(no nuance to HillaryClinton's views) she made it clear in her recent book

IN THE MIDDLE EAST CHAPTER OF HER BOOK MS CLINTON MAKES STATEMENTS THAT AT BEST COULD BE CONSIDERED INSENSITIVE TO ISRAEL, OR AT WORST THAT ARE CLEARLY ANTI-ISRAEL

Israel Revolt

Supporters of the Jewish State of Israel may be concerned about a section of Hillary Clinton's new book "Hard Choices." In the Middle East chapter of her book Clinton makes statements that at best could be considered insensitive to Israel, or at worst, clearly anti-Israel. That chapter features the former Secretary of State calling the disputed territories of Judea and Samaria "occupied territories," ignoring the negotiations which occurred during her husband's administration, drawing a false moral equivalence terrorism and Israel's defense of terror, echoing John Kerry's gaffe describing Israel as a potential apartheid state, and ignoring any Israeli claim to East Jerusalem.

On page 302, Clinton writes:

When we left the city and visited Jericho, in the West Bank, I got my first glimpse of life under occupation for Palestinians, who were denied the dignity and self-determination that Americans take for granted

Clinton fails to recognize a truism of peace negotiations, "It takes two to tango." During her husband’s presidency, Israel offered Yasser Arafat a deal that would have given him about 98% of what he wanted. Bill Clinton said after Arafat broke off talks, "I regret that in 2000 Arafat missed the opportunity to bring that nation into being and pray for the day when the dreams of the Palestinian people for a state and a better life will be realized in a just and lasting peace." PA President Abbas turned down a similar deal offered by Ehud Olmert during the Bush presidency.
It is important to note that when Chris Christie called Judea and Samaria “occupied,” supporters of Israel forced him to apologize.  But when Hillary Clinton writes it in a book, her liberal supporters are at a loss for words.
Clinton says on page 308:

There has been nearly a decade of terror, arising from the second intifada, which started in September 2000. About a thousand Israelis were killed and eight thousand wounded in terrorist attacks from September 2000 to February 2005. Three times as many Palestinians were killed and thousands more were injured in the same period.

Like many whose political leanings are anti-Israel, Hillary Clinton draws a false equivalency between the terrorist attacks on Israel and Israel's attempts at self-defense. The second intifada was a bloody and violent period of Palestinian terrorism against Israeli civilians: busloads of children blown up on the way to school, pizza places bombed, even families peacefully celebrating the Passover Seder in a hotel massacred. There is no moral equivalency between an act of terror and a nation's attempts at self-defense.

By writing that more Palestinians were hurt than Israelis, Clinton is alluding to the anti-Israel meme of the IDF's unequal response to Palestinian terror. If one were to follow Clinton's logic, the US should be chastised because Americans in the War on Terror killed more Al Qaeda terrorists than the number of Americans killed during the 9/11/01 attacks.
On page 312, the former Secretary of State writes:

Because of higher birth rates among Palestinians and lower birth rates among Israelis, we were approaching the day when Palestinians would make up a majority of the combined population of Israel and the Palestinian territories, and most of those Palestinians would be relegated to second-class citizenship and unable to vote.

In addition to being factually inaccurate, her comment is essentially a rewording of what current Secretary of State John Kerry said two months ago, that Israel was on the road to becoming an apartheid state. Israel's deputy defense minister Danny Danon gave the best answer to Kerry's remark, a response which is apropos to the Clinton passage as well:

To suggest that the Jewish people would ever establish an apartheid regime was particularly hurtful. Equally hurtful was the implied double standard. Although the administration has from time to time chided the Palestinians for “unhelpful” steps, those comments have not come close to the pointed criticism that has been leveled at our government. This policy of sharing the blame for the collapse of the peace talks, which from the outset was deemed by most independent experts as a long-shot attempt at best, has created the illusion of parity between the two sides. The secretary’s comments make it seem that Israel’s decisions to issue housing tenders, or to exhaustively debate whether to release convicted murders who would have very likely received the death penalty in U.S. courts, were just as damaging to the peace process as the “unity” pact that Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas has now signed with Hamas, a virulently anti-Semitic terrorist organization.
 All citizens of Israel, including the more than 20 percent of the population who are non-Jews, enjoy the same democratic freedoms as well as full human and civil rights. Minorities in Israel participate in our vigorous democracy, are elected to parliament, have served as ministers and preside at all levels of our judicial system, including the Supreme Court. Even the Palestinians of Judea and Samira enjoy full autonomy via the Palestinian Authority. This stands in stark contrast to the rest of the Middle East, where Christian minorities are persecuted and women and homosexuals routinely oppressed. This includes, of course, Hamas-controlled Gaza.

The final entry in Hillary's anti-Israel screed appears on page 317, where Clinton writes:

The sticking point would be Jerusalem. East Jerusalem had been captured along with the West Bank in 1967, and Palestinians dreamed of one day establishing the capital of their future state there.

Clinton ignores the possibility of any validity to Israel’s claim to Jerusalem. Israel didn't capture Jerusalem; Jordan did in 1948. Jews were the majority of Jerusalem's population from the first records in 1844 through the establishment of the state of Israel in 1948 when Jordan kicked out all the Jews.  In fact, Muslims were the third largest religion in the city until roughly 1890.
The Palestinians didn’t want East Jerusalem as their capital until after 1967. Their reason for desiring it is based on the fact that they refuse to recognize any Jewish claim of a historical heritage to Jerusalem or any other part of the Holy land. This despite the fact that there is even a Koranic passage (Koran, Sura 2:145, "The Cow") indicating that Jerusalem is not quite so holy to Muslims, and is passed on to the Jews. The 13th-century Arab biographer and geographer Yakut noted: "Mecca is holy to Muslims, and Jerusalem to the Jews."

In all probability, Hillary Clinton is running for President. She will campaign on the basis that she is a friend of Israel, just as Barack Obama did in 2008. As TruthRevolt reportedlast week, as Secretary of State; Hillary Clinton was the architect of the policy for the most anti-Israel president since the rebirth of Israel in 1948. It was a policy that reflected views Hillary Clinton has held her entire life, with the exception of the nine-year period where she ran for and held the office of U.S. Senator from New York State and relied on Jewish voters. Her lifetime of views about Israel is repeated in her book "Hard Choices." 

(Man In Glass House Dress In Basement)

No Jews allowed in Judea says NY Jews, Muslims and Christians only

Excerpt from... Arutz 7 Op-Ed: NY Federation has Its Own Boycott of Judea and Samaria Ron Jager, July 23, 2013 ...The New York Federation does not cross the 'green line' (known as the pre-1967 borders) unless of course it's to assist Palestinian Arabs, meaning that Jews who could benefit from the many programs that are funded and provided by the New York Federation for the citizens of Israel are effectively barred if they reside in Judea and Samaria. Jews living beyond the green line have been voluntarily boycotted by the New York Federation despite the fact that there is no legal prohibition to support organizations or communities located in these areas, not only according to Israeli law, but also in accordance with American tax law. Any American dollar donated is fully tax deductible to the extent provided by law. This has not stopped the New York Federation from voluntarily boycotting 700,000 Jews along with the Europeans and the many enemies of Israel who have been behind the boycott movements throughout the world. (MORE)

Into the Fray: Ill-considered, inappropriate and inadequate

By MARTIN SHERMAN

12/13/2012 21:40

In response to the Palestinians UN initiative for non-member statehood, Israel must impose permanent penalties, not make provocative proclamations.

You never let a serious crisis go to waste.... What I mean by that it’s an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before. – Rahm Emanuel
The Palestinian leadership, abetted by many Western governments, has now torn up every agreement made with Israel... By essentially unilaterally declaring the existence of an Arab Palestine, the world has abrogated that [Oslo] agreement. – Prof. Barry Rubin
The Palestinian Authority is a fictional entity. It continues to exist only because of the IDF.... We should let it fall apart.... – Prof. Efraim Inbar
The recent decision to announce approval for construction of thousands of housing units in the E1 area east of Jerusalem in response to the Palestinian unilateral bid for statehood at the UN reflected yet another grave error of judgment by the Israeli authorities.
Relegating rights to retaliation
Of course, this is not to say that Israel should refrain from building on the 11.7-sq.km. area atop the barren hills, adjacent to the eastern fringes of the capital, joining it to the town of Ma’aleh Adumim, with its 40,000 strong Jewish population.
Of course it should not. The development of Jerusalem’s east flank should be considered no more than the natural urban growth of the city — an indisputable Zionist imperative, expressed and endorsed by virtually every government over the past four decades.
Indeed, it was none other than Israel’s current president Shimon Peres, who as minister of defense in Yitzhak Rabin’s government in 1977, urged Israel to “create a continuous stretch of new settlements; to bolster Jerusalem and the surrounding hills, from the north, from the east, and from the south and from the west, by means of the establishment of townships, suburbs and villages – Ma’aleh Adumin, Ofra, Gilo, Beit El, Givon...to ensure that the capital and its flanks are secured, and underpinned by urban and rural settlements.”
Significantly, most the locations cited by Peres in the above except are considerably farther from Jerusalem than the much maligned E1 site, which is less than 6.5 km. from the city center and the historic King David Hotel, itself some 1.5 km. from the Knesset.
But lamentably, by deciding to approve construction plans hard on the heels of UN General Assembly Resolution A/67/L.28 granting the Palestinians non-member state status, the government gave the unfortunate impression that its action was more one of retaliation, rather than an exercise of a self-evident, nonnegotiable right.
The timing and context of the E1 approval conveyed the unequivocal impression that had the Palestinians refrained from the UN bid, Israel would have refrained from authorizing the construction.
It thus reduced what should have been considered an unconditional right to a conditioned tit-for-tat response. Rather than being seen as a substantively valid initiative, an indispensable Zionist initiative was perceived as being relegated to a spiteful reaction.
An unavoidable imperative
Paradoxically – or is that perversely? – even figures on the far Left have articulated the rationale for the development of E1. For example, in a recent posting on the radical — indeed as designated by some, anti- Zionist – website +972Magazine, perennial Palestinian apologist Larry Derfner made a presumably unintentional, but compelling, case for construction in the disputed area.
In a piece titled “Israeli consensus much prefers Ma'aleh Adumim to peace,” he writes: “Ma’aleh Adumim, 4.5 kilometers east of Jerusalem, built in 1975, is...deep in the heart of the national consensus. Ma’aleh Adumim is thought of, correctly, as a suburb of Jerusalem; the people aren’t popularly regarded as settlers but as average middle-class Israelis; in past elections, a decent percentage of them voted Labor, and a few even voted Meretz.”
In what one can only assume is an attempt at disparaging sarcasm, he continues, peppering his prose with profanities, presumably permissible in progressive postings:
“It’s not one of those ‘tiny, isolated settlements,’ it’s a ‘settlement bloc,’ it’s one of the ‘Jerusalem-area’ settlements, it ‘protects Jerusalem’ by being on the high ground nearby, it gives Israel ‘defensible borders’ – it’s a Jerusalem security defensible borders settlement bloc with 40,000 people, for fuck’s sake, do you want to give that up, are you crazy?”
Then, apparently endeavoring to show that Ma’aleh Adumin and peace are incompatible, Derfner drives the following point home powerfully: “And here’s the thing – to keep Ma’aleh Adumim, Israel has to build E1, those thousands of homes connecting it to Jerusalem, because otherwise the only thing connecting it to the capital will be a thin highway with nothing but Palestine on either side. Indefensible. Not viable. Ma’aleh Adumim would be isolated. So if you want to keep it – and who doesn’t, except the left-wing fringe? – you have to build E1.”
Couldn’t have put it better myself, Larry.
Inescapable conclusions
Whatever his motivations, Derfner’s analysis is spot on and underscores dramatically why it was a serious misjudgment to allow the development of E1 to be seen as a response precipitated by the Palestinian UN initiative. For unless Ma’aleh Adumim is to be abandoned — something which no Israeli government over the last 40 years has ever contemplated – it can only be secured by “welding” it to Jerusalem — which in turn requires undertaking the construction planned in E1.
It therefore makes little sense to predicate such a national necessity on what the Palestinians may or may not do. After all, even if the Palestinians were to take the inconceivable step of rescinding their UN accomplishment, it would not diminish the need to build in the contentious area.
This brings up several interesting questions on the issue of territorial contiguity, which opponents of the E1 project have raised vociferously, wailing that it would cut Bethlehem off from Ramallah, thus dooming any possibility of a two-state solution (TSS).
These claims are demonstrably bogus, as even a cursory glance at the map would reveal.
One can only wonder whether TSS advocates realize how such claims undermine the basic rationale of their case. For if the viability of a Palestinian state can be irreparably jeopardized by a construction project on 11.7 uninhabited sq.km., if the whole notion of Palestinian independence stands or falls on whether such a project is implemented or not, surely then the entire TSS-concept is so ludicrously fragile that it is operationally untenable.
The question of contiguity
But of course the question of territorial contiguity is entirely contrived.
Even without going into the discussion of the options of connecting these two towns, barely 15 km. miles apart, by elaborate systems of tunnels/ over-passes that traverse E1, laying down a new road bypassing Ma’aleh Adumim from the west, rather than from the east, would hardly be an insurmountable engineering feat. True, this might make Palestinians’ journey somewhat longer, but it would still probably be shorter than the drive from downtown Los Angeles to Malibu along Sunset Boulevard.
By contrast, however, if the E1 project is not implemented, Ma’aleh Adumim and its tens of thousands of Jewish residents would have a real problem of contiguity. As Derfer points out — or perhaps, hopes — it would be an isolated enclave “with nothing but Palestine on either side. Indefensible. Not viable...”
It is more than a little bewildering to hear howls of hysteria from TSS-proponents, protesting that the possible need for a detour in the route between Bethlehem and Ramallah would critically undermine the viability of a Palestinian state, yet who see no problem in including the far-more detached, and far-more distant Gaza Strip in their envisioned entity.
One can only shake one’s head in puzzlement as to why they would raise such a bogus brouhaha over an essentially nonexistent contiguity problem, yet accept with total equanimity the virtually insoluble difficulty of the geographical disconnect between the “West Bank” and Gaza, where almost 40 percent of the population of the putative Palestine state reside.
Go figure.
Ill-considered, inappropriate, inadequate
The preceding paragraphs underscore why the government’s E1 decision, while substantively valid, was, in the context that it was taken, strategically inappropriate, politically ill-considered and operationally inadequate.
It inflicted no real retribution on the Palestinians in practical terms, yet it precipitated a maelstrom of diplomatic censure and again raised evermore tangibly the threat of economic sanctions, which may, as in the past, result in the declared Israeli measures being suspended or even totally abandoned, and in effect reward rather than punish the Palestinians.
I am not suggesting that Israel balk at the unwarranted display of international ire, but that if it is going to incur the wrath of the world, it might as well be for measures that have real and lasting — indeed permanent — strategic effects.
What would such measures entail?
The required recipe is implicit in the three introductory excerpts, which lay out:
1. The principle enunciated by Rahm Emanuel (Utilizing a crisis to facilitate actions which otherwise would not be undertaken);
2. The opportunity identified by Barry Rubin (The effective abrogation of the Oslo Accords by the world); and
3. The measures prescribed by Efraim Inbar (Let the Palestinian Authority fall apart).
Punitive penalties not provocative proclamations
The policy that flows from this prescription, and constitutes the fitting Israeli response to the Palestinians’ internationally endorsed “diplomatic aggression” at the UN, should comprise penalties that are permanently punitive – not mere proclamations that are little more than politically provocative.
As I hinted at last week, the first measure is to make it clear to the Palestinians — and to their international supporters — that if it is independence they demand, then independent they will have to be.
Accordingly, Israel must convey in unequivocal terms that forthwith it will cease to provide every service and merchandise that it provides them today. In other words, no water, no electricity, no fuel, no postal services, no communications, no port facilities, no tax collection or remittances will be supplied by Israel.
If sovereignty is their goal, then sovereign they will have to be.
After all, what possible claim could be invoked to coerce one sovereign entity to provide for another purportedly sovereign entity – and an overtly adversarial one at that? When Israel declared its independence in 1948, no Arab country rushed to help it develop and evolve.
Quite the opposite. The Arab world imposed embargoes and boycotts on it — and on anyone with the temerity to conduct commerce with it.
Mitigating the humanitarian impact
This message need not be delivered in a provocative, confrontational public statement but through confidential diplomatic channels to all concerned parties.
Although discretely conveyed, there should be no doubt as to Israel’s resolve to implement its stated intent — or as to the repercussions thereof: The Palestinians will have to find alternative sources for their utility requirements and day-to-day needs.
Without Israeli support — both military and monetary — it is an open question as to whether the Palestinian Authority will implode within a matter of weeks or months.
The mendacious mantle of Palestinian nationhood must once and for all be ripped asunder. It must be underscored that the burden of maintaining this fictional fabrication will fall to those nations that endorsed it – should they care to shoulder such an onerous and expensive responsibility.
It may be surprising how rapidly international appetite for Palestinian statehood wanes if its sponsors realize that they will have to bear the financial consequences of its sustenance.
Such measures are undoubtedly likely to precipitate great socioeconomic hardships for the Palestinians, which Israel should endeavor to mitigate.
It should do so — as I have prescribed in detail in numerous columns – by offering Palestinians wishing to extricate themselves from the unenviable predicament wrought upon them by their incompetent, corrupt leadership – and by their myopic and malevolent supporters abroad — generous relocation grants that will enable them to seek happier lives in some alternative country of their choice.
Far-fetched or feasible?
Of course, there will be those who are skeptical as to the feasibility of such prescriptions. And indeed, numerous operational aspects of its implementation —which regrettably cannot be detailed in a single column — need to be fleshed out.
But the skeptical and the fainthearted should remember that with sufficient resources, Israel managed to develop and deploy unprecedented defense systems such as the Iron Dome to withstand physical attacks.
There is no reason to believe that, with a commensurate investment of ingenuity and resources, an “Iron Dome” to withstand political attacks could not be devised and deployed.
After all, in the grim days of the 1950s when the country was hanging on by a thread, engulfed by waves of immigration, with its fledgling economy teetering on collapse and surrounded by a sea of Arab aggression, who would have believed that Zionism would outlast Communism; that the nascent nano-state Israel would outlive the mega-Soviet empire; that a struggling agrarian economy would within a few decades become one of the world’s leaders in industry and technology.
As once someone said: If you will it, it is no dream.
Martin Sherman (www.martinsherman.net) is the founder and executive director of the Israel Institute for Strategic Studies.

via jpost.com

contiguous for you. contiguous for me. contiguous money to get the fuck out of our way and no we won't fund our own destruction because of Oslo anymore

It continues: Obama pressuring Netanyahu not to respond to 'Palestinian statehood' bid by building in E-1 (Jerusalem - Maaleh Adumim corridor)

At least since 2005, there has been talk in Israel about building in E-1 (see map above), the area between Jerusalem and Maaleh Adumim. The advantages would be obvious. Building in E-1 and expanding the city eastward would be a lot less destructive to the environment than building westward. There is much more room to build to the east than to the west. And most importantly, E-1 would serve as a buffer between Judea and Jerusalem, precluding a contiguous 'Palestinian state' that reaches Jerusalem at that point. It is for that final reason that the United States and the 'international community' have opposed Jewish building in E-1. In fact, Israel has built some infrastructure in E-1, but backed off opening a police station there that would have asserted Israeli control.
Now, it's happened again. JPost reports this morning that one of Israel's possible responses to a unilateral declaration of a 'Palestinian' reichlet with UN approval would be construction on E-1. And the Hussein Obama administration is 'urging' (read: threatening) Israel not to do it.
In the meantime, the Europeans have not yet decided how they will vote at the UN on Thursday (yes, this Thursday, the annual day to deprecate Israel and call for a 'Palestinian' reichlet.

via israelmatzav.blogspot.com

I'd like to know what kind of threats Obama made to Netanyahu concerning E1 building and if this does not see the light of day there is a little thing in Israel called Democracy. Bibi could lose power to the right... and that would be the end of Obama's leverage. Obama might of won the election, but he got caught as a tyrant with the Benghazi riot. When the public knows the president blamed a Youtube video and asked for censorship to cover up his own sins, Obama is in no position to take the higher ground with a country he claims friendship with.

Demographic trends in the Land of Israel

As this study clearly documented,
“the shifting sands of demography”
in the Middle East work in favor
of the Jewish state,
not against it, as Mr. Emanuel argued.

Doomsday scenario?:
Demographic time bomb?Read it all!

via
daledamos.blogspot.comvia
Demographic Trends in the Land of Israel
(excerpts)
Yakov Faitelson
January 15, 2011
@
theettingerreport.com

via
israelmatzav.blogspot.com

Clearly, Obama and Rahm Emanuel anchored their arguments in the conjured estimates of the Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics. A 2006 World Bank study found a “32% ‘inflation’ in the number of Arab births, ” alleged by the Palestinians.

A more recent comprehensive study on Jewish-Arab Demographic Trends in the Land of Israel, published earlier this year by Yakov Faitelson, found that “ in 2011 there is a 66% Jewish majority … in the combined area of pre-1967 Israel, Judea and Samaria.”

The study demonstrated that “Despite 120 years of demographic calamity projections, the Jewish population in the Land of Israel succeeded to grow from a 5% minority to a 60% majority.”

“In 2010, the Jewish fertility rate is 63% higher than Lebanon’s, 53% higher than Iran’s, 33% higher than Turkey’s and Kuwait’s, 23% higher than Saudi Arabia’s, slightly higher than Egypt’s and only 7% and 4% lower than Jordan’s and Syria’s respectively.” “Israeli Arab fertility rate has collapsed since the 1970s [due to a most successful integration into the infrastructures of education, employment, finance, politics, culture, sports, etc.]…It declined to 3.5 births per woman in 2009.”
“In 1995, there were 2.34 Jewish births per 1 Arab birth. In 2009-10, there were 3.12 Jewish births per 1 Arab birth.”

“The demographic trends within pre-1967 Israel are identical to those in Judea and Samaria…but, in a much faster pace. The fertility rate of Judea and Samaria Arabs dropped from 6.44 births per woman in 1990 to 3.12 births in 2010…lower than Israeli Arabs and substantially lower than the Jewish fertility rate in the Jerusalem region.”

1.  "Despite 120 years of demographic calamity projections, the Jewish population in the Land of Israel succeeded to grow from a 5% minority to a 60% majority."
2.  "The expanded Jewish population (6,122,000) grows faster than the highest scenario of the 2007 projection made by Israel's Central Bureau of Statistics.  The Arab population (1,573,000) grows in accordance with the lowest scenario."
3. "According to the UN Population Division, the overall Middle East fertility rate peaked during the 1950s (6.33 births per woman) and declined gradually to 2.95 births in 2010."
4. "The Jewish fertility rate has risen since 1995, reaching 2.9 in 2010."
5. "In 2010, the Jewish fertility rate is 63% higher than Lebanon's, 53% higher than Iran's, 33% higher than Turkey's and Kuwait's, 23% higher than Saudi Arabia's, slightly higher than Egypt's and only 7% and 4% lower than Jordan's and Syria's respectively."
6. "The growth in Jewish fertility is driven by secular and not by religious or ultra-religious Jews. Since 2003, there has been a decline in ultra-religious fertility…The surge in secular fertility is driven mainly by the Olim (immigrants) from the former USSR…Their children and grandchildren has adopted typical Israeli fertility rates. According to Israel's Central Bureau of Statistics, Israeli-born Jewish fertility rate was over 3 births in 2009."
7. "Israeli Arab fertility rate has collapsed since the 1970s [due to a most successful integration into the infrastructures of education, employment, finance, politics, culture, sports, etc.]…It declined to 3.5 births per woman in 2009…By 2009 only 8.4% of 15 year old Arab women did not enroll in school."
8. "In 1995, there were 2.34 Jewish births per 1 Arab birth. In 2009-10, there were 3.12 Jewish births per 1 Arab birth."
9. "The demographic trends within pre-1967 Israel are identical to those in Judea and Samaria…but, in a much faster pace. The fertility rate of Judea and Samaria Arabs dropped from 6.44 births per woman in 1990 to 3.12 births in 2010...lower than Israeli Arabs and substantially lower than the Jewish fertility rate in the Jerusalem region."
10. "Net-emigration from the Palestinian Authority was 321,239 during 2007-1994, averaging about 23,000 annually."
11. "Mustafa Khawaja of the Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics: Net-emigration in 2007 reached about 60,000…Jordan recorded 44,000 and 63,000 net-emigration, during the first eight months in 2009 and 2008 respectively, through its-controlled international passages along the Jordan River."

Anti-Zionists freak over "Judea and Samaria"

(EOZ) Anti-Zionist activists are at it again, freaking out over a week-old story in Arutz-7:

According to a report in Israel National News, the commander of Israel Army Radio, the national radio station in Israel operated by the Israel Defense Forces, has determined that all the station’s reporters should refer to the West Bank as “Judea and Samaria.” The report states the decision was made as a result of complaints made by Israel Media Watch that the radio station’s referral to the area as the “West Bank” gives the impression to listeners that the territory does not in fact belong to Israel.
Israel Army Radio is a popular mainstream station in Israel listened to by people from across the political spectrum. It is thus significant that it is now being directed to use the same terminology used by the settler movement when invoking the Biblical, divine notion of “Greater Israel” that is completely detached from reality, diplomacy and human rights.

The author added:

I just chose to point out this news item since it is a good example of the “zeitgeist” in Israel, the slow unraveling of rhetoric that exposes the reality on the ground.

I love how these guys believe that "West Bank" is a historic term and "Judea and Samaria" are modern, rightist settler terms, a phrase daring enough to ring alarm bells in their little heads that cannot conceive of a Middle East before the 1970s.
So here's a quick look through the news archives from the 1950s through the 1970s.
From a National Geographic News Bulletin, from 1956:

The Free Lance-Star, 1965:

The term "west bank" was used between 1948 and 1967, almost exclusively without capitalization.
Before there were any settlements, the Labor-led Israeli government called the area "Judea and Samaria" as this 1968 UPI article shows:

Soon, the anti-Israel crowd started to push the use of the term "West Bank" as a proper name. Note that happened after 1967, showing that it wasn't a Jordanian initiative, Here's an example of one of the earliest uses of the term as a proper name from an AP article written in 1971, referring to the "so-called West Bank:"

Soon the "so-called" part was dropped, but the two terms were used together for a while still. Here's one from 1974, still with lower-case, from UPI:

But soon the Big Lie that only Israelis referred to the area as Judea and Samaria started to take hold. From Reuters, 1975:

And this lie spread so quickly that only two years later AP accused Israel of trying to rename the "West Bank" to Judea and Samaria!

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is how a lie is created.
So today the use of the correct historical term for the area is considered extremist, and the use of the anomalous term created when Jordan illegally annexed the area for 19 years is considered normative.
(To their credit, most leftist commenters to the article cited noted that there is nothing political about referring to the area as Judea and Samaria. Calling it The West Bank, on the other hand, is purely political - first to make it appear as part of Jordan and later to avoid giving it any Biblical connotation.)

Freeze would be ethnic cleansing says Boogie

The IDF's former chief of staff who resigned over the Gaza expulsion, and who is now number 3 on the Likud's list, has openly allied himself with Feiglin. And again Binyamin Netanyahu is not pleased about losing the loyalty of Ya’alon. 

“The demand for territory without Jews anywhere else would be called ethnic cleansing,” Ya’alon said. “We cannot accept a demand for ethnic cleansing in the land of Israel.”
Vice Premier Moshe Ya’alon came out fiercely against a reported proposal for an Israeli construction moratorium in Judea and Samaria Saturday night, calling the prohibition of Jewish building “ethnic cleansing.”

Speaking to a packed audience at Jerusalem’s Great Synagogue, Ya’alon referred indirectly to a Haaretz report that Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu is willing to freeze all construction on government land in West Bank settlements if Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas resumes direct diplomatic negotiations.

Ya’alon said that Israel was under pressure from people who incorrectly believe the cause of the Middle East conflict is the building of homes in Judea and Samaria. He denounced that theory as “a corrupt way of thinking” and explained why the true cause of Middle East instability was the Islamic fundamentalism emanating from Iran.

The vice premier expressed confidence that an International Atomic Energy Association report set to be released on November 7 would expose to any remaining skeptics in the international community the military intentions of Iran’s nuclear program. He said he hoped sanctions on Iran could then be tightened.

Ya’alon called the Arab Spring “a regional earthquake” that exposed young Muslims to Western ideals such as human rights, women’s rights, freedom of speech, and “the sanctity of life as opposed to the sanctity of death.”

But he said he was not encouraged by radical elements apparently gaining the upper hand in Egypt and Tunisia, al-Qaida infiltrating Libya and Iran attempting to export its Islamic fundamentalism throughout the Arab world.

He made a point of not explaining his vote against the Gilad Schalit deal beyond what he had said before about his heart saying yes and his head saying no.

“We should be happy about the reunification of Schalit’s family but prepared to deal with the consequences for the future as a government and a society,” he said.

Joe Walsh Israeli resolution being prepared

Palestine breaking Oslo presents a rare opportunity. The only losers in this situation would be those who think peace is possible with Arabs.

(Politico) ...Walsh is moving forward with his resolution after meeting last month in Israel with Danny Danon, a deputy speaker of the Knesset and Likud Party member known for criticizing Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu from the right. Earlier this year, Danon introduced a bill that would annex all of “Area C,” a large portion of the West Bank [AKA Judea and Samaria] that includes Jewish settlements and rural lands but would spare the largest Palestinian cities. Danon’s now leading a campaign to pressure Netanyahu to move forward with the unilateral annexation. Walsh, who said he’d been considering a similar measure before arriving in Israel in August, confirmed that he and Danon “bounced some ideas off each other” on the resolution. Danon argued in a New York Times op-ed earlier this year that a request from Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas [AKA Abu Mazen] for a U.N. statehood declaration would amount to a nullification of the Oslo Accords, which dictate that “neither side shall initiate or take any step that will change the status of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip pending the outcome of the permanent status negotiations.” That means the country would be free to annex unilaterally, he wrote. In the op-ed, Danon downplayed the potential international consequences by pointing to past Israeli annexations as evidence the country could withstand international condemnation.

Finally, Israel considering revoking of #Oslo Accords

by Barak Ravid, HAARETZ
A team headed by National Security Adviser Ya’akov Amidror is looking into calling off the Oslo Accords in response to the Palestinian Authority’s unilateral plan to gain United Nations recognition for an independent state.
The Prime Minister’s Bureau confirmed yesterday only that the NSC was discussing many alternatives ahead of September, and would be presenting them to the political echelon for a decision when it was done.

Israeli officials did confirm that recent discussions held by Amidror had mentioned the option of voiding the Oslo Accords. However, this is not considered a leading alternative, they said.
“It is one of the options that will be presented to the political echelon,” a source said.
[..]
A senior Israeli official said that three weeks ago, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu told Amidror to start drafting day-after plans with other government bodies. These include recommending a potential Israeli political response.
Another senior Israel official noted that Amidror has started initial discussions at the NSC with representatives from the foreign, defense, finance, industry and trade, and justice ministries, as well as from the Israel Defense Forces Planning Bureau and the Military Advocate General’s Department of International Law.
The NSC asked the various government offices to consider the implications of Israel announcing that it considers the Oslo Accords void due to the unilateral Palestinian move, should the General Assembly approve the bid.
Israel is concerned that the Palestinians may use the General Assembly resolution in order to launch a legal fight in the International Court at the Hague, or to try to alter the economic and security arrangements reached over the past 18 years.
NSC officials told representatives of the various government and military bodies that Israel would not initiate such a move, but may do so in response to the Palestinian actions. The various bodies were asked to present their views and legal opinions, and to offer possible responses. The matter has still not been discussed by the ministers.
“Netanyahu is opposed to actions such as annexing settlements to Israel in response to a Palestinian move at the UN,” said an Israeli source familiar with the discussions. “Therefore, the NSC is evaluating other possibilities, one of them being voiding the Oslo Accords. In any case, there is no decision yet.”
The Oslo Accords between Israel and the PLO were struck between 1993 and 1995, and are the legal framework for the relationship between Israel and the Palestinian Authority in matters including security, economy and infrastructure.
Doing away with the accords would require reexamining key issues, primarily the status of the PA in the West Bank.
Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman had mentioned doing away with the Oslo Accords during a meeting with European Union High Representative Catherine Ashton on June 17.
Even though Lieberman supports such a response to a unilateral Palestinian move, officials at the Foreign Ministry consider such action “counterproductive.”

via israpundit.com

I hope so. I really do hope so.

Absorbing the Arab population of Judea and Samaria would increase Israel's Arab minority from 20% to 33% of the overall population.

...Demographic trends in the Land of Israel

...As this study clearly documented,
“the shifting sands of demography”
in the Middle East work in favor
of the Jewish state...

...it's my nature said the scorpion...

...Israel would have to consider its electoral laws and weigh the prospect of moving from a proportional representation system to a direct, district system. It would have to begin enforcing its laws toward its Arab citizens in a manner identical to the way it enforces its laws against its Jewish citizens. This includes everything from administrative laws concerning building to criminal statutes related to treason. It would have to ensure that Arab schoolchildren are no longer indoctrinated to hate Jews, despite the fact that according to the Israel Project survey, 53% of Palestinians support such anti-Semitic indoctrination in the classroom.

...In a Palestinian public opinion survey released last week by The Israel Project, 65 percent of Palestinians said they believe that they should conduct negotiations with Israel... According to the survey, those two-thirds of Palestinians believe that talks should not lead to the establishment of the State of Palestine next to Israel and at peace with the Jewish state. They believe the establishment of "Palestine" next to Israel should serve as a means for continuing their war against Israel. The goal of that war is to destroy what's left of Israel after the "peace" treaty and gobble it into "Palestine." That is, 66% of Palestinians believe "peace" talks with Israel should be conducted in bad faith. via carolineglick.com

What Are BDS Proponents Complaining About? Aren't They Getting What They Want?

The Boycott Bill, stipulates that anyone calling for an economic, cultural or academic boycott against the Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria will be unable to participate in government tenders. In addition, any person who considers himself a victim of a boycott could sue the boycotter for compensation. Court gives state 60 days to explain Boycott Law.  Z Street is wondering what all the fuss is with Israel's new anti-BDS law:

An interesting precedent is in Germany dealing with Holocaust deniers without physical boundaries. The lawyer Eugene Volks sees this as a threat to Democracy. The delegitimizers, i.e. the BDS practitioners and their enablers (NIF, J Street, Peace Now) immediately attacked it as a gross violation of free speech... ...Many central to further right-leaning pro-Israel organizations are also expressing criticism... Also recently the United States declared that effected markets has no boundaries to prove cause of information crimes. The law does NOT criminalize speech and it does NOT restrict free speech. BDS practitioners can continue to say whatever vile things they want about Israel, but they simply are not eligible for government contracts if they do. Well goodness, isn't that what they want? NOT to engage in financial transactions with the "evil ZioNazi government"? image via Israeli BDS Activists Call on Artists to Boycott Music Festival h/t Daled Amos

Israel Importing Russian Prostitutes with AIDS to West Bank to Infect Palestinians

...it would be stupid to inject your prostitutes with HIV because what goes around... comes around. The Russians have not exactly shown bias between Muslims and Jews. Just look around the Haaretz newspaper office. Let me tell you about 'em RUSSIAN whores!

The Zionist regime [Israel] wants to spread the HIV virus among Palestinian workers to the Palestinian nation. Schahed Saad, secretary general of the Palestinian workers' union said the Zionist regime [Israel] had imported 150 HIV infected prostitutes from Russia to the West Bank in hopes of them infecting Palestinian workers. (h/t Silke)

Update: It seems that this libel is not entirely new. 
In fact, on March 11, 1997, the Palestinian representative to the United Nations Human Rights Commission charged that "The Israeli authorities infected, by injection, 300 Palestinian children with the HIV virus during the years of the intifada." Israel's ambassador to the U.N. commission at the time was Yosef Lamdan. Lamdan condemned the accusation and said: "The Palestinian observer has never had a reputation for accuracy and integrity, but today he has surpassed himself. This is a blatant barefaced lie, an absolute and total libel. The product of a sick and infected mind." 

The Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics recently held a seminar in which they discussed the fact that Palestinians were at risk of getting HIV "due to their daily contact with Israelis."

In related news, Israeli scientists have developed a method that wipes out HIV infected cells without affecting the healthy ones. 

via challahhuakbar.blogspot.com and image via some Anti-Israel website that hates Sarah Palin enough for me to forgive Sarah Palin for Rand Paul

Noam Chomsky Attacks Israel's 'Expansion Over Security' at UCLA Lecture on 'Palestine in Crisis'

Chomsky concluded the question and answer session by arguing that Osama Bin Laden was assassinated,
"murdered," so that the U.S. could avoid putting Bin Laden on trial,
because "they have no evidence against him.
"That final jab at the U.S. went over extremely well with the crowd of anti-Americans
 and Arafat-styled student-cum-terrorists.

...this clip captures more of Chomsky's comments on U.S. policy than his remarks on Israeli expansionism. Here he argues that from Washington's perspective democracy and freedom in the Middle East are antithetical to American interests. The U.S. and Israel allegedly fear the Arab Spring because the revolutions threaten American hegemony in the region. Chomsky spouts a lot of disinformation, which is his trademark. He says at 40 seconds that "about 90 percent of Egyptians view the United States as the main enemy" and that "about 80 percent in the region wanted to be sure Iran had nuclear weapons":

Chomsky changes his mind on WMDS in Iraq?

Actually, public opinion in Egypt is much more complicated than that, and while there's obviously variation across individual polls and over time, there's no support for Chomky's claim of "80 percent" across the region supporting Iran's acquisition of nuclear weapons. In fact, according to a Pew Global Attitudes survey in April 2010, "a majority of respondents in Turkey, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon as well as Israel said the spread of nuclear weapons was a major threat" (the number was 41 percent in Egypt).

Pushing 'Islamophobia' at UCLA?

UCLA Palestine Awareness Week.

...Muslim Student Association Pledge of Allegiance:
Jihad is my spirit, I will die to establish Islam

But these are only quick examples of the kind of propaganda one hears at a Noam Chomsky lecture. Indeed, what's even more fascinating than hearing Chomsky's America-bashing is observing the rock star status he's afforded by the huge crowd of collegiate wannabe bohemians, diehard pro-terror communists, and the campus Islamist jihadis who thronged the event. I'll post pictures later. Chomsky was swarmed by extremist acolytes upon entering the lecture hall. Upon speaking, it was as if his attacks on "American imperialism" and "corporate dominance" were like throwing bags of candy to children. I arrived at UCLA at 5:00pm, and the event was scheduled from 6:00 to 8:00pm.

Without citing a single piece of evidence—
At the conclusion of the event, Chomsky responded to questions and went off on his familiar rant about how those who proclaim themselves pro-Israel are actually working feverishly for its moral degeneration and ultimate destruction. Chomsky then returned of the comparison of Israel to apartheid South Africa, and while he admitted key differences, he argued that in one key similarity the time will come when Israel's crisis of legitimation becomes overwhelming, and forces upon it a reckoning for the survival of the Jewish state.

I hope Chomsky starts listening before he dies

Read the Rest via americanpowerblog.blogspot.com

Judea and Samaria leaders write a letter to the United Nations

Please see below letter signed by Shomron Governor Gershon Mesika, Beit El mayor Moshe Rosenbuam, Benyamin residents head Yitzchak Shadmi and others. In this letter local leaders demand that the Unite Nations rocognize Jewish rights to the area of Judea and Samaria AKA "West Bank". This offers a just alternative to notions of establishing an Islamic regime in the area like was done in Gaza after Israeli pullout in 2005. (I received this letter via email from Shomron Liaison Office Executive Director David HaIvri).

Secretary-General of the United Nations
Mr. Ban Ki Moon
Dear Mr. Secretary-General:
In this letter we respectfully wish to draw your attention, inter alia, to the repeated references by the UN to the territories liberated by Israel in the 1967 Six Day War – territories until then illegally occupied by the Kingdom of Jordan – as “occupied Palestinian territory (oPt)” in UN communiqués. For your own most recent use of this term, see UN News Service, 23 March 2011, “UN Chief condemns bomb attack in West Jerusalem”. By repeatedly referring to the “occupied Palestinian territory” (or “occupied Palestinian territories” (as in UN News Service, 1 April 2011), you are unwittingly concealing from the public the true legal status of the lands to which you refer and causing the Jewish people unwarranted anguish. We describe hereunder in concise fashion the facts relevant to the topic:
The territories liberated in 1967 from the illegal Jordanian occupation that had lasted from the signing of the Israeli-Jordanian Armistice Agreement in 1949 to the second week of June 1967, are lands belonging eternally, legally and unambiguously to the Jewish People, as clearly shown as follows:
1.
The entire Land of Israel was promised and granted to the Jewish People, the descendants of the Patriarchs, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, by the Almighty for all time, as recorded time and again in the opening Five Books of the Hebrew Bible (e.g., Genesis 15:21; Deuteronomy 1:8 et al.), accepted by the adherents of the Christian faith whose Bible encompasses the aforementioned Books, and confirmed in various places in the holy book of Islam, the Kur’an (e.g., Sura 2 et al.). This fundamental precept of Jewish faith is reinforced by various expositions in another Jewish holy book, the Talmud, study of which is common not only in Jewish schools but also in those of South Korea.
2.
Despite the destruction of the Jerusalem Temple and the expulsion by force of the Jewish People from their Land by the Roman Empire at the outset of the common era (70 C.E.) after over a thousand years of consecutive Jewish presence in the Land, the various Jewish communities throughout the world maintained their spiritual and historical connection with their Holy Land, and this connection was then recognized by the entire international community during the period from November 1917 (the issuance of the Balfour Declaration), through 1920 when Great Britain was entrusted with the Mandate for Palestine and enjoined thereby to ensure the implementation of the Balfour Declaration, and 1922 (with the 52 member-states of the League of Nations confirming the Mandate) to December 1925 (when the Anglo-American Convention Relating to the Mandate for Palestine signed a year earlier was proclaimed before Congress by President Coolidge). Thus was the de jure sovereignty of the Jewish People over all of its Land, which the nations called “Palestine”, confirmed, while attributes of sovereignty were entrusted to the United Kingdom in order that it might prepare world Jewry for the successful administration of its nascent Jewish State, soon to be established in all of the Holy Land, i.e., on both sides of the Jordan River – all this as determined by the World War I Principal Allied Powers at San Remo in 1920 and formalized in the Mandate for Palestine. For the entire Mandate period, Great Britain worked assiduously to wreck the implementation of the Mandate by means of a series of “White Papers” that distorted the original aim of the Mandate beyond recognition.
3.
Even as the League of Nations disintegrated, the founders of the UN organization, the new body intended to replace the now-defunct League and at the head of which you, Mr. Secretary-General, now stand, guaranteed the continuity of Jewish legal rights to the Land of Israel by means of Article 80 of the UN Charter. The UN General Assembly, however, brushed this article aside and recommended the partition of “Palestine”, (1947) an illegal recommendation rejected out of hand by the Arabs of the Land and by the leaders of the Arab states who were unwilling to concede even a square inch of land to the returning Jewish People. This GA resolution was never legal, was never of an obligatory nature, has been dead for over 63 years and cannot be resurrected. The very opposite is what is required of the UN at this time: to recognize the continuity of Jewish legal rights to the entire Land of Israel under Article 80 of the UN Charter!
4.
The ensuing war (1947-9) forced on Israel by the invading armies of five Arab states ended in the signing of armistice agreements perpetuating until the achievement of peace the military lines held by the sides when the cease-fire went into effect and stating explicitly that these lines were not to be considered final borders nor were they to influence in any way the final borders when these should be determined in peace agreements. This, Mr. Secretary-General, is the infamous Green Line, which the UN seems to regard illogically as a border (“the 1967 borders”) between Israel and the Arabs living in Judea and Samaria, who were never a party to any armistice agreement and who had never considered themselves a separate people to either exercise or even demand a theoretical right to self-determination – as demonstrated by their resounding silence during over 18 years of Jordanian occupation and unrecognized illegal annexation (1949-1967). This silence still echoes significantly through the corridors of time and serves to interpret subsequent “Palestinian” Arab maneuvering.
5.
In 1967, war – the Six-Day War – was once again forced on Israel by four Arab states: Egypt, Syria, Jordan and Iraq, as the inevitable result of the Egyptian dismissal of the small UN force that had for the previous decade maintained the fragile ceasefire between Egypt and Israel, of the naval blockade imposed by Egypt on shipping to and from Israel’s port of Eilat; of international reluctance to intervene; and of the placing of the Egyptian, Syrian and Jordanian armed forces under a unified command. One of the spectacular results of this war was the expulsion of Jordanian forces from the regions of Judea and Samaria (the regions Jordan had called her “West Bank”) and the summary end of the 18-year-long illegal Jordanian occupation of those lands.
6.
Naïvely hoping that the Arab states, after their stunning defeat, would realize there was no logical alternative but to come to terms with Israel and sign peace treaties with her in return for the territories they had lost in the war, the Israeli government unwisely refrained from incorporating Judea and Samaria into the State of Israel – as she was legally obligated to do, the Jewish people having been awarded de jure sovereignty over this territory at San Remo long before (1920) and this having been confirmed by the Council of the League of Nations in 1922 – and, instead of applying Israeli law to the liberated territories, voluntarily applied the humanitarian provisions of the Laws of War, as embodied inter alia in the Fourth Geneva Convention. This was a step taken by Israel, Mr. Secretary-General, not out of legal compulsion (as would have been the case had the areas held been captured from a legal sovereign), but merely to protect the inhabitants of Judea and Samaria for what was naïvely expected to be a short interim period. This demonstrates clearly, Mr. Secretary-General, the absurdity of considering this land “occupied”, despite contrary interpretations provided even by some of Israel’s own jurists of international acclaim, who have, in a sense, turned out to be no less than the Muammar Ghaddafi of the Jewish People.
7.
As even a beginning student of Middle East history is well aware, the Arabs responded with a resounding “NO!” to peace, “NO!” to negotiations with Israel and “NO!” even to the possibility of Arab recognition of the Jewish State.
8.
It was only in 1979 that Egypt signed a peace treaty with Israel and much later, in 1994, that Jordan did likewise. The Arabs living in the Land of Israel have refused to this day to end their hostilities, incitement and criminal terrorism against the Jews and the Jewish State; indeed, some “Palestinian” factions have entered into negotiations with Israel, but never have they been prepared to bring these negotiations to a successful conclusion, despite the painful concessions Israel has offered them in order to achieve peace.
9.
The time has undoubtedly come – in fact, it is long overdue, Mr. Secretary-General – for the international community as represented by the UN to recognize the fact that the Arabs of the Land of Israel do not want their own state, nor do they want to conclude a peace agreement with the State of Israel; all they desire is the destruction of Israel; the time has indeed come to reaffirm international recognition of the immutable rights of the Jewish People to all of their historical homeland.
10.
Let us consider two cases in modern history, Mr. Secretary-General, [1] that of Namibia and [2] that of Jordan:
[1] Just as the Principal Allied Powers of World War I granted a mandate for Palestine to Great Britain at San Remo in 1920, so they granted the Union of South Africa a mandate for South-West Africa. Unlike the British, who informed the UN in 1947 of their desire to rid themselves of their mandate, South Africa refused to surrender the mandate with which they had been entrusted. While the UN – instead of transforming the Mandate for Palestine into a Trust Territory under the Trusteeship System, the successor to the earlier Mandate System, as the UN Charter required it to do – recommended by means of its General Assembly the illegal partition of Palestine, contrary to the express stipulations of the Mandate Charter and entailing the gross violation of the rights of the national beneficiary of the Mandate – the Jewish People, in the case of Namibia the UN brought pressure to bear on South Africa until that country relinquished its mandate and the new Republic of Namibia finally came into being in 1990.
Mr. Secretary-General, the blatant injustice of the UN position on the Land of Israel stands out clearly when compared with the UN position on Namibia. In the case of the Land of Israel / Palestine, the national beneficiary of the Mandate – the Jewish People – has been forcibly deprived of its rights, while in the case of Namibia, the UN acted forcefully to ensure that the aim of the Mandate for South-West Africa was achieved in full. It is no wonder, Mr. Secretary-General, that the UN – the organization which you head – is widely considered a biased, unfair and even anti-Semitic organization.
[2] The Kingdom of Jordan exists on some 75% of mandated Palestine. Its ruling class, the Hashemite family with the support of nomadic Bedouin tribes, accounts for no more than 30% of the population of the Kingdom, perhaps even less. The other 70% of the population of that country is made up of “Palestinian” Arab people, the very same people the Arabs of the Land of Israel consider themselves. It is thus untrue that the Arabs of the Land of Israel are stateless; on the contrary, in the neighboring Kingdom of Jordan they are an unshakable majority of the population living on “Palestine” soil. If the Arabs at present sojourning in the Land of Israel prefer to live in their own country, rather than in a Jewish state, they are free to join their brethren on the east bank of the Jordan River, where they can live in peace and tranquility among people of their own flesh and blood, and even more important, people of their own culture.
11.
We must also consider the ramifications of the illegal establishment of yet another Arab state in the heartland of the Land of Israel, Mr. Secretary-General. We could learn from the rhetoric of Lebanon’s Hizbullah and from that of the Hamas of Gaza what fate would be in store for the nearly 600,000 Jews living legally in Judea, Samaria and “East Jerusalem”, but there is no need to go so far afield: the representatives of the Palestinian Authority make it abundantly clear that the territory they hope some day to control must be given to them judenrein – without any Jewish inhabitants whatever. Do you appreciate, Mr. Secretary-General, what it would mean to displace illegally over half a million men, women and children? Israel finds it difficult to provide permanent homes for the eight or nine thousand persons uprooted from their homes and sources of livelihood in 2005, when Israel unilaterally and unwisely pulled out of the Gaza district. Are you aware of the catastrophe suffered in the 1920s by the millions of Bulgars, Greeks and Turks forced to flee their homes and relocate elsewhere? The Palestinian Authority has even enacted a death penalty to be imposed on any of their own people who sell real-estate to Jews.
In addition, it is clear how a so-called “Palestinian” state, illegal though it would be, would relate to the Jewish state, which to this day it actually refuses to recognize as such. By demanding of Israel to cede her own land to the Arabs, you are not only sentencing to relocation in refugee camps at best over half a million Jews, but also condemning the Middle East to yet another fierce war of Arab aggression, the possible results of which are too unspeakable to mention. Is this indeed your intention, Mr. Secretary-General? Can you reconcile this with International Humanitarian Law?
These, Mr. Secretary-General, are the historical and legal facts. One must conclude that demanding of Israel to cede to the Arabs any land belonging to the Jewish People by divine grant and by international law is tantamount to requiring of Israel to commit national suicide and render null and void recognized legal Jewish territorial rights to its national patrimony. It is thus your responsibility to advise and guide your organization to reaffirm the recognition by the international community of these legal Jewish rights under Article 80 of the UN Charter, while seeking to provide the Arabs at present living on this Jewish land with a simple solution to their desire to exercise political rights in their own country – i.e., in the Kingdom of Jordan.
Should you choose, Mr. Secretary-General, for any reason whatever to ignore the historical and legal facts enclosed in this letter, and continue with the present unjust and illegal policies of the UN, we shall feel free to act in accordance with the best interests of the Jewish people. This will entail at very least putting our case before an appropriate international judicial authority and suing for damages the persons responsible for this illegality.

Indeed. And it's about time we started to assert our rights, no matter how politically incorrect that might be considered.

via israelmatzav.blogspot.com

Posted via email from noahdavidsimon's posterous

Sarah Leah Whitson pushes the race button

Sarah Leah Whitson, the Human Rights Watch official who raised funds for her organization by blasting Israel in uber-racist, slavery-tolerating Saudi Arabia, has made one of the most odious analogies possible. She writes,

Israeli President Shimon Peres visited Washington earlier this month, hot on the heels of an announcement that Israeli authorities had approved yet more housing units for Jewish settlers in the West Bank. In a week when the U.S. paused to recall the assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King, President Peres might have considered King’s message — an end to segregation — and why such a system of racial inequality remains in place in the Occupied Palestinian Territories.



Back in 1968, when Dr. King was murdered, the debate about discrimination was live and real. Most governments have long since stopped trying to justify separating people based on race or national origin, whether for ostensible security concerns, like the U.S. internment of Japanese Americans during World War II, or plain old bigotry, like the Jim Crow laws of the American south.


Yet in the areas of the Occupied Palestinian Territories where Israel has moved almost half a million Jewish “settlers,” not only do Israeli laws and policies strictly segregate Jews from Palestinians, they deliberately deprive Palestinians of the most basic needs, in many cases forcing them out of their communities.

Human Rights Watch and the selling of Gaddafi

If Whitson is suggesting that the ‘Palestinian cause’ is anything like the civil rights movement in America — clearly she is — she is living in an alternate universe.
Civil rights workers did not fire antitank missiles at school buses, nor did they slit the throats of babies and children. American blacks did not blow themselves up at holiday celebrations, and Mexican and Canadian ones did not launch rockets into American towns and cities.
In fact, try as I might, the only way that Dr. M. L. King and Ismail Haniyya are alike is that they both say they are struggling for their people’s rights. Of course, Dr. King actually was, whereas Haniyya is a racist, genocidal antisemite who wants to wipe out the Jews in Israel and take their country. King indeed represented an oppressed racial minority that was discriminated against in law and custom, while Haniyya is supported by the considerable resources of the Arab world and Iran in his murderous cause. If the analogy makes sense at all, Jewish Israelis are the ones discriminated against in the Middle East and in the broader international community.
But Whitson isn’t interested in reality — as she wasn’t interested in the very real human rights abuses in Saudi Arabia — she is interested in pushing buttons.
So she claims that Israel maintains a system of ‘racial inequality’, when the concept of race has nothing to do with relations between Jews and Arabs, who are genetically closer to each other than to non-Jewish Europeans. Of course she doesn’t have to use the word ‘race’, she could claim that there was a system of cultural or linguistic discrimination. But that wouldn’t push the button.
Whitson refers numerous times to the ‘Occupied Palestinian Territories’. What are these territories? They are part of the lands that were set aside by the League of Nations for a “Jewish National Home” after the defeat of the Ottoman Empire in WWI. Various Arab states were also created at the same time, but this was the only area specifically designated for Jewish settlement. These territories were never ‘Palestinian’, and they were only ‘Arab’ insofar as they were illegally occupied by Jordan and Egypt for 19 years. They are not ‘occupied’, since there was no sovereign authority there since the end of the Mandate — they are at most ‘disputed’, and an argument can be made that if any party ought to control them, it’s Israel, the representative of the Jewish people.

She continues,

With little regard for the blatant racial inequality of its policies, the Israeli government provides Jewish settlements with water, electricity, housing, schools, hospitals and roads, while it severely restricts access to these necessities to Palestinian communities under its control.

HRW appoints PFLP terrorist
named Jabarin as an advisor

Race doesn’t have anything to do with it. The territories are not part of Israel. Israel doesn’t have to ‘provide’ anything — there is a Palestinian Authority (PA) which gets enormous sums of money from the West and which governs the areas of Judea and Samaria (Areas A and B) which contain more than 90% of the Arab population. Arabs connected with the corrupt PA have well-paying positions or lucrative business concessions. They live in large villas, much more elaborate than the housing found in Israeli settlements.
Whitson, by the way, refers to the “the 60 percent of the West Bank known as ‘Area C’ where Israel has complete control without mentioning that Area C contains only 4% of the Arab population! The rest is mostly uninhabited desert and mountainous areas, along with the Israeli settlements of course.
In 1967, only 20% of the Arab population in Judea and Samaria was connected to a water system — now 90% are connected to Israel’s national water grid. Even Gaza, ruled by the bellicose Hamas, receives most of its water and electricity from Israel. This leads to ironic situations, such as the time Hamas snipers shot and wounded an Israel Electric Company worker who was climbing a tower near the border. And it is upsetting to know that the factories that make the Qassam rockets fired at Israel are powered by Israeli electricity.
A particularly pernicious accusation is that Israel has built ‘apartheid roads’ on which Arabs are not permitted to drive. What is actually the case is that Jewish residents were subjected to frequent deadly drive-by shooting attacks on certain roads — in August of last year four people were killed in a single incident — and so the Israeli authorities chose to close the off-ramps to the Arab villages in the area. Arabs, both Israeli Arabs and residents of the territories do drive on the roads — again, there is nothing racist involved, unless it is the racist murderers who shoot at vehicles containing Jews.
Israeli hospitals routinely treat patients from the territories and Eastern Jerusalem. During the Gaza war, the Palestinian Authority stopped paying for its patients on the grounds that the Jews were ‘making propaganda’ by treating them. There is no separation between Jewish and Arab patients, and in fact even wounded terrorists are treated.
Whitson goes on:

Israel’s security justifications fall far short of the strict and narrow limits on differential treatment permitted under international law between people of different ethnicities or national origins. A state should never apply such measures categorically against an entire group and must limit them to specific individuals who pose a threat.

One of the security measures that Whitson and others find to be unacceptable profiling are the checkpoints, which do present an inconvenience for the entire Palestinian Arab population. But almost every day, potential terrorists are stopped at the checkpoints with weapons or explosives. How would it be possible to do this without everyone passing through the checkpoint? Should security personnel only check “specific individuals who pose a threat?” How would they know who the are?

The fact is that Israel is at war, and many of those fighting against it are embedded in the Palestinian Arab population. You cannot understand the relationship of Israeli Jews and Palestinian Arabs outside the context of this war, and you cannot understand the Israeli-Palestinian part of it outside the context of the broader war — whose goal is the elimination of Israel — that has been prosecuted by the Arab world (and now Iran) since the beginning of the state.
.
Pretending that this is a question of civil rights, that there is ‘racial discrimination’, completely falsifies and distorts this reality.
But it’s great for pushing buttons.

via calevbenyefuneh.blogspot.com from Fresnozionism.org 17 April '11

EXPOSED:
Sarah Leah Whitson, the head of 'Human Rights Watch

NGO Monitor has called on Sarah Leah Whitson, the head of 'Human Rights Watch's Mideast and North Africa division, to resign, on the grounds that she misled the public regarding the nature of the Gadhafi regime in Libya and the intentions of Gadhafi's son, Seif al-Islam.

Robert Bernstein's new baby

Robert Bernstein attacked Human Rights Watch - an organization that he founded - for going off course in the Middle East.  A lot of people thought that was the end of Bernstein and that he'd never be heard from again. But at 88, Bernstein has the energy of a much younger man. He's starting a new human rights organization that will do it his way.

Soros giving Human Rights Watch $100 million - the Jewish Gold fillings during the Holocaust wasn't enough

Uber-Leftist philanthropist George Soros is donating $100 million to 'Human Rights Watch' so that they can stop embarrassing themselves trying to raise money in Saudi Arabia and get on with the business of undermining the existence of the Jewish State.