Will Obama make Israel "an offer it can’t refuse?"

March 5, 2013
Israel, Jews, and Judaism: Will Obama make Israel “an offer it can’t refuse?
There is a report making the rounds that unnamed “Israeli sources” claim that Barack Obama will shortly “demand a timetable for Israeli withdrawal from the West Bank,” presumably in return for the US dealing with Iran. A 2014 deadline to establish a Palestinian state is mentioned.
Things like this surface all the time, and mostly they are simply nonsense. It is irresponsible for a journalist, or even a blogger, to publish what is essentially a rumor based on a single report which does not even include a source.
And yet…
There are certainly people in the White House who would think this is a good idea. Everyone knows, they would say, that only details prevent a two-state solution, and the main obstacle to moving forward is right-wing influence on the Israeli PM. Here’s an opportunity, they are saying, let’s take it.
The simple reason that there can be no two-state solution is that it entails the acceptance by the Palestinians of the continued existence of the Jewish state west of the Green Line, and that contradicts the essence of the Palestinian national project. Indeed, one could — I would — go so far as to say that Arabs who would accept a peaceful state alongside Israel as a permanent goal could not properly be called ‘Palestinians’, since the very definition of a ‘Palestinian people’ negates Zionism (but perhaps I digress).
Dennis Ross, who knows as much about ‘peace processing’ as anyone, recently put forward a 14-point plan to bring about a two-state solution. It illustrates two things: one, that Ross possesses a paradoxical combination of intelligence, experience and the inability to see his nose in front of his face; and two, that the concessions it would require from the Palestinians are, as I said above, unthinkable.
Regardless, while a ‘solution’ — that is, an agreement that ends the conflict — is impossible, a coerced Israeli withdrawal in the context of an agreement that pretends to end the conflict is. And that is the danger.
Whether those who would like to force a withdrawal cynically understand that it would be disastrous for Israel’s security and don’t care (or welcome such a disaster), or whether they actually believe it would be a step toward peace is not important. What is important is that they might be able to sell the idea to a public — particularly liberal Jews — that to a great extent continues to believe in the two-state idea. And if they don’t object strongly enough, how could it be stopped?
The confirmation of Chuck Hagel, and particularly the collapse of Sen. Charles Schumer should be instructive. When push comes to shove, today’s liberals — even “strong supporters of Israel” like Schumer are Obama supporters first.
There is another aspect of the situation. That is that the combination of a blow against Iran with a blow against Israel would be a win-win for Sunni Muslim interests in the Middle East: the Saudis, the Muslim Brotherhood and Turkey would all like to see Iran defanged and Israel weakened vis-a-vis the Palestinians. Interestingly, Islamist Turkey, the Brotherhood and the Saudis seem to be the people that President Obama finds the most congenial in the region.
Everything seems to be lining up to their advantage. Israel withdraws, the US bombs Iran, Hizballah responds by attacking Israel. Sunni forces, in particular those supported by Turkey, take advantage of the chaos (and the preoccupation of Hizballah) to finish off Assad and take control of Syria. Although the US will support the Palestinian Authority for a time, Hamas — don’t forget, it is the Palestinian branch of the Brotherhood — will soon get control of Judea and Samaria one way or another.
There are other unpleasant possibilities — US-led UN or NATO troops in Judea/Samaria to ‘protect’ the peace agreement, which will end up protecting Palestinian terrorists against Israel, even the possibility of the IDF and Americans shooting at each other. Sound impossible? Chuck Hagel thought it was a good idea, as did Samantha Power, Obama’s “Senior Director of Multilateral Affairs on the staff of the National Security Council.
So, yes, the rumor about a planned offer that Israel can’t refuse is only a rumor. But it could be a true rumor. We’ll find out very shortly.
http://fresnozionism.org/2013/03/will-obama-make-israel-an-offer-it-cant-refuse/

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.

Media_httpwwwjpostcom_ahpgc

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.



CBS "60 Minutes" Joins the Arab Propaganda Bandwagon on Jerusalem

October 22, 2010

Ricki Hollander
CAMERA Media Analysis
20 October ’10

One of the main obstacles in previous peace-making efforts has been Arab unwillingness to accept Israel as a Jewish state and Muslim denial of Judaism’s historical and religious ties to Jerusalem. U.S. negotiator Dennis Ross complained that during the July 2000 negotiations at Camp David, Palestinian leader Yasir Arafat’s only contribution was his refusal to acknowledge Jewish ties to Jerusalem, claiming the Jewish Temple never existed there. When talks resumed in Taba later that year, the Israelis agreed to full Palestinian sovereignty on the Temple Mount, but requested Palestinians acknowledge the sacredness of the place to Judaism. They refused. (See “The Battle Over Jerusalem and the Temple Mount“) Moreover, Palestinian leaders not only deny the existence of Jewish holy sites in Jerusalem, they falsely allege that Jews are trying to takeover or destroy Muslim holy sites there. In that way, they follow the lead of Jerusalem Mufti and Nazi sympathizer Haj al Amin Husseini who so successfully incited anti-Jewish rioting in the1920’s by making his battle cry “Defend Muslim Holy Sites.”
The efforts to delegitimize Israel’s claim to Jerusalem have generally been limited to Arab and Muslim leaders, but recently, international media outlets have jumped on board to support them. The latest one to join the fray is Lesley Stahl of CBS News’s “60 Minutes” in an October 17th segment entitled “Controversy in Jerusalem: The City Of David.”
Ms. Stahl did not apparently bother to engage in serious journalism, the kind that involves research and fact-checking. She simply followed the playbook of Time Magazine, the Economist, and BBC’s “Panorama” with a “paint-by-numbers” exercise calling on the same cast of characters, repeating the same distorted claims and reading from the same overall script. Echoing colleagues at the aforementioned media outlets, Ms. Stahl demonstrated how to promote Arab political propaganda with shoddy and partisan journalism:

1) Characterize as “controversial” Israel’s publicizing of archeological findings of Israelite history in Jerusalem, discredit the field of biblical archeology and dismiss archeological excavations as something run by a “settler organization.”
According to Ms. Stahl:
It’s controversial that the City of David uses discoveries to try to confirm what’s in the Bible, particularly from the time of David, the king who made Jerusalem his capital…

and
…But for all the talk of King David, one thing is glaringly missing here at the City of David. There`s actually no evidence of David, right?
Ms. Stahl dismisses the field of biblical archeology, especially the City of David enterprise, by throwing out a red herring — that there is no archeological proof of a King David himself. But, while it is impossible to uncover archeological evidence of any single individual, there is strong archeological evidence for the existence of a Davidic Kingdom. Stahl omits mention, for instance, that in 2005, archeologist Eilat Mazar uncovered remnants of a massive palace in the City of David dating to the 10th century BCE which is believed to be King David’s palace.
It is unlikely that Ms. Stahl would ever challenge Palestinians about the existence of Mohammed, or whether she would question Christians about the existence of Jesus, based on lack of direct archeological proof of those individuals. Her approach, of course, supports attempts by Arab and Muslim leaders to erase any evidence of Jewish history in Jerusalem, whether through the Waqf’s unsupervised construction and dumping of artifacts, or whether through the riots that are incited whenever Israel excavates, builds or discovers evidence of its Jewish roots in Jerusalem’s holy basin. 
Ms. Stahl studiously avoided mention of this issue. She also did not bother to note that City of David archeologists, who are respected internationally for their scholarly contributions to the field, carry out their work under the auspices of the well-regarded Israel Antiquities Authority (IAA). Nor did she elaborate on the strict protocols which govern their work.
Excavations must be supervised by scholars associated with recognized institutes of archaeology, where there is an infrastructure for research, laboratory treatment, and processing. These scholars publish all of their finds (both Israelite and others) according to accepted scientific standards, and they conserve each uncovered layer of the excavated area as required by the Conservation Department of the IAA. But Ms. Stahl chose to smear the excavations as governed by a “settler organization.” According to the CBS reporter:
While a government agency oversees the excavations, the dig and the site are largely funded and run by something called El`Ad…which claims they`re not a settlers` organization, though, people we spoke to say they are.
2) Call it political “indoctrination” to teach Jews about their historical roots in Jerusalem.

According to Ms. Stahl:
Half a million tourists visit the site every year, with guides who try to bring King David to life. There’s an implicit message: that because David conquered the city for the Jews back then, Jerusalem belongs to the Jews today….
and

…So archeology is being used as a political tool. I mean, I hate to use the word, but indoctrination…
Would Ms. Stahl similarly suggest that archeologists should avoid telling Arabs about their own history in the area? Should Americans not send their children to Washington to visit the Lincoln Memorial? By conveying the attitude that it is somehow sinister to strengthen Jewish knowledge about and connection to Jerusalem, Ms. Stahl reflects the Arab perspective where Muslim rights and connection to the Holy Basin are a given, while Jewish rights and connection to the area are considered dubious and an obstacle to peace.
Needless to say, Ms. Stahl does not mention anything about indoctrination by Arab leaders who deny that Jews have any history in the area.
3) Portray Silwan as an area that does or should belong to Arabs. Describe Jews as interlopers with no right to live or carry out excavations there and ignore “inconvenient” history – both of Jewish habitation there as well as Jordan’s illegal and racist occupation that ended it.
According to Ms. Stahl:
Another problem is an inconvenient truth that biblical Jerusalem is not located in the western half of the city. It`s right under the densely-populated Arab neighborhood of Silwan. And according to the Clinton parameters, Silwan should be part of a Palestinian state…

and

…organizations that move Jewish settlers into Arab areas have infiltrated Silwan…
and
…El`Ad has raised tens of millions of dollars, half from the United States, and buys these homes on land the Palestinians claim for a future state
What Ms. Stahl fails to report is that there was a community of Yemenite Jewish families in Silwan as early as 1882 in the neighborhood known as Kfar HaShiloach, and additional Jewish families from various countries joined them in the following years. In the early 1900’s Baron de Rothschild bought several acres of land there for the Jewish community. Silwan’s Jewish residents lived in the area until they were forced out by Arab attacks in the late 1920s. The City of David, situated in the Silwan valley, is still 60 percent Jewish-owned, including the area bought by Baron de Rothschild. And it is perfectly legal to continue to buy homes there.
The notion that this area must now be rendered Judenrein — free of Jewish habitation, with Jews prohibited from purchasing homes there — echoes the racist policies of Jordan’s 19-year illegal occupation of the area, something that Ms. Stahl assiduously avoids mentioning.

4) Gloss over, minimize or ignore “inconvenient truths” that show Arabs as interlopers in the area.
Ms. Stahl discusses the plans to create a tourist park in King’s Garden near the City of David, noting that this “requires demolishing twenty-two Arab homes in Silwan,” something she suggests would be an “explosive” action.
Ms. Stahl attributes to the mayor the argument that the “Arab houses were built illegally,” and that he plans to relocate them, but viewers are never informed that the land had been set aside as conservation parkland with residential building prohibited long before the Arab homes in question were illegally erected. Instead she concludes, “but the locals want to stay in their homes,” as if describing them as “locals” is reason enough for them to be allowed to defy the law governing this archeologically-rich area.
The missing “inconvenient truth” can be found in an article by Ha’aretz journalist Nadav Shragai:
Progress has brought troubles along with it to the King’s Valley. For hundreds of years floodwaters drained into the garden of the kings of Judea, east of the Shiloah Pool in Jerusalem. In winter it was a swamp, but in summer it became a blooming garden.
With a bit of imagination and with the help of varied historical sources it is possible to imagine King David strolling in the royal garden with its abundant greenery and water among the olive, fig, pomegranate and almond trees, singing Psalms.
According to one tradition, this is where the Book of Ecclesiastes was composed.
About 20 years ago, the Jerusalem municipality shored up the water runoff there, and in the open green area (al Bustan, in Arabic), which the Turks and the British took care to preserve for hundreds of years as a public area intended for preservation and development of parks and tourism, an illegal Palestinian outpost arose.
Within 18 years 88 buildings went up there, under the noses of mayors Teddy Kollek and now outgoing Prime Minister Ehud Olmert. Under former mayor Uri Lupolianski, the construction was halted, after the municipality confiscated tractors and heavy machinery from the lawbreakers.
Last summer the director general of the Antiquities Authority, Shuka Dorfman, noted in a kind of “post mortem” that the construction in the King’s Garden caused significant and irreversible damage to antiquities.
Representatives of the municipality and Dorfman admitted that they had no good explanation for what has happened in this lovely garden, which is described in the Books of Nechemiah and Ecclesiastes, in midrashim (rabbinic Biblical homiletics) and in many historical sources. Dorfman stressed that together with Tel David, the garden constitutes the only complete archaeological garden of first-rate importance.
5) Challenge Israeli statements with Palestinian accusations.
Ms. Stahl gave up all pretense of journalistic objectivity when she took on the role of court prosecutor with Israeli interviewees. She challenged them by echoing Palestinian allegations:
LESLEY STAHL: So El Ad is doing archaeology and settlements?
DORON SPIELMAN: We are doing archaeology, and we are buying homes and buying land.
LESLEY STAHL: But is it El Ad`s goal to ease the Arabs away from right where we are right now?
DORON SPIELMAN: Put it this way, if there`s a home that an Arab wants to sell and I have the money to buy it and I can move, enable a Jewish family to live there, and I can dig archaeologically underneath it, then I think that`s a wonderful thing to do.
LESLEY STAHL (voiceover): The Arabs say it`s a provocative thing to do.
……and
LESLEY STAHL: I heard you wanted to evict people. Where are– where are those houses?
NIR BARKAT: That`s– that`s just not true. To accept–
LESLEY STAHL (overlapping): Well, wait, but if you make a park, then those houses can`t be there anymore.
NIR BARKAT: They mustn`t have been there in the first place.
LESLEY STAHL: Yeah, but so– so you will evict. You will evict.
NIR BARKAT: Not evict. When you improve their quality of life, the right word to say is that you`re dealing with improvement of quality of life.
LESLEY STAHL (voiceover): His park, he says, will upgrade the area, and he`ll allow the people who`ll be evicted to build new houses nearby. But locals tell us the only way to do that would be to build on top of other homes in Silwan…
…The European Union, the United Nations has criticized this plan to get rid of these twenty-two homes. Public opinion, especially while the peace talks are under way, is– is looking at this and saying you`re trying to get rid- – move Arabs out of Jerusalem.
NIR BARKAT (overlapping): That`s not true.

LESLEY STAHL: But that`s the way it looks.…..

6) Do not challenge or fact-check any Palestinian statements. Instead accept, repeat and endorse them.
In sharp contrast to her prosecutorial attitude toward Israeli interviewees, Stahl accepts Palestinian statements without challenge.
LESLEY STAHL (voiceover): Palestinian Jawad Siyam was born in [Silwan] and says he can trace his roots here back nine hundred thirty years. He`s pessimistic about the Palestinians ever having their own state….
LESLEY STAHL (voiceover): Jawad says that El`Ad uses the dig`s archeological prestige to hide its aim of moving the locals out. And he believes that the tunneling is a way for El`Ad to extend its reach deeper into Silwan…
LESLEY STAHL (voiceover): There`s a feeling of encroachment. The Arabs feel it…
LESLEY STAHL (voiceover): But as with the dig, the local Arabs see this as another attempt to gobble up their side of Jerusalem…
7) Avoid mention of anything that might portray Palestinians and Arab leaders in a poor light, or as an obstacle to peace. 
There was no mention of Jordan’s ethnic cleansing of Jews from the region or their Judenrein policy during their illegal occupation, no mention of attempts by Palestinian and Muslim leaders to erase – both mentally (with denials) and physically (by destroying archeological remnants) Jewish history here.  There is no mention of the deadly attacks by eastern Jerusalem Arabs against Jews both in eastern and western Jerusalem — a contributing factor to why Israel does not want Jerusalem divided.
While she mentions “escalating confrontations” near Silwan, Ms. Stahl focuses on one incident which she says “became violent” when a car driven by an Israeli who turned out to be “of all people, the head of Elad,” struck two masked Palestinian youths who had been throwing stones.  Of course, the incident was violent from the start, as masked Palestinian youths and adults surrounded the car, hurling stones at it. Three people, two of them minors and one adult, were subsequently arrested for thowing stones and smashing the window of a car. There were also many questions about the incident itself, particularly, why so many photographers had converged at the site well before the Israeli driver had entered the scene.  Had they been alerted in advance? Had they been told that there would be dramatic distubances or confrontations they might want to photograph? (See: “Silwan Distortions in the Israeli Press“) Needless to say, Ms. Stahl did not explore any of this, as it did not support the story she was telling.
8) Suggest instead that it is Israeli actions – whether archeological excavations, purchasing of homes, or enforcing municipal laws – that obstruct the possibility of peace.
According to Ms. Stahl:
Settlements have been a stumbling block in peace negotiations of the past. And …could become the stumbling block again.
A decade ago, Chairman President Mahmoud Abbas went on record challenging Jerusalem’s Jewish heritage and the existence of a Jewish Temple, adding that even if there were one, “we do not accept it, because it is not logical for someone who wants a practical peace.” (Kul Al-Arab, August 25, 2000; Translation: MEMRI) Today, he refuses to accept Israel as a Jewish state.
But to Ms. Stahl and CBS, the Palestinians’ refusal to recognize Israel and the attempt to erase Jerusalem’s Jewish heritage are not the story she wants to tell. To her, the only obstacle to peace is Israel’s commitment to its Jewish roots in Jerusalem.

Bill Clinton lied about Jonathan Pollard. His Reputation in History Now Marked As a Brutal Thug… Not For Peace

September 21, 2010

The reason Pollard should be released is because it is just. the information Jonathan had should of been given to Israel and was also promised to Israel. The state secret Pollard was getting was information on Saddam’s chemical weapons and other capabilities that Israel needed to stay alive. This just furthers my hatred and suspicions of the Clinton’s priorities. Peace is not their objective. Degrading good Jews like Clinton did to Monica is what the Clintons were and still are all about. When I talk to feminists today in upstate New York they have more Antisemitism then any other members of the population. We must do everything in our power to insure that we keep these people out of power for our liberty.

Bill Clinton admits he ‘considered’ releasing Pollard at Wye

Former US President Bill Clinton has admitted for the first time that Prime Minister Netanyahu came to the 1998 Wye River Conference thinking he had Jonathan Pollard’s release in hand, and that Clinton did consider releasing Pollard.

Former US president Bill Clinton said in a recent conversation with a prominent US Jewish leader that when Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu went to the Wye River Plantation talks in 1998 with Yasser Arafat, he thought that he would return to Israel with Jonathan Pollard, according to Israeli diplomatic sources.
According to these sources, this is the first time Clinton has acknowledged that Netanyahu went to the talks thinking he had Pollard’s freedom in hand.
In the end, a deal to release Pollard as part of the agreements with Arafat was scuttled when then-CIA director George Tenet threatened to resign if the deal went through.

Among the US officials Barak was scheduled to meet in Washington on Monday was Dennis Ross, who dealt at some length in his memoir The Missing Peace with how the Pollard issue played out during the Wye talks. In that book Ross, who was the US Middle East envoy at the time, wrote that Clinton considered releasing Pollard to try to ensure that an Israeli-PA deal would be sealed.
In the end, Ross wrote, he himself advised Clinton against going ahead with the release when Netanyahu said he would not sign the Wye deal without Pollard’s release.
“Did you make a commitment to release Pollard?” Ross quoted himself as asking Clinton in the book. “If you did, you have to release him.”
According to Ross, “The president swore he had made no promises; he’s said he would see what he could do, but he had made no promises.
I then said, ‘If you did not make a promise to him, you should not give in to this.’” Officials in the Prime Minister’s Office on Monday denied reports that Pollard has been placed into settlement construction moratorium equation, with one official saying the report was “not accurate.”

I suspect that Clinton did make a commitment and then weaseled out of it by reinterpreting his own words. Ask Monica Lewinsky about how Clinton did things like that.

 “In August 2007, a secret report written by the CIA inspector general was made public (originally written in 2005 but kept secret). The 19-page summary states that Tenet knew the dangers of Al Qaeda well before September 2001, but that the leadership of the CIA did not do enough to prevent any attacks. Tenet reacted to the publication of this report by calling it “flat wrong”, citing in particular the planning efforts of the past two years.”

George Tenet… did little to protect America from Al Qaeda attacks.  It was on his watch that America was attacked.  But he sure did everything to keep Jonathan Pollard in jail.  Jonathan is a hero who was trying to get secrets promised to Israel by the US regarding Iraqi chemical warfare.  Tenet is the one who should be in jail… not Pollard


Dennis Ross – Obama offers Incentives for Dhimmis.

August 29, 2010

National Security Council Middle East Strategist Dennis Ross is in Israel – that much is undisputed. And according to most reports, he is here to work on the ‘peace process.’

“Ross is here ‘to resolve the settlement freeze triangle,’” an Israeli source says, referring to whether Israel will agree to extend a freeze on Israeli settlement building currently due to expire Sept. 26.
Ross is meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and lead Israeli negotiator Yitzhak Molcho, the Israeli source told POLITICO.

Ross’s visit could be about helping to clarify what Netanyahu may agree to ahead of the talks now that the Palestinians have agreed to direct talks, and what he might consider agreeing to after he hears from Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas and President Obama next week, former U.S. peace negotiator Aaron Miller suggested.
The White House did not immediately respond to queries on Ross’s travel.

JPost adds:

Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu began choosing the members of Israel’s negotiating team, as American diplomat Dennis Ross arrived in Israel on Thursday to discuss the beginning of direct talks with the Palestinians.
US President Barack Obama and Secretary of State Hilary Clinton reportedly sent Ross to Israel in order to settle the issue of the West Bank building freeze.

But there’s another report – which probably should be taken with a grain of salt – that gives an entirely different explanation for Ross’ visit (Hat Tip: Will).

Debkafile’s Washington and Jerusalem sources report that Israel has revived its military option against Iran – especially since Iran activated its first nuclear reactor at Bushehr on Aug. 21, thereby placing Washington under enormous pressure. In addition to the dire predictions of catastrophe planted on various op-ed pages, the Obama administration this week sent two big guns to Jerusalem to try and check an Israel attack.
The first to arrive was International Atomic Energy Agency Director Yukiya Amano, who explained that under his stewardship the nuclear watchdog’s treatment of Iran would be quite different from the lenience shown by his predecessor, Mohamed ElBaradei. He promised its inspectors would henceforth clamp down hard on Iran’s nuclear activities including the Bushehr reactor.
Thursday, Aug. 26, Amano was joined by Dennis Ross, head of Obama’s team of Iran advisers and a close friend of many Israeli leaders. He came laden with offers of security gifts – possible rewards both for restraint on Iran and as a softener for Netanyahu to be generous with concessions to the Palestinians in the forthcoming negotiations.
Ross has taken three days to make his pitch on Iran, while Netanyahu has less than a week to decide whether he can again trust the US president’s new promises after they were not exactly upheld in the way the Bushehr reactor was allowed to go on stream or the modalities for the negotiations with the Palestinians.
While preparing the Ross mission, the administration let it be known that the security gifts on offer would be dramatic and make the IDF one of the strongest and most advanced armies in the world.

For details on the ‘security gifts’ and more, read the whole thing. The Reidel piece to which they refer is here. (I read most of it last night, but it’s way too long to blog today).
Unfortunately, the notion that the Obama administration would do almost anything to bring about a ‘Palestinian state’ and to stop an Israeli attack on Iran (including selling to Israel some of the few remaining F-22’s) is way too plausible.

Papa Obama is offering some goodies….
unless Iran’s technology speeds up and overcomes Israeli capability faster then present variables in two years it takes to get Obama out of power, I’d say go low tech. A few toys are not worth your home.


Obama Threat

May 6, 2010

Even so called friends in Obama’s arsenal are linking Israel to terrorism and terrorist states. Dennis Ross buys into linkage?  Some remarks made by Dennis Ross at the Anti-Defamation League on Monday have raised some eyebrows.  via israelmatzav.blogspot.com

“Clearly one way that Iran is increasing its influence in the region is by exploiting the ongoing conflict between Israelis and Palestinians,” Ross said, echoing statements made by U.S. Centcom commander Gen. David Petraeus in a report (pdf) submitted to Congress back in March.

Apparently Bibi is bypassing Mitchell and talking directly to Ross. It appears to be a conflict that is more personal and less to do with both the security of Israel. Perhaps as Carl mentions he thinks he can get away with giving it up because it is an Orthodox neighborhood and those Jews are treated as secular citizens compared to the rest of Israelis, but Ramat Shlomo is a Jewish neighborhood surrounded by Jews and giving it up would be a major security breach for Jews. I find it hard to believe that people can’t see this as Ethnic cleansing. Jews are not allowed in the territory allotted to Palestine, but the reverse is not so.

US President Barack Obama made clear in a recent letter to the Palestinians that he views Israel as the obstacle to peace and will approach further peace efforts from that point of view, according to senior Palestinian Authority officials.   PA secretary general Tayeb Abdel Rahim on Sunday told reporters that the letter made the usual commitments to an independent Palestinian state with territorial continuity. Rahim also said that Obama promised to start publicly assigning blame to those he sees holding up peace and to force Israel into indefinitely extending its temporary settlement freeze.

http://xrl.us/ObamaThreat?

What is lame is that Obama isn’t even talking to Bibi, but rather using the NYTimes through Roger Cohen to publicly threaten the Jewish state.  Would a real friend use a newspaper to make threats?  Obama looks silly in a cowboy hat.  He doesn’t have what it takes to be a real man and say it to another man’s face

The Obama administration has in fact threatened to abstain rather than veto a UN Security Council resolution regarding Israel. It’s just that the resolution in question is narrower than what has been reported previously.

 I believe this is called passive aggressive

Mr. Mitchell’s deputy, David Hale, indicated to the Palestinians that if Israel proceeded with the construction of 1,600 housing units in Jerusalem’s ultra-orthodox neighborhood of Ramat Shlomo, the United States would abstain from, rather than veto, a resolution in the United Nations Security Council condemning the move.

just plain dishonest. 
let us wait for the Bibi quote before we blow our top. Bibi is representing a Democracy… despite Obama’s contempt for checks and balances.

Ben Smith notes that the White House has not denied this story. Smith adds:

This isn’t inconsistent with yesterday’s denial, and the U.S. posture seems to be that they’d abstain from a resolution attacking a specific Israeli move, but continue to veto broader censure of Israel.
That would still be a major shift. The traditional U.S. posture isn’t that the U.S. vetoes anti-Israel resolutions because they’re specifically incorrect, but on the grounds that the U.N. is broadly unfair and overly focused on Israel.

Jennifer Rubin is justifiably upset about this.

So much for defending Israel in international institutions, and so much for past promises by the U.S. to leave disposition of Jerusalem to final-status talks. A knowledgeable source reminds me that the Bush administration regularly vetoed anti-Israel UN resolutions, the sole exception being an abstention in January 2009, which called for a ceasefire in the Gaza War. But the notion that we would threaten prospectively to permit a condemnation of the Jewish state by the UN Israel-bashers is frankly shocking. We’ll abstain no matter what the UN says? As the source tells me, “Resolutions are vetoed one by one; language counts.” So the Obambi are either making a promise to the Palestinians that can’t be relied upon, or the Obambi are giving Israel’s UN foes a blank check to bash, condemn, and vilify Israel to their heart’s content.
Once again, one asks, where are the mainstream Jewish organizations? Do they find Obama’s platitudinous assurances and pretty letters so irresistible that they can’t bestir themselves to discern the true nature of Obama’s Middle East policy? The evidence continues to mount that Obama will keep turning the screws on the Jewish state and will countenance, if not encourage, the UN’s crusade to delegitimize Israel and impose a “peace” on an unwilling ally. American Jewish “leaders” better rouse themselves from their slumber before it too late to knock the Obami off their desired course. Or maybe it already is.

I suspect that most of the ‘mainstream Jewish organizations’ don’t know or care where Ramat Shlomo is or what it is about.
Some of you may have heard about the corruption scandal known as the Holyland Park, a huge luxury apartment complex built on the site of the former Holyland Hotel, which seems to have gotten its zoning permits only because they bribed just about everyone in sight. What you may not realize is that Jerusalem has had almost nothing but ‘luxury apartments’ built for the last 20 years. Those luxury apartments are purchased by people who live abroad, and they sit empty for the entire year except for the weeks of the Pesach and Sukkot holidays. That’s great if you can afford it, but what it means for Israelis is that there are no apartments we can afford, that the shopkeepers in those neighborhoods have little or no business and that the schools in those neighborhoods have few or no students. On a macro level, it’s been devastating to the city. Housing prices have skyrocketed, and young couples are either living in storage rooms converted to apartments or have left the city altogether. That’s why we’re still fighting an uphill battle to keep Jerusalem Jewish.
There have been two new neighborhoods in the last twenty years in which they housing was (originally at least) affordable: Ramat Shlomo and Har Homa. Both were built in the 1990’s. Those 1,600 apartments that were supposed to be built in Ramat Shlomo were 3-bedroom 2-bathroom starter apartments (according to a weekend JPost article that as far as I can tell is not online yet) that would keep young, Jewish couples in the city. Meanwhile, the Arabs continue to build in Jerusalem without any need for permits. The city is no longer enforcing its own building code when it comes to Arab buildings.
So by ignoring Ramat Shlomo, those ‘Jewish leaders’ are greatly increasing the risk that they will wake up one morning to discover that Jerusalem no longer has a Jewish majority.

Prime Minister Netanyahu notified President Obama over the weekend once again that Israel will not freeze construction in Jerusalem. But it’s a lie. Netanyahu has made the Ramat Shlomo neighborhood into the sacrificial lamb for the ‘freeze’ (Hat Tip: Memeorandum).

related post: