NY Times calls for ‘imposed solution’

August 8, 2011
The only demand Bibi has made is that Palestine recognize a Jewish state. Outside of this he has agreed to everything before sitting and meeting with Abbas. He is the only party that wants to meet. Abbas does not. Because of this the NYTimes knows there will never be a deal… and all the generous offers Bibi makes will not be a reality. Since the Times knows that the Palestinians are not capable of being fair they are asking Obama and the West to force an unfair position through military force. Bibi has his hand out saying recognize me and we will give you what you want and the NYTimes is in fact saying force Bibi to give everything and don’t recognize him at all because being fair is not enough… the Palestinians don’t want fair and will end up losing it all. Read the details at Carl’s blog. He worked so hard on dissecting the NYTimes position I didn’t think it would be fair to repost completely his complete work like I usually do…
In an editorial that says that ‘all share the blame’ for the Middle East impasse – and then conveniently forgets Barack Hussein Obama’s role in the impasse – the New York Times concludes that the United States ‘and its partners’ must impose a ‘solution.’
Let’s look at what Israel’s Prime Minister has done since he took office in March 2009. He accepted the ‘two-state solution,’ the first time any Likud Prime Minister had ever openly done so. He imposed a ten-month ‘settlement freeze’ in Judea and Samaria. That ‘settlement freeze’ has continued de facto beyond that ten-month deadline and has included ‘east’ Jerusalem. Netanyahu has continuously repeated the mantra that he will meet with Abu Bluff anytime and anywhere without preconditions – but Abu Bluff won’t meet unless he is first assured of the outcome. And now, despite the fact that most Israelis are opposed, Netanyahu is apparently on the verge of accepting a negotiating framework in which the default position would be going back to the ‘‘1967 lines’1949 armistice lines (and yes, they really are indefensible despite the fact that the Times poo poos it – look at a topographical map). But that’s still not enough for the New York Times. Netanyahu is number one on their list of those to blame for the Impasse. via israelmatzav.blogspot.com

What kind of line the US ambassador to Israel Dan Kurtzer would of drawn in a Warsaw Ghetto?

June 23, 2011
Abu Mazen Agrees!

the 67 lines were quite defensible and the 73 expanded lines were far less defensible?

Where are the 67 borders?

June 13, 2011

I have often written about the manipulation of technology to fabricate an ahistorical and counter-factual narrative; for example the replacement geography in Google Earth, and the relocation of East Jerusalem to Palestine in Yahoo Weather. History is a critical part of the Jewish claim to the Land of Israel. Getting it right is important. The current discourse over “67 borders” in the media, blogosphere and social media, presents a narrative so removed from fact that its propagandistic nature can be exposed even by someone with only Google Maps and Wikipedia to guide them. The propaganda has been triggered by discussion over the Palestinian unilateral declaration of statehood. More and more people are speaking about Israel’s borders, and in particular the idea of “returning to the 67 borders.” Those with a knowledge of history would know there is no such thing. For a start, they mean pre-1967, not 1967, and to be fully accurate, they mean boundaries or lines not borders. The loss of the “pre” prefix is the most blatant attempt to wipe clear the historical narrative, see for example the recent Washington Post op-ed by Turki al-Faisal, Saudi Arabia’s Former Ambassador.
Even in Israel there has been a move away from the “green line” to “67 borders,” articles in both Haaretz and Jerusalem Post have used this terminology. This is unsurprising given the use of this terminology by Israeli leaders, the British Prime Minister, and many other. The White House, whatever one thinks of their policy, at least have the terminology right, despite media headlines and reporting to the contrary, at AIPAC, President Obama’s actual words referred to “pre-1967 lines,” a formulation that the White House press office has also used consistently.
The 1949 Armistice Agreement Line shown on Google MapsOn Google Maps the line is clearly and correctly labelled the “1949 Armistice Agreement Line.” In Wikipedia, the article on the Green Line, refers to the boundary as “the demarcation lines set out in the 1949 Armistice Agreements between Israel and its neighbours (Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon and Syria) after the 1948 Arab-Israeli War.” The narrative of ’67 borders is a Palestinian one. It obfuscates the fact that a return to these borders would be a return to the unstable position after the war of independence.
The Wikipedia article itself notes this was never an “international or permanent border,” it also notes the position in international law, expressed by the deputy legal advisor to the US Department of State in the American Journal of International Law (1970). He said “…modifications of the 1949 armistice lines among those States within former Palestinian territory are lawful… whether those modifications are…’insubstantial alterations required for mutual security’ or more substantial alterations – such as recognition of Israeli sovereignty over the whole of Jerusalem.” The Palestinian narrative seeks to lock in the minimalist idea of insubstantial changes and make even that look like a serious sacrifice that is almost too much to ask of them.
History is important. Last week was the anniversary of the Six Day war, and the relevance to today was well outlined by David Harris last week. Language and rhetoric are also important. Let’s stop the downwards slide into a Palestinian narrative. Let us begin to speak of the 1949 ceasefire lines, the psychological trauma of insecurity they imposed, the real danger they created in the face of a conventional warfare threat, and why Abba Eban referred to these indefensible borders as Auschwitz borders, meaning they put Jews, at the time many of them Holocaust survivors, again at the mercy of being slaughtered on mass by those who wished them harm. Israel’s recent experience with Hamas in Gaza justifies a continual concern about such dangerous borders. Not only are there the rockets on Sderot, let’s also remember Gilad Shalit kidnapped by terrorists who made the short journey from Gaza almost 5 years ago.
A two state solution is possible, and large parts of the future border may indeed be along the green line, but the negotiation and public discussion must have a basis in history and fact. It cannot be built on the ahistorical changing sands of Palestinian propaganda. In the mean time, all of us, from international leaders and the media to Facebook users, should watch our language and ensure we don’t strengthen a narrative that will lead not to peace but potentially to renewed bloodshed. If, despite all their flaws, Google Maps and Wikipedia can get this right, so can the rest of us.

US to veto Palestinian statehood bid in UNSC, PA Backing Off Declaration of Statehood‏

June 9, 2011

Fatah and Hamas both realized that they are in no position to create a prosperous state and are much better off maintaining the status quo while blaming Israel for their lack of a state. The PA is and will continue to be entirely dependent upon Israel. Going forward, the PA will need water, gas, electricity and medical care. Add to this the fact that Israel is going to be by far the PA’s major trading partner, though Egypt may become a greater partner than Israel for those in Gaza.

Fatah has come to realize that it not only will not achieve the full 1967 borders including all of pre-1967 “East” Jerusalem through a UNGA vote declaring as much, but the PA would at that point also take a position fundamentally abandoning the goal of achieving total victory in the future and therefore may be trying to back out or even sabotage those efforts.What is underway right now would appear to be an effort by the Palestinian Authority to halt the creation of a two state solution so as not to abandon the long hoped for single state one. It appears, once again, that the PA may be trying to sabotage efforts to achieve a state alongside Israel, including its own leadership’s attempts, while preserving the status-quo indefinitely. Rabbi Kaufman via docstalk.blogspot.com

Erekat calls for ‘alternative to two-state solution’?
Translation he is asking the United Nations
for recognition of Palestine,
and the end of Israel.


There is no way that a Palestinian state could become a member of the United Nations without a recommendation from the Security Council.  If the United States or any other permanent council member used its veto, the General Assembly would not be able to vote on membership for Palestine.

The Palestinian demand is that Israel go back to the pre-1967 lines and then start negotiating a two-state solution. If Israel doesn’t agree, then Palestinians would ask UN to recognize “Palestine” as a member state based on the non-existent temporary 1949 borders which the Arabs refused to recognize even back in 1949 and over which they went to war with Israel in 1967.
Nice logic.

(JPost) Chief Palestinian Authority negotiator Saeb Erekat said that the US will veto the request to recognize Palestinian statehood in the UN Security Council in September, Al-Ayyam reported on Thursday.
Erekat told the Palestinian newspaper that during his recent trip to the US, officials said negotiations are the only option.
Erekat visited Washington this week, where he met with Secretary of State Hilary Clinton, Obama adviser Dennis Ross and members of the US National Security Council. He plans to meet with members of Congress on Thursday.
Erekat said that Palestinians will only agree to peace talks if Israel agrees to a two-state solution based on pre-1967 lines with land swaps and stops all construction in settlements, as well as east Jerusalem.
If Israel does not agree to these terms, the PA will ask the UN to recognize Palestine as a member country, Erekat explained.
The Palestinian negotiator added that all members of the new Palestinian government, to rise from the Fatah-Hamas unity deal, will be committed to PA President Mahmoud Abbas’s [AKA Abu Mazen] previous agreements. via eye-on-the-world.blogspot.com

One of the reasons you have to be careful who receives these veto status statehood is that it is a powerful ability to reject the majority state’s will. The bad thing for America is that an enemy can also get this position.

Abbas rules out peace

Any recommendation for admission must receive the affirmative votes of 9 of the 15 members of the Council, provided that none of its five permanent members — China, France, the Russian Federation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States of America — have voted against the application.

Attorneys to Ban: Halt unilateral Palestinian statehood

May 27, 2011

Media_httpwwwjpostcom_zqbwxInt’l group of some 60 lawyers say UN resolution on statehood would be a violation of all past agreements between Israel, the Palestinians.

According to the attorneys, the legal basis for the establishment of the state by the League of Nations in 1922 affirmed its presence on territories that included Judea, Samaria, and what is now east Jerusalem. “This was subsequently affirmed by both houses of US Congress,” the attorneys stated. According to Article 80 of the UN Charter, the attorneys said, rights granted to all states or people by already existing international instruments – including those adopted by the League of Nations – remain valid. As a result, the attorneys said, the “650,000 Jews [who] presently reside in the areas of Judea and Samaria and eastern Jerusalem, reside there legitimately.” The 1949 Armistice Agreement stated that these lines “are without prejudice to future territorial settlements or boundary lines, or to claims of either Party relating thereto,” the attorneys said. Therefore, they said, “the 1967 borders” do not exist, and have never existed. Past resolutions have called for a negotiated solution to the conflict, the attorneys affirmed. Additionally, attempts to unilaterally change the status of the territory would be a breach of the 1995 Israeli-Palestinian agreement on the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, the attorneys said. When the Palestinians agreed to the Oslo Accords, they knew that the settlements existed and would be one of the issues that would be negotiated during talks for a permanent-status arrangement, the attorneys said. The Olso Accords did not limit settlement activity, they added. via jpost.com

BiBi to Obama: before 1967, Israel was all of nine miles wide — half the width of the Washington Beltway.

May 25, 2011

And these were not the boundaries of peace; they were the boundaries of repeated wars

Three Cheers for Terroristine

May 23, 2011

By endorsing the 1967 borders, he endorsed the outcome of the Arab invasion of Israel in 1948. Every time his administration condemns a Jewish house in Jerusalem, he endorses the Jordanian conquest of the city.

Nakba Historiography

Why are the borders of the 1948 war, so much better than the borders of the Six Day War? Because the Terroristinians came closer to winning that war. Came closer to driving the Yahood into the sea and ululating over mile after mile of their corpses.

But the dream failed. Farmers armed with outdated rifles. Volunteer pilots from America and Canada. Refitted cargo ships filled with half-dead men, women and children straight from the camps. Used Czech artillery. They held off the armies of seven Terroristinian nations. Farm by farm, they stood off tanks and infantry. In Jerusalem, they fought for every house. And so the Zionist entity survived. Allah curse them. They survived.

image via foxnews.com