessments of the Palestinians are nothing more than fantasy.

And they are not alone. The Western preference for fantasy over reality was given explicit expression by former US president Bill Clinton in September.

In the first place, although some Palestinian negotiators have given the impression that they would accept Israeli retention of the large settlement blocs in return for the surrender of some Israeli territory elsewhere, the official Palestinian and Arab position has remained that Israel must withdraw to the 1949 armistice lines, which are invariably referred to as the “1967 borders.” When the Palestinians ask individual countries to declare their support for the unilateral declaration of a Palestinian state, the boundaries of that state are always described as the “1967 borders.” All this creates the impression that one of the main reasons why the Palestinians are not interested in a negotiated settlement is precisely because they are not willing to accept the existence of any Israeli settlements, whether big or small, beyond the 1949 armistice lines. This impression is further reinforced by the repeated statements by Abbas and other Palestinian leaders that they do not intend to accept the presence of even one single Jew within the territory of their new Palestinian state. 

In the second place, even if the Palestinians were willing to accept some Israeli settlements while insisting that others be dismantled, Israeli agreement to this demand would not in fact represent a compromise but rather a capitulation to Palestinian antisemitism. In return for voluntarily evicting tens of thousands of Jews from their homes, with all the attendant strife and dislocation which such a step would engender within Israeli society, Israel would receive nothing in return save a meaningless promise of future peaceful intentions. A genuine compromise on the issue of the settlements would see some placed under Israeli sovereignty and some under Palestinian sovereignty, but no one thinks in these terms because everyone knows that the Palestinians would immediately move to attack any Jewish settlements placed under their authority. While the supporters of the Palestinians rave and rant against Israel as an “apartheid state,” the Palestinians themselves loudly proclaim their refusal to permit any Jews to live under their rule. And this stance is not unique to the Palestinians but is true of the entire Arab world, where hardly any Jews now remain from what were once large communities dating back literally thousands of years.

In the third place, even if a genuine compromise on the issue of the settlements were possible, there are so many other issues on which the Palestinians are not willing to compromise that no peace agreement between them and Israel is conceivable any time soon. In particular, for 20 years the Palestinians have not budged one inch from their demand for the “right of return” of millions of Palestinians to “Israel proper.” They have also continued to demand full sovereignty over the Temple Mount, plus a corridor under their exclusive jurisdiction between Gaza and the “West Bank,” plus sufficient control over their borders and air space to enable them to import offensive weapons. It would be suicidal for Israel to agree to these demands, nor do the Palestinians expect Israeli agreement. For the Palestinians, the whole point of persisting with impossible demands is to validate their strategy of trying to secure United Nations approval of the unilateral declaration of a Palestinian state. Such approval would not actually give the Palestinians physical control over the territory which they claim, but what it would do is create the basis for a political, diplomatic and military offensive against the Jewish settlements. Eradication of these settlements is the Palestinian short term goal, which means that for Israel as well as for the Palestinians, the settlements are indeed the issue.

I am now going to break the silence about what are very probably egregious human rights violations in Palestine.

But first, you must excuse these personal and intimate questions: Are you seeking dialog and solidarity with the oppressed Palestinians? Are you European or American, female, between the ages of 17 and 40?

Uh, er, are you a virgin? (I did warn you that this is going to get personal and intimate).

If you are looking for an adventure of a new and different kind, then you should probably head for the Palestinian territories, where you can do a real service to the oppressed Palestinians and at the same time get first hand experience of solidarity and intimate dialog with Palestinian Arabs, who, it seems, rape American and European female activists.

Please scroll down below for photos of the new shopping mall that opened today in Gaza. I have also attached new photos and film of Gaza's hotels, beauty spas, swimming pools, beaches and street markets -- images the BBC, New York Times and others refuse to show you.

Meanwhile, Hamas are deliberately leaving some Gazans in plastic tents, in order to fool gullible Western journalists and politicians who are brought to Gaza to witness a staged "humanitarian crisis."

This is relatively old new, but I still see people referring to Gaza as the "world's biggest prison/concentration camp" so I wanted to have this link saved somewhere.

SO IS OBAMA really worse than everyone else or is he just the latest in a line of US presidents who have no idea how to run an effective foreign policy? The short answer is that he is far worse than his predecessors.

A US president's maneuver room in foreign affairs is always very small. The foreign policy establishment in the Washington is entrenched and uniformly opposed to bending to the will of elected leaders. The elites in the State Department and the CIA and their cronies in academia and policy circles in Washington are also consistently unmoved by reality, which as a rule exposes their policies as ruinous.

The president has two ways to shift the ship of state. First, he can use his bully pulpit. Second, he can appoint people to key positions in the foreign policy bureaucracy.

Since entering office, Obama has used both these powers to ill effect. He has traveled across the world condemning and apologizing for US world leadership. In so doing he has convinced ally and adversary alike that he is not a credible leader; that no one can depend on US security guarantees during his watch; and that it is possible to attack the US, its allies and interests with impunity.

Obama's call for a nuclear-free world combined with his aggressive stance towards Israel's purported nuclear arsenal, his bid to disarm the US nuclear arsenal, and his ineffective response to North Korea's nuclear brinksmanship and Iran's nuclear project have served to convince nations from the Persian Gulf to South America to the Pacific Rim that they should begin developing nuclear weapons. By calling for nuclear disarmament, he has provoked the greatest wave of nuclear armament in history.

After two days of meetings in Ramallah this weekend, Fatah, which makes up the backbone of the Palestinian Authority leadership, issued a resounding "no" to compromise, further dimming even the faintest hopes for a negotiated peace with Israel.

The Fatah council derogatorily rejected recognition of "the so-called Jewish state" or any "racist state based on religion." It reasserted the "right of return" which, if implemented, would facilitate the end of a Jewish majority within the pre-1967 Green Line by allowing about four million Palestinian refugees and their offspring to settle in Israel proper.

Land swaps as part of a peace agreement were ruled out as well. Large settlement blocs in Judea and Samaria, such as Gush Etzion, Ma'aleh Adumim and other cities located just over the Green Line, consisting of no more than five percent of the West Bank, where about 80% around 320,000 Jews live, must be uprooted and settlers must be expelled, it decided.

[snip]

The vast majority of local and international news outlets have so far refrained from reporting at all on Fatah's hard-line declarations. While news media usually respond quickly and amply to steps taken by Israel that are perceived as potentially detrimental to the peace process, the silent treatment of the Fatah decisions reflects a media norm, in which Palestinian incitement and intransigence is often downplayed or completely ignored.

[snip]

When news reporters and editors fail to give the proper space to revelations of Palestinian extremism and intransigence, they help perpetuate prejudices against Israel. Not only is skewed journalism a betrayal of the profession and those who rely on it, in this case it hurts the peace process by untenably misrepresenting the imperative for compromise by the Palestinian leadership and their public, thereby dooming hopes for negotiated progress.

I was just browsing through the newly released "CableGate" collection on WikiLeaks, and came across a cable written by someone in the US Embassy in Tehran in 1979, making observations about the Persian (Iranian) psyche, and how understanding this should change the way in which you negotiate with them.

The conclusion was:

THERE ARE SEVERAL LESSONS FOR THOSE WHO WOULD NEGOTIATE WITH PERSIANS IN ALL THIS:

- --FIRST, ONE SHOULD NEVER ASSUME THAT HIS SIDE OF THE ISSUE WILL BE RECOGNIZED, LET ALONE THAT IT WILL BE CONCEDED TO HAVE MERITS. PERSIAN PREOCCUPATION WITH SELF PRECLUDES THIS. A NEGOTIATOR MUST FORCE RECOGNITION OF HIS POSITION UPON HIS PERSIAN OPPOSITE NUMBER.

- --SECOND, ONE SHOULD NOT EXPECT AN IRANIAN READILY TO PERCEIVE THE ADVANTAGES OF A LONG-TERM RELATIONSHIP BASED ON TRUST. HE WILL ASSUME THAT HIS OPPOSITE NUMBER IS ESSENTIALLY AN ADVERSARY. IN DEALING WITH HIM HE WILL ATTEMPT TO MAXIMIZE THE BENEFITS TO HIMSELF THAT ARE IMMEDIATELY OBTAINABLE. HE WILL BE PREPARED TO GO TO GREAT LENGTHS TO ACHIEVE THIS GOAL, INCLUDING RUNNING THE RISK OF SO ALIENATING WHOEVER HE IS DEALING WITH THAT FUTURE BUSINESS WOULD BE UNTHINKABLE, AT LEAST TO THE LATTER.

- --THIRD, INTERLOCKING RELATIONSHIPS OF ALL ASPECTS OF AN ISSUE MUST BE PAINSTAKINGLY, FORCEFULLY AND REPEATEDLY DEVELOPED. LINKAGES WILL BE NEITHER READILY COMPREHENDED NOR ACCEPTED BY PERSIAN NEGOTIATORS.

- --FOURTH, ONE SHOULD INSIST ON PERFORMANCE AS THE SINE QUA NON AT EACH STAGE OF NEGOTIATIONS. STATEMENTS OF INTENTION COUNT FOR ALMOST NOTHING.

- --FIFTH, CULTIVATION OF GOODWILL FOR GOODWILL'S SAKE IS A WASTE OF EFFORT. THE OVERRIDING OBJECTIVE AT ALL TIMES SHOULD BE IMPRESSING UPON THE PERSIAN ACROSS THE TABLE THE MUTUALITY OF THE PROPOSED UNDERTAKINGS, HE MUST BE MADE TO KNOW THAT A QUID PRO QUO IS INVOLVED ON BOTH SIDES.

- --FINALLY, ONE SHOULD BE PREPARED FOR THE THREAT OF BREAKDOWN IN NEGOTIATIONS AT ANY GIVEN MOMENT AND NOT BE COWED BY THE POSSIBILITY. GIVEN THE PERSIAN NEGOTIATOR'S CULTURAL AND PSYCHOLOGICAL LIMITATIONS, HE IS GOING TO RESIST THE VERY CONCEPT OF A RATIONAL (FROM THE WESTERN POINT OF VIEW) NEGOTIATING PROCESS.

Reading these points (I added the emphases) it is really striking how if you replace the word "Persian/Iranian" with "Palestinian" you have a very good synopsis of everything that has been going wrong with the negotiations between Israel and the PLO over the past nearly 20 years. Imagine how different things would be if the Israeli negotiators and respective Prime Ministers over the years had:

• Insisted on forcing recognition of the Israeli position as a prerequisite for talking, ever
• No assumed that the PLO would ever perceive the advantage of a long-term relationship with Israel based on trust, and rather, assumed that the PLO would always try to maximize their own benefits, and would go to great lengths (starting wars and intafadas) in order to achieve their goals
• Insisted on performance and following up on obligations, and not being satisfied by PLO statements of intent (which count for almost nothing)
• Recognized that giving away things to the PLO merely for the cultivation of goodwill will never get you anywhere, and that if they get something, they must give something tangible back in return (and a statement of intention is not tangible)
• Been prepared for threats of a breakdown in negotiations at any moment (indeed, these threats happen nearly every day, and are most likely to be found on the day after Israel makes a goodwill gesture)

Of course, it would be good for the current US administration to reread this memo a few times before the next time that they attempt to "negotiate" with Ahmadinejad (not to mention before the next time that they pressure Israel into making more good-will gestures in response to threats of a breakdown in negotiations, before the other side has even recognized Israel's right to exist).

The Cambridge Union recently debated the proposition: "The House believes that Israel is a rogue state." Nineteen-year-old Gabriel Latner is a Cambridge University law student who joined the team arguing the affirmative of the proposition. Israpundit reports that Latner seized the opportunity to take on others on his side including Lauren Booth (the Islamic convert and sister of Cherie Blair) to argue in favor of Israel. Latner won the debate for the opposing side.

From the speech (definitely a must-read):

The fact that Israel is a Jewish state alone makes it anomalous enough to be dubbed a rogue state: There are 195 countries in the world. Some are Christian, some Muslim, some are secular. Israel is the only country in the world that is Jewish. Or, to speak mathmo for a moment, the chance of any randomly chosen state being Jewish is 0.0051% [Ed.: The math is in error, as Murphy points out]. In comparison the chance of a UK lotto ticket winning at least £10 is 0.017% - more than twice as likely. Israel's jewishness is a statistical abberation.

The second argument concerns Israel's humanitarianism, in particular,Israel's response to a refugee crisis. Not the Palestinian refugee crisis - for I am sure that the other speakers will cover that - but the issue of Darfurian refugees. Everyone knows that what happened - and is still happening in Darfur is genocide , whether or not the UN and the Arab League will call it such.

Well congratulations America. The Obama has just lined up the United States with all the third world, repressive, dictatorial countries such as Syria, Libya, Iran, and others that routinely attack Israel and America as well.

Can you imagine that?

Where once the United States was a beacon of democracy, and known for standing up for what was right, in just two years the Obama will have dragged the country down to what is probably the lowest moral point in its history.

The Obama has given notice that he will allow all these third world countries unbridled permission and US support to attack the only true, functioning democracy in the Middle East.

The Obama has said that the defense of a fellow democracy is negotiable and on the chopping block.

But there is a solution could be made possible that works within the historical rights of the Jewish people and recognizes the justice of our claim to our small stretch of land.

Enter "Lease for Peace"

Israel, as the rightful and historical owner and holder of the land of Israel could lease sections of our land to the "Palestinians" for their newly created self-determined Palestinians autonomous entity ("state" if you must).

A Palestinian state could be created (where none has ever existed before) on the leased land.

As long as they behave civilized and by the rules of the lease, they could even have an automatic renewal on their lease and their state could continue to exist.

For nearly a thousand years, the Islamic rulers of the Holy Land forbade Jews from entering the tomb of the patriarchs and matriarchs, allowing them to climb only seven steps into the tomb and beating them mercilessly if they rose any higher. When Israel captured the tomb in 1967, Jewish pilgrims came to Hebron, swearing never again to be separated from their origin. As my host explained, even amid the worst terror attacks, property values never decline. There are no fluctuations in the commitment to pray by the graves of those who gave the world monotheism.

Yet these residents have been demonized by the entire world. They face daily character assassination in the media by those who would decry their simple desire to walk in the footsteps of Abraham. World leaders regularly engage in extreme defamation of families whose only wish is to raise their children in the Judean hills of King David. President Barack Obama rises at the United Nations and calls for a further moratorium on building in the settlements, as if it's a crime for peaceful people to have children and add rooms to warm and hospitable homes.

Abraham, at whose tomb I prayed with my children, is the father of all peoples, Jew and Arab alike. The Arabs are my brothers, equal children of God in every respect. And Arabs and Jews must learn to live peacefully together in the land. Neither group should be asked to abide by a moratorium that stifles the natural expansion of either population. It is not the spiritual-seeking settlers who threaten the peace but rather the murderous groups of Hezbollah and Hamas, who wish to make all of Israel judenrein.

The point is that the 1967 lines are coming back as a common reference point when many officials and commentators talk about a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. In August 2010, the Quartet, that diplomatic body that is comprised of the U.S. EU, the UN and Russia, has been discussing the 1967 line for a joint declaration intended to pull Abbas into direct negotiations with Israel.

Unfortunately, it is increasingly assumed that there once was a recognized international border between the West Bank and Israel in 1967 and what is necessary now is to restore it.

Yet this entire discussion is based on a completely mistaken understanding of the 1967 line, given the fact that in the West Bank, it was not an international border at all.

...

President Lyndon Johnson made this very point in September 1968: "It is clear, however, that a return to the situation of 4 June 1967 will not bring peace. There must be secure and there must be recognized borders."

It is for this reason that Resolution 242 did not call for a full withdrawal from all the territories that Israel captured in the Six Day War; the 1949 Armistice lines were no longer to be a reference point for a future peace process.

Yet in recent years a reverse process has been underway to re-establish the 1949 Armistice line, calling it the 1967 border and sanctifying it as a legitimate international boundary. This is one of the side effects of the 2002 Arab Peace Initiative, which talks about the 1967 lines.

Gazans are furious over the "Humanitarian Aid" which has been arriving on flotilla ships and from donor counties -- and they are specifically mad at the "aid" that has arrived from Arab countries.

...

Most of the medications are being buried in landfills since they have expired or are of no use.

Wrap Up:

- Broken Medical Equipment
- Non-functioning dialysis machines
- Expired Medication
- Medication for issues not in Gaza.
- Burial shrouds for kids

Bottom Line:

- 70% of the total aid is unusable.

Obama said, "As part of the United Nations Security Council, we were very clear in condemning the acts that led to this crisis and have called for a full investigation." What does this mean? Which acts? The acts of provocation and attacks on Israeli soldiers or is he blaming Israel? Who knows? The president of the United States is not supposed to be inscrutable.

Moreover, the president of the United States shouldn't hide behind the UN. What is his policy? Where is the leadership?

And then he repeated something he has done before--claimed that Israelis backed his policy-- which is blatantly untrue as polls show. ""What we also know is that the situation in Gaza is unsustainable. I think increasingly you're seeing debates within Israel, recognizing the problems with the status quo." The truth is that Obama understands nothing about Israel. He should leave the choice of Israel's government to its people and the setting of policies to its government.

Aside from all this, Obama displays no strategic sense. He should make clear that the United States does not want an Iranian client, a revolutionary jihadists Taliban-like regime on the Mediterranean Sea. It should be the goal of U.S. policy to avoid this. Instead he deals with this as a "humanitarian" issue and makes no effort to get across what should be the main point.

...

Note that Obama did not mention the conditions for easing the blockade--that Hamas abandon terrorism and accept Israel's existence--nor did he say that anything the Palestinian Authority or Hamas is doing is "unsustainable." Only Western and Israeli policy are said to be unsustainable. In effect, Obama is saying that the policies of Hamas, Iran, Hizballah, and Syria, among others, are infinitely sustainable, especially because of his reluctance to do things to make them unsustainable.

And thus in Middle East terms, he's saying: Your intransigence has won. We couldn't move you so our policy has failed. We must give in.

There was no need to endanger Israeli troops.

How could Ehud Barak not see the looming disaster? Stopping a large Gaza-bound ship could have been carried out below the waterline, or by an assault on the bridge, using smoke bombs and tear gas to take control. Dropping individual soldiers into a mob of hostile people lacks reason.

The confrontation could have been handled with moach (brains) rather than koach (brawn). But that's not Barak's way: his history of misusing power and his lack of leadership goes back to the Yom Kippur War, at the least.

[a very long list of Ehud Barak's failures as a leader, both in the military and political worlds, over the past three decades]

Barak's defeatism and arrogance, his political agenda, and his poor military judgment are simply not in Israel's interests. PM Netanyahu may need the Labor Party for his coalition, but why does it have to include Ehud Barak? (Barak is the current Defense Minister of Israel)

However, what seems to be troubling me most is that she (Helen Thomas) is far from alone in giving voice to feelings which, for the sake of decorum, had traditionally been left for when the staff is out of earshot.

Take for example the instantaneous reaction to the Gaza flotilla raid. Before the ships had even made port there was blanket and universal condemnation from Europe, Scandinavia, the third world... and, of course, the rest of the Middle East. These statements stopped just short of accusing the IDF soldiers of harvesting the dead 'activists' organs and baking matzoh with their blood.

There was no responsible wait for solid information... no search for facts or confirmation... but rather, like an obituary that has been diligently prepared in advance, the condemnations were issued pro-forma at the first whisper of trouble so as not to miss the tide of international bile.

Likewise, the near universal outcry for an independent inquiry of the event is as predictable as it is troubling. Would any European or Asian power submit to an international inquiry of its military missteps or accidents? Would the U.S.? Would England? For that matter, I can't name one country that in recent memory has willingly submitted to such outside review of its actions?

The U.S., Russia as well as many of the European and Asian powers have all had spectacular screw ups on the battlefield, as well as in pursuit of their national defense, whose civilian death tolls far exceeded that of the current Gaza flotilla snafu. Yet each time one of these countries stumbles, as transparent, sovereign nations they are allowed to investigate themselves, learn their lessons and share their findings with the world at a pace that suits them.

Israel, on the other hand, is expected to submit its conduct, it's political/diplomatic decisions and in many cases its very sovereignty, to immediate international oversight... as if our very existence is in some way conditioned upon the tolerance and largess of others.

But in our times, it took days for anyone other than Jews and conservatives to condemn Thomas's vile statements to Rabbi David Nesenoff. And she was not fired. She was allowed to retire.

Our times are times of Jew hatred. Our times are times where hatred breeds strategic madness. Our times are times when we need to recall basic truths about Israel and the Jewish people. Specifically, we must remember that the US is privileged to count Israel as an ally - whether Americans like Jews and our state or hate us.

...

The plain truth is that Israel is the US's greatest strategic asset in the Middle East. Indeed, given the strategic importance of the Middle East to the US national security, Israel is arguably the US's greatest strategic asset outside the US military.

...

Beyond politics and ideology, beyond friendship and values, the US has three permanent national security interests in the Middle East.

• Ensuring the smooth flow of affordable petroleum products from the region.
• Preventing the most radical regimes, sub-state and non-state actors from acquiring the means to cause catastrophic harm.
• Maintaining its capacity to project its power in the region.

A strong Israel is the best guarantor of all of these interests. Indeed, the stronger Israel is, the more secure these primary American interests are. Three permanent and unique aspects to Israel's regional position dictate this state of affairs.

I'm writing for some clarification about how we are supposed to cover the Gaza flotilla story. If we, as a news organization, are supposed to be acting as a public relations arm of Hamas, or Hezbollah, both internationally recognized terrorist organizations,  or if we are supposed to be  jumping on the bandwagon of 1930's style anti-Semitism that's presently sweeping much of the world, then we are doing a fine job. If we are supposed to be acting as a news organization that covers the story objectively, then our coverage is a travesty and an embarrassment.

...

In addition, remarkably, her piece made no mention – absolutely none — of the Israeli perspective in this story. For example:

The widely aired (though not here) video that clearly shows an IDF soldier being tossed over a railing, and others being beaten with sticks, was omitted.

The fact that bullet proof vests and night vision goggles were found among the "humanitarian aid" on the ship was omitted.

IDF video of confiscated knives and metal bars that were apparently used as weapons was omitted.

Information that Israeli soldiers were also wounded and injured was omitted.

Moreover, her piece included no background whatsoever on why Israel's interception ("attack" as we called it ) of the flotilla would likely have passed muster in any court outside the thug-ridden United Nations.

The NY Times currently has a story up on the front page of its website with the following headline:

4 Divers Killed Near Gaza by Israeli Navy

Judging from the headline, I would guess that since the Israeli Navy has not had its fill of violence after it killed nine humanitarian activists from the Freedom Flotilla, they decided to murder four Gazan citizens whose only crime was to go diving in an area that Israel had claimed to be part of their blockade. Such evil Israelis.

However, if you go into the actual article, you will read the following:

At least four Palestinians suspected by Israel of planning an attack via the sea were killed near the Gaza coast early on Monday. The Israeli military said that an Israeli naval force spotted what it called a “squad of terrorists wearing diving suits” and fired on them, killing some of the suspects.

Well, that changes things a little bit. It seems that the Israeli Navy spotted a "squad of terrorists wearing diving suits" in the water and fired on them. Though the selective use of quotation marks here shows how much trust the NY Times will put in the IDF.

How was this event reported in other news sources:

• Jerusalem Post: IDF Foils Attack Close to Gaza
• Haaretz: Israel Navy Fires on Armed Palestinians off of Gaza Coast
• CNN: Israel Kills 4 Palestinians off Gaza in foiled terror attack
• Al Reuters: Israeli patrol kills four militants in diving gear

The CNN article adds in another pertinent detail:

Al Aqsa -- the armed wing of Fatah, Hamas' rival -- confirmed the men belonged to their organization and were on a suicide mission.

And just for reference, here is the official statement by the IDF Spokesperson blog:

Terrorist Attack Thwarted by Israel Navy, 7 June 2010 - Earlier this morning, an Israel Navy force in the area of Nuseirath identified a squad of terrorists wearing diving suits on their way to execute a terror attack. The force fired and hit the terrorists. No casualties were reported amongst IDF forces.

Ok. So the IDF found a group of armed men in diving suits off of the Gaza coast, in a place where they really should not be. They killed some of the suspects. No details are available yet on exactly how this transpired. However, the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade (which is recognized by Israel and the US as a terrorist organization, and yet is part of the same Palestinian Authority under the leadership of Mahmoud Abbas with whom the US is so insistent that Israel give away land to and make peace with) have confirmed that these men belonged to their organization and were on a suicide mission (a different article from The Sun quotes Al Aqsa as having said that the men were part of their organization and were training at sea - I don't think that this makes much of a difference, as we know exactly what they were training for).

So now that that has been established, why the completely misleading headline from the NY Times, which lacks any context whatsoever that would tell more about the identity of the Palestinians other than that they were divers.

Lest we think that the NY Times is the only organization that writes such blatantly anti-Israel headlines (in my opinion, the deliberate exclusion of context from the headline, and the use of language that implies that Israel has murdered innocent people out for a swim, is as anti-Israel as it gets), here are some more of the same:

• Associated Press: Four Palestinian Divers Killed by Israeli Naval Fire
• The Sun: Israel Navy Kills 4 Gaza divers
• The Boston Globe: Israeli navy kills Palestinian divers off Gaza
• FOXNews: Israeli Navy Fires at Palestinian Divers off Gaza, 5 Killed
• The Daily Telegraph: Israel navy shoots, kills four Palestinian divers off Gaza

None of these headlines are telling lies, yet all of them are presenting a skewed version of the truth. The reader who only sees the headline and does not click through will receive a completely different message from what is written in the actual stories.

I have copied all of the headlines as they appear at the time that this article is first published. I expect that some of these headlines will change over time, and it is quite likely that as more details are released that the general tone of some or all of these headlines will shift to include more descriptions of the divers like "armed", "militant" or "terrorist". However, that will not change the fact that these different news organizations act in an irresponsible (at best) or blatantly and intentionally anti-Israel (at worst) manner when they choose to introduce and headline their content in this way.

In recent days, the international media, particularly in Europe and the Mideast, has been full of stories about "activist boats sailing to Gaza carrying desperately-needed humanitarian aid and building materials."

The BBC World Service even led its world news broadcasts with this story at one point over the weekend. (The BBC yesterday boasted that its global news audience has now risen to 220 million persons a week, making it by far the biggest news broadcaster in the world.)

Indeed the BBC and other prominent Western media regularly lead their viewers and readers astray with accounts of a non-existent "mass humanitarian catastrophe" in Gaza.

What they won't tell you about are the fancy new restaurants and swimming pools of Gaza, or about the wind surfing competitions on Gaza beaches, or the Strip's crowded shops and markets. Many Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza live a middle class (and in some cases an upper class) lifestyle that western journalists refuse to report on because it doesn't fit with the simplistic story they were sent to write.

Note that this is only the first group identified as directly involved with terrorist groups and there will be more soon. Their connections include Hamas and al-Qaida. So much for the peaceful nature of the hardcore cadre who attacked Israeli soldiers. Remember that if there had been no such assault--as happened on the other five ships which were taken into port without anyone being injured--there would not have been any casualties.

The following passengers on board the Mavi Marmara are known to be involved in terrorist activity. The Mavi Marmara attempted to break the maritime closure on the Gaza Strip on Monday, May 31st 2010, and was boarded by Israel Navy forces.

Israeli students are planning a "peace flotilla" to Turkey with humanitarian aid for nations who suffered under Turkish imperialism – the Kurds and Armenians. The initiative comes in response to the world's sharp criticism of Israel's lethal raid on the Gaza flotilla which left nine activists dead and many wounded.

...

"Turkey, which leads the campaign against Israel and makes all sorts of threats is the same Turkey that carried out a holocaust and murdered an entire nation of Armenians, and oppresses a minority larger than the Palestinians – the Kurds – who deserve a state, who have demanded a state for longer than the State of Israel has existed."

One picture cropped to remove a knife might be explained as incompetence or a simple mistake.

But now we have two pictures from the "peace activists" that were cropped by someone at Reuters to remove knives in the hands of the activists, as they attempted to take soldiers hostage.

Interview with "humanitarian activist" on the "Freedom Flotilla" (Youtube).

Transcript:

When I went on the first convoy, I wanted to be a Shahid (martyr). I wasn't that lucky.

Second time, I wanted to be a Shahid. Didn't work.

Third time lucky, with the help of God, I will be a Shahid.

Here are just a few charts detailing the list and volume of merchandise going into Gaza from just the Israeli crossings.

It does not include what is coming in through Egyptian crossings, and it does not include what is coming in through the tunnels (such as the luxury cars and missiles).

It certainly doesn't include what they produce themselves with their own industries, fishing boats, farms and livestock.

It also doesn't include the water or electricity we (ie: Israel) still provide.

Click on the link to see the charts and pictures.

Had the mainstream media been truly brave, outlets could have given full context, namely that the blockade of Gaza targets the Hamas government and is a joint enterprise of both Israel and Egypt.

There is no "humanitarian crisis," as claimed by the flotilla's propaganda, given that approximately 100 aid trucks enter Gaza every day. "Throughout the last few months," according to the Israel Defense Forces website, "more than 1,200 tons of medicine and medical equipment, 155 tons of food, 2,900 tons of shoes and clothing and 17 million liters of diesel fuel were transferred in to the Gaza Strip."

The "crisis" that is brewing in Gaza is Hamas' failing political status. Worsening economic conditions - a direct result of the Israeli-Egyptian blockade - have seriously undermined Hamas' standing. Media reports out of Gaza in recent months indicate that Hamas can't meet its government payroll, and ordinary Gazans are on edge.

Not surprisingly, few of these facts found their way into the mainstream media's coverage.

Read the rest of the link where they rip into coverage from the AP, Washington Post and NY Times.

Israel of course is the US's most threatened ally. And Obama's treatment of Israel has been uniquely shabby--and dangerous. Guided by his ideological worldview which argues that US support for Israel is the root of the Arab and Islamic world's animus towards the US, Obama has advanced a policy of punishing Israel and wooing its worst enemies that has radically changed the Islamic power calculus. By seeking to appease Iran and Syria for their aggressive behavior and by courting an ever more radical Turkish regime, Obama has humiliated Egypt and Jordan that signed peace treaties with Israel. In so doing, he has convinced the Arabs that the only way to retain and expand their power is by attacking Israel.

THIS BRINGS US to Israel's current quandary about how to respond to the international campaign against it. Israel of course can do nothing to change the potency of Jew hatred in the Islamic world. It can also do nothing to change American behavior. For as long as Obama is president, US foreign policy can be expected to remain on its current trajectory. That is, for at least the next two and a half years, the US will continue to play a destabilizing and hostile role in the region.

What this means is that Israel should adopt a strategy that minimizes the international lynch mob's ability to get close to it and maximizes Israel's ability to knock the mob off balance.

...

And as to that campaign, it is time for Israel to launch a counter-offensive. Its representatives at the UN should demand an investigation into Turkey's illegal sponsorship of the pro-Hamas flotilla. They should raise such protests at every UN forum and continue to protest until they are thrown out of the meetings and then return, the next day to relaunch their protests.

The fundamental deception here is the use of the word "humanitarian." . . . Humanitarians don't wield iron clubs, and [they] would have killed the Israelis had the Israelis not drawn their pistols in self-defense.

But there's a larger issue here. What exactly is the humanitarian crisis that the flotilla was actually addressing? There is none. There's no one starving in Gaza. The Gazans have been supplied with food and social services, education, by the U.N., by UNWRA, for 60 years, in part with American tax money.

Second, when there are humanitarian needs, the Israelis allow — every day — food and medicine overland into Gaza. The reason that it did not want to allow this flotilla is because, as the spokesman for the flotilla said herself, this was not about humanitarian relief. It was about breaking the blockade.

And the reason the Israelis have a blockade is because they only want to allow humanitarian supplies and not weaponry. Look, the proof of that is the fact that if you look at a map of Gaza, you'll see that Israelis only control three sides of this rectangle. There's a fourth side on the Egyptian side. So it is an Egyptian-Israeli blockade.

Under international law, and under common sense and common decency, Israel has every right to interdict this weaponry and to inspect the ships that might be transporting them.

This is not a theoretical challenge or a theoretical threat. We have already interdicted vessels bound for Hezbollah, and for Hamas from Iran, containing hundreds of tons of weapons. In one ship, the Francop, we found hundreds of tons of war materiel and weapons destined for Hezbollah. In another celebrated case, the Karine A, dozens of tons of weapons were destined for Hamas by Iran via a shipment to Gaza. Israel simply cannot permit the free flow of weapons and war materials to Hamas from the sea.

I will go further than that. Israel cannot permit Iran to establish a Mediterranean port a few dozen kilometers from Tel Aviv and from Jerusalem. And I would go beyond that too. I say to the responsible leaders of all the nations: The international community cannot afford an Iranian port in the Mediterranean. Fifteen years ago I cautioned about an Iranian development that has come to pass – people now recognize that danger. Today I warn of this impending willingness to enable Iran to establish a naval port right next to Israel, right next to Europe. The same countries that are criticizing us today should know that they will be targeted tomorrow.

For this and for many other reasons, we have a right to inspect cargo heading into Gaza.

"On a daily basis 80-100 trucks with humanitarian aid enters Gaza via Israel. The aid is not only medical supplies, but also contains supplies that support a wide range of important infrastructure projects, including water, sewage, and electrical power. We [COGAT] coordinate our efforts with UNRWA, UNESCO, WHO, UNICEF and we even help facilitate the transfer of toys and the enabling of mobile swimming pools for Gazan summer camps.

So far, we have loaded 21 trucks worth of aid from the flotilla and it appears there will between 70-80 trucks worth of aid. Its difficult to ascertain the amount of supplies because the aid was not loaded in an orderly manner onto the ships in crates, cartons or containers -- but was haphazardly dumped in.

As of now, there are 8 trucks at the Israeli - Gaza border crossing of Kerem Shalom; 7 of which contain medical equipment for the disabled and elderly, including 100 electric mobility scooters and hundreds of wheelchairs.

Unfortunately, the disabled, sick and elderly in Gaza are denied this aid, because Hamas has forbidden anyone in Gaza to coordinate the distribution of this equipment.

Hamas has stated that until every last one of the flotilla activists have returned to their home countries, they will refuse to allow the aid to enter Gaza."

Read the rest for more good stuff

Israel has attempted to deliver humanitarian aid from an international flotilla to Gaza, but Hamas - which controls the territory - has refused to accept the cargo, the Israel Defense Forces said Wednesday.

Palestinian sources said trucks that arrived from Israel at the Rafah terminal at the Israel-Gaza border were barred from delivering the aid over protests that members of the flotilla were not delivering the materials.

Israel had 20 trucks of aid found on the ships, such as expired medications, clothing, blankets, some medical equipment and toys.

Ha!

The blockade of Gaza.  Is it legal?  

Simply put; yes.  Actually, in technical/legal terms, it is not a blockade per se since although Israel handed over all of Gaza to the Palestinian Authority in 2005, we retained control of the airspace and borders (including both land and sea borders).  [Note: This, not incidentally, is one of the reasons that our claims of no longer occupying Gaza are relatively weak.]  But if we never relinquished control of the borders and airspace, is it legally a blockade?  Not really. The result is the same (at least as far as Hamas is concerned), but blockading our own coast is not the same as if we were blockading another sovereign state.

While there are many countries around the world who do not support the so-called blockade of Gaza, few except NGOs and 'interested parties' use the term 'illegal' to describe it. 

b)  Is Israel alone in the 'blockade' of Gaza? 

No.  While Israel controls the borders of Gaza, Egypt also controls its borders with Gaza and is a full participant in controlling the movement of goods and people in and out of Gaza.  It doesn't get much press, but Egypt is actually much more violent in the control of its borders with Gaza; shooting dozens of refugees from Africa trying to enter Israel and Gaza... and using lethal force against Palestinians trying to enter Sinai.

Read the seed for more.

Israel had every right under international law to stop and board ships bound for the Gaza war zone late Sunday. Only knee-jerk left-wingers and the usual legion of poseurs around the world would dispute this. And it is pretty clear that this "humanitarian" flotilla headed for Gaza aimed to provoke a confrontation with Israel. Various representatives of the Free Gaza Movement, one of the main organizers of this deadly extravaganza, have let it slip throughout Monday that their intention was every bit as much "to break" Israel's blockade of Gaza as to deliver the relief goods.

The Israeli commandos who stormed the ship, where fighting erupted, badly mishandled the situation. But theirs was a mistake in pursuit of a legal goal, not a war crime. And as for calls for international investigations, they represent the usual hypocritical nonsense that will go nowhere. Except for those who routinely fool themselves about the judiciousness and effectiveness of action by the United Nations or the European Union, everyone understands their "investigations" will amount to nothing. Only the United States might do something useful—if the White House would only seize quickly the practical solution staring it in the face.

One of the Naval Special Forces commandos who sustained a broken arm while under attack by the S.S. Mavi Marmaris' passengers, reports, "Each soldier who descended was grabbed by three or four men and they simply exploded, beating him up. They lynched us.

"They had metal clubs, knives, slingshots, glass bottles…At one point there was also live fire.

"I was among the last to descend, and I saw that the group was dispersed, everyone in his own corner surrounded by three or four men. I saw a soldier on the floor with two men beating him. I peeled them off of him and they came at me and began beating me with the clubs.

"That's how I broke my arm. At that moment I had no weapon in my hands, like everyone else who descended on the cables empty-handed. My paintball gun was behind me.

You are about to witness a blood libel take shape in real time. By the time you read this, you will not doubt have been informed that the Israeli navy stormed the pro-Palestinian flotilla headed for Gaza and wantonly fired upon the peaceful activists within, killing many.

This is a lie. But it is a lie that will be repeated ad nauseum over the coming days, until it takes on all the appearance of truth. As you watch this happen, note well what it says about the people who repeat this lie, and the ease with which it is accepted by many ostensibly sensible and right thinking people. And note as well what this says about their claims to be compassionate, liberal, concerned citizens of the world.

The details are not entirely clear at the moment, and the numbers of dead and wounded may change over the coming hours. But what is clear is that those on board the flotilla were armed and prepared to use their weapons. That they attacked the Israeli commandos who attempted to board the vessels and that several of these commandos are currently languishing (dead or wounded, reports vary) in Israeli hospitals. That the weapons used were clubs and knives, both potentially lethal weapons, and that at least one firearm was taken from an Israeli soldier and turned against the boarding party. That the Israeli soldiers reacted as anyone would react when attacked by a club and knife-wielding mob. And lastly, that they and Israel are about to be internationally crucified, once again, for doing precisely this.

The reality is simple and stark. Israel is the target of a massive information war that is unprecedented in scale and scope. This war is being waged primarily by a massive consortium of the international Left and the Arab and Islamic worlds. The staggering scale of the forces aligned against Israel is demonstrated by two things.

...

And now, in the aftermath of the lethal takeover of the flotilla, Israel's leaders stammer. Rather than demand an apology from the Turkish government for its support for these terrorists, Defense Minister Ehud Barak called his Turkish counterpart to talk over what happened. Rather than demand restitution for the terrorist assault against Israeli troops, Israel has defended its troops' moral training in non-violent crowd control.

These efforts are worse than worthless. They make Israel appear whiny rather than indignant. And more depressingly, they expose a dangerous lack of basic comprehension about what has just occurred and a concomitant inability to prepare for what will most certainly follow.
Israel is the target of a massive information war. For Israel to win this war it needs to counter its enemies' lies with the truth.

The NPT has been subverted by the very forces it was created to prevent from acquiring nuclear weapons.

Hamas is a genocidal terrorist organization ideologically indistinguishable from al Qaida. International law requires all states and non-state actors to take active measures to defeat it.

Israel is the frontline of the free world. Its ability to defend itself and deter its foes is the single most important guarantee of international peace and security in the world. A strong Israel is also the most potent and reliable guarantor of the US's continued ability to project its power in the Middle East.

The whole world is speaking about the flotilla affair as "tragic." The Israeli media and government are also calling it "tragic."

It was not tragic. It was a terrorist aggression against Israel by Islamofascists and leftwing fascists. The tragedy is that the flotilla ships were not sunk by torpedos, as I proposed, rather than forcing IDF soldiers to risk injury.

The tragedy is that the idiotic Israeli politicians are agreeing to an "investigation" of the soldiers' actions, so once again Israel proclaims itself guilty until proven innocent in order to appease the anti-Semites. Once again the world is demanding a Goldstone-style investigation, one whose conclusions were written before the ships even left Turkey.

Pictures of the weapons found on the Mavi Marmara ship where today, when IDF soldiers attempted to board the ship and redirect it to the Ashdod Port, the activists on board lynched the soldiers in a planned attack. They used knives, metal rods, firebombs and other weapons to attack the soldiers. The violence resulted in the deaths of nine activists and seven IDF soldiers were wounded in the process. All casualties were evacuated from the ship and taken to hospitals in Israel.

Also see this Youtube video which shows live shots of the knives, slingshots, clubs, wrenches and molotov cocktails collected from on board the vessel.

7. Under international maritime law, when a maritime blockade is in effect, no boats can enter the blockaded area. That includes both civilian and enemy vessels.

8. A state may take action to enforce a blockade. Any vessel that violates or attempts to violate a maritime blockade may be captured or even attacked under international law. The US Commander's Handbook on the Law of Naval Operations sets forth that a vessel is considered to be in attempt to breach a blockade from the time the vessel leaves its port with the intention of evading the blockade.

9. Here we should note that the protesters indicated their clear intention to violate the blockade by means of written and oral statements. Moreover, the route of these vessels indicated their clear intention to violate the blockade in violation of international law.

10. Given the protesters explicit intention to violate the naval blockade, Israel exercised its right under international law to enforce the blockade. It should be noted that prior to undertaking enforcement measures, explicit warnings were relayed directly to the captains of the vessels, expressing Israel's intent to exercise its right to enforce the blockade.

Official response from the Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs

Among the various statements of outrage targeted at Israel, many point to Israel's confronting the "flotilla" ships in international waters as a sign of Israel's guilt.

I direct your attention to the San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflicts at Sea. Specifically, paragraph 67-68:

67. Merchant vessels flying the flag of neutral States may not be attacked unless they:

(a) are believed on reasonable grounds to be carrying contraband or breaching a blockade, and after prior warning they intentionally and clearly refuse to stop, or intentionally and clearly resist visit, search or capture;
(b) engage in belligerent acts on behalf of the enemy;<
(c) act as auxiliaries to the enemy s armed forces;
(d) are incorporated into or assist the enemy s intelligence system;
(e) sail under convoy of enemy warships or military aircraft; or
(f) otherwise make an effective contribution to the enemy s military action, e.g., by carrying military materials, and it is not feasible for the attacking forces to first place passengers and crew in a place of safety. Unless circumstances do not permit, they are to be given a warning, so that they can re-route, off-load, or take other precautions.

So these were ostensibly merchant vessels who were flying the flags of neutral states (since Turkey and Greece have not declared that they officially side with Hamas in their war for Israel's destruction). However, there was definitely reasonable grounds to believe that they were carrying contraband and breaching a blockade (since that was there very public, stated intention). After receiving prior warning (see this YouTube video) they intentionally refused to stop (I heard that they just radioed back curses in Arabic and English), and they quite clearly resisted visit, search or capture.

So this would have legitimized an attack by Israel on the vessels themselves, pursuant to paragraphs 38-46 of the treaty - note: Israel did not attack the vessels, they merely sought to prevent them from breaching the naval blockade of Gaza and redirect them to the Port of Ashdod where their supposed humanitarian supplies would then be rerouted to Gaza, along with the rest of the aid that goes in every day to not-so-starved Gaza.

With regards to Neutral waters:

14. Neutral waters consist of the internal waters, territorial sea, and, where applicable, the archipelagic waters, of neutral States. Neutral airspace consists of the airspace over neutral waters and the land territory of neutral States.

So Neutral waters would be waters of a neutral state. This is not a valid description of the location of the confrontation between Israel and the boats.

So now that we have established that this did not take place in Neutral waters, look at the following:

118. In exercising their legal rights in an international armed conflict at sea, belligerent warships and military aircraft have a right to visit and search merchant vessels outside neutral waters where there are reasonable grounds for suspecting that they are subject to capture.

119. As an alternative to visit and search, a neutral merchant vessel may, with its consent, be diverted from its declared destination.

So according to this, since this did not take place in Neutral waters, and there were reasonable ground for suspecting that the ships are subject to capture (see analysis of paragraph 67, above), Israel was fully within its rights to go so far as to capture the vessels in question (they did offer to divert to Ashdod, which was rejected by the captains of said vessels).

The material above makes it clear (at least in my opinion) that Israels actions, if not justified, are at least not immediately guilty in both their intent and location.

And international law itself is always a tricky topic - after all, if a country does not sign on to a treaty governing any specific agreement, how can one say that their violation of said treaty would be a violation of International Law? International Law defined by any treaty or agreement only applies to countries who agree to the precepts of said treaty or agreement. Which makes it even more difficult to indict Israel on the basis of interpretations of the San Remo Manual, being that Israel (and Turkey and Greece) is not even a signatory. Similarly, Israel is not a signatory of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, which seems to take a harsher view of these types of actions in International waters (thus a violation of the precepts of this UN convention by Israel would not be in violation of International law, as Israel never signed on the dotted line).

Israel's position: See the official response by the Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs (seed). Most pertinent for our case:

7. Under international maritime law, when a maritime blockade is in effect, no boats can enter the blockaded area. That includes both civilian and enemy vessels.

8. A state may take action to enforce a blockade. Any vessel that violates or attempts to violate a maritime blockade may be captured or even attacked under international law. The US Commander's Handbook on the Law of Naval Operations sets forth that a vessel is considered to be in attempt to breach a blockade from the time the vessel leaves its port with the intention of evading the blockade.

9. Here we should note that the protesters indicated their clear intention to violate the blockade by means of written and oral statements. Moreover, the route of these vessels indicated their clear intention to violate the blockade in violation of international law.

10. Given the protesters explicit intention to violate the naval blockade, Israel exercised its right under international law to enforce the blockade. It should be noted that prior to undertaking enforcement measures, explicit warnings were relayed directly to the captains of the vessels, expressing Israel's intent to exercise its right to enforce the blockade.

In short, the 1967 lines are coming back as a common reference point when many officials and commentators talk about a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It is increasingly assumed that there was a recognized international border between the West Bank and Israel in 1967 and what is necessary now is to restore it. Yet this entire discussion is based on a completely distorted understanding of the 1967 line, given the fact that in the West Bank it was not an international border at all.

In years to come — assuming, for the purposes of argument, there are any years to come — scholars will look back at President Obama's Nuclear Security Summit and marvel. For once, the cheap comparisons with 1930s appeasement barely suffice: To be sure, in 1933, the great powers were meeting in Geneva and holding utopian arms-control talks even as Hitler was taking office in Berlin. But it's difficult to imagine Neville Chamberlain in 1938 hosting a conference on the dangers of rearmament, and inviting America, France, Brazil, Liberia, and Thailand . . . but not even mentioning Germany.

Yet that's what Obama just did: He held a nuclear gabfest in 2010, the biggest meeting of world leaders on American soil since the founding of the U.N. 65 years ago — and Iran wasn't on the agenda.

I take it personally: Iran's president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, wants to murder me, my family and my people. Day in, day out, he announces the imminent demise of the "Zionist regime," by which he means Israel. And day in, day out, his scientists and technicians are advancing toward the atomic weaponry that will enable him to bring this about.

...

Obama is, no doubt, well aware of this asymmetric timetable. Which makes his prohibition against an Israeli preemptive strike all the more immoral. He knows that any sanctions he manages to orchestrate will not stop the Iranians. (Indeed, Ahmadinejad last week said sanctions would only fortify Iran's resolve and consolidate its technological prowess.) Obama is effectively denying Israel the right to self-defense when it is not his, or America's, life that is on the line.

The reason why Palestinians insist that all Jews must leave their future state is because they do not recognize the legitimacy of Israel or the Jewish presence anywhere in the land. And Palestinian political culture is so steeped in violence and hatred of Jews and Israel that it is literally impossible to believe that Jews, even if they behaved like Quakers, could live in a Palestinian state.

Moreover, Ya'alon's point about the example of Gaza is telling. Removing every Jew from Gaza didn't satisfy the Palestinians there. Not only did the Palestinians burn the synagogue buildings and the tomato greenhouses left behind by the Israelis for them to use, they immediately began to use that land for launching terrorist missile attacks inside of Israel. So long as the Arabs still view the conflict as zero-sum game in which the goal is to remove or kill every Jew, territorial withdrawals won't bring peace. If the Palestinian vision of peace — even the vision articulated by so-called moderates like Palestinian Authority leader Mahmoud Abbas — is predicated on ridding the land of Jews rather than embracing coexistence, then there will be no peace.

(Via Israel Matzav)

While Israel has obviously made some serious gaffes since Obama entered office, the real cause for this nadir in Washington-Jerusalem relations is the fact that Barack Obama seems to have little comprehension of the region on which he seeks to impose peace. The president's ignorance of the world in which he is operating is apparent on at least three levels. He seems unaware of how profoundly troubled Israelis are by his indiscriminate use of the word "settlement," he appears to have little comprehension of the history of Palestinian recalcitrance, and he has apparently learned little from decades of American involvement in the Middle East peace process.

...

Does Obama really not understand that this conflict has a long and consistent history? The Arabs rejected the UN Partition Plan in 1947, and refused a treaty at the end of Israel's War of Independence in 1949. After their defeat in June 1967, they gathered in Khartoum and declared "no peace, no recognition and no negotiations." Arafat said "no" at Camp David in 2000, and Abbas continues in that tradition. Why the American administration cannot or will not acknowledge that is one of the great wonders of this most recent train wreck.

Note: this comes from a regular commentator on Israel-related happenings who I consider to be very much on the more moderate side.

I consider the Obama administration's recent actions against the Israeli government to be outrageous and a breach of trust. I refer to the denunciations by Vice President Joe Biden, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and other administration officials The world knows what happened; nevertheless, I will try to put it into context.

By Ed Koch (who in the past had been quote the Obama supporter).

In my entire life I have rarely read an article which simultaneously showed the need to be well-informed before reading a newspaper and the shocking shortcomings of mass media coverage of the Middle East than this minor piece about the reopening of the Cairo synagogue. I've never said this before but will now: If you want to understand the Middle East's reality and how it is distorted in the media, read the following anlysis.

Why has US President Barak Obama decided to foment a crisis in US relations with Israel?

Some commentators have claimed that it is Israel's fault. As they tell it, the news that Israel has not banned Jewish construction in Jerusalem - after repeatedly refusing to ban such construction -- drove Obama into a fit of uncontrolled rage from which he has yet to recover.

While popular, this claim makes no sense.

Incorrect reports in Israel's largest newspaper and the well known Foreign Policy publication in the United States this week illustrate how the Arab world manipulates the United States to gain concessions and place the world's ills on Israel's shoulders. This time their target was also American public opinion.

Foreign Policy's correspondent Mark Perry, a former advisor to Yasser Arafat, added his own spin to statements by U.S.CENTOM Commander General David Petraeus', in an article called: The Petraeus Briefing; Biden's Embarrassment is not the Whole Story, so that the General's statements seemed to blame Israel for casualties in Iraq and Afghanistan. But the general never said that.

In orchestrating fierce attacks by Vice President Biden and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton against Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, President Obama allowed his long-held anti-Likud animosity to blind him to basic political and diplomatic realities about the Israeli-Palestinian peace process. As if Mideast diplomacy doesn't face enough hurdles, Obama has made things worse.

An online acquaintance recently posted a link on Facebook to an article Myths And Facts On U.S.-Israel Diplomatic Row. In it, the anonymous author seeks to state for the record what the myths and facts are regarding the recent diplomatic tension between Israel and the US. I responded that I think that it is laughable how this purported "fact check" gets the facts wrong and instead tries to put its own agenda-driven spin on the situation. Here is my take on their facts:

(Claimed) Fact 1: Tensions Started When Israel Announced Construction Of More Settlements In East Jerusalem.

My Response: Israel announced approval for plans to build 1600 apartment buildings in a Jerusalem neighborhood called Ramat Shlomo.

Ramat Shlomo is located in North Jerusalem, not East Jerusalem. See the image to the right. People like to refer to all areas of Jerusalem that are located outside of the 1967 border ("the green line") as East Jerusalem. To do this as a rule is misleading. It implies that Israel is building in the middle of some completely Arab neighborhood, located in the Eastern part of the city (the section that the Palestinians would like to be their eventual capital). As you can see, Ramat Shlomo does not fit that description. It is a religious neighborhood, 100% Jewish that currently has 20,000 residents.

Israel announced that apartment buildings would be built. They did not announce that settlements would be built. Around here (ie: in Israel) and to anyone at all familiar with the region, a settlement is a Jewish town or collection of houses that is located in Judea and Samaria, outside of the 1967 borders, outside of Jerusalem. Think: Bet El, Kochav haShachar, Ariel, Efrat. Neighborhoods of Jerusalem are not normally referred to as settlements. (Even the Peace Now website makes a distinction between Jerusalem and Settlements on their policy pages).

Tensions did not start with Israel's announcement. They started with Biden's and Clinton's (i.e.: Obama's) reactions to Israel's announcement. These Jewish neighborhoods in Jerusalem (Ramat Shlomo, Ramot, Gilo, Pisgat Zeev, Neve Yaakov, Talpiot Mizrach - almost all of the sections of Jerusalem in purple on the map to the left - population over 200,000) were never on the negotiating table. It is not as if Israel has been promising these areas to the Palestinians and then did something brazen like this. Even the building freeze that Israel voluntarily agreed to (receiving nothing in return) was only for settlements in Judea and Samaria. See Leo Rennert in the American Thinker:

Ramat Shlomo, a neighborhood of orthodox Jews in northeastern Jerusalem, is exactly the kind of place that all previous U.S. peace proposals envisaged as remaining under Israeli sovereignty. Construction of Ramat Shlomo began in 1993 (it now is home to 2,200 families with a population of 16,000) -- seven years before Bill Clinton and Ehud Barak offered Arafat their Jerusalem plan for a final peace deal -- with Israel retaining all Jewish neighborhoods, including Ramat Shlomo, while Arab neighborhoods would be folded into a Palestinian state.

This didn't have to be an issue, and Israel's announcement didn't have to cause such a brouhaha. It was not but a few months ago when Hillary praised Netanyahu for making the "unprecedented" of freezing building on Settlements outside of Jerusalem. Based on that, there was no reason for Israel to suspect that building in Ramat Shlomo would touch a nerve - the US knew that Israel would still build in Jerusalem, and had even given Israel praise for this. In this case, Obama was looking for something to cast Israel (and especially Netanyahu) in a bad light. This was the target of opportunity. (Note how the US had nothing negative to say about the Palestinians planning the dedication of a square in Ramallah in memory of a terrorist who murdered 38 Israelis).

For those who don't know much about the area, saying that Israel announced construction of more settlements in East Jerusalem sounds much more inflammatory. I offer the following correction: "Tensions Started When Biden Reacted to Israel's Announcement of Approval for 1,600 New Housing Units in Ramat Shlomo, a Jewish Neighborhood in North Jerusalem located outside of the 1967 borders".

(Claimed Fact 2): Israel Prime Minister Himself Says The Expansion Of Settlements In East Jerusalem Will Continue. Negating the supposed myth that "Decision To Expand Settlements Is A Bureaucratic Misunderstanding".

See above note related to the distinction between settlements and Jewish neighborhoods in Jerusalem. And even if you want to claim that anything in Jerusalem outside of the 1967 borders should be called a "Jewish Settlement" in "East Jerusalem", this is not an accurate quote of Netanyahu.

The article claimed that the decision to "expand settlements" approve apartments was a bureaucratic misunderstanding. This is not an accurate statement (why they are quoting Sen. Lieberman is beyond me). The timing of the announcement was a bureaucratic misunderstanding (probably). But the actual content of the decision was in line with Israel's policy for the past 40 years of allowing people to build in Jerusalem. No misunderstanding there.

(Claimed) Fact 3: The Ongoing Israeli-Palestinian Conflict Endangers Our National Security

The claim here is that because the Arabs are upset at Israel, and the US is viewed as being allies of Israel, the longer the Israeli-Palestinian conflict goes on, the worse off it will be for America.

Following this logic, the US should invade Israel, destroy its government and turn it over to the Arabs. All of the Arab/Muslim states in the region hate Israel and want to see it destroyed. This is not going to change any time soon. Using this statement as a reason to put pressure on Israel is tantamount to saying that "the existence of Israel Endangers Our National Security". Since the conflict looks like it is going to continue for just that long.

To quote a favorite blog on the subject: "This is why Generals are supposed to stay out of politics. What did Petraeus think the Arabs would say if he asked them the question? They will be satisfied with nothing short of the end of the Jewish state. And why did Petraeus repeat what the Arabs said at face value without trying to analyze it? Sorry, but Israel is not going to roll over and die because the Arabs are unhappy with us."

The interchange quoted between Biden and Netanyahu didn't happen. Jeffrey Goldberg from the Atlantic: "Since I do not have overwhelming faith in the stenographic and interpretive skills of some Israeli reporters, I called the White House to ask if Biden actually said this. It would be quite something, of course, if he did. I spoke with a senior administration official last night who accompanied Biden on his trip to Israel, and he said that Biden did not say tell the Israelis that their actions were endangering American troops."

Update: Not only did Biden never say those things. Neither did Patraeus (!!)

The UN is the demopathic organization par excellence and its spokesmen persist in plying their trade. Its elections for the post of secretary-general have generally drawn from a pool of dubious mediocrities with little sympathy for or knowledge of the history of Western humanism, such as Kurt Waldheim, Kofi Annan, and Ban Ki-moon. The Russian and Chinese stranglehold on the Security Council has always meant that decisions favoring the West would inevitably succumb to their veto power. The Organization of the Islamic Conference effectively dominates the General Assembly, which is in any case often headed by anti-Western, socialist-inspired figures like Father Miguel D'Escoto Brockmann or representatives of tyrannical regimes like its current president Ali Abdussalam Treki, who hails from, of all places, Libya.

The United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) has dedicated its attention almost exclusively to the denunciation of Israel, the only genuine democracy in the Middle East. The Council features two agendas at its annual session: one allotted to Israel, the other to the rest of the world. Anyone speaking out in defense of Israel is liable to be removed from the premises, as happened recently to UN-accredited Anne Bayevsky, a professor of political science at York University and director of the Touro Law Center's Institute on Human Rights and the Holocaust. To add injury to injury, the UNHRC has gone soft on Sharia, announcing on June 16, 2008, that criticism of Sharia law would now be contraindicated.

The result of so bigoted and sectarian an agenda is a foregone conclusion, as witness the infamous Goldstone Report reprehending Israel for war crimes in Operation Cast Lead — by all unbiased accounts a defensive campaign doing its utmost to avoid civilian casualties — while essentially acquitting Hamas, among the world's most flagrant terrorist organizations, for the crimes it did commit. The dossier has now been forwarded to the Security Council with a view to referring it to the International Criminal Court. As has been pointed out by many commentators, it is not only Israel that may find itself in the prisoner's dock, but any nation which has the audacity to defend itself against terrorist attacks, including the United States.

Today, I happened to spend a bit of time looking at Google logos (a/k/a Google Doodles) -- those adorable, themed logos that Goggle releases in honor of various holidays and anniversaries. Curious as to whether Google noted Israeli or Jewish holidays, I used the search function on the logo page to search for Israel.

I then clicked through the results, and discovered something extremely disturbing. In each case where I clicked a time period to see the logos for that time period, the Israeli logos that were supposedly on the page (and that had been picked up by the search engine) were not on the current page. And yet, when I clicked through to the cached version of the page, the Israeli logos were there. At some point, the current versions of the pages had been purged of all Israeli/Jewish logos -- and only those logos.

...

In each case, the Israeli/Jewish logos -- and no other logo of any other nation or ethnic group -- have been deleted from the current version of the page, an Orwellian Bowdlerization designed, it would appear, to make out of Israel an unperson.

In September 2007, Israeli fighter jets destroyed a mysterious complex in the Syrian desert. The incident could have led to war, but it was hushed up by all sides. Was it a nuclear plant and who gave the orders for the strike?

At the center of this stands the Number One Paradox of the issue, in some ways of all Middle Eastern politics: Why is it that although the Palestinians complain that they are suffering from a horrible occupation and not having a state of their own they are not in any hurry to make a peace agreement, end the "occupation," and get a state.

The main answer is that the dominant Palestinian view is still the desire to win a total victory and wipe Israel off the map. The back-up stance is that any peace agreement must not block the continued pursuit of that goal. And the back-up position to that is to reject strong security guarantees, recognition of Israel as a Jewish state, an unmilitarized Palestinian state, settlement of Palestinian refugees in Palestine, territorial compromise or exchanges, and indeed any concession whatsoever.

There are two implications of this:

--The Palestinians are at fault for the failure to achieve peace.

--There isn't going to be any Israel-Palestinian peace in the near- or even medium-term future.

If you understand the preceding 176 words then you understand the issue comprehensively.

When it was launched last December, Israel's invasion of the Gaza Strip looked to most people in Washington to be risky, counterproductive and doomed to futility. Not only pundits like me but senior officials of the Bush administration predicted that the Israeli army would not succeed either in toppling Gaza's Hamas government or in eliminating its capacity to launch missiles at Israeli cities. Instead it would subject the Jewish state to another tidal wave of international opprobrium and risk its relations with West Bank Palestinians and Egypt.

Mostly, we were right. But today, Operation Cast Lead, as the three-week operation is known in Israel, is generally regarded by the country's military and political elite as a success. The reasons for that are worth examining now that a new and even more hawkish Israeli government is weighing whether to flout Washington's prevailing opposition to a military attack on Iran.

The remaining 100,000 (Jewish settlers living in Judea & Samaria) are ideologically (and, most of them, religiously) committed to staying. They have a fairly uniform view of the situation: most believe that there is no such thing as a Palestinian nation; that if the world wants a state for Palestinians, it should set it up next door in Jordan; that all of the West Bank, which they call by the biblical name Judea and Samaria, is a central part of the Jewish homeland; and that Arabs will do everything they can to destroy Israel in any borders, so staying in the West Bank is a matter not only of history but of security.

A surprisingly accurate look (coming from the NYT) at the current state of affairs and opinions among religious Jews and "settlers" in Israel today

The basic reality that the US is being led by a radical ideologue who clings to his views in the face of overwhelming proof of their falsity is the most fundamental fact that world leaders must reckon with today as they formulate policies to contend with the Obama administration. This is first and foremost the case for Israel.

Since the Netanyahu government took office three months ago, the Obama administration has placed inordinate pressure on Jerusalem in a bid to coerce it into making massive concessions to the Palestinians. These concessions are demanded not for peace, but simply for the sake of placing pressure on Israel. Obama wishes to pressure Israel to show his good intentions to the Arabs and Iran.

TO DATE, Obama's loudest demand has been to officially prohibit all Jewish construction in Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria. Although the demand is intrinsically bigoted, illegal and immoral, and although the consequences of the expulsion of all Jews from Gaza in 2005 show that Israeli land giveaways and ethnic cleansing bring war not peace, the Netanyahu government has opted not to get into an open confrontation with the administration on the issue.

Instead, Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and his government have sought to treat Obama's offensive as a routine disagreement between otherwise close allies. Rather than defending the principles of Jewish national, legal and human rights and the country's right to security, Netanyahu has sought to reach an accommodation with Obama by reducing the discussion to a conversation about the inevitable natural growth of Jewish communities due to expanding families.

But what Obama's slavish devotion to his radical world view shows is that Netanyahu's decision to seek an accommodation is not simply an exercise in futility, it is a recipe for disaster. Obama and his advisers do not care that Jewish fertility rates are the fastest rising in the world. They do not care that by arguing for a complete halt in "natural" growth, they are effectively adopting a eugenics argument the likes of which no US policy-maker has dared to advance since before the Holocaust. They are looking to fight because they believe that the US is best served by fighting with its allies - particularly with Israel. Any concession Netanyahu makes will just form the basis for the next round of demands.

To recap, take a Holocaust-denying president who has advocated genocide and the elimination of the Jewish state, a government hell-bent on acquiring weapons of mass destruction, said government's brutal repression of its own people, and the subsequent "re-election" of the aforementioned maniac, and what do you get? A call from Obama to isolate this regime? An urgent campaign to impose harsh sanctions? Immediate support for the destruction of their nuclear sites before it's too late? No. Obama's focus is delivering Israel to the same Islamic audience he stroked in Cairo.

Obama has called settlements "illegitimate." And he has said that Israel "has obligations under the road map," while referring disparagingly to "settlements that, in past agreements, have been categorized as illegal."

...

By characterizing its demand that Israel prohibit Jews from building homes in Israel's capital city and its heartland as a legal requirement, the Obama administration portrays Israel as an international outlaw.

...

The problem with the Obama administration's characterization of a ban on Jewish building in Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria as an Israeli legal obligation is that Israel has never taken upon itself a legal obligation to prohibit such building activities. Israel has never signed an agreement that has characterized any Jewish communities as "illegal."

...

More importantly perhaps from the Obama administration's perspective is that the road map itself lacks the force of international law. Although it was adopted by the Security Council, it was not adopted as an internationally binding document under Chapter VII of the UN Charter. Consequently, Israel has no international legal obligation to end Jewish construction in Judea and Samaria or Jerusalem.

Hamas head Khaled Mashaal gave a speech Thursday evening in response to a policy speech given by Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu several days earlier. Mashaal proclaimed that Hamas is ready to cooperate with the international community in order to reach a deal with Israel, but only under conditions it deems favorable.

Specifically, Mashaal rejected every proposal supported by Israel, including Netanyahu's insistence that the Palestinian Authority recognize Israel as a Jewish state. Hamas will never recognize Israel as a Jewish state, because it hopes to see millions of descendents of Arab residents of pre-state Israel "return" to the area, potentially turning Israel into a majority-Arab state, Mashaal explained.

So generous of them. They are ready for peace with Israel, as long as Israel ceases to exist.

Obama said in Sderot that he would not tolerate rocket attacks that endangered his own daughters. If Samir Kuntar's beating-death victim had been Malia or Sascha Obama, rather than 4-year-old Einat Haran, and Abbas celebrated the killing, would Obama treat Abbas as a moderate peacemaker and negotiate with him? We all know the answer.

Immediately after being sworn in as president, Obama gave Abbas the unique honor of calling him before any other world leader, yet promises to "hunt down and kill" Osama bin Laden. Why the dramatic double standard? The apparent answer is that terrorists get a free pass-not to mention billions in US taxpayer dollars-when their targets are Jewish. Is there any other explanation?

Leaving aside for the moment the malice towards Israel that is involved, the attitude of the Obama administration towards the Middle East is well-nigh incomprehensible in its suicidal stupidity. It is trying to make Israel play the role of Czechoslovakia in 1938, when Britain under Neville Chamberlain told it that if it didn't submit to the Nazis it would stand alone – with the result that the following year, Hitler invaded Poland. Determined to prove that history repeats itself the second time as tragedy, America is trying to force Israel to destroy its security by accepting the creation of a terrorist Iranistan on its doorstep, under the threat that otherwise the US will not help protect its security by defanging Iran (and how, precisely would it do that?). But in doing so, the Obama administration is jeopardising the security of America itself and the free world, not to mention the Arab states which have good reason to fear Iranian regional hegemony.

The overall Obama policy will be to push Israel to the brink, using financial and military blackmail against the Netanyahu government, while maintaining control over American Jews to prevent any protests or backtalk.

The more Israel will offer, the more the Obama Administration will tighten the screws. No offer will be good enough, and Israel will be blamed for every breakdown in talks and every bit of violence that takes place. The media will portray Israel and particularly Netanyahu as extremist and intransigent. Hamas will be slowly whitewashed in the media, the same way that Arafat's goons were, (assuming that they prove more willing to cooperate in creating a positive media image of themselves than Ahmadinejad is.)

The plan is to destroy Israel, and to do it by pushing Israel to the edge of the cliff and then over the cliff. Israel's enemies will be getting top of the line US military equipment. Israel will not. Israel will be squeezed economically until the Netanyahu government collapses, leaving a weak left wing leader like Livni in charge of Israel, and in charge of acceding to the new Pharaoh's demands.

Meanwhile so-called American Jewish groups will support Obama all the way, some because they were created precisely for that purpose, e.g. J-Street, and others because they have been hijacked, cowed or subverted.

Will the United States sell out its strongest ally in the Middle East to cozy up to its worst enemy? The Washington Times reports today that the Israeli government is increasingly worried that the Obama administration will break a 40-year understanding between Washington and Tel Aviv to keep Israel's clandestine nuclear program a secret.

The core tenets of the Obama Doctrine to date would make a charter member of the Weather Underground cheer:

We're to blame. If there are problems anywhere, they're America's fault. This central conviction of leftist ideology appears to have soaked so thoroughly into our president's consciousness during his lengthy friendships with extremists that it's now second nature to him.

...

Islamist terrorism doesn't exist. The term's even been banned from government departments. As Muslim extremists slaughter innocent victims by the thousands, we're assured Islam's a "religion of peace" that contributed profoundly to our country's development. (Huh?)

It's as if 9/11 never happened. The "nonterrorists" drenching the greater Middle East in blood and threatening us as loudly as they can are just victims of our aggression. It's all our fault.

...

Israel's the obstacle to Middle East peace. Palestinians are all victims. Hamas consists of struggling community activists. The terrorists are in the Israeli military.

Our nukes threaten world peace and we need to get rid of them. Other states only maintain or seek nuclear arsenals because we worry them. If we can get down to zero nukes, peace will reign on earth.

As the Arabs line up behind Israel, the Obama administration is operating under the delusion that the Iranians will be convinced to give up their nuclear program if Israel destroys its communities in Judea and Samaria.

According to reports published last week in Yediot Aharonot and Haaretz, President Barack Obama's in-house post-Zionist, White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emmanuel, told an American Jewish leader that for Israel to receive the administration's support for preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, it must not only say that it supports establishing a Palestinian state in Judea, Samaria, Jerusalem and Gaza, it must begin expelling its citizens from their homes and communities in Judea and Samaria to prove its good faith.

With just months separating Iran from either joining the nuclear club or from being barred entry to the clubhouse, the Obama administration's apparent obsession with Judea and Samaria tells us that unlike Israel and the Arab world, its Middle East policies are based on a willful denial of reality.

Oy, oy and more oy.

Of course, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict inflames the Muslim world in a way the Chechen one does not. But why is that, when so many more Muslims are being victimized by Russia?

Then too, why does the wider world participate in the Muslim world's moral priorities?...Why does every Israeli prime minister invariably become a global pariah, when not one person in a thousand knows the name of Chechen "President" Ramzan Kadyrov, a man who, by many accounts, keeps a dungeon near his house in order to personally torture his political opponents?

I have a hypothesis. Maybe the world attends to Palestinian grievances but not Chechen ones for the sole reason that Palestinians are, uniquely, the perceived victims of the Jewish state. That is, when they are not being victimized by other Palestinians. Or being expelled en masse from Kuwait. Or being excluded from the labor force in Lebanon. Things you probably didn't know about, either. As for the Chechens, too bad for their cause that no Jew will ever likely become president of Russia.

But the headlines were wrong, as anyone can ascertain by reading Lieberman's short address. Far from disparaging peace, Israel's new foreign minister called for pursuing it with the respect and realism it deserves. And far from "dumping" agreements entered into by his predecessors, he explicitly committed himself to upholding the Roadmap -- a step-by-step blueprint to a "two-state solution" adopted by Israel, the Palestinian Authority, and the international Quartet (the United States, the United Nations, Russia, and the European Union) in 2003.

"I voted against the Roadmap," Lieberman acknowledged, but it was "approved by the Cabinet and by the Security Council" and is therefore "a binding resolution and it binds this government as well." However, he insisted, it must be implemented "exactly as written" and "in full." The Road Map imposes specific obligations that the Palestinians must meet prior to achieving statehood -- above all, an unequivocal end to violence, terrorism, and incitement against the Jewish state -- and Israel will not agree to waive them in order to negotiate a final settlement.

But now, as the first leg of the World Apology TourTM has come to its end and Obama must once again endure the tedium of the White House, I thought I'd take up the torch and deliver a few apologies that Obama seems to have forgotten. In the spirit of leftists everywhere, I offer the following:

• I'm sorry, Israel, that our president has seen fit to throw the oldest and most stable democracy in the Middle East under the bus. From his first call as president to Mahmoud Abbas to his funding of millions to Gaza victims, to his New Year's video address to Iran to his reaching out to the Taliban to cut a deal - not to mention his willingness to adopt the Saudi "peace" plan, Barack Obama has made it clear that the fate of a nation the size of New Jersey, surrounded by enemies that want to drive her people into the sea, is no longer a top priority. So much for standing up for the little guy.

In tandem, there was scant paid attention to a disquieting comment by Obama when he spoke effusively about a 2002 Saudi peace initiative for normalization of relations between the Arab world and Israel. The Saudi initiative, which would end Israel as a Jewish state, is now also the official position of the entire Arab League.

In a brief press statement, the White House said "the President reiterated his appreciation for Saudi Arabia's leadership in promoting the Arab peace initiative."

Later, President Obama's Middle East Special Envoy, George Mitchell, said the U.S. intends to "incorporate" the initiative into its Middle East policy

That stops short of an explicit endorsement of the Saudi-Arab plan, but it comes uncomfortably close. Either way, Obama's gushing over the Saudi initiative hardly can be reconciled with his oft-repeated assurances that Israel can count on U.S "unwavering support" of its basic security interests.

International donors pledged almost $4.5 billion in aid for Gaza earlier this month. It has been very painful for me to witness over the past few years the deteriorating humanitarian situation in that narrow strip where I lived as a child in the 1950s.

The media tend to attribute Gaza's decline solely to Israeli military and economic actions against Hamas. But such a myopic analysis ignores the problem's root cause: 60 years of Arab policy aimed at cementing the Palestinian people's status as stateless refugees in order to use their suffering as a weapon against Israel.

While the Palestinian Center for Human Rights, whose death toll figures have been widely cited, reports that 895 Gaza civilians were killed in the fighting, amounting to more than two-thirds of all fatalities, the IDF figures shown to the Post on Sunday put the civilian death toll at no higher than a third of the total.

...

As an example of such distortion, he cited the incident near a UN school in Jabalya on January 6, in which initial Palestinian reports falsely claimed IDF shells had hit the school and killed 40 or more people, many of them civilians.

In fact, he said, 12 Palestinians were killed in the incident - nine Hamas operatives and three noncombatants. Furthermore, as had since been acknowledged by the UN, the IDF was returning fire after coming under attack, and its shells did not hit the school compound.

The United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) on Friday said it is suspending humanitarian aid in Gaza until further notice, after Hamas seized control of its warehouses and stole 200 tons of food and supplies.

The agency said it made the decision after Hamas personnel seized an aid shipment on Thursday. Earlier this week, Hamas police took thousands of blankets and food parcels meant for needy residents.

Substitute the words "UNRWA" with "Israel" and the world would howl in protest at the cruel actions committed by the Zionist Entity. I guess when the UN does it, it suddenly becomes kosher. How ironic.

Most people remember the headlines: Massacre Of Innocents As UN School Is Shelled; Israeli Strike Kills Dozens At UN School.

They heralded the tragic news of Jan. 6, when mortar shells fired by advancing Israeli forces killed 43 civilians in the Jabalya refugee camp in the Gaza Strip. The victims, it was reported, had taken refuge inside the Ibn Rushd Preparatory School for Boys, a facility run by the United Nations Relief and Works Agency.

The news shocked the world and was compared to the 1996 Israeli attack on a UN compound in Qana, Lebanon, in which more than 100 people seeking refuge were killed. It was certain to hasten the end of Israel's attack on Gaza, and would undoubtedly lead the list of allegations of war crimes committed by Israel.

There was just one problem: The story, as etched in people's minds, was not quite accurate.

Sound familiar: during a war with a neighboring terrorist army, a group of civilians are killed while standing around the launching grounds for missiles being fired into Israel. Israel is globally condemned. Even the UN gets into the act. And a month later, after the dust has settled, the people who were so eager to make blanket accusations and come to immediate conclusions while the war was going on are now slowly coming forward and "clarifying" their previous statements. Not that anyone cares - as long as Israel is labeled as the bad guy five minutes after the event, nothing else matters in the court of world opinion.

Far too many Westerners make the mistake of projecting their own views onto Palestinians without really understanding the Palestinian narrative. The "occupation" doesn't refer to the West Bank and Gaza, and it never has. The "occupation" refers to Tel Aviv and Jerusalem. A kibbutz in the center of Israel is "occupied Palestine" according to most. "It makes no sense to a Palestinian to think about a Palestinian state alongside Israel," Martin Kramer from the Shalem Center in Jerusalem said to me a few days ago. "From the Palestinian perspective, Israel will always exist inside Palestine."

On Wednesday, freedom of speech in Europe took a new and devastating turn, as a Dutch appellate court ordered the prosecution of Geert Wilders, parliamentarian and filmmaker, charging him with "inciting hatred and discrimination" against Muslims for his film exposing the threat of radical Islam.

...

Ironically, the film's narrative is primarily comprised of quotes from the Koran which incite violence and death to "infidels" as well as scenes of an Imam preaching death to the Jews. Akin to something out of the Twilight Zone, the Imams who routinely spout hate speech from the pulpit and who are instigating these suits are never themselves charged with incitement to immediate violence. Moreover if the film "Fitna," which merely quotes the Koran and depicts angry Imams, is "hate speech" then what is the Koran itself?

Since the beginning of the Israeli operation in Gaza:

• 53,647 tons of humanitarian supplies have been transferred to Gaza in 2,084 trucks. Also, 3,162,351 liters of fuel have been conveyed through Nahal Oz and Kerem Shalom.
• 681 dual nationals were evacuated from Gaza.
• 3000 units of blood were donated by Jordan.
• 5 ambulances donated by Turkey.
• 15 ambulances transferred from the West Bank on behalf of the Palestinian Red Crescent Society.
• 68 people evacuated to Israel for medical treatment, including two injured children.
• Numerous infrastructural repairs have taken place - sewage, water and electricity.

The Defense Ministry has begun to operate a live feed of the Kerem Shalom cargo crossing into Gaza throughout the hours of the terminal's operation. It includes three cameras showing the points of access and exit of the terminal.

If you believe that Israel does everything that it can to starve the people of Gaza and deprive them of humanitarian aid, see this page. Also see a video about the aid delivered.

Hamas exploits the civilians of the Gaza strip as human shields. Here are two aerial photographs which illustrate how Hamas deploys rocket launchers within densely populated areas in the Gaza strip, next to schools, mosques and medical facilities. Residential buildings are used as arms depots and rigged with explosive charges, without any consideration given to potential civilian casualties.

Be sure to check out the pictures to see exactly how Hamas has surrounded its schools and mosques with training camps, command center and missile launch sites.

Our neighbor lives in the house in which our grandfather used to live. He claims he bought the first part of the house from a Turki, and later the second part from a British bank, but that doesn't make the sale any less illegal: my family lived in that house for hundreds of years and we don't accept the documents of sale. Now he's living there. He is the son of monkeys and pigs.

The problem is that he's not just brazen, he's also strong, although he is a tiny guy.

The whole neighborhood hates him. He's a thief and possessed by the devil. But he seems to be able to beat everyone. We tried to force him out of the house together, but it didn't work. He has bulletproof windows, and the roof is made of inflammable material.

All we think about is him. Our own home is in ruins because all our efforts, all our money and ideas and energy are devoted solely to destroying our neighbor's house. We're utterly convinced that we will be perfectly happy just as soon as we've killed him and his house is a heap of smoking rubble. We live for one thing only: our neighbor's demise. It's a noble ambition for which we're all willing to die.

Video of IDF soldiers finding anti-aircraft guns and rockets in a mosque in Gaza

A number of human rights groups released a press statement accusing Israel of using bullets against Hamas militants in Gaza. "We have received word from several reputable contacts who are currently under assault within Gaza that they have seen Israeli soldiers using bullets as a weapon against Hamas" said John Jones, a human rights activist who lives in Toronto, Canada. "They have claimed that the Israeli soldiers are firing these bullets from a variety of different firearms, including assault rifles, pistols and sawed off shotguns, and at times have done so with the intention of causing harm to other human beings".

Human Rights Researchers in Israel witnessed hours of alleged gun fights between Israeli forces and Hamas freedom fighters in the Jebaliya refugee camp in northern Gaza. However, they could not confirm the actual use of firearms and bullets by Israeli soldiers because they have been barred from entering the territory. An emergency room technician at Shifa hospital in Gaza told this reporter that he had treated several victims for wounds that looked like they were caused by bullets. However, due to Israeli closures on Gaza, he lacked the resources to say for certain what or who caused the injuries.

Military spokeswoman Maj. Ehud Levine refused to comment directly on whether Israel was using bullets, but said the army was "using its munitions in accordance with international law." In response to this, human rights groups said that even if Israeli forces have been acting in accordance with international law, they are still worthy of condemnation. When asked about alleged use of bullets by Hamas, the human rights groups said: "well, what do you expect them to use?".

Israel used a whole lot of bullets in its 34-day war with Hezbollah in Lebanon in 2006. The U.S. military in Iraq used the bullets during a November 2004 operation against insurgents in the city of Fallujah.

Note: The article above is written with satirical intentions (see this seed for similar reports condemning Israel for using incendiary weapons in Gaza, something that even the ICRC admits is legal according to "international law").

"If you feel the need to go to war against an enemy that is not as powerful as you are, one of the tactics of the weaker party is to hide among civilians, and use the global media to advertise the horror of the onslaught. People on the receiving end of the bombs greatly exaggerate the casualties and get photographers to take the most gruesome of pictures, and at the same time, the people in charge of the stronger power try to minimize the number of casualties. If you live in a democracy, then public opinion really matters, and reports of dead children swells the criticism of the war. If you live in a dictatorship, then you don't care what the people think. Israel is a democracy and it cares about the way the rest of the world feels.  It gets hurt by killing civilians, so for moral and practical reasons, they're trying very hard to avoid it."

"I believe that culpability for these casualties is very much with Hamas. Take this leader, Nizar Rayyan, who was killed with many of his children. He knew he was a target. If I knew that I was a target, I sure as hell wouldn't have my children near me. It's a horrible and cynical choice he made. But if your enemy is a sophisticated manipulator of public opinion, then this is one of the many downsides of choosing to go to war. Israel knows that."

United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon portrays Israel and the terrorists who seek its destruction as morally equivalent-but the news gets even worse.

...

To be "evenhanded" between terrorists and a nation they target is appalling--but the UN chief even falls short of this evenhandedness, as was dramatically revealed during his 2007 Mideast visit when he laid a wreath of white flowers on the grave of serial killer Yasir Arafat and met with the parents of young Palestinians serving time in prison for terrorism.

He did not lay wreaths on the graves of Arafat's victims, nor did he meet with their families.

If Ban Ki-moon is not infected by the world's most ancient form of bigotry, what other explanation is there for his behavior?

As the editorial page of The Jerusalem Post put it on Monday, the world must be wondering, do Israelis really believe that everybody is wrong and they alone are right?

The answer is yes.

"It is very frustrating for us not to be understood," remarked Yoel Esteron, editor of a daily business newspaper called Calcalist. "Almost 100 percent of Israelis feel that the world is hypocritical. Where was the world when our cities were rocketed for eight years and our soldier was kidnapped? Why should we care about the world's view now?"

Israel, which is sometimes a fractured, bickering society, has turned in the past couple of weeks into a paradigm of unity and mutual support. Flags are flying high. Celebrities are visiting schoolchildren in at-risk areas, soldiers are praising the equipment and camaraderie of their army units, and neighbors are worried about families whose fathers are on reserve duty. Ask people anywhere how they feel about the army's barring journalists from entering Gaza and the response is: let the army do its job.

As an Israeli (and US) citizen who lives 25 miles away from Gaza, I can attest to the accuracy of this article.

These protocols have been carefully crafted by leaders of civilized nations and are not to be lightly dismissed. It may be convenient to blame the Israelis when civilians are killed by their air strikes in Gaza, but the Geneva Conventions clearly state that Hamas fighters endangered those civilians by disguising themselves.

Not only do Israelis have a harder time figuring out who is a target and who needs protection, we all have a harder time identifying those who have already been wounded and killed. Hamas says mostly civilians have been wounded and killed in the fighting in Gaza, but its fighters look just like everyone else. They can trot out the bodies of two dead terrorists in front of the cameras and say they're civilians, thus easily fooling just about anyone. The number of civilian casualties, therefore, appears much higher than it really is. But even if that weren't the case, far more civilians are being killed in this war because Hamas is fighting dirty.

Israelis, in the meantime, go far out of their way to avoid harming the civilians of Gaza. They have even developed weapons for precisely this purpose.

But in Sderot, he seemed just as intent on teaching a thing or two to the media. "Do you think this is normal, the way you cover this conflict and give away information to your enemy?" he asked the journalists that gathered around him.

"It makes me sick to see the way you behave - you guys need to be protective of your homes, your children, your family."

"I am angry," he said, "and this is why I came here."

Be sure to check out the video here to get some video of "Joe the Plumber" in Israel.

As Israel persists in its military efforts -- by ground, air and sea -- to protect its citizens from deadly Hamas rockets, and as protests against Israel increase around the world, the success of the abominable Hamas double war crime strategy becomes evident. The strategy is as simple as it is cynical: Provoke Israel by playing Russian roulette with its children, firing rockets at kindergartens, playgrounds and hospitals; hide behind its own civilians when firing at Israeli civilians; refuse to build bunkers for its own civilians; have TV cameras ready to transmit every image of dead Palestinians, especially children; exaggerate the number of civilians killed by including as "children" Hamas fighters who are 16 or 17 years old and as "women," female terrorists.

Hamas itself has a name for this. They call it "the CNN strategy" (this is not to criticize CNN or any other objective news source for doing its job; it is to criticize Hamas for exploiting the freedom of press which it forbids in Gaza). The CNN strategy is working because decent people all over the world are naturally sickened by images of dead and injured children. When they see such images repeatedly flashed across TV screens, they tend to react emotionally. Rather than asking why these children are dying and who is to blame for putting them in harm's way, average viewers, regardless of their political or ideological perspective, want to see the killing stopped. They blame those whose weapons directly caused the deaths, rather than those who provoked the violence by deliberately targeting civilians.

A short film presenting visual evidence of the long-standing Hamas tactic of exploiting civilians as human shields, and civilians buildings as cover for terrorist attacks.

See video of how Hamas booby trapped a school with explosives in Gaza.

Allow me to propose a metric for evaluating whether a journalist is behaving responsibly or not: If he reports that Israel bombed a UN school and killed 30 civilians, he is irresponsible. If he reports that Hamas used a UN school as a weapons cache and base of operations for launching mortars at the IDF, and the IDF's return fire killed the Hamas cell along, tragically, with a yet-unspecified number of civilians, then he is behaving responsibly. ..Journalists who abjure reporting the vital details of this story should be called what they are — activists masquerading as reporters.

Also check out comments on this by Michael Totten

In every scenario save a very long Israeli occupation (which is unlikely), Hamas will have an opportunity to eventually regenerate. New fighters can be trained, new rockets acquired, new smuggling tunnels built. If Israel's choke hold on Gaza for the past year hasn't stopped Hamas from arming itself, then it's a good bet that the presence of international monitors won't either.

The argument that Israel's incursion will give the nation an upper hand in any future talks — and allow it to dictate the terms of a new cease-fire — doesn't really wash. Any new truce will be brokered by third parties; while U.S. President-elect Barack Obama chooses to remain silent, France's Nicolas Sarkozy is offering himself for the role. That alone means Israel won't have everything its way. The international outcry over the humanitarian tragedy unfolding in Gaza means the broker will insist that Israel loosen the economic shackles as well as withdraw troops. And when the money begins to flow in, it will flow through the Hamas networks that control every aspect of Gaza. The militants will distribute some of the money to Gazans, looking like generous benefactors; the rest they will use to rebuild their military capability.

Amnesty purports to be "deeply concerned about the escalation of human rights abuses following the series of Israeli air strikes on the Gaza Strip that began on December 27th," but it fails to mention nearly all of them...Other than a pro forma reference to Hamas' indiscriminate rocket attacks, Amnesty's letter mentions none of these facts, nor any of the other human rights abuses Hamas has inflicted upon the Palestinian population under its control in Gaza, such as restrictions on religious practice, speech and due process.

Instead, Amnesty bristles at imaginary Israeli wrongdoing. Amnesty writes that "aid agencies and residents of Gaza have long ago run out of provision reserves due to the Israeli blockade" just two days after the UN's World Food Program informed the Israel Defense Forces that it would not be resuming shipment of food commodities to Gaza through Israeli crossings because WFP warehouses were already at full capacity...

(Thanks to alkimija for the reference)

As for Hamas, the organization that controls Gaza, it has been sponsoring suicide bombers and launching rockets into Israel since 1987, killing and wounding thousands of Israelis (and Americans). But the Times has refused to call it a terrorist group because, according to deputy news editor Phil Corbett, the paper did not want to get into a situation where it might label a worker at a Hamas hospital a terrorist. So instead, it has given a blanket amnesty to all of Hamas—including its Izzadin Al Qassem military wing, which openly claims responsibility for carrying out terrorist atrocities.

This is a familiar ruse by Islamic terrorist groups (including the non-profit Islamic charities in the United States, which were shut down after 9/11): create humanitarian branches to distract from the true nature of their organizations. But has Ethan Bronner ever stepped inside one of these Hamas hospitals or schools? I have, several years ago, in Gaza, where I saw murals on the wall of Palestinians stabbing Israelis to death.

At least 30 people were reportedly killed and 53 wounded in an explosion in a UN-run school in the town of Jabalya in the northern Gaza Strip, according to Palestinians. The IDF issued a statement saying the school grounds were used by terrorists to fire mortar shells at the troops. According to the IDF, among the dead were members of a Hamas launching cell, including operatives Immad Abu Askar and Hassan Abu Askar.

The infantrymen returned mortar shell fire into the school grounds, the army said. Defense officials told The Associated Press that booby-trapped bombs in the school triggered the secondary explosions which killed scores of Palestinians on the site.

The IDF released a video taken by a UAV in the end of 2007 showing terrorists firing mortar shells from right outside the school.

"Hamas has in the past fired at Israel and at troops from inside schools, cynically using civilians, as is proven by UAV footage," the army said.

Also, check out the kind of teachers that the UN employs

And in an AP article: "Two residents of the area who spoke by telephone said they saw a small group of militants firing mortar rounds from a street near the school, where 350 people had gathered to get away from the shelling. They spoke on condition of anonymity for fear of reprisal."

Dateline: January 3rd 1944 - Fury continues to mount worldwide about the senseless loss of civilian life in Germany caused by England's callous bombing of German cities including Berlin, Hamburg and Dresden.

As of today many innocent German women and children have died in these utterly brutal bombing missions. And now there are ground offensives starting on mainland Europe.

The English have claimed that they are merely retaliating against the V-1 flying bombs being launched indiscriminately by Nazis at their civilian population in London, Manchester, Liverpool, Birmingham, Coventry and other cities. The English point out that their enemy is sworn to its utter destruction and has used the missiles and flying bombs against its civilians without any regard to English loss of life. Moreover it makes the case that their own bombing missions are specifically directed to military targets that the German army has intentionally planted in the heart of civilian populations to try and deter English counter-attacks.

These points may of course be true - but they are utterly besides the point.

Of course England has a right to exist. Of course England has a right to defend itself. But it should ensure that its responses are PROPORTIONATE.

(Never thought I would see something like this on HuffPo)

A man comes into your home. He has a gun he made himself. He points it at your family. He fires, but misses. The gun has little accuracy. He fires repeatedly, missing again and again.

You have a much better gun, made in a real factory. It is in the drawer in the bedroom.

Demonstrators in London and San Francisco - who are distant relatives of the gunman - stage a protest, calling you a murderer and demanding that you keep the well-made gun in the drawer because it would be a disproportionate response.

The man with the homemade gun, it turns out, is a religious fanatic who lives across the street. You were once his landlord. There is much bad blood between you.

He races back across the street. He has a larger weapon that he smuggled in through his basement. He shoots from behind his younger son. He wounds your daughter. You take out a rifle. You aim for him and hit the son, killing the boy.

The demonstrators are now calling you a Nazi and chant "Slaughter the Landlord!"

[In his defense, the neighbor explains that you have kept him and his family locked in the house, and have at times, failed to pay his water, gas and electric bills, causing them to be turned off.

This is some years after the neighbor send out his older son, nicely dressed, to knock on your door. Your older daughter opens the door. He greet her politely, and presses the detonator on a homemade bomb.]

I have seen many people make claims that while Israel states that Hamas uses civilians as human shields, they consider it to be just a way to legitimize Israel's war strategy. A representative example:

I haven't seen one Palestinian "terrorist" holding a woman or child in front of them as a shield as people have claimed. That argument that they are hiding out with the civilians is unfair. How much can someone hide in a place that's probably not as big as Connecticut? - Dulcita

In response, here are a few things I found on the Internet regarding the subject:

1. Speech by Fathi Hamad, member of Hamas Council, Al Aqsa TV, Feb 29, 2008: "For the Palestinian people death became an industry, at which women excel and so do all people on this land: the elderly excel, the Jihad fighters excel, and the children excel. Accordingly [Palestinians] created a human shield of women, children, the elderly and the Jihad fighters againset the Zionist bombing machine, as they were saying to the Zionist enemy: We desire death as you desire Life."
2. Gaza TV calls out to the local civilian population to go and form a human shield around the house of a Hamas terrorist after Israel called him to warn him about an airtstrike.
3. Video of Hamas terrorists grabbing children and using them as shields while running across the street
4. Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs report on Hamas exploitation of civilians as human shields: Photographic evidence. Includes other videos and photographic evidence of Hamas sending children to protect rocket launch sites and weapons assembly facilities, firing rockets from densely populated areas, etc.
5. News report of Hamas terrorists dressing up as women and using a crowd of women for cover

Enough said?

Israel is so scrupulous about civilian life that, risking the element of surprise, it contacts enemy noncombatants in advance to warn them of approaching danger. Hamas, which started this conflict with unrelenting rocket and mortar attacks on unarmed Israelis -- 6,464 launched from Gaza in the last three years -- deliberately places its weapons in and near the homes of its own people.

This has two purposes. First, counting on the moral scrupulousness of Israel, Hamas figures civilian proximity might help protect at least part of its arsenal. Second, knowing that Israelis have new precision weapons that may allow them to attack nonetheless, Hamas hopes that inevitable collateral damage -- or, if it is really fortunate, an errant Israeli bomb -- will kill large numbers of its own people for which, of course, the world will blame Israel.

For Hamas the only thing more prized than dead Jews are dead Palestinians.

(I have also seen this published under the title Moral Clarity in Gaza in the Washington Post)

Check out this interview on English Al Jazeera. I bet that that guy wont be invited back anytime soon.

Here is the transcript

Al Jazeera: Joining me now is Gary Grant, a barrister specializing in international law. Does Hamas have any sort of a case in the eyes of international law for this attack?

Gary Grant: Very little. Any country's first duty is to protect its citizens. It is called self defense. And of course Hamas is an organization intent on the destruction of Israel and the Jews in Israel as part of its covenant.

AJ: Surely it is not proportionate.

GG: Well, not quite that simple. If someone were to run at me, a knife-wielding lunatic, I don't have to wait for that knife to enter my heart before I am allowed to respond. I am allowed to take preemptive action in order to stop it [Yaakov: You also don't have to fight back with a knife - if you have a machine gun, take him down]. Now Israel...

AJ: Surely the killing of civilians is against international law and the targeting of populated areas where you know that civilians are going to die is against international law.

GG: Even if you target your action at military sites, civilians are inevitably going to get killed...these need to be contrasted with the actions of Hamas where every single rocket is designed to attack civilian populations, so every single act of Hamas in firing these rockets is clearly an illegal act without any legal justification.