“Jerusalem, Israel” Goes Before the Supreme Court
Rick Richman | @jpundit
11.04.2011 - 7:30 AM
In “Scrubbing Israel,” Ben Smith notes that the Supreme Court will hear Zivotofsky v. Clinton on Monday, considering the constitutionality of the 2002 law that directs the secretary of state to designate “Israel” as the place of birth on the passport of an American citizen born in Jerusalem, if the citizen so requests.
Smith’s title reflects the fact that a few days after the New York Sun publicized the White House photos of Vice President Biden’s trip to “Jerusalem, Israel” (and hours after National Review Online published one of them), the White House scrubbed “Israel” from the captions. Smith also highlights Omri Ceren’s “startling” report on “Contentions” that the administration scrubbed references to “Jerusalem, Israel” in official State Department reports published by the Bush administration.
Finally, Smith cites newly discovered documents referencing “Jerusalem, Israel” in prior administrations as well:
A search of the Nixon Library, for instance, turns up his daily diary. A search of the Carter Library turns up ten similar documents. And a search of the Clinton Library finds all sorts of documents labeled “Jerusalem, Israel,” including the classic eulogy of Yitzhak Rabin. Even a search of current .gov websites turns up a spray of bureaucratic products referring to “Jerusalem, Israel.”
The Zionist Organization of America’s amicus brief in Zivotofsky lists references to “Jerusalem, Israel” on documents found on the sites of the Departments of Commerce, Defense, Health and Human Services, Homeland Security, Justice, State, and Treasury. Hillary Clinton’s brief nevertheless asserts that any U.S. action that would signal “symbolically or concretely” that it recognizes Jerusalem as within Israeli sovereign territory would “critically compromise the ability of the United States to … further the peace process.”
It is ironic that Hillary Clinton became the named defendant in this case. In 2002, as senator from New York, she voted for the law. In 1994, her husband signed legislation allowing American citizens born in Taiwan to have “Taiwan” put on their passports even though U.S. policy – both before and after the legislation — was that there is only one China (the People’s Republic) and that Taiwan was not a separate country.
It is even more ironic (to use the mildest possible word) that the candidate who in 2008 told 7,000 people at AIPAC, at a critical moment in his presidential campaign, that “Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel, and it must remain undivided” is now seeking as president to have the Court hold unconstitutional a similar law with respect to Jerusalem, Israel.
A video and text blog explaining why a Palestinian state would be a disaster by rabbi Jonathan Ginsburg
Friday, November 4, 2011
Thursday, November 3, 2011
Hamas murderers www.jonathanginsburg.org
ANOTHER ROUND OF WAR by Rachel Saperstein, Neve Dekalim/Nitzan
Over forty rockets have fallen in the south this past weekend. The shooting began Wednesday and intensified on Friday night, a favorite time for Arabs as they know it will destroy our Shabbat rest. The sirens wailed and the loudest, closest explosions were heard at 11:20pm. Our sleep was over.
Over forty rockets have fallen in the south this past weekend. The shooting began Wednesday and intensified on Friday night, a favorite time for Arabs as they know it will destroy our Shabbat rest. The sirens wailed and the loudest, closest explosions were heard at 11:20pm. Our sleep was over.
Wednesday, November 2, 2011
Palestinian monsters glorify terror www.jonathanginsburg.org
Bulletin
Nov. 1, 2011
Click here to view PMW's website
Abbas glorifies terrorist prisoners
http://palwatch.org/main.aspx?fi=157&doc_id=5794
by Itamar Marcus and Nan Jacques Zilberdik
Since the release of Palestinian prisoners in exchange for the Israeli hostage Gilad Shalit, Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas has repeatedly honored and glorified the released prisoners.
On the day of their release, Abbas greeted each one at a general ceremony in Ramallah and has since then publicly praised and honored them.
In this picture, Abbas is seen with released prisoner Amal Jum'a. Jum'a was arrested with explosives in May 2004, the day before her planned suicide bombing in a Tel Aviv market. Abbas is holding a representation of the PA map of "Palestine" that includes Israel and the PA areas. A poem glorifying Martyrdom death is written on the map:
"Mother, death has come. Prepare the death shroud. Mother, to my death I march. I do not hesitate."
Abbas met with Jum'a at one of the Fatah Revolutionary Council's meetings, which was dedicated to the released prisoners. (See further details below)
In his speech after the release of the prisoners, Abbas praised them, referring to their prison terms as:
"...enforced absence which was imposed on you because you are people of struggle and Jihad fighters for Allah and the homeland... Your sacrifice and your effort and your actions were not in vain. You acted and struggled and sacrificed."
[PA TV (Fatah), Oct. 18, 2011]
Abbas has responded to the prisoners' release saying that he hopes for freedom for the rest of the prisoners and that he will continue to demand their release. Twice Abbas has singled out terrorists who are serving life sentences for murder: Marwan Barghouti, serving five life sentences for orchestrating suicide terror attacks against Israeli civilians, and Ahmad Sa'adat, who planned the murder of Israeli Minister of Tourism, Rehavam Zeevi. Abbas also specifically mentioned Abbas Al-Sayid, who is serving 35 life sentences and 150 years for planning suicide bombings, including the Passover Seder bombing that killed 30, and Ibrahim Hamed, who planned the Hebrew University, Cafe Moment and Cafe Hillel suicide bombings, among others.
This week, the official PA daily reported that the Fatah Revolutionary Council dedicated one of their regular meetings to the released prisoners to honor them. At the head table with Abbas, the PA Mufti and the Minister for Prisoners' Affairs sat two terrorists who had been serving life sentences before their release, Akram Mansour and Fakhri Barghouti. Several other released prisoners attended the meeting as well.
In his speech at the event, Abbas said that the prisoners are "holy to us and we must exalt them":
"Yesterday, in a ceremony that took place in the presence of [PA] President Mahmoud Abbas at the President's headquarters in Ramallah, the Fatah Revolutionary Council honored the prisoners released from the occupation's prisons... He [Abbas] said, 'We will not rest until all of our sons and daughters are released from the occupation's prisons, as well as the [imprisoned] leaders like Marwan Barghouti and Ahmad Sa'adat. Every prisoner from every faction is holy to us and we must exalt them.'"
[Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, Oct. 29, 2011]
Shortly after the prisoners' release, the PA decided to allocate $5 million for a "Presidential gift as token of honor to prisoners." PA Minister of Prisoners explained that the PA would award "monetary release grants to all the released prisoners, without exception, both to those released to their homes and to those who were expelled." The grants would be "disbursed by his honor, the President [Abbas]," said the Deputy Minister of Prisoners.
The following is from Abbas' speech on the day of the prisoners' release as broadcast on PA TV:
"In the name of Allah, the Merciful, the Compassionate. We thank Allah that [you have returned] in peace, that you have returned safe and sound to your families, to your brothers, to your communities, after the enforced absence which was imposed on you because you are people of struggle and Jihad fighters for Allah and the homeland. We ask of Allah, may He be exalted, to fulfill our wish to see the rest of our brothers and sisters released like you, at this plaza, Allah willing. Your sacrifice and your effort and your actions were not in vain. you acted and struggled and sacrificed, and in the future you will see the results of your struggle in the independent Palestinian state with Jerusalem as its capital. Brothers and sisters, your cause was and still is in our hearts and our thoughts, in our consciousness wherever we have been, in every Arabic or international forum. We were concerned only for our prisoner brothers and sisters, and we now see some of the most prominent among them. In the future, Allah willing, in the very near future, we will see here our brother Marwan Barghouti and our brother Ahmad Sa'adat, to whom we wish a speedy recovery. And we want to see, Allah willing, Ibrahim Hamed and Abbas Al-Sayid, and every male and female prisoner, returning, released, to the homeland, Allah willing."
[PA TV (Fatah), Oct. 18, 2011]
Marwan Barghouti - serving five life sentences for orchestrating suicide terror attacks against Israeli civilians. After he was convicted and imprisoned, he was re-elected member of the Palestinian Authority parliament.
Ahmad Sa'adat - serving life sentence for murdering Israeli Minister of Tourism, Rehavam Zeevi
Ibrahim Hamed - Hamas military leader who orchestrated many suicide attacks and bombings in Israel, including the suicide bombings in the Hebrew University cafeteria, Café Moment, Café Hillel, Zion Square in the center of Jerusalem, and others.
Abbas Al-Sayid - sentenced to 35 life sentences and 150 years for planning the suicide bombing at the Jewish Passover Seder in Netanya in 2002 in which 29 Israelis were killed, and another suicide bombing in Netanya in which 5 were killed and 100 wounded in 2001.
The following are statements from the PA Minister and Deputy Minister of Prisoners' Affairs announcing the grant of 5 million US dollars to the released prisoners:
PA TV program interviews Deputy Minister of Prisoners' Affairs, Ziad Abu Ein:
"We, as the Ministry of Prisoners' Affairs, have begun - and there is a gesture on the part of the honorable President [Abbas], approved by the Palestinian government, and Prime Minister Salam Fayyad hurried to implement it: There is a grant, a 'release grant', a grant from the President [Abbas] to all the released prisoners, whether they are in the Gaza Strip, in Turkey, in Egypt, or in Syria. Starting yesterday [Oct. 21, 2011] we began distributing [the grants] to the released prisoners in order to help meet their expenses. This grant is around $5 million, disbursed by his honor, the President [Abbas], to be distributed to the [released] Palestinian prisoners inside [the PA] and outside of it."
[PA TV (Fatah), Oct. 23, 2011]
Headline: "Presidential gift as token of honor to prisoners"
"[PA] President Mahmoud Abbas issued a directive today that monetary gifts be awarded as a token of honor to the prisoners released in the exchange deal. Minister of Prisoners' Affairs, Issa Karake, said in a telephone conversation with WAFA [Palestine News and Information Agency] that the Ministry of Prisoners' Affairs, in cooperation with the district governors and the national institutions, began today awarding monetary release grants to all the released prisoners, without exception, both to those released to their homes and to those who were expelled."
[WAFA, Oct. 20, 2011]
Abbas representative praises Gilad Shalit's kidnappers
1 recipientsCC: recipientsYou MoreBCC: recipientsYou
Hide Details FROM:PMW Bulletin TO:ehntrab@yahoo.com Message flagged Thursday, November 3, 2011 6:07 AMMessage body
Bulletin
Nov. 3, 2011
Click here to view PMW's website
Representative of Abbas praises Gilad Shalit's kidnappers:
We salute those who dug the tunnel
and who kidnapped Shalit
http://palwatch.org/main.aspx?fi=157&doc_id=5799
by Itamar Marcus and Nan Jacques Zilberdik
Representing Palestinian Authority Chairman Abbas and speaking in the name of the Fatah movement at a ceremony in honor of the released prisoners, Jibril Rajoub, member of Fatah's Central Committee, praised Hamas for the kidnapping of Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit:
"I say in the name of the Fatah movement - we salute those who dug the tunnel [to capture the Israeli soldier]; we salute those who captured the captive (Gilad Shalit), and salute those who guarded the captive until this deal was completed."
Click to view
Rajoub also praised the released prisoners, stating how no words exist in any language to describe their courage and heroism:
"I salute our courageous prisoners and I say to you that I cannot ... describe you, neither as heroes, nor as courageous, nor anything else. There are no words in the Arab dictionary, nor in any other dictionary, to describe you, but this modest reception is [our] utmost honor towards you."
Along the same lines, a columnist in the official PA daily expressed his joy over the exchange deal calling the released prisoners "the most precious loved ones," referring to them as "courageous women and men, our heroic prisoners, heroes of freedom":
"The eyes and hearts of millions of Palestinians... are watching with excitement and longing... for the arrival of hundreds of courageous women and men, our heroic prisoners, heroes of freedom... what overall national joy... that the most precious loved ones... have returned to us!"
The following are longer excerpts from Jibril Rajoub's speech in the name of Fatah and the official PA daily's column glorifying the prisoners:
Ceremony moderator: "We shall now hear the address by the representative of the President [Abbas], to be delivered by Jibril Rajoub, member of the [Fatah] Central Committee."
Jibril Rajoub, representing President Abbas: "We celebrate today with a group of fighters who were released in the latest exchange of captives. I say in the name of the Fatah movement - we salute those who dug the tunnel [to capture the Israeli soldier]; we salute those who captured the captive (Gilad Shalit), and salute those who guarded the captive until this deal was completed [Applause] ... I salute our courageous prisoners and I say to you that I cannot - neither I nor others, but even I, more than others, since I know your worth and recognize the measure of your resolve (i.e., Rajoub was himself a prisoner in the past) - [I cannot] describe you, neither as heroes, nor as courageous, nor anything else. There are no words in the Arab dictionary, nor in any other dictionary, to describe you, but this modest reception is [our] utmost honor to you, your history, and your families. And to our prisoners in the prisons - all good wishes, and I hope that our joy will be complete with their release and with the achievement of Palestinian national unity."
[PA TV (Fatah), Oct. 30, 2011]
Note: Jibril Rajoub was himself serving a life sentence for throwing a grenade at an Israeli army truck in 1970. He was released in the "Jibril-Agreement" in 1985, when the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine succeeded in releasing 1150 prisoners in exchange for three Israeli hostages.
Official PA daily columnist Yahya Rabah:
Headline: "Welcome, heroes of freedom!"
"The eyes and hearts of millions of Palestinians in the homeland and outside of it... are watching with excitement and longing, at every moment, for the arrival of hundreds of courageous women and men, our heroic prisoners, heroes of freedom, when they arrive in Cairo, and then disperse among the arteries of our people, like blood flowing, full of glory and life - in Gaza [City] and in the other cities and village and camps of the [Gaza] Strip, in Jerusalem and throughout the West Bank, and in many of the neighboring countries. There the embraces of their relatives await them... and their nation will receive them there as symbols of giving and struggle and sacrifice. Their hope was just and their promise was true - here they are, released from behind bars and from the suffocation of solitary confinement, returning as free men! What [great] news - there is none more beautiful; what overall national joy... that the most precious loved ones, those lost in the gloom of Israeli prisons, have returned to us! This national celebration, with the welcome of hundreds of our glorious female prisoners and heroic male prisoners, must receive in full what it deserves from us... The national concern is one and the same, and the national celebration is one and the same, and the national achievement is one and the same, and the [Fatah-Hamas] rift is a deviation... Welcome, oh heroes of freedom; our eyes are already waiting and longing; the news has illuminated our hearts."
[Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, Oct. 13, 2011]
This research was made possible by the support of readers like you. Donate to PMW now.
VISIT PMW VIDEO ARCHIVES
Shahada (Death for Allah) promotion Holocaust denial and distortion
Success of Shahada promotion Glorifying terrorists and terror
Promoting violence & terror Demonization
Conspiracy libels Israel's right to exist denied
Jewish history rewritten Objective: Israel's destruction
p:+972 2 625 4140 e: pmw@palwatch.org
f: +972 2 624 2803 w: www.palwatch.org
 ÂÂÂ
This email was sent to ehntrab@yahoo.com by pmw@palwatch.org |
Update Profile/Email Address | Instant removal with SafeUnsubscribe™ | Privacy Policy.
PMW | King George 59 | Jerusalem | Israel
Nov. 1, 2011
Click here to view PMW's website
Abbas glorifies terrorist prisoners
http://palwatch.org/main.aspx?fi=157&doc_id=5794
by Itamar Marcus and Nan Jacques Zilberdik
Since the release of Palestinian prisoners in exchange for the Israeli hostage Gilad Shalit, Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas has repeatedly honored and glorified the released prisoners.
On the day of their release, Abbas greeted each one at a general ceremony in Ramallah and has since then publicly praised and honored them.
In this picture, Abbas is seen with released prisoner Amal Jum'a. Jum'a was arrested with explosives in May 2004, the day before her planned suicide bombing in a Tel Aviv market. Abbas is holding a representation of the PA map of "Palestine" that includes Israel and the PA areas. A poem glorifying Martyrdom death is written on the map:
"Mother, death has come. Prepare the death shroud. Mother, to my death I march. I do not hesitate."
Abbas met with Jum'a at one of the Fatah Revolutionary Council's meetings, which was dedicated to the released prisoners. (See further details below)
In his speech after the release of the prisoners, Abbas praised them, referring to their prison terms as:
"...enforced absence which was imposed on you because you are people of struggle and Jihad fighters for Allah and the homeland... Your sacrifice and your effort and your actions were not in vain. You acted and struggled and sacrificed."
[PA TV (Fatah), Oct. 18, 2011]
Abbas has responded to the prisoners' release saying that he hopes for freedom for the rest of the prisoners and that he will continue to demand their release. Twice Abbas has singled out terrorists who are serving life sentences for murder: Marwan Barghouti, serving five life sentences for orchestrating suicide terror attacks against Israeli civilians, and Ahmad Sa'adat, who planned the murder of Israeli Minister of Tourism, Rehavam Zeevi. Abbas also specifically mentioned Abbas Al-Sayid, who is serving 35 life sentences and 150 years for planning suicide bombings, including the Passover Seder bombing that killed 30, and Ibrahim Hamed, who planned the Hebrew University, Cafe Moment and Cafe Hillel suicide bombings, among others.
This week, the official PA daily reported that the Fatah Revolutionary Council dedicated one of their regular meetings to the released prisoners to honor them. At the head table with Abbas, the PA Mufti and the Minister for Prisoners' Affairs sat two terrorists who had been serving life sentences before their release, Akram Mansour and Fakhri Barghouti. Several other released prisoners attended the meeting as well.
In his speech at the event, Abbas said that the prisoners are "holy to us and we must exalt them":
"Yesterday, in a ceremony that took place in the presence of [PA] President Mahmoud Abbas at the President's headquarters in Ramallah, the Fatah Revolutionary Council honored the prisoners released from the occupation's prisons... He [Abbas] said, 'We will not rest until all of our sons and daughters are released from the occupation's prisons, as well as the [imprisoned] leaders like Marwan Barghouti and Ahmad Sa'adat. Every prisoner from every faction is holy to us and we must exalt them.'"
[Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, Oct. 29, 2011]
Shortly after the prisoners' release, the PA decided to allocate $5 million for a "Presidential gift as token of honor to prisoners." PA Minister of Prisoners explained that the PA would award "monetary release grants to all the released prisoners, without exception, both to those released to their homes and to those who were expelled." The grants would be "disbursed by his honor, the President [Abbas]," said the Deputy Minister of Prisoners.
The following is from Abbas' speech on the day of the prisoners' release as broadcast on PA TV:
"In the name of Allah, the Merciful, the Compassionate. We thank Allah that [you have returned] in peace, that you have returned safe and sound to your families, to your brothers, to your communities, after the enforced absence which was imposed on you because you are people of struggle and Jihad fighters for Allah and the homeland. We ask of Allah, may He be exalted, to fulfill our wish to see the rest of our brothers and sisters released like you, at this plaza, Allah willing. Your sacrifice and your effort and your actions were not in vain. you acted and struggled and sacrificed, and in the future you will see the results of your struggle in the independent Palestinian state with Jerusalem as its capital. Brothers and sisters, your cause was and still is in our hearts and our thoughts, in our consciousness wherever we have been, in every Arabic or international forum. We were concerned only for our prisoner brothers and sisters, and we now see some of the most prominent among them. In the future, Allah willing, in the very near future, we will see here our brother Marwan Barghouti and our brother Ahmad Sa'adat, to whom we wish a speedy recovery. And we want to see, Allah willing, Ibrahim Hamed and Abbas Al-Sayid, and every male and female prisoner, returning, released, to the homeland, Allah willing."
[PA TV (Fatah), Oct. 18, 2011]
Marwan Barghouti - serving five life sentences for orchestrating suicide terror attacks against Israeli civilians. After he was convicted and imprisoned, he was re-elected member of the Palestinian Authority parliament.
Ahmad Sa'adat - serving life sentence for murdering Israeli Minister of Tourism, Rehavam Zeevi
Ibrahim Hamed - Hamas military leader who orchestrated many suicide attacks and bombings in Israel, including the suicide bombings in the Hebrew University cafeteria, Café Moment, Café Hillel, Zion Square in the center of Jerusalem, and others.
Abbas Al-Sayid - sentenced to 35 life sentences and 150 years for planning the suicide bombing at the Jewish Passover Seder in Netanya in 2002 in which 29 Israelis were killed, and another suicide bombing in Netanya in which 5 were killed and 100 wounded in 2001.
The following are statements from the PA Minister and Deputy Minister of Prisoners' Affairs announcing the grant of 5 million US dollars to the released prisoners:
PA TV program interviews Deputy Minister of Prisoners' Affairs, Ziad Abu Ein:
"We, as the Ministry of Prisoners' Affairs, have begun - and there is a gesture on the part of the honorable President [Abbas], approved by the Palestinian government, and Prime Minister Salam Fayyad hurried to implement it: There is a grant, a 'release grant', a grant from the President [Abbas] to all the released prisoners, whether they are in the Gaza Strip, in Turkey, in Egypt, or in Syria. Starting yesterday [Oct. 21, 2011] we began distributing [the grants] to the released prisoners in order to help meet their expenses. This grant is around $5 million, disbursed by his honor, the President [Abbas], to be distributed to the [released] Palestinian prisoners inside [the PA] and outside of it."
[PA TV (Fatah), Oct. 23, 2011]
Headline: "Presidential gift as token of honor to prisoners"
"[PA] President Mahmoud Abbas issued a directive today that monetary gifts be awarded as a token of honor to the prisoners released in the exchange deal. Minister of Prisoners' Affairs, Issa Karake, said in a telephone conversation with WAFA [Palestine News and Information Agency] that the Ministry of Prisoners' Affairs, in cooperation with the district governors and the national institutions, began today awarding monetary release grants to all the released prisoners, without exception, both to those released to their homes and to those who were expelled."
[WAFA, Oct. 20, 2011]
Abbas representative praises Gilad Shalit's kidnappers
1 recipientsCC: recipientsYou MoreBCC: recipientsYou
Hide Details FROM:PMW Bulletin TO:ehntrab@yahoo.com Message flagged Thursday, November 3, 2011 6:07 AMMessage body
Bulletin
Nov. 3, 2011
Click here to view PMW's website
Representative of Abbas praises Gilad Shalit's kidnappers:
We salute those who dug the tunnel
and who kidnapped Shalit
http://palwatch.org/main.aspx?fi=157&doc_id=5799
by Itamar Marcus and Nan Jacques Zilberdik
Representing Palestinian Authority Chairman Abbas and speaking in the name of the Fatah movement at a ceremony in honor of the released prisoners, Jibril Rajoub, member of Fatah's Central Committee, praised Hamas for the kidnapping of Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit:
"I say in the name of the Fatah movement - we salute those who dug the tunnel [to capture the Israeli soldier]; we salute those who captured the captive (Gilad Shalit), and salute those who guarded the captive until this deal was completed."
Click to view
Rajoub also praised the released prisoners, stating how no words exist in any language to describe their courage and heroism:
"I salute our courageous prisoners and I say to you that I cannot ... describe you, neither as heroes, nor as courageous, nor anything else. There are no words in the Arab dictionary, nor in any other dictionary, to describe you, but this modest reception is [our] utmost honor towards you."
Along the same lines, a columnist in the official PA daily expressed his joy over the exchange deal calling the released prisoners "the most precious loved ones," referring to them as "courageous women and men, our heroic prisoners, heroes of freedom":
"The eyes and hearts of millions of Palestinians... are watching with excitement and longing... for the arrival of hundreds of courageous women and men, our heroic prisoners, heroes of freedom... what overall national joy... that the most precious loved ones... have returned to us!"
The following are longer excerpts from Jibril Rajoub's speech in the name of Fatah and the official PA daily's column glorifying the prisoners:
Ceremony moderator: "We shall now hear the address by the representative of the President [Abbas], to be delivered by Jibril Rajoub, member of the [Fatah] Central Committee."
Jibril Rajoub, representing President Abbas: "We celebrate today with a group of fighters who were released in the latest exchange of captives. I say in the name of the Fatah movement - we salute those who dug the tunnel [to capture the Israeli soldier]; we salute those who captured the captive (Gilad Shalit), and salute those who guarded the captive until this deal was completed [Applause] ... I salute our courageous prisoners and I say to you that I cannot - neither I nor others, but even I, more than others, since I know your worth and recognize the measure of your resolve (i.e., Rajoub was himself a prisoner in the past) - [I cannot] describe you, neither as heroes, nor as courageous, nor anything else. There are no words in the Arab dictionary, nor in any other dictionary, to describe you, but this modest reception is [our] utmost honor to you, your history, and your families. And to our prisoners in the prisons - all good wishes, and I hope that our joy will be complete with their release and with the achievement of Palestinian national unity."
[PA TV (Fatah), Oct. 30, 2011]
Note: Jibril Rajoub was himself serving a life sentence for throwing a grenade at an Israeli army truck in 1970. He was released in the "Jibril-Agreement" in 1985, when the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine succeeded in releasing 1150 prisoners in exchange for three Israeli hostages.
Official PA daily columnist Yahya Rabah:
Headline: "Welcome, heroes of freedom!"
"The eyes and hearts of millions of Palestinians in the homeland and outside of it... are watching with excitement and longing, at every moment, for the arrival of hundreds of courageous women and men, our heroic prisoners, heroes of freedom, when they arrive in Cairo, and then disperse among the arteries of our people, like blood flowing, full of glory and life - in Gaza [City] and in the other cities and village and camps of the [Gaza] Strip, in Jerusalem and throughout the West Bank, and in many of the neighboring countries. There the embraces of their relatives await them... and their nation will receive them there as symbols of giving and struggle and sacrifice. Their hope was just and their promise was true - here they are, released from behind bars and from the suffocation of solitary confinement, returning as free men! What [great] news - there is none more beautiful; what overall national joy... that the most precious loved ones, those lost in the gloom of Israeli prisons, have returned to us! This national celebration, with the welcome of hundreds of our glorious female prisoners and heroic male prisoners, must receive in full what it deserves from us... The national concern is one and the same, and the national celebration is one and the same, and the national achievement is one and the same, and the [Fatah-Hamas] rift is a deviation... Welcome, oh heroes of freedom; our eyes are already waiting and longing; the news has illuminated our hearts."
[Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, Oct. 13, 2011]
This research was made possible by the support of readers like you. Donate to PMW now.
VISIT PMW VIDEO ARCHIVES
Shahada (Death for Allah) promotion Holocaust denial and distortion
Success of Shahada promotion Glorifying terrorists and terror
Promoting violence & terror Demonization
Conspiracy libels Israel's right to exist denied
Jewish history rewritten Objective: Israel's destruction
p:+972 2 625 4140 e: pmw@palwatch.org
f: +972 2 624 2803 w: www.palwatch.org
 ÂÂÂ
This email was sent to ehntrab@yahoo.com by pmw@palwatch.org |
Update Profile/Email Address | Instant removal with SafeUnsubscribe™ | Privacy Policy.
PMW | King George 59 | Jerusalem | Israel
Sunday, October 16, 2011
Caroline Glick Bad Shalit Deal www.rabbijonathanginsburg.org
Home
A pact signed in Jewish blood
October 13, 2011, 6:23 PM
Comments (21) | | Print
No one denies the long suffering of the Schalit family. Noam and Aviva Schalit and their relatives have endured five years and four months of uninterrupted anguish since their son St.-Sgt. Gilad Schalit was abducted from his army post by Palestinian terrorists and spirited to Gaza in June 2006. Since then, aside from one letter and one videotaped message, they have received no signs of life from their soldier son.
There is not a Jewish household in Israel that doesn't empathize with their suffering. It isn't simply that most Israelis serve in the IDF and expect their children to serve in the IDF.
It isn't just that it could happen to any of our families.
As Jews, the concept of mutual responsibility, that we are all a big family and share a common fate, is ingrained in our collective consciousness. And so, at a deep level, the Schalit family's suffering is our collective suffering.
And yet, and yet, freedom exacts its price. The cause of freedom for the Jewish people as a whole exacts a greater sacrifice from some families than from others.
Sometimes, that sacrifice is made willingly, as in the case of the Netanyahu family.
Prof. Benzion and Tzilla Netanyahu raised their three sons to be warriors in the fight for Jewish liberty. And all three of their sons served in an elite commando unit. Their eldest son Yonatan had the privilege of commanding the unit and of leading Israeli commandos in the heroic raid to free Jewish hostages held by the PLO in Entebbe.
There, on July 4, 1976, Yonatan and his family made the ultimate sacrifice for the freedom of the Jewish people. Yonatan was killed in action. His parents and brothers were left to mourn and miss him for the rest of their lives. And yet, the Netanyahu family's sacrifice was a product of a previous decision to fight on the front lines of the war to preserve Jewish freedom.
Sometimes, the sacrifice is made less willingly.
Since Israel allowed the PLO and its terror armies to move their bases from Tunis to Judea, Samaria and Gaza in 1994, nearly 2,000 Israeli families have involuntarily paid the ultimate price for the freedom of the Jewish people. Our freedom angers our Palestinian neighbors so much that they have decided that all Israelis should die.
For instance Ruth Peled, 56, and her 14- month-old granddaughter Sinai Keinan did not volunteer to make the ultimate sacrifice for the freedom of the Jewish people when they were murdered by a Palestinian suicide bomber as they sat in an ice cream parlor in Petah Tikva in May 2002.
And five-year-old Gal Eisenman and her grandmother Noa Alon, 60, weren't planning on giving their lives for the greater good when they, together with five others, were blown to smithereens by Palestinian terrorists in June 2002 while they were waiting for a bus in Jerusalem.
Their mothers and daughters, Chen Keinan and Pnina Eisenman, had not signed up for the prospect of watching their mothers and daughters incinerated before their eyes. They did not volunteer to become bereaved mothers and orphaned daughters simultaneously.
The lives of the victims of Arab terror were stolen from their families simply because they lived and were Jews in Israel. And in the cases of the Keinan, Peled, Alon and Eisenman families, as in thousands of others, the murderers were the direct and indirect beneficiaries of terrorists-for-hostages swaps like the deal that Yonatan Netanyahu's brother, Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, made this week with Hamas to secure the release of Gilad Schalit.
The deal that Netanyahu has agreed to is signed with the blood of the past victims and future victims of the terrorists he is letting go. No amount of rationalization by Netanyahu, his cheerleaders in the demented mass media, and by the defeatist, apparently incompetent heads of the Shin Bet, Mossad and IDF can dent the facts.
IT IS a statistical certainty that the release of 1,027 terrorists for Schalit will lead to the murder of untold numbers of Israelis. It has happened every single time that these blood ransoms have been paid. It will happen now.
Untold numbers of Israelis who are now sitting in their succas and celebrating Jewish freedom, who are driving in their cars, who are standing on line at the bank, who are sitting in their nursery school classrooms painting pictures of Torah scrolls for Simhat Torah will be killed for being Jewish while in Israel because Netanyahu has made this deal. The unrelenting pain of their families, left to cope with their absence, will be unimaginable.
This is a simple fact and it is beyond dispute.
It is also beyond dispute that untold numbers of IDF soldiers and officers will be abducted and held hostage. Soldiers now training for war or scrubbing the floors of their barracks, or sitting at a pub with their friends on holiday leave will one day find themselves in a dungeon in Gaza or Sinai or Lebanon undergoing unspeakable mental and physical torture for years. Their families will suffer inhuman agony.
The only thing we don't know about these future victims is their names. But we know what will become of them as surely as we know that night follows day.
Netanyahu has proven once again that taking IDF soldiers hostage is a sure bet for our Palestinian neighbors. They can murder the next batch of Sinais and Gals, Noas and Ruths. They can kill thousands of them. And they can do so knowing all along that all they need to do to win immunity for their killers is kidnap a single IDF soldier.
There is no downside to this situation for those who believe all Jews should die.
In his public statement on the Schalit deal Tuesday night, Netanyahu, like his newfound groupies in the media, invoked the Jewish tradition of pidyon shevuim, or the redemption of captives. But the Talmudic writ is not unconditional. The rabbinic sages were very clear. The ransom to be paid cannot involve the murder of other Jews.
This deal - like its predecessors - is not in line with Jewish tradition. It stands in opposition to Jewish tradition. Even in our darkest hours of powerlessness in the ghettos and the pales of exile, our leaders did not agree to pay for a life with other life. Judaism has always rejected human sacrifice.
The real question here is after five years and four months in which Schalit has been held hostage and two-and-a-half years into Netanyahu's current tenure as prime minister, why has the deal been concluded now? What has changed? The answer is that very little has changed on Netanyahu's part. After assuming office, Netanyahu essentially accepted the contours of the abysmal agreement he has now signed in Jewish blood.
Initially, there was a political rationale for his morally and strategically perverse position.
He had Defense Minister Ehud Barak and the Labor Party to consider.
Supporting this deal was one of the many abject prices that Netanyahu was expected to pay to keep Labor and Barak in his coalition.
But this rationale ended with Barak's resignation from the Labor Party in January.
Since then, Barak and his colleagues who joined him in leaving Labor have had no political leverage over Netanyahu.
They have nowhere to go. Their political life is wholly dependent on their membership in Netanyahu's government. He doesn't need to pay any price for their loyalty.
So Netanyahu's decision to sign the deal with Hamas lacks any political rationale.
WHAT HAS really changed since the deal was first put on the table two years ago is Hamas's position. Since the Syrian people began to rise up against the regime of Hamas's patron and protector President Bashar Assad, Hamas's leaders, who have been headquartered in Syria since 1998, have been looking for a way to leave. Their Muslim Brotherhood brethren are leading forces in the Western-backed Syrian opposition.
Hamas's leaders do not want to be identified with the Brotherhood's oppressor.
With the Egyptian military junta now openly massacring Christians, and with the Muslim Brotherhood rapidly becoming the dominant political force in the country, Egypt has become a far more suitable home for Hamas.
But for the past several months, Hamas leaders in Damascus have faced a dilemma. If they stay in Syria, they lose credibility. If they leave, they expose themselves to Israel.
According to Channel 2, in exchange for Schalit, beyond releasing a thousand murderers, Netanyahu agreed to give safe passage to Hamas's leaders decamping to Egypt.
What this means is that this deal is even worse for Israel than it looks on the surface.
Not only is Israel guaranteeing a reinvigoration of the Palestinian terror war against its civilians by freeing the most experienced terrorists in Palestinian society, and doing so at a time when the terror war itself is gradually escalating. Israel is squandering the opportunity to either decapitate Hamas by killing its leaders in transit, or to weaken the group by forcing its leaders to go down with Assad in Syria.
At best, Netanyahu comes out of this deal looking like a weak leader who is manipulated by and beholden to Israel's radical, surrender-crazed media. To their eternal shame, the media have been waging a five-year campaign to force Israel's leaders to capitulate to Hamas.
At worst, this deal exposes Netanyahu as a morally challenged, strategically irresponsible and foolish, opportunistic politician.
What Israel needs is a leader with the courage of one writer's convictions. Back in 1995, that writer wrote: "The release of convicted terrorists before they have served their full sentences seems like an easy and tempting way of defusing blackmail situations in which innocent people may lose their lives, but its utility is momentary at best.
"Prisoner releases only embolden terrorists by giving them the feeling that even if they are caught, their punishment will be brief. Worse, by leading terrorists to think such demands are likely to be met, they encourage precisely the terrorist blackmail they are supposed to defuse."
The writer of those lines was then-opposition leader Binyamin Netanyahu. Netanyahu wrote those lines in his book, Fighting Terrorism: How Democracies Can Defeat Domestic and International Terrorists.
Israel needs that Netanyahu to lead it. But in the face of the current Netanyahu's abject surrender to terrorism, apparently he is gone.
Originally published in The Jerusalem Post.
A pact signed in Jewish blood
October 13, 2011, 6:23 PM
Comments (21) | | Print
No one denies the long suffering of the Schalit family. Noam and Aviva Schalit and their relatives have endured five years and four months of uninterrupted anguish since their son St.-Sgt. Gilad Schalit was abducted from his army post by Palestinian terrorists and spirited to Gaza in June 2006. Since then, aside from one letter and one videotaped message, they have received no signs of life from their soldier son.
There is not a Jewish household in Israel that doesn't empathize with their suffering. It isn't simply that most Israelis serve in the IDF and expect their children to serve in the IDF.
It isn't just that it could happen to any of our families.
As Jews, the concept of mutual responsibility, that we are all a big family and share a common fate, is ingrained in our collective consciousness. And so, at a deep level, the Schalit family's suffering is our collective suffering.
And yet, and yet, freedom exacts its price. The cause of freedom for the Jewish people as a whole exacts a greater sacrifice from some families than from others.
Sometimes, that sacrifice is made willingly, as in the case of the Netanyahu family.
Prof. Benzion and Tzilla Netanyahu raised their three sons to be warriors in the fight for Jewish liberty. And all three of their sons served in an elite commando unit. Their eldest son Yonatan had the privilege of commanding the unit and of leading Israeli commandos in the heroic raid to free Jewish hostages held by the PLO in Entebbe.
There, on July 4, 1976, Yonatan and his family made the ultimate sacrifice for the freedom of the Jewish people. Yonatan was killed in action. His parents and brothers were left to mourn and miss him for the rest of their lives. And yet, the Netanyahu family's sacrifice was a product of a previous decision to fight on the front lines of the war to preserve Jewish freedom.
Sometimes, the sacrifice is made less willingly.
Since Israel allowed the PLO and its terror armies to move their bases from Tunis to Judea, Samaria and Gaza in 1994, nearly 2,000 Israeli families have involuntarily paid the ultimate price for the freedom of the Jewish people. Our freedom angers our Palestinian neighbors so much that they have decided that all Israelis should die.
For instance Ruth Peled, 56, and her 14- month-old granddaughter Sinai Keinan did not volunteer to make the ultimate sacrifice for the freedom of the Jewish people when they were murdered by a Palestinian suicide bomber as they sat in an ice cream parlor in Petah Tikva in May 2002.
And five-year-old Gal Eisenman and her grandmother Noa Alon, 60, weren't planning on giving their lives for the greater good when they, together with five others, were blown to smithereens by Palestinian terrorists in June 2002 while they were waiting for a bus in Jerusalem.
Their mothers and daughters, Chen Keinan and Pnina Eisenman, had not signed up for the prospect of watching their mothers and daughters incinerated before their eyes. They did not volunteer to become bereaved mothers and orphaned daughters simultaneously.
The lives of the victims of Arab terror were stolen from their families simply because they lived and were Jews in Israel. And in the cases of the Keinan, Peled, Alon and Eisenman families, as in thousands of others, the murderers were the direct and indirect beneficiaries of terrorists-for-hostages swaps like the deal that Yonatan Netanyahu's brother, Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, made this week with Hamas to secure the release of Gilad Schalit.
The deal that Netanyahu has agreed to is signed with the blood of the past victims and future victims of the terrorists he is letting go. No amount of rationalization by Netanyahu, his cheerleaders in the demented mass media, and by the defeatist, apparently incompetent heads of the Shin Bet, Mossad and IDF can dent the facts.
IT IS a statistical certainty that the release of 1,027 terrorists for Schalit will lead to the murder of untold numbers of Israelis. It has happened every single time that these blood ransoms have been paid. It will happen now.
Untold numbers of Israelis who are now sitting in their succas and celebrating Jewish freedom, who are driving in their cars, who are standing on line at the bank, who are sitting in their nursery school classrooms painting pictures of Torah scrolls for Simhat Torah will be killed for being Jewish while in Israel because Netanyahu has made this deal. The unrelenting pain of their families, left to cope with their absence, will be unimaginable.
This is a simple fact and it is beyond dispute.
It is also beyond dispute that untold numbers of IDF soldiers and officers will be abducted and held hostage. Soldiers now training for war or scrubbing the floors of their barracks, or sitting at a pub with their friends on holiday leave will one day find themselves in a dungeon in Gaza or Sinai or Lebanon undergoing unspeakable mental and physical torture for years. Their families will suffer inhuman agony.
The only thing we don't know about these future victims is their names. But we know what will become of them as surely as we know that night follows day.
Netanyahu has proven once again that taking IDF soldiers hostage is a sure bet for our Palestinian neighbors. They can murder the next batch of Sinais and Gals, Noas and Ruths. They can kill thousands of them. And they can do so knowing all along that all they need to do to win immunity for their killers is kidnap a single IDF soldier.
There is no downside to this situation for those who believe all Jews should die.
In his public statement on the Schalit deal Tuesday night, Netanyahu, like his newfound groupies in the media, invoked the Jewish tradition of pidyon shevuim, or the redemption of captives. But the Talmudic writ is not unconditional. The rabbinic sages were very clear. The ransom to be paid cannot involve the murder of other Jews.
This deal - like its predecessors - is not in line with Jewish tradition. It stands in opposition to Jewish tradition. Even in our darkest hours of powerlessness in the ghettos and the pales of exile, our leaders did not agree to pay for a life with other life. Judaism has always rejected human sacrifice.
The real question here is after five years and four months in which Schalit has been held hostage and two-and-a-half years into Netanyahu's current tenure as prime minister, why has the deal been concluded now? What has changed? The answer is that very little has changed on Netanyahu's part. After assuming office, Netanyahu essentially accepted the contours of the abysmal agreement he has now signed in Jewish blood.
Initially, there was a political rationale for his morally and strategically perverse position.
He had Defense Minister Ehud Barak and the Labor Party to consider.
Supporting this deal was one of the many abject prices that Netanyahu was expected to pay to keep Labor and Barak in his coalition.
But this rationale ended with Barak's resignation from the Labor Party in January.
Since then, Barak and his colleagues who joined him in leaving Labor have had no political leverage over Netanyahu.
They have nowhere to go. Their political life is wholly dependent on their membership in Netanyahu's government. He doesn't need to pay any price for their loyalty.
So Netanyahu's decision to sign the deal with Hamas lacks any political rationale.
WHAT HAS really changed since the deal was first put on the table two years ago is Hamas's position. Since the Syrian people began to rise up against the regime of Hamas's patron and protector President Bashar Assad, Hamas's leaders, who have been headquartered in Syria since 1998, have been looking for a way to leave. Their Muslim Brotherhood brethren are leading forces in the Western-backed Syrian opposition.
Hamas's leaders do not want to be identified with the Brotherhood's oppressor.
With the Egyptian military junta now openly massacring Christians, and with the Muslim Brotherhood rapidly becoming the dominant political force in the country, Egypt has become a far more suitable home for Hamas.
But for the past several months, Hamas leaders in Damascus have faced a dilemma. If they stay in Syria, they lose credibility. If they leave, they expose themselves to Israel.
According to Channel 2, in exchange for Schalit, beyond releasing a thousand murderers, Netanyahu agreed to give safe passage to Hamas's leaders decamping to Egypt.
What this means is that this deal is even worse for Israel than it looks on the surface.
Not only is Israel guaranteeing a reinvigoration of the Palestinian terror war against its civilians by freeing the most experienced terrorists in Palestinian society, and doing so at a time when the terror war itself is gradually escalating. Israel is squandering the opportunity to either decapitate Hamas by killing its leaders in transit, or to weaken the group by forcing its leaders to go down with Assad in Syria.
At best, Netanyahu comes out of this deal looking like a weak leader who is manipulated by and beholden to Israel's radical, surrender-crazed media. To their eternal shame, the media have been waging a five-year campaign to force Israel's leaders to capitulate to Hamas.
At worst, this deal exposes Netanyahu as a morally challenged, strategically irresponsible and foolish, opportunistic politician.
What Israel needs is a leader with the courage of one writer's convictions. Back in 1995, that writer wrote: "The release of convicted terrorists before they have served their full sentences seems like an easy and tempting way of defusing blackmail situations in which innocent people may lose their lives, but its utility is momentary at best.
"Prisoner releases only embolden terrorists by giving them the feeling that even if they are caught, their punishment will be brief. Worse, by leading terrorists to think such demands are likely to be met, they encourage precisely the terrorist blackmail they are supposed to defuse."
The writer of those lines was then-opposition leader Binyamin Netanyahu. Netanyahu wrote those lines in his book, Fighting Terrorism: How Democracies Can Defeat Domestic and International Terrorists.
Israel needs that Netanyahu to lead it. But in the face of the current Netanyahu's abject surrender to terrorism, apparently he is gone.
Originally published in The Jerusalem Post.
Tuesday, October 4, 2011
Absurdity of uniltaeral Palestinian effort www.rabbijonathanginsburg.info
Land without peace: Why Abbas went to the U.N.
By Charles Krauthammer, Published: September 29
While diplomatically inconvenient for the Western powers, Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas’s attempt to get the United Nations to unilaterally declare a Palestinian state has elicited widespread sympathy. After all, what choice did he have? According to the accepted narrative, Middle East peace is made impossible by a hard-line Likud-led Israel that refuses to accept a Palestinian state and continues to build settlements.
It is remarkable how this gross inversion of the truth has become conventional wisdom. In fact, Benjamin Netanyahu brought his Likud-led coalition to open recognition of a Palestinian state, thereby creating Israel’s first national consensus for a two-state solution. He is also the only prime minister to agree to a settlement freeze — 10 months — something no Labor or Kadima government has ever done.
To which Abbas responded by boycotting the talks for nine months, showing up in the 10th, then walking out when the freeze expired. Last week he reiterated that he will continue to boycott peace talks unless Israel gives up — in advance — claim to any territory beyond the 1967 lines. Meaning, for example, that the Jewish Quarter in Jerusalem is Palestinian territory. This is not just absurd. It violates every prior peace agreement. They all stipulate that such demands are to be the subject of negotiations, not their precondition.
Abbas unwaveringly insists on the so-called “right of return,” which would demographically destroy Israel by swamping it with millions of Arabs, thereby turning the world’s only Jewish state into the world’s 23rd Arab state. And he has repeatedly declared, as recently as last week in New York: “We shall not recognize a Jewish state.”
Nor is this new. It is perfectly consistent with the long history of Palestinian rejectionism. Consider:
●Camp David, 2000. At a U.S.-sponsored summit, Prime Minister Ehud Barak offers Yasser Arafat a Palestinian state on the West Bank and Gaza — and, astonishingly, the previously inconceivable division of Jerusalem. Arafat refuses. And makes no counteroffer, thereby demonstrating his unseriousness about making any deal. Instead, within two months, he launches a savage terror war that kills a thousand Israelis.
●Taba, 2001. An even sweeter deal — the Clinton Parameters — is offered. Arafat walks away again.
●Israel, 2008. Prime Minister Ehud Olmert makes the ultimate capitulation to Palestinian demands — 100 percent of the West Bank (with land swaps), Palestinian statehood, the division of Jerusalem with the Muslim parts becoming the capital of the new Palestine. And incredibly, he offers to turn over the city’s holy places, including the Western Wall — Judaism’s most sacred site, its Kaaba — to an international body on which sit Jordan and Saudi Arabia.
Did Abbas accept? Of course not. If he had, the conflict would be over and Palestine would already be a member of the United Nations.
This is not ancient history. All three peace talks occurred over the past decade. And every one completely contradicts the current mindless narrative of Israeli “intransigence” as the obstacle to peace.
Settlements? Every settlement remaining within the new Palestine would be destroyed and emptied, precisely as happened in Gaza.
So why did the Palestinians say no? Because saying yes would have required them to sign a final peace agreement that accepted a Jewish state on what they consider the Muslim patrimony.
The key word here is “final.” The Palestinians are quite prepared to sign interim agreements, like Oslo. Framework agreements, like Annapolis. Cease-fires, like the 1949 armistice. Anything but a final deal. Anything but a final peace. Anything but a treaty that ends the conflict once and for all — while leaving a Jewish state still standing.
After all, why did Abbas go to the United Nations last week? For nearly half a century, the United States has pursued a Middle East settlement on the basis of the formula of land for peace. Land for peace produced the Israel-Egypt peace of 1979 and the Israel-Jordan peace of 1994. Israel has offered the Palestinians land for peace three times since. And been refused every time.
Why? For exactly the same reason Abbas went to the United Nations last week: to get land without peace. Sovereignty with no reciprocal recognition of a Jewish state. Statehood without negotiations. An independent Palestine in a continued state of war with Israel.
Israel gave up land without peace in south Lebanon in 2000 and, in return, received war (the Lebanon war of 2006) and 50,000 Hezbollah missiles now targeted on the Israeli homeland. In 2005, Israel gave up land without peace in Gaza, and again was rewarded with war — and constant rocket attack from an openly genocidal Palestinian mini-state.
Israel is prepared to give up land, but never again without peace. A final peace. Which is exactly what every Palestinian leader from Haj Amin al-Husseini to Yasser Arafat to Mahmoud Abbas has refused to accept. Which is why, regardless of who is governing Israel, there has never been peace. Territorial disputes are solvable; existential conflicts are not.
Land for peace, yes. Land without peace is nothing but an invitation to national suicide.
letters@charleskrauthammer.com
By Charles Krauthammer, Published: September 29
While diplomatically inconvenient for the Western powers, Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas’s attempt to get the United Nations to unilaterally declare a Palestinian state has elicited widespread sympathy. After all, what choice did he have? According to the accepted narrative, Middle East peace is made impossible by a hard-line Likud-led Israel that refuses to accept a Palestinian state and continues to build settlements.
It is remarkable how this gross inversion of the truth has become conventional wisdom. In fact, Benjamin Netanyahu brought his Likud-led coalition to open recognition of a Palestinian state, thereby creating Israel’s first national consensus for a two-state solution. He is also the only prime minister to agree to a settlement freeze — 10 months — something no Labor or Kadima government has ever done.
To which Abbas responded by boycotting the talks for nine months, showing up in the 10th, then walking out when the freeze expired. Last week he reiterated that he will continue to boycott peace talks unless Israel gives up — in advance — claim to any territory beyond the 1967 lines. Meaning, for example, that the Jewish Quarter in Jerusalem is Palestinian territory. This is not just absurd. It violates every prior peace agreement. They all stipulate that such demands are to be the subject of negotiations, not their precondition.
Abbas unwaveringly insists on the so-called “right of return,” which would demographically destroy Israel by swamping it with millions of Arabs, thereby turning the world’s only Jewish state into the world’s 23rd Arab state. And he has repeatedly declared, as recently as last week in New York: “We shall not recognize a Jewish state.”
Nor is this new. It is perfectly consistent with the long history of Palestinian rejectionism. Consider:
●Camp David, 2000. At a U.S.-sponsored summit, Prime Minister Ehud Barak offers Yasser Arafat a Palestinian state on the West Bank and Gaza — and, astonishingly, the previously inconceivable division of Jerusalem. Arafat refuses. And makes no counteroffer, thereby demonstrating his unseriousness about making any deal. Instead, within two months, he launches a savage terror war that kills a thousand Israelis.
●Taba, 2001. An even sweeter deal — the Clinton Parameters — is offered. Arafat walks away again.
●Israel, 2008. Prime Minister Ehud Olmert makes the ultimate capitulation to Palestinian demands — 100 percent of the West Bank (with land swaps), Palestinian statehood, the division of Jerusalem with the Muslim parts becoming the capital of the new Palestine. And incredibly, he offers to turn over the city’s holy places, including the Western Wall — Judaism’s most sacred site, its Kaaba — to an international body on which sit Jordan and Saudi Arabia.
Did Abbas accept? Of course not. If he had, the conflict would be over and Palestine would already be a member of the United Nations.
This is not ancient history. All three peace talks occurred over the past decade. And every one completely contradicts the current mindless narrative of Israeli “intransigence” as the obstacle to peace.
Settlements? Every settlement remaining within the new Palestine would be destroyed and emptied, precisely as happened in Gaza.
So why did the Palestinians say no? Because saying yes would have required them to sign a final peace agreement that accepted a Jewish state on what they consider the Muslim patrimony.
The key word here is “final.” The Palestinians are quite prepared to sign interim agreements, like Oslo. Framework agreements, like Annapolis. Cease-fires, like the 1949 armistice. Anything but a final deal. Anything but a final peace. Anything but a treaty that ends the conflict once and for all — while leaving a Jewish state still standing.
After all, why did Abbas go to the United Nations last week? For nearly half a century, the United States has pursued a Middle East settlement on the basis of the formula of land for peace. Land for peace produced the Israel-Egypt peace of 1979 and the Israel-Jordan peace of 1994. Israel has offered the Palestinians land for peace three times since. And been refused every time.
Why? For exactly the same reason Abbas went to the United Nations last week: to get land without peace. Sovereignty with no reciprocal recognition of a Jewish state. Statehood without negotiations. An independent Palestine in a continued state of war with Israel.
Israel gave up land without peace in south Lebanon in 2000 and, in return, received war (the Lebanon war of 2006) and 50,000 Hezbollah missiles now targeted on the Israeli homeland. In 2005, Israel gave up land without peace in Gaza, and again was rewarded with war — and constant rocket attack from an openly genocidal Palestinian mini-state.
Israel is prepared to give up land, but never again without peace. A final peace. Which is exactly what every Palestinian leader from Haj Amin al-Husseini to Yasser Arafat to Mahmoud Abbas has refused to accept. Which is why, regardless of who is governing Israel, there has never been peace. Territorial disputes are solvable; existential conflicts are not.
Land for peace, yes. Land without peace is nothing but an invitation to national suicide.
letters@charleskrauthammer.com
Friday, September 23, 2011
Primer on palestinian Statehood request
All you need to know about the Palestinian move for recognition by the United Nations.
by Leadership Action Network
(1) What Is UDI?
UDI stands for a Unilateral Declaration of Independence to recognize a Palestinian state via the United Nations. UDI would fundamentally violate all of the major bilateral and international agreements that require that disputes be resolved through direct negotiations, not third parties. This includes the Declaration of Principles from 1993 that formalized the direct Israeli-Palestinian peace process. The Oslo Interim Agreements of 1995 expressly prohibits (in Article 31), unilateral action by either side to change the status of the West Bank and Gaza prior to reaching a negotiated permanent status agreement.
(2) Does Israel oppose a Palestinian state?
Israel is dedicated to two states for two peoples, living side by side in peace and security. However, this must be achieved through direct, bi-lateral negotiations between the parties, not imposed from the outside or through a unilateral declaration. Especially in light of previous agreements including the Oslo Accords, this will only complicate the road to reaching an agreement for a sustainable, secure peace. None of the core issues including borders, Jerusalem, refugees and water, will be resolved by a UN resolution. It will only harm any efforts for peace by having the Palestinians lock into positions precluding any compromise in the future and possibly triggering violence on the ground due to unrealistic expectations. The United States and other countries have warned that recognition outside of direct negotiations could have implications for continued aid to the Palestinians.
(3) What does Israel want?
Israel wants to negotiate a settlement with the Palestinians and has made it clear that it is willing to discuss peace without preconditions. In meeting with members of Congress on August 15, 2011, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said, “I am willing to immediately start direct negotiations with [President Abbas] without preconditions. I am willing to invite him to my house in Jerusalem and I am willing to go to Ramallah.” And on September 8, Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak told PA President Mahmoud Abbas that it is critical that both sides “return to the negotiating table sans any preconditions. We must try and reach a breakthrough together. We must achieve this for our children and grandchildren.”
(4) What does the United States think about the PA pursuing UDI?
The United States believes that peace is only possible through a negotiated approach between the parties with mutual concessions and has made clear it will veto a UDI resolution in the Security Council if necessary. President Obama has said, “Symbolic actions to isolate Israel at the United Nations in September won’t create an independent state,” and later called it a distraction. Congress reaffirmed its commitment to a negotiated settlement of the conflict between the parties through direct Israeli-Palestinian negotiations. The Senate vote was unanimous and the House vote was an overwhelming 407-6. Many members of Congress have expressed their concern regarding UDI and indicated that they will reconsider the aid package to the Palestinians.
(5) What do the Palestinians think?
Many Palestinians have expressed concern over the United Nations declaration. In the “Palestine Papers” – confidential Palestinian Authority documents released earlier this year by Al Jazeera – lead Palestinian negotiators argued that announcing a Palestinian state without negotiating with Israel would be a mistake. Their major concern – as expressed in several memos – is that such a make-shift state would not satisfy the national hopes of the Palestinian people. Among those who have been adamantly against this approach is Prime Minister Salam Fayad. A recent study conducted for the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs also pointed out that 40 percent of Palestinians living in East Jerusalem would prefer to become citizens of Israel rather than become citizens of a new Palestinian state.
(6) What would be the borders of this new state?
It is understood that Abbas will ask for the new state to be based on the 1967 lines, which are the 1949 armistice lines. These are the fragile lines that Israel’s late Foreign Minister Abba Eban declared as the “Auschwitz” lines due to the existential threat this could pose to the security of Israel.
(7) Can the PA declare their state in this manner?
Under the principles of international law, which were codified under the Montevideo Convention, there are four prerequisites for statehood: a permanent population; a defined territory; effective government; and a capacity to enter into relations with other States. Currently, the Palestinian Authority does not satisfy these criteria. According to the UN Charter, membership is open to states only, not movements.
(8) Why would the Palestinian Authority proceed with UDI if they don’t meet the traditional prerequisites for statehood?
UDI would symbolically raise their international status without doing the work needed to establish a legitimate state.
(9) Is there a difference in jurisdiction between the Security Council and the General Assembly?
According to the UN charter, membership to the United Nations requires Security Council consent and an endorsement from two thirds of the General Assembly. In the event that a permanent member of the Security Council exercises a veto, membership could still be attained by utilizing the obscure “Uniting for Peace” resolution, a motion adopted during the Korean War that provides for an emergency session of the General Assembly in instances where the Security Council is believed to have failed. It is of note that there is considerable disagreement amongst UN officials over the applicability of “Uniting for Peace” on questions of UN membership. Alternatively, the Palestinians could opt for a simple General Assembly recognition of statehood based on the 1967 lines. Though legally non-binding, such a symbolic international gesture could enable the new state to join other specialized agencies and petition the International Criminal Court against Israel which Abbas has long asserted as a primary goal.
(10) If UDI succeeds, would the PA accept Israel as a Jewish state? What about Jewish citizens in the new state?
As recently as August 28, 2011, Mahmoud Abbas said that the Palestinian Authority would not recognize Israel as a Jewish state. He told the international community, “Don’t order us to recognize the Jewish state. We won’t accept it.” The Palestinian leadership has made clear that any Palestinian state will be cleansed of all Jews. Unlike Israel, a state in which people of all backgrounds and faiths live, a new Palestinian state will be off limits to all Jews.
(11) Would Hamas gain legitimacy if the UDI is successful?
Hamas and the Palestinian Authority signed a reconciliation agreement but the Hamas Charter still calls for the annihilation of Israel. In fact, Hamas rejects the three Quartet Principles - recognition of Israel’s right to exist, acceptance of existing agreements and an end to violence. Hamas is designated a terrorist group by many countries including Jordan, Japan, the EU, and the United States. Supporting UDI under these current conditions would result in Hamas being given de facto international legitimacy. President Obama said in May, “Hamas still hasn’t recognized Israel’s right to exist and renounce violence, and recognize that negotiations are the right path for solving this problem. And it’s very difficult for Israel in a realistic way to say we’re going to sit across the table from somebody who denies our right to exist. And so that’s an issue that the Palestinians are going to have to resolve…. I also believe that the notion that you can solve this problem in the United Nations is simply unrealistic.” The Senate’s unanimous resolution regarding direct negotiations between the parties reaffirmed opposition to inclusion of Hamas in a unity government unless it is willing to accept peace with Israel and renounce violence.
(12) What if the PA decides not to pursue statehood?
If the PA does not seek recognition of a Palestinian state, they will request to upgrade their diplomatic status at the United Nations General Assembly without compromise on any of their maximum demands on borders, refugees, Jerusalem and settlements.
(13) How does upgrading the PA’s diplomatic status to a “non-member observer state” compare with their current observer status?
This would give the Palestinians the same status in the UN as the Vatican. It is important to note that the Vatican is a sovereign state, while the Palestinian Authority is not. This change would enable the PA to become a member of other UN organizations including UNESCO and the WHO. This could enable the Palestinians to petition bodies such as the International Criminal Court (ICC) and the International Court of Justice (ICJ) with charges to try and delegitimize and isolate Israel, following the Apartheid South African model.
(14) When could this happen?
On Friday, September 23, President Abbas will address the United Nations General Assembly’s opening session. He may use this opportunity to present a letter to UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon, initiating the process at the Security Council. There could be an elongated process or steps could be taken to short circuit the required committee review and recommendation that precedes a vote. It is believed that as of now, there are not enough affirmative votes with a couple of countries still undecided. Should seven members vote against or abstain, the resolution is defeated. Should it pass, the United States has indicated it will veto. An option is delaying until the elections to the Security Council in October, in the hope they will receive more affirmative votes. Another option is for direct negotiations to be launched simultaneously with the Security Council process, perhaps beginning with a meeting on the UN sidelines. Much rests on the course to be chosen by the
by Leadership Action Network
(1) What Is UDI?
UDI stands for a Unilateral Declaration of Independence to recognize a Palestinian state via the United Nations. UDI would fundamentally violate all of the major bilateral and international agreements that require that disputes be resolved through direct negotiations, not third parties. This includes the Declaration of Principles from 1993 that formalized the direct Israeli-Palestinian peace process. The Oslo Interim Agreements of 1995 expressly prohibits (in Article 31), unilateral action by either side to change the status of the West Bank and Gaza prior to reaching a negotiated permanent status agreement.
(2) Does Israel oppose a Palestinian state?
Israel is dedicated to two states for two peoples, living side by side in peace and security. However, this must be achieved through direct, bi-lateral negotiations between the parties, not imposed from the outside or through a unilateral declaration. Especially in light of previous agreements including the Oslo Accords, this will only complicate the road to reaching an agreement for a sustainable, secure peace. None of the core issues including borders, Jerusalem, refugees and water, will be resolved by a UN resolution. It will only harm any efforts for peace by having the Palestinians lock into positions precluding any compromise in the future and possibly triggering violence on the ground due to unrealistic expectations. The United States and other countries have warned that recognition outside of direct negotiations could have implications for continued aid to the Palestinians.
(3) What does Israel want?
Israel wants to negotiate a settlement with the Palestinians and has made it clear that it is willing to discuss peace without preconditions. In meeting with members of Congress on August 15, 2011, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said, “I am willing to immediately start direct negotiations with [President Abbas] without preconditions. I am willing to invite him to my house in Jerusalem and I am willing to go to Ramallah.” And on September 8, Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak told PA President Mahmoud Abbas that it is critical that both sides “return to the negotiating table sans any preconditions. We must try and reach a breakthrough together. We must achieve this for our children and grandchildren.”
(4) What does the United States think about the PA pursuing UDI?
The United States believes that peace is only possible through a negotiated approach between the parties with mutual concessions and has made clear it will veto a UDI resolution in the Security Council if necessary. President Obama has said, “Symbolic actions to isolate Israel at the United Nations in September won’t create an independent state,” and later called it a distraction. Congress reaffirmed its commitment to a negotiated settlement of the conflict between the parties through direct Israeli-Palestinian negotiations. The Senate vote was unanimous and the House vote was an overwhelming 407-6. Many members of Congress have expressed their concern regarding UDI and indicated that they will reconsider the aid package to the Palestinians.
(5) What do the Palestinians think?
Many Palestinians have expressed concern over the United Nations declaration. In the “Palestine Papers” – confidential Palestinian Authority documents released earlier this year by Al Jazeera – lead Palestinian negotiators argued that announcing a Palestinian state without negotiating with Israel would be a mistake. Their major concern – as expressed in several memos – is that such a make-shift state would not satisfy the national hopes of the Palestinian people. Among those who have been adamantly against this approach is Prime Minister Salam Fayad. A recent study conducted for the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs also pointed out that 40 percent of Palestinians living in East Jerusalem would prefer to become citizens of Israel rather than become citizens of a new Palestinian state.
(6) What would be the borders of this new state?
It is understood that Abbas will ask for the new state to be based on the 1967 lines, which are the 1949 armistice lines. These are the fragile lines that Israel’s late Foreign Minister Abba Eban declared as the “Auschwitz” lines due to the existential threat this could pose to the security of Israel.
(7) Can the PA declare their state in this manner?
Under the principles of international law, which were codified under the Montevideo Convention, there are four prerequisites for statehood: a permanent population; a defined territory; effective government; and a capacity to enter into relations with other States. Currently, the Palestinian Authority does not satisfy these criteria. According to the UN Charter, membership is open to states only, not movements.
(8) Why would the Palestinian Authority proceed with UDI if they don’t meet the traditional prerequisites for statehood?
UDI would symbolically raise their international status without doing the work needed to establish a legitimate state.
(9) Is there a difference in jurisdiction between the Security Council and the General Assembly?
According to the UN charter, membership to the United Nations requires Security Council consent and an endorsement from two thirds of the General Assembly. In the event that a permanent member of the Security Council exercises a veto, membership could still be attained by utilizing the obscure “Uniting for Peace” resolution, a motion adopted during the Korean War that provides for an emergency session of the General Assembly in instances where the Security Council is believed to have failed. It is of note that there is considerable disagreement amongst UN officials over the applicability of “Uniting for Peace” on questions of UN membership. Alternatively, the Palestinians could opt for a simple General Assembly recognition of statehood based on the 1967 lines. Though legally non-binding, such a symbolic international gesture could enable the new state to join other specialized agencies and petition the International Criminal Court against Israel which Abbas has long asserted as a primary goal.
(10) If UDI succeeds, would the PA accept Israel as a Jewish state? What about Jewish citizens in the new state?
As recently as August 28, 2011, Mahmoud Abbas said that the Palestinian Authority would not recognize Israel as a Jewish state. He told the international community, “Don’t order us to recognize the Jewish state. We won’t accept it.” The Palestinian leadership has made clear that any Palestinian state will be cleansed of all Jews. Unlike Israel, a state in which people of all backgrounds and faiths live, a new Palestinian state will be off limits to all Jews.
(11) Would Hamas gain legitimacy if the UDI is successful?
Hamas and the Palestinian Authority signed a reconciliation agreement but the Hamas Charter still calls for the annihilation of Israel. In fact, Hamas rejects the three Quartet Principles - recognition of Israel’s right to exist, acceptance of existing agreements and an end to violence. Hamas is designated a terrorist group by many countries including Jordan, Japan, the EU, and the United States. Supporting UDI under these current conditions would result in Hamas being given de facto international legitimacy. President Obama said in May, “Hamas still hasn’t recognized Israel’s right to exist and renounce violence, and recognize that negotiations are the right path for solving this problem. And it’s very difficult for Israel in a realistic way to say we’re going to sit across the table from somebody who denies our right to exist. And so that’s an issue that the Palestinians are going to have to resolve…. I also believe that the notion that you can solve this problem in the United Nations is simply unrealistic.” The Senate’s unanimous resolution regarding direct negotiations between the parties reaffirmed opposition to inclusion of Hamas in a unity government unless it is willing to accept peace with Israel and renounce violence.
(12) What if the PA decides not to pursue statehood?
If the PA does not seek recognition of a Palestinian state, they will request to upgrade their diplomatic status at the United Nations General Assembly without compromise on any of their maximum demands on borders, refugees, Jerusalem and settlements.
(13) How does upgrading the PA’s diplomatic status to a “non-member observer state” compare with their current observer status?
This would give the Palestinians the same status in the UN as the Vatican. It is important to note that the Vatican is a sovereign state, while the Palestinian Authority is not. This change would enable the PA to become a member of other UN organizations including UNESCO and the WHO. This could enable the Palestinians to petition bodies such as the International Criminal Court (ICC) and the International Court of Justice (ICJ) with charges to try and delegitimize and isolate Israel, following the Apartheid South African model.
(14) When could this happen?
On Friday, September 23, President Abbas will address the United Nations General Assembly’s opening session. He may use this opportunity to present a letter to UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon, initiating the process at the Security Council. There could be an elongated process or steps could be taken to short circuit the required committee review and recommendation that precedes a vote. It is believed that as of now, there are not enough affirmative votes with a couple of countries still undecided. Should seven members vote against or abstain, the resolution is defeated. Should it pass, the United States has indicated it will veto. An option is delaying until the elections to the Security Council in October, in the hope they will receive more affirmative votes. Another option is for direct negotiations to be launched simultaneously with the Security Council process, perhaps beginning with a meeting on the UN sidelines. Much rests on the course to be chosen by the
Wednesday, September 21, 2011
Rick Perry on Israel
Rick Perry’s Israel appeal
Posted by Rachel Weiner at 03:54 PM ET, 09/20/2011
Rick Perry has been very interested in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict lately. On the heels of editorials in both the Wall Street Journal and the Jerusalem Post criticizing the Obama Administration’s policies in the Middle East, Perry held a press conference Tuesday morning accusing the president of a “policy of appeasement” toward the Palestinian Authority.
Rick Perry has been outspoken on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict of late. (Melina Mara - THE WASHINGTON POST)
Perry’s interest in Israel is longstanding, and he’s defended the country’s foreign policy before, but not so frequently or vocally. Is he hoping to win over Jewish voters or is it another pitch to win over evangelicals?
As Texas agriculture commissioner in the 1990s, Perry started the Texas-Israel Exchange. In 2009, he traveled to Israel to receive a “Defender of Jerusalem” award. That same year, he told a reporter, “I have a special affection for that country, for the nation of Israel, a remarkable people,” comparing Masada, the sight of a famed battle between the Jews and the Roman Empire, to the Alamo.
Perry’s press conference on Tuesday came as the Obama administration tries to stop a U.N. vote on Palestinian statehood this week. Obama is slated to talk to the U.N. General Assembly on Wednesday.
Furthermore, Obama’s support with Jewish voters is dropping, some say illustrated by an unlikely win last week in the heavily Democratic and Jewish New York 9th district special election contest to replace Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-N.Y.). During Perry’s appearance in New York on Tuesday, newly-minted Empire State GOP Rep. Bob Turner was by his side.
While polling finds that the economy is the main reason for Obama’s drop in Jewish support, many Republicans have seized on the results of last week’s special election as a sign that Israel could become a wedge issue with Jews in swing states in 2012.
“Whoever our Republican nominee is I think is going to have the ability to go into the Jewish community and provide a very strong argument and a very strong contrast” with Obama, said Matt Brooks, executive director of the Republican Jewish Coalition.
A top Perry strategist insisted following Perry’s speech that nothing had changed in terms of the governor’s strategy.
“Consistent, principled positions that don't change depending on what election one might be seeking will always do better amongst all voters,” said Perry strategist Dave Carney. “Our mission is to demonstrate for voters that we can take on Obama on the big issues of the day.”
Answering questions after his remarks Tuesday, Perry framed his Israel advocacy as part of his religion. “As a Christian, I have a clear directive to support Israel,” he said. “As an American and a Christian I will stand with Israel.”
That explicit religious appeal is the sort of comment that could displease Jewish voters. Perry’s hawkish Israel views will likely win him more support among evangelical Christians, many of whom support Zionism for their own religious reasons.
Just before becoming a presidential candidate, the governor held an unabashedly Christian prayer gathering in Houston, “The Response.” A few days ago he spoke at Liberty University, the school founded by evangelical fundamentalist Jerry Fallwell.
Even some Republican Jews were turned off by those events, a sign that Perry might struggle with GOP Jewish donors, who sources say have largely lined up behind former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney already.
Jonathan Tobin, the editor of the neo-conservative Jewish magazine Commentary, wrote earlier this week that “most American Jews fear evangelicals more than Hamas or Hezbollah,” adding that Perry “could send the vast majority of Jews fleeing back to the Democrats, Israel.”
Perry’s social conservativism could also hurt him with Jewish voters.
While more socially conservative Orthodox Jews are the fastest-growing demographic in the Jewish community, the vast majority of Jews still oppose Perry on abortion and same-sex marriage.
And Jews still make a small population in swing states key to the general election. Only 7 percent of Jews in Pittsburgh are Orthodox and only 5 percent of Jews in Cincinnati, Ohio are Orthodox; only 3 percent of the Jews in Palm Beach County are Orthodox, according to the Jewish Databank. (About a third of the Jews in New York’s 9th district are Orthodox.)
Jews aren’t the only constituency in America invested in the Israeli state. According to Pew polling, sixty-four percent of white evangelical Protestants and 62 percent of conservative Republicans say helping Israel should be an important U.S. policy goal, compared with only 34 percent of mainline Protestants and 51 percent of all Republicans.
Fallwell, like Perry was an ardent supporter of Israel. So is evangelical pastor John Hagee, who spoke at Perry’s Prayer gathering.
“I don’t think the focus is on Jewish voters” right now, said Tevi Troy, who served as liaison to the Jewish community in the Bush White House. “There are a lot of Americans outside the Jewish community, including but not limited to evangelicals, who feel very strongly about Israel.”
In a GOP primary with Romney, Perry probably doesn’t have to worry much about the evangelical vote. But his outspoken defense of Israel will only endear him more to those voters.
Over a quarter of Americans are evangelical Protestants, while less 2 percent of the country is Jewish. Moreover, evangelicals are far more influential in Republican primaries. Exit polling found that in 2008, sixty percent of caucus voters in Iowa and primary voters in South Carolina were evangelicals.
One danger for Perry is that his grandstanding on Israel exposes some holes in his foreign policy knowledge. As the Post’s Glenn Kessler wrote yesterday , two of the three preconditions Perry demanded of Palestinians were met decades ago. The third has only been an issue since March of 2010.
2012 rival Rick Santorum (R)on Tuesday quipped, “I’ve forgotten more about Israel than Rick Perry knows about Israel.”
Posted by Rachel Weiner at 03:54 PM ET, 09/20/2011
Rick Perry has been very interested in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict lately. On the heels of editorials in both the Wall Street Journal and the Jerusalem Post criticizing the Obama Administration’s policies in the Middle East, Perry held a press conference Tuesday morning accusing the president of a “policy of appeasement” toward the Palestinian Authority.
Rick Perry has been outspoken on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict of late. (Melina Mara - THE WASHINGTON POST)
Perry’s interest in Israel is longstanding, and he’s defended the country’s foreign policy before, but not so frequently or vocally. Is he hoping to win over Jewish voters or is it another pitch to win over evangelicals?
As Texas agriculture commissioner in the 1990s, Perry started the Texas-Israel Exchange. In 2009, he traveled to Israel to receive a “Defender of Jerusalem” award. That same year, he told a reporter, “I have a special affection for that country, for the nation of Israel, a remarkable people,” comparing Masada, the sight of a famed battle between the Jews and the Roman Empire, to the Alamo.
Perry’s press conference on Tuesday came as the Obama administration tries to stop a U.N. vote on Palestinian statehood this week. Obama is slated to talk to the U.N. General Assembly on Wednesday.
Furthermore, Obama’s support with Jewish voters is dropping, some say illustrated by an unlikely win last week in the heavily Democratic and Jewish New York 9th district special election contest to replace Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-N.Y.). During Perry’s appearance in New York on Tuesday, newly-minted Empire State GOP Rep. Bob Turner was by his side.
While polling finds that the economy is the main reason for Obama’s drop in Jewish support, many Republicans have seized on the results of last week’s special election as a sign that Israel could become a wedge issue with Jews in swing states in 2012.
“Whoever our Republican nominee is I think is going to have the ability to go into the Jewish community and provide a very strong argument and a very strong contrast” with Obama, said Matt Brooks, executive director of the Republican Jewish Coalition.
A top Perry strategist insisted following Perry’s speech that nothing had changed in terms of the governor’s strategy.
“Consistent, principled positions that don't change depending on what election one might be seeking will always do better amongst all voters,” said Perry strategist Dave Carney. “Our mission is to demonstrate for voters that we can take on Obama on the big issues of the day.”
Answering questions after his remarks Tuesday, Perry framed his Israel advocacy as part of his religion. “As a Christian, I have a clear directive to support Israel,” he said. “As an American and a Christian I will stand with Israel.”
That explicit religious appeal is the sort of comment that could displease Jewish voters. Perry’s hawkish Israel views will likely win him more support among evangelical Christians, many of whom support Zionism for their own religious reasons.
Just before becoming a presidential candidate, the governor held an unabashedly Christian prayer gathering in Houston, “The Response.” A few days ago he spoke at Liberty University, the school founded by evangelical fundamentalist Jerry Fallwell.
Even some Republican Jews were turned off by those events, a sign that Perry might struggle with GOP Jewish donors, who sources say have largely lined up behind former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney already.
Jonathan Tobin, the editor of the neo-conservative Jewish magazine Commentary, wrote earlier this week that “most American Jews fear evangelicals more than Hamas or Hezbollah,” adding that Perry “could send the vast majority of Jews fleeing back to the Democrats, Israel.”
Perry’s social conservativism could also hurt him with Jewish voters.
While more socially conservative Orthodox Jews are the fastest-growing demographic in the Jewish community, the vast majority of Jews still oppose Perry on abortion and same-sex marriage.
And Jews still make a small population in swing states key to the general election. Only 7 percent of Jews in Pittsburgh are Orthodox and only 5 percent of Jews in Cincinnati, Ohio are Orthodox; only 3 percent of the Jews in Palm Beach County are Orthodox, according to the Jewish Databank. (About a third of the Jews in New York’s 9th district are Orthodox.)
Jews aren’t the only constituency in America invested in the Israeli state. According to Pew polling, sixty-four percent of white evangelical Protestants and 62 percent of conservative Republicans say helping Israel should be an important U.S. policy goal, compared with only 34 percent of mainline Protestants and 51 percent of all Republicans.
Fallwell, like Perry was an ardent supporter of Israel. So is evangelical pastor John Hagee, who spoke at Perry’s Prayer gathering.
“I don’t think the focus is on Jewish voters” right now, said Tevi Troy, who served as liaison to the Jewish community in the Bush White House. “There are a lot of Americans outside the Jewish community, including but not limited to evangelicals, who feel very strongly about Israel.”
In a GOP primary with Romney, Perry probably doesn’t have to worry much about the evangelical vote. But his outspoken defense of Israel will only endear him more to those voters.
Over a quarter of Americans are evangelical Protestants, while less 2 percent of the country is Jewish. Moreover, evangelicals are far more influential in Republican primaries. Exit polling found that in 2008, sixty percent of caucus voters in Iowa and primary voters in South Carolina were evangelicals.
One danger for Perry is that his grandstanding on Israel exposes some holes in his foreign policy knowledge. As the Post’s Glenn Kessler wrote yesterday , two of the three preconditions Perry demanded of Palestinians were met decades ago. The third has only been an issue since March of 2010.
2012 rival Rick Santorum (R)on Tuesday quipped, “I’ve forgotten more about Israel than Rick Perry knows about Israel.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)