The Netanyahu – Abdullah lovefest

March 19, 2013

…for a second there I thought Abdullah II was finished. Good thing he started the bullshit in the last few paragraphs. Being an agent of Israel does not go well on his resume. Time will tell, but if the Hashemites are as close to Israel as Goldberg is claiming then we can expect the King to see his end like Mubarak.

(Carl) So much for all those Leftists who believe that King Abdullah hates Binyamin Netanyahu and would gladly see Israel replaced by a ‘Palestinian state.’ The King is much smarter than all that, reports Jeffrey Goldberg in the Atlantic (Hat Tip: Memeorandum).

Israel, in some ways, is Jordan’s most important ally. As the guarantor of quiet on Israel’s eastern front, and as the defender of the peace treaty that King Hussein forged with Yitzhak Rabin in 1994, Abdullah’s Jordan is essential to the Israelis. Jordan and Israel are also working together to prevent the chaos of Syria from spilling into their countries. The king would not talk about joint Jordanian-Israeli operations, but several sources in Amman and Tel Aviv told me that Israeli drones are monitoring the Jordan-Syria border on Jordan’s behalf, and that military and intelligence officials from the two countries are in constant contact, planning for post–Bashar al‑Assad chaos.

Even as Abdullah envisions ceding more of his power, he draws one red line: “I don’t want a government to come in and say, ‘We repudiate the peace treaty with Israel.’ ” He is cautious when speaking about the Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, with whom he is reportedly in regular communication. He would say only that his relationship with Netanyahu is “very strong. Our discussions have really improved.”

Abdullah says he is pessimistic about Israel’s future.

Though he acknowledges the role Netanyahu plays in maintaining Jordanian stability, he is not optimistic about Israel’s future. King Abdullah is known as an advocate of two states for two peoples—Israel secure in its pre-1967 borders, Palestine to be established in Gaza and the West Bank—but when I asked him in January how much time he thought was left to implement this idea, his answer surprised me. “It could be too late already for the two-state solution,” he said. “I don’t know. Part of me is worried that is already past us.”

If it were too late, what would that mean?

He responded with a single word: “Isratine.” That’s a neologism popularized by the late Muammar Qaddafi to describe his vision of a joint Arab-Jewish state. If Israel doesn’t agree to a Palestinian state quickly, Abdullah said, “apartheid or democracy” will be its choice. “The practical question is, can Israel exert permanent control over Palestinians who are disenfranchised ad infinitum, or does it eventually become a South Africa, which couldn’t survive as a pariah state?”

There are some Israelis, I said, who value Israel more as a Jewish state than as a democratic state. “The only way you’re going to have a Jewish part is if you have a two-state solution. That’s the Jewish part,” he said.

Abdullah is smart enough to understand that Israel’s continued existence is the only thing that ensures that his country will not be overrun by its ‘Palestinians.’ Given that is the case, one has to wonder why Abdullah does not do more to bring about the conditions for a ‘settlement.’ For example, he could make the ‘Palestinian refugees’ in Jordan citizens of his country rather than holding them for a ‘right of return’ that he knows will never happen.
I have the impression from reading Goldberg’s piece that perhaps Abdullah would like to do just that but is prevented from doing so by the Bedouin tribes on whom he is dependent to maintain his power. In any event, a ‘two-state solution’ and the ‘right of return’ which would demographically extinguish Israel don’t go together. Abdullah is smart enough to understand that. 
I wonder whether he’s discussed this with Netanyahu, or perhaps their discussions have been limited to other areas of mutual interest like Syria and Iran.


Bibi and Merkel Despise Each Other – but Only if You Read the Times

December 8, 2012

Leo Rennert

The New York Times, along with most other Western media, has kept up a drumbeat of criticism of Israel’s decision to build 3,000 more housing units in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, along with planning and zoning work on an area known as E-1 that links East Jerusalem and the nearby Jewish town of Maale Adumim, population 40,000.

So it comes as no surprise that the Times would eagerly await a summit in Berlin between German Chancellor Angela Merkel and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Dec. 5-6.  Germany disappointed Israel by abstaining from a U.N. vote to grant statehood recognition to “Palestine” — instead of casting an outright “no” vote.  Merkel long has differed with Israel on settlements, and the summit was widely anticipated as an event dominated by this issue.

Merkel on the attack and Bibi on the defensive?  So it might seem from Kulish’s article, which focuses mainly on Netanyahu and settlements.  Pouring it on, Kulish tells readers that “the usually warm relations between Israel and Germany have been especially strained in recent days.”  As for the E-1 area, he writes, “critics said future construction in E-1 could irreparably harm the chances for a viable, contiguous Palestinian state.”

A contentious summit, n’est-ce pas?  Actually, au contraire.

Except for settlements, where both leaders “agreed to disagree,” it was a very harmonious summit.  It’s just that Kulish blanks out a profusion of very friendly and very positive declarations by Merkel about the Israeli-German relationship — now and in the future.  In fact, in spotlighting Bibi, Kulish totally neglects Merkel’s determination to put settlements aside — “this is a point that already has been discussed many times” — and concentrate instead on a lengthy agenda of Israeli-German cooperation.

Here are some of her statements at the post-summit press conference that never made it into the Times:

The chancellor told reporters that they could refer to her website, “which points out once again how wide our cooperation is.”  She stressed that Germany is looking forward to the 50th anniversary of German-Israeli diplomatic relations to advance “greater cooperation in all areas — from culture, the economy and even financial issues and much more.”

Merkel also pointedly noted joint Israeli-German development projects to assist countries in Africa like Ethiopia and Kenya.

Referring to Israel’s recent eight-day war with Hamas in Gaza, Merkel said it was important to recognize that “the starting point was Hamas” with its rocket attacks against Israel.

Summing up her views, the German chancellor said that “there is a wide, deep sense — namely that our two countries work together amicably, intensely. Israel is the only democracy in the region with which we have a strategic partnership.”

Not exactly a case of the chancellor taking Bibi to the woodshed, as the Times and other media sought to portray the summit.

Kulish’s anti-Israel tilt also is evident in his treatment of the controversy over possible future construction in the E-1 area.  He eagerly quotes unnamed “critics” as charging that this would “irreparably harm” chances of a viable, contiguous Palestinian state.  Actually, this is pure bunk.  Kulish overlooks the fact that Israeli officials and other “supporters” of E-1 development have pointed out that contiguity can and would be easily guaranteed with a bypass highway around Maale Adumim that would connect Ramallah and other Palestinian cities to the north with Bethlehem and Hebron in the south within a contiguous Palestinian state.

The Times is flogging Bibi and Israel with a canard.  Development of E-1 has been supported by every Israeli prime minister since Yitzhak Rabin.  And Bibi already has signaled that he would only go beyond zoning and planning in E-1 if Mahmoud Abbas, instead of joining in direct negotiations, continues with unilateral campaigns against Israel.

Leo Rennert is a former White House correspondent and Washington bureau chief of McClatchy Newspapers.

Page Printed from:… at December 07, 2012 – 11:06:10 PM CST

Sabena 571: 40 years ago today

May 8, 2012
Bibi shaking hands with then-President Zalman Shazar.

40 years ago today that Sabena 571 was hijacked on its way from Vienna to Tel Aviv (Hat Tip: MFS – The Other News/Carl).

(IDF) Within ten minutes of boarding the plane, the squad of elite commandos managed to kill the two male terrorists, arrest the two female terrorists, and neutralize the threat to the passengers. Nearly all civilians on board were unharmed, except for three, one of whom later died from her injuries. Among the commandos were Ehud Barak and Benjamin Netanyahu–both of whom eventually became Israeli prime ministers.
The surviving female terrorists were sentenced to life in Israeli prison, but were later released in the prisoner exchange deal following the 1982 Lebanon War.

The same airplane that was victim to the hijacking was flown for an additional five years before being sold to the Israeli Air Force (IAF). The IAF ended up using it to carry out spy missions. (MORE)

What is that you are eating Obama?

November 26, 2011
(Obama Eating Frog legs) …Bibi killed Abbas and tried to cook his body parts. This story is kind of gross and it includes video for those who really can’t get enough of it (
(Israel Matzav Hat Tip: David H).

Funding the enemy

September 20, 2011

Like quiting smoking. You know it is bad for you, but you can’t stop spending money on it There is a lot of social pressure to keep your former lethal habit going and you may not survive kicking the vice. I have a lot of empathy. I’d like to go to Israel, but I’m afraid I’m not ready… and I’m not sure Israel is ready to protect me either… or if I could protect myself from some of the leftist Israelis that I met in NYC or online.Sorry to make this personal.

PA militias.jpg (Caroline Glick) Cong. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, the chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, is a true friend of Israel. Her bill calling for a cutoff of US aid to the PA and a massive decrease of US aid to the UN in the event the UN upgrades the Palestinians’ diplomatic status is one of the most important pieces of pro-Israel legislation to be introduced in the US Congress in a generation. By announcing it opposes an aid cutoff, Israel undermined Ros-Lehtinen’s position. It betrayed its good friend. No doubt Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman were under great pressure from the IDF and from the Obama administration to call for continued international funding of the PA. But the public didn’t elect them with the expectation that they would abandon Israel’s national interest and harm its friends just because they feel the heat. (MORE)

I was wondering what happened to this story

August 31, 2011
The Israeli prime minister’s office denied media reports Binyamin Netanyahu’s wife mistreated a foreign worker hired to care for her elderly father. Channel 2 reported Tuesday Sarah Netanyahu was suspected of mistreating a caretaker from Nepal. The television report said she suspected the worker of stealing money from her 96-year old father. An argument allegedly ensued and the worker fell, injuring her hand. In response to the theft allegations, the worker alleged Netanyahu failed to feed her, cursed her and refused to give her vacation time. A statement issued by Binyamin Netanyahu’s office denied the charges and said the worker’s allegations were baseless, made only after she found out the agency employing her was looking for a replacement, The Jerusalem Post said. “When it became known to her that she was about to be fired — something that could lead to her being deported from the country — she made up the story, and now there is a cynical and unworthy campaign against the Netanyahu family,” the Post quoted the statement issued by Netanyahu’s office.

I remember this story being a big thing in the NYTimes. Honestly I was so scared of Obama and Livni that I forgot about this libelous story completely. For one thing the person who would take the blame would be his wife… and that kind of attitude that blamed Bibi for Sarah was pushed when the NYTimes thought the Clinton family and their ambitious husband wife team was some kind of ideal match, when in fact it kind of led Bill to go wild. So the story was a big deal because the liberal media was condemning people based on their spouses behavior and comparing them to the careerist culture of the progressive Democrats. Now it has been exposed that this culture and it’s role models were a facade, but the libel against poor Sarah Netanyahu still is out there because the original juxtaposition of the alleged accusation is moved from being a condemnation of a marriage (that would implicate Bibi) to a Socioeconomic allegation that is more in line with the attitude of the Tel Aviv Tent protesters. The one consistency is that the story is probably bullshit. If you have never fired a difficult worker and had accusations come out then you have never had to employ anyone… let alone in a difficult situation where an elderly man is being taken care of. Then there is the other issue. Suppose Sarah is guilty? How guilty is she really? She was concerned about her dying father. It shows how biased the media is against Jewish leadership.

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