Two great opinion pieces on Israeli-Palestinian negotiations (Round 105?????????)

George Will

George Will-The ‘two-state’ delusion

-'Twas a famous victory for diplomacy when, in 1991 in Madrid, Israelis and Palestinians, orchestrated by the United States, at last engaged in direct negotiations. Almost a generation later, U.S. policy has succeeded in prodding the Palestinians away from their recent insistence on "proximity talks" -- in which they have talked to the Israelis through American intermediaries -- and to direct negotiations. But negotiations about what?

Idle talk about a "binational state" has long since died. Even disregarding the recent fates of multinational states -- e.g., the former Soviet Union, the former Yugoslavia, the former Czechoslovakia -- binationalism is impossible if Israel is to be a Jewish state for the Jewish people. No significant Israeli constituency disagrees with Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu: "The Palestinian refugee problem will be resolved outside Israel's borders."

Rhetoric about a "two-state solution" is de rigueur. It also is delusional, given two recent, searing experiences.

The only place for a Palestinian state is the West Bank, which Israel has occupied -- legally under international law -- since repelling the 1967 aggression launched from there. The West Bank remains an unallocated portion of the Palestine Mandate, the disposition of which is to be settled by negotiations. Michael Oren, now Israel's ambassador to the United States, said several years before becoming ambassador:
"There is no Israeli leadership that appears either willing or capable of removing 100,000 Israelis from their West Bank homes. . . . The evacuation of a mere 8,100 Israelis from Gaza in 2005 required 55,000 IDF [Israel Defense Forces] troops -- the largest Israeli military operation since the 1973 Yom Kippur War -- and was profoundly traumatic."

Twenty-one Israeli settlements were dismantled; even the bodies of Israelis buried in Gaza were removed. After a deeply flawed 2006 election encouraged by the United States, there was in 2007 essentially a coup in Gaza by the terrorist organization Hamas. So now Israel has on its western border, 44 miles from Tel Aviv, an entity dedicated to Israel's destruction, collaborative with Iran and possessing a huge arsenal of rockets.

Rocket attacks from Gaza increased dramatically after Israel withdrew. The number of U.N. resolutions deploring this? Zero.

The closest precedent for that bombardment was the Nazi rocket attacks on London, which were answered by the destruction of Hamburg, Dresden and other German cities. When Israel struck back at Hamas, the "international community" was theatrically appalled.

A senior cabinet member -- Moshe Yaalon, strategic affairs minister and possible future prime minister -- says "our withdrawals strengthened jihadist Islam," adding, "We have the second Islamic republic in the Middle East -- the first in Iran, the second in Gaza: Hamastan."

Israel's withdrawals include the one that strengthened the Iranian client on Israel's northern border, in southern Lebanon. Since the 2006 war provoked by Hezbollah's incessant rocketing of northern Israel, Hezbollah has rearmed and possesses as many as 60,000 rockets. Today, Netanyahu says, Israel's problem is less the Israel-Lebanon border than it is the Lebanon-Syria border: Hezbollah has received from Syria -- which gets them from Iran -- Scud missiles capable of striking Jerusalem and Tel Aviv. A leader of Hezbollah says, "If all the Jews gather in Israel, it will save us the trouble of going after them worldwide."

Because upward of a million immigrants have come from the former Soviet Union, today one-sixth of Israelis speak Russian. Israel has Russian-language newspapers and television. Russian Israelis are largely responsible for Avigdor Lieberman being foreign minister. Yoram Peri, professor of Israel studies at the University of Maryland, says these immigrants "don't understand how a state that can be crossed in half an hour by car would be willing to even talk about relinquishing territories to its seemingly perpetual enemies." These immigrants know that Russia's strategic depth -- space -- defeated Napoleon and Hitler.

Netanyahu, who is not the most conservative member of the coalition government he heads, endorses a two-state solution but says that any West Bank Palestinian state must be demilitarized and prevented from making agreements with the likes of Hezbollah and Iran. To prevent the importation of missiles and other arms, Israel would need, Netanyahu says, a military presence on the West Bank's eastern border with Jordan. Otherwise, there will be a third Islamic republic, and a second one contiguous to Israel.

So, again: Negotiations about what?


Abbas has other ideas - Israel Opinion, Ynetnews


Abbas has other ideas
Op-ed: Palestinians don’t want direct talks to succeed, as they prefer one-state solution
Mordechai Kedar

Anyone familiar with the sly way of thinking characterizing the current Palestinian leadership knows the truth: Following the show in Washington, they shall find a way to thwart the direct negotiations.

Netanyahu scares them, mostly because of his political ability to secure an agreement. He has no meaningful opposition on the Right, and Kadima is just waiting for a sign from him to join the government, embrace him, and support him should the Right quit the coalition. The Palestinians fear exactly that – because they cannot finalize such deal.

The first reason for this is the refugee problem. Any Palestinian or Arab leader who says something that is interpreted as any kind of concession on the right of return – which would bring millions of Arabs into Israel – knows that he shall immediately be accused of treason, and Hamas will have a field day with it.

Indeed, the education systems in the Palestinian Authority and in refugee camps in Lebanon, Syria, and Jordan continue to perpetrate the notion of return in every possible way.

Moreover, the PLO leadership fears that in the case of an agreement that would include “an end to the conflict” and “no more demands,” it will find itself mixed up with Syria and Lebanon, which are interested in getting rid of the 1948 refugees and their descendents. These two countries may even sabotage an agreement by expelling hundreds of thousands of them to Palestine – this is the last thing the Palestinian leadership wants.

The second reason is Jerusalem. Under the leadership of a rightist Israeli government, partitioning the city appears to be an impossible mission, and the Palestinian leadership cannot present its public with a deal that would include less than the dream outline by Arafat: “One Palestinian state with the holy Jerusalem as its capital.”

Living at world’s expense
Another reason is economic. For some years now, the Palestinian Authority has been making a good living off public and government funds from Europe, the US, and the Arab and Islamic world. This has reached the point where Palestinian per capita disposable income is double that of Egypt’s.

The PA leadership fears that the moment an independent Palestinian state is declared, donations would dry up, as the world will expect the Palestinians to start supporting themselves just like any other independent state. The Palestinians, who got used to living at the expense of others, cannot bear to think about the day where they’ll have to make a living on their own.

Finally, instead of an agreement it does not want, the Palestinian leadership sees an alternative. More and more voices, both Israeli and Arab, are calling for a one-state solution, which will be democratic and enable both people – the Jewish Israelis and the Arab Palestinians – to coexist in line with an agreed-upon arrangement, as is the case in Belgium.

Oddly enough, the one-state solution is endorsed in Israel both by the extreme Right, which still clings to the notion of the Greater Israel, and by the radical Left, which has no problem sharing a home with the Arabs, as long as everyone thinks that it’s being enlightened and liberal.

However, it appears that the one-state solution is to the liking of someone else: The Palestinian leadership, as this would spare it the need to concede something in writing.



In one state, the life of Palestinians would be better than today, as they will enjoy civilian rights in a modern state. And if at one point the Jews decide to run away (taking this modern state along with them,) this too would be a blessing – that way, they would gain the entire land without a deal and without concessions. So why enter negotiations?

Dr. Mordechai Keder, the Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies, Bar-Ilan University

More Mosque madness

Here is a link to another good article on this topic. The author opines that had those responsible for rebuilding Ground Zero done thier jobs appropriately, this would never have been an issue.

I cannot disagree.

Blame George Pataki for the Ground Zero mosque mess--John Podhoretz - NYPOST.com

A Film Unfinished: The Warsaw Ghetto As Seen Through Nazi Eyes

A Film Unfinished: The Warsaw Ghetto As Seen Through Nazi Eyes

THE FULL TEXT OF THE ARTICLE IS BELOW

A Film Unfinished: The Warsaw Ghetto As Seen Through Nazi Eyes
By Richard Z. Chesnoff


A Nazi propaganda film is finally being screened worldwide --- more than half-century after being shot. A 31 year-old Israeli is responsible

http://www.JewishWorldReview.com | Aside from Auschwitz and other Nazi death camps, nothing epitomizes the horrors of the Holocaust more than the infamous Warsaw Ghetto.
Surrounded by a barbed wire topped 10 foot high brick wall, it was into this tiny corner of the Polish capital that the Nazis herded up to 400,000 Jewish prisoners at a time; systematically starving them with barely 181 calories of rations per day, leaving them to die of hunger or disease or simply leaving them to languish while they unknowingly awaited shipment to Hitler's gas chambers.
It was here too that in the spring of 1943, a small band of heroic Jewish fighters launched a desperate uprising against their Nazis captors, a battle that ended only when the overwhelmingly powerful German forces leveled the ghetto and reduced it to rubble.
Yet barely a year before, In May 1942 -- two and half years after the Warsaw Ghetto was established and shortly before the Nazis sent the Ghetto's first 300,000 Jews to the extermination camp of Treblinka -- the Reich dispatched a crew of German soldiers to film Jewish life in the Warsaw Ghetto.
Their perverse propaganda goal: to record for posterity examples of the religious practices and "sub-human culture" of the soon to be eliminated judische Rasse, everything from a circumcision ceremony to a burial service; from the extreme poverty of the many to the supposed lack of concern of those few Jews who still had some assets.
Parts of this nefarious Nazi propaganda film were heart wrenchingly real; the Nazis had no compunction about showing Jews suffering. But other parts of it were carefully staged, a German Potemkin Village movie honed for propaganda and construed to discredit the Jews.
Horrifying snippets of it have appeared over the years: a starving child dying on the streets of the Ghetto while other Jews walk by or still others dine on meals at well stocked restaurants that never existed' Nazi appointed Jewish Ghetto police brutalizing fellow Jews.
Yet mysteriously the Nazis' propaganda film was never finished. For more than 50 years, the silent, unedited reels lay hidden in a secret East German film archive in boxes marked simply, "The Ghetto."



Then along came Yael Hersonski, a young Israeli documentary maker whose own grandmother had survived the Warsaw Ghetto. After gaining access to the long abandoned footage via the current German government, Hersonski wrote and directed A Film Unfinished, a staggering 90 minute documentary of the atrocities of life in the Warsaw Ghetto as filmed by the Nazis themselves. It is presented in America by the New York distributor Oscilloscope Laboratories .
Two-thirds of the 31 year old Hersonski's film consists of the original Nazi propaganda footage - including out-takes. The rest is comprised in part of the wrinkled faces of a handful of Warsaw ghetto survivors grimly watching an actual screening of the film and offering commentary (some clearly remember the Wermacht cameramen at work). Using an actor, Hersonski has also re-enacted the actual post-war testimony of one of the film's original German cameramen (now deceased).
But in this viewer's mind, the most fascinating parts of the unfinished film are its out-takes which at times clearly show the cameramen themselves caught in the shot or demonstrate how scenes were staged, then re-shot to produce a "better" anti-Semitic result.
A Film Unfinished has already won well deserved international plaudits It was the 2010 Sundance Film Festival Winner for World Cinema Documentary Editing, the 2010 Hot Docs Winner for Best International Feature and a prime selection at Germany's 2010 Berlinale.
Hersonski's "A Film Unfinished" opens today 18th in New York at The Film Forum (209 W. Houston Street) and Lincoln Plaza (1886 Broadway), on August 20th It premieres in Los Angeles at The Laemmle Royal and in Encino, California at Laemmle Town Center. This will be followed by a national run of the film.
For some obscure reason, the Motion Picture Association of America - which lets our youth be bombarded by meaningless entertainment and violence - has decided to give A Film Unfinished an R rating because of "disturbing images of Holocaust atrocities, including graphic nudity," the latter in a Nazi-coerced scene of young women in a ritual bath.
The rating, which prevents anyone under 17 from watching the film unless accompanied by a parent or adult guardian, will not block the commercial screening of the film. But it will prevent the film from being shown in high school classes as an educational tool, to the particular disappointment of its creator Yael Hersonski who looks barely 17 herself and says she made it "not only for now but for future generations."

Ground Zero Mosque Revisited

Sometimes, I really wonder whose president, Obama is. So many of his actions and opinions strike me as counterintuitive. He has joined Mayor Bloomberg, and now, Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi in supporting the right of those who attacked us on September 11th, 2001, while marginalizing those among us who are concerned for our future.

President Obama announced his support for the mosque at its' current planned location last Friday night, during and Iftar dinner commemorating the Islam holy month of Ramadan. This comes on the heels of his June 2009 speech from Cairo reaching out to the Muslim world, in which he stretched the facts and stated that the United States was one of the larger Muslim country and greatly exaggerated the Muslim population in this country, as well as the apparent contributions to this country that were made by Muslims.

The President apparently felt that the majority of citizens in the country who are opposed to this mosque needed a Constitutional Law lecture on the separation between Church and state. In his opinion, the citizenry of this country who put him into office, are too stupid to understand the political elites' reasons behind their touted policies unless it is explained to them in simple English, whether it is the health care monstrosity, the immigration debate, or the mosquestrosity at Ground Zero.

Now, Nancy Pelosi has weighed into the debate by suggesting that the financing of those opposed to the Ground Zero mosque should be investigated. It apparently has not dawned on her that the nearly 70% of Americans who oppose this mosque are united in their opposition to this 'house of worship' and are coming together to oppose it of their own volition.

It is very disturbing that the political elite is completely ignorant of the true face of fanatical Islam and the significance that this mosque, should it be built, will hold for these fundamentalist Muslims. The significance of the mosque is even more clear considering the name of the proposed mosque and Islamic center, discussed in a previous post. Perhaps, these political elites need to be lectured by everyday Americans and their constituents about the realities of life in a post 9/11 world. They need to educate themselves on Sharia law, Jihad, the goal of a worldwide caliphate and the risks that people in the West face, and the true face of Islam.

Surprisingly, one of the only rational political voices concerning this issue is that of David Patterson, Governor of NY State. This is probably the only time that he has made a rational contribution to the political scene, in his offer of land in another part of New York for the purposes of this mosque. The fact that this offer was refused confirms the true intent of the imam of the mosque; that of constructing a mosque that would overlook Ground Zero, where the infidel Americans were defeated, or to use another person's words, a trophy mosque.

Should the improbable happen and the plans for construction of this mosque continue, then what? Will the developers even find construction workers, union or non-union, to build the mosque? Will the grassroots opposition (or in Ms. Pelosi's words, the Astroturf) mobilize to prevent the mosque from proceeding further? Only time will tell.

Holocartoons

This is a link to a very sick Iranian web site that mocks and denies the Holocaust, while perpetuating many nasty and abhorrent antisemitic stereotypes. It is a sarcastic look at this tragedy and seeks, once again to denigrate the Jewish people and the horrible tragedy that occurred during World War II. Look at this site and check your humanity at the door.

HoloCartoons

Back from Vacation......Back to Work.. The Cross-Border LAF-IDF skirmish.

*SCROLL BELOW FOR UPDATE*

The cross-border Lebanese Armed Forces- Israeli Defense Forces incident occurred last Tuesday, August 3, and involved the obviously planned attack of Israeli troops who were clearing trees and brush on Israeli territory. The vegetation was being cleared by Israeli troops to improve the visibility for forces patrolling the area. After notifying UNIFIL troops of the planned maintenance work, the IDF was asked to delay the work until UNIFIL could prepare for the incident. They also apparently notified the Lebanese Army.

It is obvious that the commanding officer of the Lebanese in the area planned this attack and used the time to prepare to launch this illegal attack. What other reason can there be for the presence of journalists with these Lebanese forces? In the attack that left Lt. Colonel Dov Harari and wounded Captain Ezra Lakla, one of these journalists was killed in the incident, while another journalist was wounded. There are even some claims that there were camera crews in the area of the attack, that further support the suggestion that this attack was planned.

The UN supports the Israeli claims that the troops were operating in Israeli territory. The facts clearly indicate that the Israelis were operating 50 meters (which is more than one-half a football field) from the blue line that was established as the border between Israel and Lebanon after Israel withdrew from south Lebanon in 2002. UN support is surprising in itself, given the usual UN knee-jerk reaction to condemn Israel on any occasion in which Israel must defend herself, no matter how extreme the provocation has been against Israel and her security interests.

Unfortunately, the immediate response of the Obama administration was for both sides to exercise restraint. The NY Times and the AP, as well as other media outlets also were neutral in their reporting of the incident, seemingly inferring that somehow Israel was to blame for this sniper attack on its' soldiers on sovereign Israeli territory. Such neutrality would be encouraging if it were to extended to other situations, instead of their being permanent players in the 'blame Israel' game.

In the aftermath of this incident, the US Congress has blocked $100 million in 2010 military assistance to Lebanon that has already been approved, but not yet disbursed. Apparently, Israel can count on the US Congress and the American people to act appropriately in most situations and in defense of our most staunch ally in the Middle East, even though we can seemingly not count on our President and his administration. These funds are being held up for a number of reasons, including clarification of the attack, ascertaining if the LAF troops were using American supplied arms when they launched this attack, and clarifying the role of Hizbullah in the Lebanese Armed Forces. 2011 funding may also be held up pending the outcome of these investigations.

Thank you, Congress.

*UPDATE*

Further evidence that this attack was preplanned is evident from the article below.

Border Clash: A Case Study in Reuters Photography

In this article, the presence of no less than five Reuters photographers at the Israeli-Lebanon boarder during what was just supposed to be Israeli vegetation maintenance is very suspect. It is obvious that something different was expected at that time. Furthermore, the presence of these photographers put them at risk and this was the sole responsibility of the Lebanese military and those who invited the civilians into the area.

A correction to the post above: The decision to delay distribution of the $100 million aid package to Lebanon was made just prior to this attack, in light of the increased involvement of Hizbullah in the LAF and the concern that arms provided would be used by the LAF to attack Israeli soldiers, a key US ally.

Playcott- Jethro Tull Gets It Right.

This article needs no comment from me, except to note that it is refreshing when entertainers use their brains instead of reflexively reacting to world-wide incidents without apprising themselves of the facts surrounding an event. It is usually a knee-jerk reaction for many performers to react to events involving Israeli protection of its' security interests to then call for boycotts of Israel and to refuse to perform in Israel. How wonderful it is, then for Jethro Tull to honor its' contractual obligations and perform in Israel as scheduled, instead of canceling performances as Elvis Costello recently did. Kol Hakavod to you, Jethro Tull and specifically to Ian Anderson.

While some musicians are boycotting Israel, others like Jethro Tull aren’t. Maybe our “playcott” campaign is working after all?
by Jewlarious.com Staff

Is it possible, that maybe, just maybe somewhere in the collective internet subconscious things we do/say/write can actually have some small positive effect on others? Ya, probably doubtful. But maybe.

As was widely reported (i.e. here), after the recent Flotilla debacle, a few musicians such as the Pixies and Elvis Costello cancelled their scheduled concert dates in Israel. These musicians were being suckered in by the dark side. But fortunately, cyberspace struck back.

Cyberspace struck back.

Rob Eshman of the Jewish Journal, while clarifying that neither Meg Ryan nor Dustin Hoffman boycotted the Jerusalem Film Festival, gave Hollywood agents and managers an easy to use 3 step test when asked by their clients if they should boycott Israel. Like cooking rice, but easier. He writes.

1. 1. Are your facts correct? The Middle East crisis is a cesspool of misinformation. Breaking news stories are the most susceptible to lies and spin. The initial reports following the shooting of Muhammed al-Dura, the so-called massacre at Jenin, even the flotilla raid all proved exaggerated, misleading or false. Before you decide, make sure you get the facts.

2. 2. Are you being fair? Israel is an imperfect democracy. But poll after poll shows its people want to reach a just resolution to its problems with the Palestinians, and numerous Israeli governments have tried. For all its flaws, Israel doesn’t come close to the levels of social and political oppression, injustice, occupation, resource theft or cruelty that is common in Saudi Arabia, China, Russia, Syria or Egypt — to name a few. The American invasion and occupation of Iraq killed more innocents in seven years than Israel ever would or could — but no one’s boycotting the Staples Center. Why single out Israel?

3. 3. Are you being effective? Once you are informed and you put Israel’s transgressions in perspective, by all means take the right action — speak out. But speak out against extremists and fanatics on all sides. That’s the real battle here: between fanatics on all sides who want to perpetuate hate and deny the other side’s rights, and moderates on all sides who want a better future for their children. The band Jethro Tull donated proceeds from a concert to groups that bridge gaps between Jews and Arabs. Use your platform to support the many people in Israel fighting for a just solution. The artistic, musical and film communities are at the forefront of this struggle — your support for them can really make a difference.

In addition to Eshman, the highly influential editorial staff of Jewlarious called out the boycotters here and suggested that instead of using the effective “buycott” technique where pro Israel activists encourage people to actively buy Israeli product, supporters should employ a “Playcott” for musicians who continue to show support for Israel and all around good sense.

So… maybe the internet was listening.

British indie Rock band Jethro Tull and its band leader Ian Anderson have come down firmly on the side of the good and the just by stating that J-Tull will indeed be stopping in Israel during the band’s upcoming tour. Sadly, the number of people who do the right thing these days is dwindling by the minute, so when they do the right thing, we’ve all got to stand up and cheer. Way to go Jethro! Your son in law would be very proud (that’s Moses for anyone wondering).

Ian Anderson’s statement is so sensible that we’ve included it in its entirety below:

Having performed concerts in the Middle East region many times over the last few years, I am well aware of the ethnic and religious tensions existing, not only in the countries concerned, but in the broader international diasporas representing the various groups and their interests.

Having long maintained the position that culture and the arts should be free of political and religious censorship and a distance kept between them, I took a decision in February of 2009 that any future concerts in Israel by me or Jethro Tull would result in charitable donations to bodies representing the development of peaceful co-existence between Muslims, Jews and Christians, and the fostering of better Palestinian/Israeli relations. A number of potential charitable beneficiaries have now been identified and are under consideration.

I speak only for my own share of concert profits here - I am not about to tell the rest of the musicians or crew what views they should hold or what to do with their remuneration. Nor do I feel pressured by human rights groups, national interests or any individuals to perform or not to perform in Israel or anywhere else. I make up my own mind in light of available facts, with my own experience and a sense of personal ethics.

To those who tell me I should "boycott" Israel (or, for that matter, Turkey or Lebanon), I can only point out that on my travels around the world I am continually reminded of atrocities carried out historically by many nations who are now our friends, and it serves to strengthen my resolve that some degree of peace and better understanding may result from my and other artists' professional and humble efforts in such places. If I had the opportunity to perform today in Iran or North Korea, hell - I'd be there if I thought it would make a tiny positive net contribution to better relations.

It's a long time since Pearl Harbor, Auschwitz, Hiroshima and the firestorm of Dresden and I hope that, one bright day sometime in the future, it will seem a long time since the blockading of the supply flotilla to Gaza and the bombing of Israeli citizens by Hamas and Hizbolla.

So, I decided many months ago not to profit from my work in this troubled region and hope that interested parties on all sides will understand and respect my decision and resolve. The details of recipients of my charitable donation will be posted for the benefit of the doubters, as usual, on this website later in the year.

Ian Anderson, June 2010.

Playcott