Britannia Radio

http://www.carolineglick.com/e/2011/05/obamas-abandonment-of-america.php

Obama's abandonment of America

by Caroline Glick

I was out sick yesterday so I was unable to write today's column for the Jerusalem Post. I did manage to watch President Obama's speech on the Middle East yesterday evening. And I didn't want to wait until next week to discuss it. After all, who knows what he'll do by Tuesday?

Before we get into what the speech means for Israel, it is important to consider what it means for America.

Quite simply, Obama's speech represents the effective renunciation of the US's right to have and to pursue national interests. Consequently, his speech imperils the real interests that the US has in the region - first and foremost, the US's interest in securing its national security.

Obama's renunciation of the US national interests unfolded as follows:

First, Obama mentioned a number of core US interests in the region. In his view these are: "Countering terrorism and stopping the spread of nuclear weapons; securing the free flow of commerce, and safe-guarding the security of the region; standing up for Israel's security and pursuing Arab-Israeli peace."

Then he said, "Yet we must acknowledge that a strategy based solely upon the narrow pursuit of these interests will not fill an empty stomach or allow someone to speak their mind."

While this is true enough, Obama went on to say that the Arabs have good reason to hate the US and that it is up to the US to put its national interests aside in the interest of making them like America. As he put it, "a failure to change our approach threatens a deepening spiral of division between the United States and Muslim communities."

And you know what that means. If the US doesn't end the "spiral of division," (sounds sort of like "spiral of violence" doesn't it?), then the Muslims will come after America. So the US better straighten up and fly right.

And how does it do that? Well, by courting the Muslim Brotherhood which spawned Al Qaeda, Hamas, Jamma Islamiya and a number of other terror groups and is allies with Hezbollah.

How do we know this is Obama's plan? Because right after he said that the US needs to end the "spiral of division," he recalled his speech in Egypt in June 2009 when he spoke at the Brotherhood controlled Al Azhar University and made sure that Brotherhood members were in the audience in a direct diplomatic assault on US ally Hosni Mubarak.

And of course, intimations of Obama's plan to woo and appease the jihadists appear throughout the speech. For instance:

"There will be times when our short term interests do not align perfectly with our long term vision of the region."

So US short term interests, like for instance preventing terrorist attacks against itself or its interests, will have to be sacrificed for the greater good of bringing the Muslim Brotherhood to power in democratic elections.

And he also said that the US will "support the governments that will be elected later this year" in Egypt and Tunisia. But why would the US support governments controlled by the Muslim Brotherhood? They are poised to control the elected government in Egypt and are the ticket to beat in Tunisia as well.

Then there is the way Obama abandoned US allies Yemen and Bahrain in order to show the US's lack of hypocrisy. As he presented it, the US will not demand from its enemies Syria and Iran that which it doesn't demand from its friends.

While this sounds fair, it is anything but fair. The fact is that if you don't distinguish between your allies and your enemies then you betray your allies and side with your enemies. Bahrain and Yemen need US support to survive. Iran and Syria do not. So when he removes US support from the former, his action redounds to the direct benefit of the latter.

I hope the US Navy's 5th Fleet has found alternate digs because Obama just opened the door for Iran to take over Bahrain. He also invited al Qaeda - which he falsely claimed is a spent force - to take over Yemen.

Beyond his abandonment of Bahrain and Yemen, in claiming that the US mustn't distinguish between its allies and its foes, Obama made clear that he has renounced the US's right to have and pursue national interests. If you can't favor your allies against your enemies then you cannot defend your national interests. And if you cannot defend your national interests then you renounce your right to have them.

As for Iran, in his speech, Obama effectively abandoned the pursuit of the US's core interest of preventing nuclear proliferation. All he had to say about Iran's openly genocidal nuclear program is, "Our opposition to Iran's intolerance - as well as its illicit nuclear program, and its sponsorship of terror - is well known."

Well so is my opposition to all of that, and so is yours. But unlike us, Obama is supposed to do something about it. And by putting the gravest threat the US presently faces from the Middle East in the passive voice, he made clear that actually, the US isn't going to do anything about it.

In short, every American who is concerned about the security of the United States should be livid. The US President just abandoned his responsibility to defend the country and its interests in the interest of coddling the US's worst enemies.

AS FOR ISRAEL, in a way, Obama did Israel a favor by giving this speech. By abandoning even a semblance of friendliness, he has told us that we have nothing whatsoever to gain by trying to make him like us. Obama didn't even say that he would oppose the Palestinians' plan to get the UN Security Council to pass a resolution in support for Palestinian independence. All he said was that it is a dumb idea.

Obama sided with Hamas against Israel by acting as though its partnership with Fatah is just a little problem that has to be sorted out to reassure the paranoid Jews. Or as he put it, "the recent announcement of an agreement between Fatah and Hamas raises profound and legitimate questions for Israel."

Hamas is a jihadist movement dedicated to the annihilation of the Jewish people, and the establishment of a global caliphate. It's in their charter. And all Obama said of the movement that has now taken over the Palestinian Authority was, "Palestinian leaders will not achieve peace or prosperity if Hamas insists on a path of terror and rejection."

Irrelevant and untrue.

It is irrelevant because obviously the Palestinians don't want peace. That's why they just formed a government dedicated to Israel's destruction.

As for being untrue, Obama's speech makes clear that they have no reason to fear a loss of prosperity. After all, by failing to mention that US law bars the US government from funding an entity which includes Hamas, he made clear that the US will continue to bankroll the Hamas-controlled Palestinian Authority. So too, the EU will continue to join the US in giving them billions for bombs and patronage jobs. The Palestinians have nothing to worry about. They will continue to be rewarded regardless of what they do.

The of course there are all the hostile, hateful details of the speech:

He said Israel has to concede its right to defensible borders as a precondition for negotiations;

He didn't say he opposes the Palestinian demand for open immigration of millions of foreign Arabs into Israel;

He again ignored Bush's 2004 letter to Sharon opposing a return to the 1949 armistice lines, supporting the large settlements, defensible borders and opposing mass Arab immigration into Israel;

He said he was leaving Jerusalem out but actually brought it in by calling for an Israeli retreat to the 1949 lines;

He called for Israel to be cut in two when he called for the Palestinians state to be contiguous;

He called for Israel to withdraw from the Jordan Valley - without which it is powerless against invasion - by saying that the Palestinian State will have an international border with Jordan.

Conceptually and substantively, Obama abandoned the US alliance with Israel. The rest of his words - security arrangements, demilitarized Palestinian state and the rest of it - were nothing more than filler to please empty-headed liberal Jews in America so they can feel comfortable signing checks for him again.

Indeed, even his seemingly pro-Israel call for security arrangements in a final peace deal involved sticking it to Israel. Obama said, "The full and phased withdrawal of Israeli military forces should be coordinated with the assumption of Palestinian security responsibility in a sovereign, non-militarized state."

What does that mean "with the assumption of Palestinian security responsibility?"

It means we have to assume everything will be terrific.

All of this means is that if Prime Minister Netanyahu was planning to be nice to Obama, and pretend that everything is terrific with the administration, he should just forget about it. He needn't attack Obama. Let the Republicans do that.

But both in his speech to AIPAC and his address to Congress, he should very forthrightly tell the truth about the nature of the populist movements in the Middle East, the danger of a nuclear Iran, the Palestinians' commitment to Israel's destruction; the lie of the so-called peace process; the importance of standing by allies; and the critical importance of a strong Israel to US national security.

He has nothing to gain and everything to lose by playing by the rules that Obama is trying to set for him.

===========================

International Law, Palestinian Statehood and Israeli Security

Posted By Louis René Beres

In Daily Mailer,FrontPage |

=============================

An earlier original version of this article was written for THE MACCABEAN ONLINE and published on June 1997. Of Course, it is still true today.

ISRAEL, PALESTINIAN DEMILITARIZATION AND INTERNATIONAL LAW

=============================

From the beginning, when that primal swerve toward human fragmentation in world politics first became apparent, states and empires have negotiated treaties to provide security. Strictly speaking, these formal agreements, in written form, are always fashioned and tested according to pertinent international law. Oftentimes, of course, disputes will arise whenever particular signatories should decide that continued compliance is simply no longer in their own “national interest.”

For the moment, Israel’s 1979 Peace Treaty with Egypt still remains in place. Still, any continuing regime change in Cairo could spell the “sudden death” of this agreement. The same risks apply even to the extent that the military governing council’s leaders could decide that the treaty with Israel should be terminated.

Any post-Mubarak regime that would extend some governing authority to the Muslim Brotherhood, or to its proxies, could result in a prompt Egyptian abrogation. Although any such willful cessation of treaty obligations by the Egyptian side would almost certainly be in violation of The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, the governing “treaty on treaties,” there is also very little that either Israel or the “international community” would be able to do in response.

For Israel, this should bring to mind the particular dangers of Palestinian statehood. In June 2009, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu first officially agreed to the creation of a Palestinian state. But, with an apparent nod to prudence, he conditioned this acceptance upon Palestinian “demilitarization.” More precisely, said the Prime Minister: “In any peace agreement, the territory under Palestinian control must be disarmed, with solid security guarantees for Israel.”

This agreement seemingly represented a “smart” concession, but only if there can ever be any reasonable expectations of corollary Palestinian compliance. In fact, such expectations are entirely implausible. This is the case not only because all treaties and treaty-like agreements can be broken, but because, in this specific case, any post-independence Palestinian insistence upon militarization would likely be lawful.Neither Hamas nor Fatah, now bonded together in a new unity pact, would ever negotiate for anything less than full sovereignty.

International lawyers seeking to discover any “Palestine-friendly” sources of legal confirmation could conveniently cherry-pick pertinent provisions of the 1934 Convention on the Rights and Duties of States, the treaty on statehood, sometimes called the Montevideo Convention. They could apply the very same strategy of selection to the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties.

International law is not a suicide pact. Israel has a “peremptory” right to remain “alive.” It was proper for Mr. Netanyahu to have previously opposed a Palestinian state in any form. After all, both Fatah and Hamas still see all of Israel as part of “Palestine.”

International law need not expect Palestinian compliance with any pre-state agreements concerning armed force. This is true even if these agreements were to include certain explicit U.S. security guarantees to Israel. Also, because authentic treaties can be binding only upon states, a non-treaty agreement between the Palestinians and Israel could quickly prove to be of little or no real authority, or effectiveness. This is to say nothing of the byzantine connections between Fatah, Hamas, the Islamic Resistance Movement, and the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood.

What if the government of a new Palestinian state were somehow willing to consider itself bound by the pre-state, non-treaty agreement? Even in these very improbable circumstances, the new Palestinian Arab government could still have ample pretext, and opportunity, to identify relevant grounds for lawful treaty termination.

Palestine could withdraw from the “treaty” because of what it regarded as a “material breach,” a purported violation by Israel that had allegedly undermined the “object or purpose” of the agreement. Or it could point toward what international law calls Rebus sic stantibus; in English, the doctrine known as a “fundamental change of circumstances.” Here, for example, if Palestine should declare itself vulnerable to previously unforeseen dangers, perhaps even from the interventionary or prospectively occupying forces of certain other Arab armies, it could lawfully end its codified commitment to remain demilitarized.Another factor explains why Prime Minister Netanyahu’s hope for Palestinian demilitarization remains ill-founded. After declaring independence, a new Palestinian state government could point to certain pre-independence errors of fact, or to duress, as appropriate grounds for agreement termination. The usual grounds that may be invoked under domestic law to invalidate contracts can also apply under international law, both to actual treaties, and to treaty-like agreements.

Any treaty is void if, at the time of entry, it is in conflict with a “peremptory” rule of international law, a rule accepted by the community of states as one from which “no derogation is permitted.” Because the right of sovereign states to maintain military forces for self-defense is always such a rule, “Palestine” could be fully within its lawful right to abrogate any agreement that had, before independence, compelled its demilitarization.Mr. Netanyahu should take no comfort from any legal promises of Palestinian demilitarization.

Should the government of any future Palestinian state choose to invite foreign armies or terrorists on to its territory, possibly after the original government had been overthrown by more militantly Jihadist/Islamic forces, it could do so not only without practical difficulties, but also without necessarily violating international law.

In the final analysis, the core danger to Israel of any presumed Palestinian demilitarization is more practical than legal. The Washington-driven Road Map, a one-sided plan of land for nothing, stems from a persistent misunderstanding of Palestinian history and goals. President Obama should finally acknowledge that the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) was formed in 1964, three years before there were any “occupied territories.”

A Palestinian state – any Palestinian state – would represent a mortal danger to Israel. This danger would not be relieved by any legal Palestinian pre-independence commitments to “demilitarize.”

For Israel, whether the issue is Egypt, or “Palestine,” or both, it is critical to bear in mind the inherently limited protective benefits offered by treaties and treaty-like agreements.

Louis René Beres (Ph.D. Princeton, 1971) is Chair of Project Daniel and author of many books and several hundred scholarly articles dealing with Israel and international law.

---

Article printed from FrontPage Magazine: http://frontpagemag.com

URL to article: http://frontpagemag.com/2011/05/18/international-law-palestinian-statehood-and-israeli-security/

====================

Rush Limbaugh:

Obama-urging-israel-to-destroy-itself

http://dailycaller.com/2011/05/19/limbaugh-reaction-to-presidents-speech-obama-urging-israel-to-destroy-itself/

========================

Beck: Obama's Betrayal of Israel - Fox News Video - FoxNews.com

http://video.foxnews.com/v/950932357001/beck-obamas-betrayal-of-israel/

=======================

OBAMA SELLS OUT ISRAEL

By Dr. Laurie Roth

May 20, 2011

NewsWithViews.com

The shame, betrayal and void of leadership continues with Obama endorsing the Palestinian state with borders brought back to 1967. President Obama said in his recent Middle East and North African speech that we have to think differently regarding our dealings with the Muslims, thus Obama standing solidly for the Palestinian’s demands to have the 1967 borders observed.

Fatah and Hamas, two radical Muslim terrorist organizations have now merged, turning the constant shotgun of threats against Israel into a pointed double barrel shotgun aimed at their heads. Obama and the UN might as well be loading the shells.

So, what is the big deal about 1967 and why does Israel have to give the land back before that war? It is most clear and plain to see. Israel saw aggressive changes in behavior, by Egypt and Syria signaling that war was immanent. First they saw on May 16, 1967, Nasser removed the international buffer that had exsisted between Israel and Egypt since 1957, the UNEF – United Nations Emergency Forces. Then Egypt blockaded all goods coming into Israel through the Tiran Straits. Syria joined the party by creating all kinds of clashes at the border along the Golan Heights. They put their troops on ready as well.

President Johnson at the time played the political game hoping Israel would not attack and waterways and shipping could be re opened through diplomatic means. Egypt and Syria were obviously organizing and positioning for attack, pulling troops out, and stopping goods from being shipped. What was Israel supposed to do ask them if they wanted to have a Bible Study?

It was against this obvious set up for war against Israel that Israel attacked. They captured the Sinai Peninsula, Gaza Strip, West Bank and Golan Heights from Syria. Everything was finished in less then a month. Nassar called for the total destruction of Israel, spewing ‘slaughter Israel’ rhetoric everywhere in the Middle East and media.

To the Islamic world who had attacked Israel many times before 1967, this war was just another bold shame against Islam that must be avenged. After all, Israel had stolen Islamic land. Since this war, which Israel had really no choice but to start and finish, Israel has received non stop attacks from all kinds of Islamic groups surrounding them.

Now you know as the great Paul Harvey would have said, ‘The rest of the story.’

What other wars should be undone because group A doesn’t like the land group B got during a conflict? Is Texas and Southern California going back to Mexico even though we paid for it and won the war? For that matter, it was most rude and treasonous to the British to make this country the US and separate from British rule. Shall we be British subjects again?

It is beyond dangerous, shameful and almost unforgivable that America would stand with Palestine, Hamas and Fatah against our best alley in the Middle East who simply wants to live in peace. It is already wrong that Israel has allowed any territories or land to be manipulated back into the hands of the Palestinians and Hamas.

This choice by Obama to back Palestine and the UN push against Israel is stupid, evil, Un American, traitorous, disloyal, two faced, cowardly and WRONG.Now the UN vote is coming in just a few months to vote Palestine in as a state, that Obama formally backs. Israel must stand her ground and not give away so much as a simple glass of water or, not even to President Obama or any other pressure group.

It is time to run Obama out of the White House in 2012. Maybe I will be the one to do it.

THE ROTH REVOLUTION

We all must do our small part in getting back our country and freedoms. Therefore I have started just this week ‘The Roth Revolution’ to draw patriots together in a social networking association. It is free, members can blog, chat, post pictures and speak their mind on the issues, to the many that are joining in. I will be blogging and communicating regularly with you myself, putting out the Roth Report, providing cutting edge faxes for you to send to congress on critical issues facing us and exploring ways we can together make a difference. Just go to The Roth Show and click on the Roth Revolution banner. Tell your friends to join also. Together, we will take our country back.

© 2011 Dr. Laurie Roth - All Rights Reserved

Dr. Laurie Roth earned a black belt in Tae Kwon Do. In the late 90's, Laurie hosted and produced a successful PBS television show called "CD Highway" that aired nationally on 130 TV stations.

Tune in to The Roth Show, Weeknights from 7:00 to 10:00 pm PAC and find out for yourself! You can listen live on cable radio network (live on the internet) channel 6 or visit The Roth Show web site and click on "where to listen" www.therothshow.comCall the Roth Show at: 1-866-388-9093

E-Mail: Drljroth@aol.com

Note: This speech was written by MK Yaakov Katz (“Ketsaleh”), head of the National Union party, and sent to INN for translation and posting, in the hope that Prime Minister Netanyahu will stand firm and present its message to the government of the United States.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear Friends, Senators and Congressmen, Representatives of the American people who are the best friend the Jewish people have had in all of history,

The Jewish people and the state of Israel are honored that the Prime Minister of Israel is invited to stand here before both houses of the American Congress.

I wish, in the name of the Israel’s citizens, to thank you for this opportunity to talk to you.

In 1492, two events of great historical significance occurred.

An evil decree of King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella of Spain brought about the expulsion of the 150,000 Jews of Spain from the country where they had once lived tranquilly and had had a semblance of civil rights.

Yet an act of deliverance preceded this debacle, when, in the same year, Christopher Columbus discovered America. This was the start of the American nation, the nation whose very existence is an act of grace for the entire world and for the Jewish people in particular.

America was fated one day to become a place of refuge and support for the Jewish people.

Our people feel great affection for the American nation, which became a safe harbor for us towards the end of our exile. We thank the Almighty for choosing the American people to be the best and most helpful friend in our efforts to establish a national homeland for the Jewish people.

From the very start, there has been a covenant of love and friendship between the American people and the Jewish people and its state. The United States of America has stood by Israel in the past, in the present and will, please G-d, stand by her forever.

Ladies and Gentlemen, Senators and Congressmen,

At the close of a forced, long and cruel exile, we returned to our land. During all the 1900 years of exile, we never forgot our land, the land of Israel, our birthplace, the land promised to us and our descendants by the Creator of the world, the land of the Bible. Generations of Jewish children, young and old, studied and memorized the words of the Bible and our daily prayers, day and night, in hunger and thirst, cold and poverty, in secret and in the open, longing for a return to Jerusalem and the cities of Judea. Jerusalem is mentioned 21 times in a Jews’ daily prayers.

The Passover Haggadah that is recited at the yearly Seder, the very same one we have said through the ages, in Casblanca, Paris, Fez, London, Tsana,Barcelona, Addis Ababa, St. Petersburg, Alexandria, G’erba, Munich, Rome, and New York—whatever place we were exiled to—ends with the song “Next year in Jerusalem”.

The pioneering spirits among our people attempted to found a Third Commonwealth, but the nations of the world prevented them from succeeding. A small number managed to actually reach the land of the Bible. They started an awakening. They were followed by successive waves of tens, then hundreds, thousands and tens of thousands who founded villages, communities, cultural institutions and spread throughout the holy land, but the land remained desolate looking as It had been since its destruction thousands of years earlier.

After 18 centuries of exile, bubbles of longing began coming to the surface of Jewish life, and in the last 300 years, a large number of Jews left their places of residence to return to Israel. Today, at the state of Israel’s 63rd birthday celebration, we can state with confidence that our land was glad to see us back. Israel is a beautiful country, has one of the most stable economies in the world, is blessed with investments, research and development—it is a beacon to the entire world—and this is in addition to the rennaisance of Jewish culture and scholarship in the Jewish state.

In his book, “The Innocents Abroad”, Mark Twain describes journeying to the holy land with a group of pilgrims in the 1860’s. He describes a barren and desolate land, that contains nothing but deserts, wastelands, swamps, full of neglect and contagious diseases. All this was before the Jews returned. Once they began coming, Arab tribes followed in their footsteps, so that Arab claims to being in the land from time immemorial are put to the lie even by Twain.

In the Passover Haggadah I mentioned earlier, we also say each year: “In every generation they rise to destroy us, but the Lord rescues us from their hands.” No one, not even today, has a rational explanation for the continued existence of anti-Semitism. We only know that it is there, kicking and screaming. It began with our becoming a nation, in Egypt, and continued all through the years of exile during which period most of our nation was systematically murdered. That is how we find ourselves, after 1900 years and after the Holocaust, approximately the same population size as we were when the long exile began.

CONTINUE

Hebron

Subject: Obamanation by David Wilder

To: hebron.mail@hebron.org.il

Date: Friday, May 20, 2011, 7:50 AM

Obamanation David Wilder May 20, 2011 A number of years ago, also on a Friday afternoon, I wrote an article based upon a visit from American ‘diplomats’ to Hebron. They were supposedly part of an ‘economic team’ in Israel together with American negotiators, pressuring Israel to make concessions to the Arabs. Actually, the men who spoke with me for a couple of hours were clearly spies, who I wrote about and named, undoubtedly working for one of the US spy agencies, the CIA or the like. Never give up. That’s not only our password. They use it too. The United States still has agents in Israel. And they still try to pump us for information, even here in Hebron. I’ve been working as a liaison with these folks for about fifteen years, and truthfully, I enjoy it. It allows me a chance to strike back, in my own subtle (or not so subtle) way. I don’t lie to them – I have nothing to lie about. But sometimes I have a good time with them. For instance, today, a few hours ago. Of course, today’s topic of conversation is last night’s ‘Obamanation.’ No, I didn’t misspell obamination. I wrote it the right way. This guy’s chutzpa has achieved heights never yet reached by human beings. Netanyahu is on the way to Ben Gurion airport, leaving Israel for a scheduled meeting with Obama the next morning. Included in the visit are scheduled two major speeches: At AIPAC, the largest Israeli lobby in the United State, and later an address to a joint meeting of Congress, before all American lawmakers, Congressmen and Senators alike. Big time stuff. Except that the Israel right isn’t very happy. To the contrary. Bibi’s speech in the Knesset a few days ago didn’t leave anyone who loves Eretz Yisrael feeling too good. Sure, he spoke about holding on to ‘settlement blocks’ but refused to acknowledge Israeli rights to places like Hebron and Kiryat Arba, or Beit El and Shilo or communities housing somewhere between 150,000 to 200,000 Jews. He also hemmed and hawed at our continued civilian communities in the Jordan Valley, talking only about a permanent military presence there. Clearly, the between-the-lines message was direct: I will cut up Eretz Yisrael, destroy communities, abandon holy sites, and expel tens and hundreds of thousands from their homes, in the ‘name of piece.’ Of course, this was all conditional on Fatah’s divorcing Hamas, etc. etc. But we all know what happens when you hold a chocolate candy bar in front of a child. The kid will promise anything, but anything, to bite into the sweet gooey mess, only to promptly forget all his guarantees five minutes later. Isn’t this the minimum of what we’ve learned from Oslo and Gush Katif? Obama knows all of this. But it’s not enough. A few hours prior to the journey to America, Bibi gets a call from Hillary, who springs the surprise: Tonight the US will officially call for Israel’s return to the 1967 pre-Six Day war borders. Bibi’s arguments aren’t convincing. So even before the plane takes off, Obama sucker-punches Bibi, and collectively, the State of Israel and Jews around the world, in the gut. Before the discussions begin, prior to Bibi’s speeches, during which he probably would have reiterated, perhaps even upping the ante, in Washington, Obama attempts to throw a knockout punch, under the belt, hoping to leave the Prime Minister and the State of Israel out cold. This is the president of the United States of America. A street-fighting sucker-puncher from Chicago. Well, what can I say? The Americans voted him in. Bibi’s reaction was to be expected. Lukewarm at best, demanding ‘assurances’ and exclaiming that the 1967 borders are indefensible. Hogwash. Assurances? Not too long ago a friend over here asked me if I have US citizenship. Replying positively, he asked if I vote in US presidential elections. I replied of course not. What, I’m going to vote for one of them, only to bear witness later to his undivided attempts to destroy Israel. True, some may be better than others, but I really don’t trust any of them. We all know what Bibi should have said. This is our land and we are not about to abandon it to people who murder our men, women, children and babies in their sleep, who shoot rockets into our cities, and unequivocally declare their continued desire to erase us from the map. But he didn’t. And probably won’t. After all, he’s Bibi. But, a couple of hours ago, when my latest counterpart from the US consulate in Jerusalem called me, asking for my reaction to last night’s Obamanation, I surprised him. I told that, in my opinion, the speech was excellent and I’m very happy Obama made it. On the other end of the line, total quiet. I continued: “The speech was great because I believe it will, eventually, lead to the full annexation of Judea, Samaria and the Jordan Valley. After all, when you push people into a corner, and this isn’t just a corner, it’s the corner’s corner, they have no choice but to push themselves out, any way they can. Israel’s reaction, and this is already being discussed in various circles, will be to annex all of Judea and Samaria and the Jordan Valley, as a result of continued pressure to abandon all of it to our sworn enemies. This is wonderful. I won’t have to argue with people about whether Hebron is or is not a part of the State of Israel. It will be, just as is Jerusalem, a recognized city in the sovereign state of Israel. And honestly, I’m not sure whether Israel would consider doing so without Obama’s speech and demands. So, I would thank Obama for making such a fine speech for Israel.” The guy was stunned. I also asked him if it was true that when Netanyahu arrived at the White House, the US was going to fly, not only an American and Israeli flag, but also a Hamas flag. He hadn’t heard that rumor. So much for cynicism. What can be done, immediately? A campaign should begin today: Stand for Bibi, Sit for Obama. When Bibi arrives at AIPAC, (and also in Congress, but that’s easier to arrange), he must receive a huge, huge, huge welcome, with all delegates there on their feet, applauding for at least 15 minutes. That should be his welcome. Ditto when he finishes. Not because he’s Bibi. But because he is the Prime Minister of the State of Israel, who was sucker-punched by the President of the United States. Obama is also scheduled to speak at AIPAC. When he arrives, no one should move, stand up or applaud. And that’s the way it should remain, until he finally does them a favor and leaves. Afterwards they should applaud his exit from the room. A standing ovation. To a vacant podium. The leadership of American Jewry and all those attending AIPAC must make it clear as day. We Jews will not take it in the gut. We know how to fight back. And, by the way, fear not. We will annex Yehuda and Shomron and the Jordan Valley. No Obamanation is going to stop us from living in our land. Not now, not ever. May 20, 2011 The Wire Guardian editorial positions 'Palestinian rights' as cause of Egyptian revolution Fri. 20 May 2011 @ 15.52 - Guardian editorial contradicts events on the ground and paper's own analysis of Egypt revolution, suggesting that Tahrir Square protests were 'demanding Palestinian rights'. Today The Guardian features an editorial, 'Middle East: Obama weaves an uncertain path', triggered by President Barack Obama's latest major Middle East policy speech. It takes a generally negative view of the content, labelling Obama's claims as 'unconvincing' and suggesting that the American leader wields increasingly less power in the region. The leading article also takes the time to downplay recent claims of Syrian manipulation of last Sunday's Nakba day border clashes in Israel, insisting that 'no, this was not merely manipulation'. However, it is the final paragraph of the editorial that is most noteworthy: '[I]f one million Egyptians can fill Tahrir Square demanding Palestinian rights, why can't Palestinians who taught the Arab world how to mount insurrections, and mounted two intifadas of their own? This will create its own reality as the months pass.' Read more>> The Wire NEW REPORT: Preoccupation with Israel in the British media Yesterday Just Journalism released a new special report: 'Preoccupation with Israel in the British media: Reporting of Israel, Egypt, Libya and Tunisia prior to the Arab Spring'. This report provides a comprehensive review of media coverage of Israel and key Arab countries in the 12 months preceding the current unprecedented turmoil in the Arab world. To read the report in full, click here. Of the new report, Just Journalism Spokesperson Michael Weiss said: 'It has been true for many years that so-called Middle East reporting all too often means daily news coverage and criticism of Israel and not a great deal else. This report proves this is indeed the case, by providing the public with the raw data. Clearly, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is deserving of media attention, but the disproportionate focus on it to the near exclusion of the rest of the region has left journalists on the back foot in reacting to the current political earthquake shaking the Arab world. I hope that the British broadsheet newspapers and the BBC reflect on the findings of this report and make the necessary changes for the future.' Read more>> The Wire Sherwood questions article by British commentator, ignores Hamas statements Thurs. 19 May 2011 @ 12.58 - Guardian journalist uses blog to condemn celebration of Gaza activist's death published in British newspaper, while continuing to ignore inflammatory statements from senior figures in Hamas. Harriet Sherwood's 'View from Jerusalem' blog departed yesterday from its standard focus on regional developments in Israel and the Palestinian territories by discussing a recent comment piece in the British press. 'Historian writes of 'pleasure' at murder of pro-Palestinian activist' addresses an opinion piece published last week by The Jewish Chronicle, in which the historian Geoffrey Alderman expressed his pleasure at the news of Vittorio Arrigoni's death. Arrigoni was a pro-Palestinian activist who was murdered last month in Gaza by Salafist extremists. Alderman's opening lines - which Sherwood describes as 'shocking' - read: 'Few events - not even the execution of Osama bin Laden - have caused me greater pleasure in recent weeks than news of the death of the Italian so-called 'peace activist' Vittorio Arrigoni.' Read more>> Towards Palestinian Statehood Portland Trust: Improved housing conditions, successful launch of first corporate bonds issue London-based think tank The Portland Trust publishes its Palestinian Economic Bulletin for May, which highlights improvements in housing conditions, the first issue of Palestinian corporate bonds, the publication of the 2010 Poverty Survey and changing levels of business confidence in the Palestinian territories. Improved Housing conditions Housing conditions across the Palestinian territories have improved due to an increase of 21% in the number of residential buildings in the Palestinian territories, a rise from 701,937 to 850,563. A corresponding drop in average house density, which fell to 1.6 from 1.8 in 2006, is attributed to the construction increase. Only 10% of Palestinian households live in units with 3 or more people per room, a decrease from 19% in 2006. Meanwhile, the number of Palestinian households living in only 1-2 rooms also decreased from 24% in 2006 to 15% in 2010 (17% in the West Bank and 13% in Gaza). Bond Launch The Palestinian Development and Investment Company (PADICO) announced the successful issue of $70m of corporate bonds, the first ever. The bonds are set to mature after a five year period and have a fixed interest rate of 5% for the first two and a half years and a variable rate (linked to US Libor) of between 5-6.5% for the following time period. Salam Fayyad, the Palestinian Prime Minister, spoke at the PADICO bond issue launch, welcoming it as a demonstration of how far the Palestinian economy had progressed in recent years. Read more>>