Some of you who are Americans, and are of a certain age, will remember the cartoon figure Pogo, drawn by Walt Kelly. The most famous line Pogo ever spoke was, "We have met the enemy and he is us."

These words of wisdom -- the most appropriate I could think of -- came to me today as I surveyed the news.

For what I encountered was this:

The AIPAC (American-Israel Political Action Committee) -- an American organization -- is holding its policy conference in Washington this week. As always, at the end of the conference, the delegates who have attended flood Capitol Hill and lobby their respective Senators and Congresspersons. Tomorrow the lobbying will be done. And guess what these delegates will be asking of their representatives? To sign on to a letter that will go to Obama that specifically calls for a "viable Palestinian state."

This is how a "pro-Israel" group is supporting the Prime Minister of Israel, who has declined to talk about a Palestinian state or a two-state solution. Their rationale is that they can be a "bridge" between Obama and Netanyahu.

~~~~~~~~~~

According to a Jerusalem Post report on this, there will be several draft letters included included in the packet provided to the delegates.

One sets out "basic principles" for negotiations, another insists upon an absolute Palestinian commitment to ending terrorism, etc.

Dr. Aaron Lerner, on the IMRA website today, calls AIPAC the "pigs can fly chorus" -- supporting a Palestinian state that would "ensure" peace, which is in fact an impossibility.

~~~~~~~~~~

Add to this a statement by Obama's chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, also, at least in theory, one of ours, who Sunday attended a closed door forum for AIPAC's largest donors. This was the moment of truth, he told them. The ability to confront Iran depends upon progress in Israeli-Palestinian negotiations.

Give us a break!! This argument does not fly either.

Actually, the very reverse is true, for the stronger Iran is, the more it foments terrorism via Hamas, and the less likely peace with the Palestinians is. As to moderate Arab states, they will not predicate support for confronting Iran on this, for they very much want the Iranian threat defused for their own sakes.

~~~~~~~~~~

This, then, is what our Prime Minister will be walking into when he goes to Washington and meets with Obama on May 18. A very, very difficult time.

Each of us, however, can lend him support. It is, in fact, important that we do so.

Below you will find contact information for Prime Minister Netanyahu. Sending a fax is the best option.

Those of you who are Israeli citizens, please contact him: Let him know that you are a citizen, and that you support him as he goes to the US. Ask him please to stand strong and to resist pressure to accept a "two state solution." Tell him that this is what his nation needs of him right now, that we need him to speak in the best interests of Israel and to speak out for Israeli rights.

Those of you who are American citizens can also contact him. But you will need to say something different. From Americans he needs to hear that not everyone in the US wants a two-state solution. Tell him briefly about how you personally work to support him from within the US: rallying support via e-mails, holding discussions with people, writing letters to the editor, contacting your Congresspersons or Senators -- or whatever else you do.

Whether here in Israel, or in the US, please share this broadly by forwarding. Remove the "forwarding" data from the subject line and at the head of the message, and, if you wish, add your own introduction.

Fax: 02-670-5369 (From the US: 011-972-2-670-5369)

Phone: 03-610-9898 (From the US: 011-972-3-610=9898)

E-mail: pm_eng2@it.pmo.gov.il

~~~~~~~~~~

Very soon I hope to have more information on how you can help.

~~~~~~~~~~

http://www.arlenefromisrael.info/current-postings/2009/7/2/may-4-2009-we-have-met-the-enemy.html

None of the reports are encouraging -- nor did I expect they would be. That is, with regard to the meeting between PM Netanyahu and President Obama scheduled for later this month.

Oh, there is the usual spin from some sources about how Netanyahu will be warmly welcomed. But other reports are positively grim with regard to how intensely and determinedly Obama will be pressuring our prime minister.

We know, without a question of a doubt, that these two heads of state have different worldviews and different perspectives on how to approach the situation in the Middle East. Netanyahu -- bless him for this! -- has yet to even utter the term "two state solution," while Obama has set the resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as his first goal, declaring with breath-taking shortsightedness that everything else depends upon this.

Thus, we should not expect reports following the meeting of the beginning of a warm friendship developing between the two men, who really see eye to eye on the important issues, blah, blah, blah. Or, let us say, if we hear such reports, we should know better than to believe them.

~~~~~~~~~~

I remain pleased, at this point, with approaches reportedly being taken by Netanyahu. He is preparing with considerable care, and has a research team compiling facts and talking points for each issue that will be on the table with Obama.

What I am seeing again and again, with regard to reports that are coming out, is that this government is talking "tachlis" -- confronting issues that others were prepared to sweep under the carpet. The first was the matter of having the PA recognize us as a Jewish state -- for you can't even talk about a "two state solution" unless it's clear that one of those states is Jewish. And so the Palestinian refusal to do so is being exposed and their intention called into question.

Now I read that one source close to the Netanyahu team has said, "Two states for two people is more complicated than the slogan suggests. For example, what is to be done with Hamas in Gaza?"

To which I responded, Mazel tov! Here is someone stating the obvious, at last. Hamas has been the elephant in the room: everyone talked about negotiating with the PA as if Hamas were not there.

~~~~~~~~~~~

The key here is the ability of Netanyahu to stand strong in the face of that Obama pressure. More to come on this.

~~~~~~~~~~

With regard to the entire business of a negotiated "two-state solution," I ask you please to read and extensively share my latest piece, "Two States: A Figment of Obama's Imagination," which ran on Front Page Magazine. It deals in some detail with the complexities that are being ignored by Obama.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=34528

~~~~~~~~~~

As Netanyahu plans his approach to Obama, he is in consultation with Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman, Defense Minister Ehud Barak, Minister for Strategic Affairs Moshe Ya'alon, and Minister of Intelligence and Atomic Energy, Dan Meridor..

His primary message to Obama and company will be that dealing with Iran has priority over talks with the Arabs, be they Palestinians, Syrians or Lebanese.

~~~~~~~~~~

For his part, Mahmoud Abbas, PA president, is himself delusional.

To date, as expected, all negotiations between Fatah and Hamas regarding formation of that much-touted unity government have failed. Abbas has now announced that he will form a new government, which Hamas has warned him not to do.

Yesterday, a representative of Fatah, Palestinian Legislative Council member Faisal Abu Shahla, declared that "the new government which President Abbas intends to form will be responsible for both the West Bank and Gaza."

Says he. But is Hamas on board with this? Clearly not. In fact, Hamas warns that this plan would be regarded as a "fatal blow" to Egyptian efforts to achieve a unity government.

In this eventuality, Hamas intends to form its own government. But Abu Shahla says this is "tantamount to a coup, and the deepening of division." Apparently he hasn't noticed that there has already been a coup.

"...this government [formed by Abbas] will not be [just] for the West Bank, as some people are saying, but will rather take responsibility for the Palestinians in Gaza, including for delivering salaries, social affairs and medical treatment abroad."

The PA has been sending money into Gaza for salaries all along, and is involved with helping people get medical treatment. Have no clue what's involved in being responsible for "social affairs." But this is not the totality of a government by any means.

This is a study in political confusion.

~~~~~~~~~~

While further clarifications may be necessary, I have from more than one source the suggestion that Obama, during his recent visit to Turkey, responded with such warmth to Prime Minister Ergodan, that the Turks have now been emboldened. In the wake of Obama's visit they moved to sign a pact with Lebanon -- which is on its way to Hezbollah control -- that will grant it both military training and arms.

Bad news for Israel. And yet one more troubling sign that Israeli security is not on Obama's radar.

~~~~~~~~~~

Israel is preparing seriously for possibility of conflict with Iran.

Those Air Force reservists who operate the Arrow and Patriot missile defense systems are being called up one day a week to sharpen their skills.

According to a top IAF officer quoted by the Post:

"We are working hard to be ready for the Iranian threat, "We are preparing for barrages, split warheads and other surprises and therefore we need to retain a high operational level by everyone, including reservists."

The preparation involves different possible scenarios: large barrages of missiles fired from different countries at once, and the need for the operator to decide which missile to intercept first and at what stage of its flight.

Additionally, today the French paper, L'Express, reported that Israeli fighter jets, preparing for a possible attack on Iran's nuclear facilities, recently conducted a drill above the Strait of Gibraltar.

~~~~~~~~~~

Do you remember the charges brought four years ago against two officials of AIPAC -- Steve Rosen and Keith Weissman -- that they had illegally disclosed classified information to Israel? The whole case smelled of ugly politics from the beginning.

Now the US government has decided to drop the case because of a diminishing possibility that it could succeed in securing convictions. Among the reasons for this change of heart was the fact that the defense had secured permission to call high profile former officials such as Condoleezza Rice to testify that the sort of sharing of information they did was standard procedure.

The defendants are delighted, but also express frustration that because there will be no trial there will be no opportunity to definitively prove their innocence.

"I was a person who had his whole life taken away from him," said Rosen.

But the issue transcends what happened to these two personally: "We're in a situation where the wild allegations against Israel and the friends of Israel are being printed all over the place, and some people believe."

~~~~~~~~~~

Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman, who has been accused of being a racist, hostile to Arabs, recently appointed Bedouin diplomat Ismail Khaldi as his Middle East advisor. Khaldi, who holds a masters degree in political science, served in the IDF and worked as a political analyst for the Defense Ministry. He was the first Bedouin to join Israel's Foreign Service, and now Lieberman is the first minister to appoint a Bedouin as his advisor.

~~~~~~~~~~

 http://www.arlenefromisrael.info/current-postings/2009/7/2/may-3-2009-prospects-dim.html

With the state of world affairs, it would be difficult indeed to feel a sense of ease.

In an "exclusive" today the Jerusalem Post reported that PM Netanyahu, when he goes to the US on May 18, plans to tell President Obama that Israel will accept "some form" of the Arab peace plan.

While the first impulse is to fear that he's caved already -- I intend to give Netanyahu the benefit of the doubt here. At least until I know more.

We must remember that this is not an official announcement. The Post got this from "sources" close to government planning.

And then, we need to know what "some form" of the plan means. The Arab (Saudi) plan is a recipe for Israel's destruction, calling as it does for our return to '67 lines and "return of refugees." Netanyahu is not about to sign off on either of these. Then, what?

~~~~~~~~~~

Aaron Lerner, on his IMRA website today, asks if Netanyahu is doing some "fancy verbal footwork." And indeed that may be precisely the case.

It may be that Netanyahu wants to appear to have given Obama something, without actually giving him anything. Yes, he can intone, this and this part of the plan resonate with us. Then Obama can put out press releases about how he is already moving matters along. While Netanyahu, knowing full well that all the pieces are not going to fall into place, remains confident of the outcome: no "two state solution," no withdrawals from Judea and Samaria, no dividing Jerusalem.

But this high level game-playing is risky. It requires nerves of steel and the ability to know when to stop. Otherwise you're on your way down that slippery slope, and something truly is conceded.

~~~~~~~~~~

But there is more. And it's most unsettling. According to the Post report, Israel "will compromise on the Palestinian issue to obtain more direct and aggressive US assistance on the Iranian front."

This linking of the two issues was verbalized last week by Secretary Clinton. What she suggested was that we won't get support from the Arab states for taking on Iran unless the Arabs see we are moving on Palestinian negotiations. This was both offensive and off base, for behind the bluster is the Arab desire to see us stand strong against Iran.

So, is Netanyahu caving in response to what she said, or is he trying to maneuver the situation to his advantage?

The next question to be asked, of course, is what the quid pro quo would be: Precisely what sort of US assistance on the Iranian front would be sufficient for Netanyahu to become more "flexible" with regard to the Palestinians? Additional sophisticated weaponry or equipment? Permission to fly over Iraq?

Here I make a speculation, coming from nothing but my own sense of the situation and my understanding of our prime minister. The issue of the danger of Iran has loomed large in Netanyahu's consciousness for some time. He's been speaking consistently and forcefully about the need to take action.

Could it be that he's doing an abbreviated sort of triage here? If -- and it would be rightly so -- he sees Iran as THE existential danger to us, he would conclude that it's the threat most important to counter. And, even as he still intends to hold the ground against a Palestinian state, he would see caving (or appearing to cave) on that issue, up to a point, wise if it allows us to more effectively take on Iran.

Only speculation. Only questions. For now.

~~~~~~~~~~

It's actually easy to see why Netanyahu, along with a great many of us, is being driven to distraction by Obama's stance on Iran.

Yesterday, the White House rejected any suggestion of putting time limits on its negotiations with Iran and suggested that this process could take a long time.

White House National Security Council spokesman Mike Hammer told reporters that "it's not appropriate at this time to be trying to establish timetables, but rather seeing how the engagement can move forward...there are opportunities there for us to engage with the Iranian government."

But in terms of Iranian nuclear development we don't have a long time. This is precisely what the Israeli government has been imploring the US not to do.

~~~~~~~~~~

To exacerbate the situation, there is this:

Mehdi Ghazanfari, head of the Iranian Trade Promotion Agency, has told an Iranian news agency that Germany, Switzerland, Italy, France and the United Kingdom have carried out some $15.4 billion in bilateral trade with Iran over the past year.

And people wonder why sanctions haven't worked. What these self-serving, short-sighted nations are doing is in defiance of UN Security Council sanctions imposed on Iran.

~~~~~~~~~~

Larry Summers, Obama's chief economic adviser, went to a Yom Ha'atzmaut celebration at the Israeli Embassy in Washington yesterday, carrying a message from the president:

Obama, he said, would pursue peace, but not at all costs. His administration remains committed to the security and independence of Israel.

Not remotely do I believe this.

Summers explained that Obama would pursue, "Peace that defends innocent people, peace that guarantees freedom, peace that does not reward terror, peace that the Middle East deserves after such a long time."

What platitudinous and vacuous words.

~~~~~~~~~~

Putting the lie more definitively to the conciliatory words above is a report from the World Tribune, citing Israeli intelligence sources. One source was quoted as saying:

"Obama wants to make friends with our worst enemies and [those who were] until now the worst enemies of the United States. Under this policy, we are more than irrelevant. We have become an obstacle."

The prediction being made is that Obama would continue to appease Syria, and Iran, believing that this would make it more possible to withdraw from Iraq and Afghanistan.

"Obama will want to show Iran, Syria and radical Muslims that the United States could pressure Israel on a strategic level. The pressure has already begun and will intensify throughout the next year or two."

The report further said that the Obama administration would ignore Israeli advice, and, indeed, that is precisely what we're seeing with regard to US refusal to put time limits on talks with Iran.

~~~~~~~~~~

 http://www.arlenefromisrael.info/current-postings/2009/7/2/april-30-2009-unease.html

We are a miracle. From the ashes of the Holocaust, in a mere 61 years, we have established a vibrant and very special state. A place of life, beauty, and extraordinary lovingkindness, along with whatever pain we endure.

In due course, I will return to the news. But at sundown tonight we begin Yom Ha'atzmaut, Israeli Independence Day. A celebration to be begun with prayers and thanksgiving, and to be followed by dancing in the streets, fireworks, and, tomorrow, "al ha aish" -- barbecue.

Here I share a couple of YouTube videos about Israel.

"Cool Facts About Israel" (A year old, but no matter.)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CeVvMJdvEX8

"If I Forget Thee Oh! Jerusalem"

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x105hx_prier-notre-meilleure-arme

And from my website, pictures showing the stunning beauty of our land:

http://www.arlenefromisrael.info/faces-land/

~~~~~~~~~~

http://www.arlenefromisrael.info/current-postings/2009/7/2/april-28-2009-celebrate-israel.html

When the siren sounds tonight at 8:00 across the nation, we will begin Yom HaZikaron -- the Day of Remembrance -- and we will pay tribute to all those who have fallen for Israel. It is because of our soldiers that we stand as a nation, and their sacrifices are keenly felt. A national ceremony will be held at the Kotel (Western Wall).

Tomorrow at 10:00 AM another siren will sound, and people all over Israel will stop what they are doing and stand silently in honor of the fallen.

~~~~~~~~~~

So far, so good. Very good indeed. Now Minister of Strategic Affairs (and former chief of staff) Moshe (Bogie) Ya'alon has given an interview to the Jerusalem Post. Among the points he made:

-- President Obama must set a time frame and benchmarks for his negotiations with Iran, or else they will use the dialogue to stall for time as they move towards nuclear capacity.

"What is happening between the Western world and the Islamic jihadists of Iran is a process that is built on previous surrenders and concessions," he said. "What the West needs to do is stand up against this wave and confront it."

If the US wants to hold dialogue with Iran, it must do so while holding the "stick of military pressure."

As to whether Israel is capable of an effective strike against Iranian facilities on her own, Yaalon replied:

"We need to hope that the job will be done by someone else and at the same time, as the Talmudic sage Hillel said, 'If I am not for myself who will be?'"

-- He dismissed Hillary Clinton's statement regarding Israel's loss of support from Arab nations for action against Iran if we don't negotiate with the Palestinians as "superficial."

"I believe that this whole idea is wrong at its core."

-- As to the negotiations with the Palestinians, he stressed the PA's refusal to recognize Israel as a Jewish state, so that even at Annapolis Abbas refused to include the phrase "two states for two peoples" in a joint declaration. (see below)

"That is why the prime minister says that we want them to recognize Israel's right to be a Jewish state," he said. "This right does not depend on them [important that he clarified this!] but if they don't recognize it then there is nothing to talk about."

He rejects the Saudi plan: "From our perspective, the pre-1967 borders are not defensible. To go onto this track is dangerous."

[Note: the idea that the 1967 armistice lines were "borders" is so thoroughly ingrained in the public discourse, per the constant prodding of Palestinian PR,that even Ya'alon, who rejects return to those lines, refers to "borders."]

What the government, which is close to completing its assessment, favors, Yaalon said, is a "bottoms up" approach. This means that before anything else happens the PA has to institute serious educational, political, security and economic reforms.

This is the only thing that remotely makes sense. But Obama-- who wants to impose a Palestinian state by tomorrow, damn whether it can be a successful state-- is not going to like it.

~~~~~~~~~~

The enormous irony of the US desire for talks with Iran without preconditions is that Ahmadinejad is calling for "a clear cut framework" and a "clear agenda" in talks with the Americans. This means he wants control over what will be discussed. In fact, in an ABC "This Week"interview yesterday, he said that the nuclear program was a "special issue":

"We think that the nuclear issue needs to be resolved in the context of the agency and regulations. We are just utilizing our legal rights."

Sounds to me as if he's telling the Americans that he'll be happy to talk, but not about nuclear development.

Rather puts the ball in Obama's court, I think.

~~~~~~~~~~

Never let it be said that we don't have friends (at least in some contexts). Italian Foreign Minister Franco Frattini proudly expresses a sense ofcommitment to Israel, and says that the Italian boycott of Durban 2 was required.

"...We could not participate in an event where, once again, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict was manipulated and Israel labeled a racist nation, as happened in 2001. The events of [last] Monday afternoon [Ahmadinejad's talk] confirmed that foresight."

Frattini says there were three key issues in the proposed document for the conference that were of concern to Italy:approval of the Durban 2001 document, which singled out Israel; insufficient treatment of the Holocaust; and motions aimed at limiting freedom of expression regarding criticism of religions and their followers.

"An international forum on a crucial issue such as racism cannot be exploited to attack Israel," he declared. "The EU displayed political weakness and lost an occasion for expressing unity."

~~~~~~~~~~

In point of fact, the Durban 2 conference was not quite the disaster that had been anticipated -- did not have the horrific tenor of the first conference, where virulently anti-Israel groups demonstrated and documents where produced that charged Israel with every evil under the sun.

Satisfactory? Productive for the sake of human rights? Of course not. But this time we were prepared, and the willingness of several states to pull out (in part as the result of intense Israeli diplomatic effort) undercut the legitimacy of the proceedings.

My own opinion is that the organizers overplayed their hand; to have Ahmadinejad as key note speaker at a human rights conference is nothing short of farcical. Who but states such as Libya and Cuba could find him acceptable?

UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay added to the sense of farce when she concluded the conference on Friday by calling it "a celebration of tolerance and dignity for all."

So much for what we can expect from the UN. Frattini recalled a former American proposal (I believe it was by John Bolton) that Western democracies form a separate coalition.

~~~~~~~~~~

Precisely what has gotten into King Abdullah of Jordan?

In the US, he met with President Obama and called for serious negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians based on the concept of two states. Then, on the "Meet the Press" televisionshow yesterday, he referred totheIsraeli-Palestinian conflict as the "core issue" of the Middle East. Not only is he advocating strenuously for a Palestinian state,he has suggested that one of the main reasons that Iran is working towards nuclear development is because Palestinians are suffering and there is the matter of Jerusalem [which is in Israeli hands].

Now, really... If you know the ideology of the Mullahs in Iran, and their goal of controlling the entire region in order to impose Shiite Islam, and you know that the US is referred to as the Big Satan, you know that a whole lot more than the Israeli-Palestinian conflict occupies them.

But see for yourself: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/30418412#30418412 (Thanks, Bob H.)

Until not long ago it was well known in intelligence circles that Abdullah preferred Israel at his border rather than a PA state. What he feared was a Hamas take-over that would cause instability in his nation. And now?

I'm not sure how to read him. Is he playing to Obama (very likely)? Afraid that Netanyahu might propose a federation of Palestinian areas with Jordan?

~~~~~~~~~~

Pope Benedict XVI is coming to Israel on May 16, and the signals about what is likely to transpire when he's here are not positive. He is scheduled to visit Jerusalem, Nazareth, and Bethlehem -- as well as the nearby al-Aida UNRWA refugee camp, where he will preach.

Fouad Twal, the Latin Patriarch of Jerusalem and president of the Catholic Bishops' Conference of the Holy Land, said yesterday that the camp "symbolizes the refugees' suffering and their right of return." Their right of return?

According to YNet, the stage hosting the Pope was supposed to be built in a schoolyard, but Palestinians violated an agreement regarding this with Israel (which controls the area) and built the stage instead near the security fence. A demolition order has been issued and the stage is supposed to be re-built.

Insisted Twal:"The fence will be seen from the location of the pope's seat."

In due course there will be more to say on this issue.

~~~~~~~~~~

PA President Mahmoud Abbas gave an impassioned speech in Ramallah today:

"A Jewish state, what is that supposed to mean? You can call yourselves as you like, but I don't accept it and I say so publicly," he declared.

Accepting a "Jewish state" would mean relinquishing the "right of return" -- which is, in fact, a device for ensuring an Arab majority inside Israel, and whichhas been promoted among the people as a sacred and inalienable right. The current Palestinian position is not "two states for two people," but ultimately "two states for one people."

"All I know is that there is the state of Israel, in the borders of 1967, not one centimeter more, not one centimeter less. Anything else, I don't accept."

The Palestinians would have not only Har Habayit -- the Temple Mount -- but also the Kotel, with no sharing.

He further said that there will be no negotiations unless Netanyahu puts a total freeze on construction in Judea and Samaria, something Netanyahu has said he does not intend to do.

No negotiations? That's fine.

~~~~~~~~~~

 http://www.arlenefromisrael.info/current-postings/2009/7/1/april-27-2009-we-remember.html

I would like to go back to the positions espoused by PM Netanyahu and FM Lieberman -- which I referred to Friday with relief and satisfaction -- in order to consider the possibilities and the ramifications in a bit more detail.

I've received comments from some readers regarding the fact that our government should "just say no": Should tell the international community that negotiating with the Palestinians is not in our best interest and that we will not do so.

There's no question about the fact that when our government finally works out its policy with regard to dealing with Palestinians -- which will be done within the month, before Netanyahu goes to Washington to meet with Obama -- there will be those who will see our prime minister as having softened and started down the road to something that he shouldn't be doing. For it's likely that he will be agreeing to some form of negotiations with the Palestinians under certain conditions.

~~~~~~~~~~

But, as I see it, our government has an incredibly tough job to do.

I most certainly believe that we must speak up for ourselves and stand strong -- I hope this is obvious. The world won't respect us unless we respect ourselves and defend our rights.

We've demeaned ourselves seriously over the last few years with an eagerness to make one-sided concessions. This cannot and will not be undone in a day. There is a process. We cannot operate in a vacuum and cannot go back in time some 18 years (not all at once, certainly).

The painful reality is that we've had governments that lost their way. Governments that caved and appeased.

~~~~~~~~~~

But there's more involved than simply appeasing. There has been a failure by these governments to tell our narrative -- to promote our history and our legal rights. It was so bad that at certain times there were orders coming from our foreign ministry -- mostly notably when Shimon Peres headed that ministry -- blocking the release of negative information about the Palestinians. If the people knew the worst, you see, they wouldn't have supported the "peace process."

But while we were being "reticent" in the name of peace, the Palestinians were doing their utmost to promote their narrative and their spin on history. They have no respect for truth in this regard, play the "victim" to the hilt, and have been very effective.

So what we have today is a world that believes there is a "people" called the Palestinians, who were indigenous in this land, and have an absolute right to a state here. Many have been erroneously convinced that the '67 armistice lines represent our "true" borders, and, unquestionably, there is a good percentage of those in the international community that also perceives the "refugees" as having a "right of return."

~~~~~~~~~~

There has been a breathtaking tendency within the Western world to cut the Palestinians slack, and an eagerness to fund them at unprecedented levels without demanding genuine accountability. For reasons that are not rational, the world is caught up in the notion that this group of Arabs is particularly deserving of support -- while the Kurds (a genuine people seeking a state), the suffering people of Darfur, as well as many others, receive far less in the way of attention and assistance.

There are, additionally, self-righteous leftists who are actually willing to accept that terrorism committed by Palestinians isn't really terrorism, but rather, as the Palestinians explain, simply a response to the "occupation."

Perhaps the most terrible part of it all is that there is some part of the Israeli populace that has forgotten who it is and buys into at least some of the Palestinian narrative, as well. Tzipi Livni espoused a position that was self-demeaning drivel. But a lot of people, we must remember, voted for her.

~~~~~~~~~~

With all of this is yet one other factor. Our various governments signed on/consented to agreements -- starting with Oslo. We cannot pretend this didn't happen. Within a democracy there is a level at which each government must honor what came before. Our current government is examining the parameters here, which are complex. Verbal agreements -- anything promised by Olmert, for example -- are not binding. The Road Map may not be binding because it had a time frame that has elapsed.

~~~~~~~~~~

So, here we have Netanyahu and his government, who must try to analyze what a proper stand is, minimize damage, and forthrightly protect Israeli interests.

We have stepped back from full control of Palestinian population areas in Judea and Samaria (while we still move in for security purposes). They control their local affairs such as schools and municipal governments, and have broader representation via the PA, which maintains radio and press. And we have permitted them to develop their security/army forces, which receive American assistance. We are not about to move back in militarily, throw out the PA, and assume complete control of these areas now.

So what do we do?

~~~~~~~~~~

The first thing I'm seeing, which is what I applauded, is that our leaders are starting the process of changing the paradigm of thinking on this issue. "This isn't about settlers," said Lieberman. "The West Bank is disputed territory," declared Netanyahu. They're both absolutely right. These things and a thousand others must be said again and again, until perceptions begin to shift.

Oslo didn't call for a full Palestinian state. (Surprised?) UN Resolution 242, after the Six Day war, didn't even mention Palestinians. There is a requirement in various agreements that the Palestinians cease incitement, but their textbooks still promote Jihad. An on, and on, and on.

~~~~~~~~~~

I certainly cannot speak for particulars -- not only am I not on the inside, they haven't been defined yet. But the broad sense of what I'm seeing is that Netanyahu envisions some sort of autonomy for the Palestinians that is short of full sovereignty. He wants to retain control in a variety of dimensions -- their borders, their airspace, etc. -- and insists on demilitarization. His position is that a full sovereignty would threaten our security -- as indeed it would.

This, at some point, theoretically would require negotiations with the Palestinians.

But what Netanyahu is talking about is reciprocity. I would be very shocked and disappointed if he went the route of "showing good faith" and conceding something to the Palestinians. There's reason to believe that he intends to demand that they get their act together and do the things they're supposed to do (and we might easily start with those textbooks). In addition, I would hope, there would be an insistence that the Palestinians show willingness to compromise -- that's one part of reciprocity.

It has been made clear that Jerusalem will not be on the table, nor will the relinquishment of areas necessary for security. No return to '67 lines, certainly, or dismantlement of major settlements. And no deal of any kind until the Palestinians recognize Israel as a Jewish state.

Thus do I say that a proposed autonomy would "theoretically" require negotiations. Because no PA negotiating team would sit down with an Israeli government that won't at least consider meeting their stipulations -- which are maximalist in the extreme. To put it simply, if they did they would be endangering their lives.

~~~~~~~~~~

Is it within the realm of possibility that as the Palestinians scream and yell that Israel is not sincere about wanting peace (something Abbas is already doing) they will successfully prevail on the international community to heavily pressure Israel -- and that Netanyahu will then cave?

Yes, it is. We remain deeply hopeful, but not at ease. Vigilance is the order of the day.

(King Abdullah of Jordan told the Post that Netanyahu is "saying the right words" with regard to peace with the Palestinians -- www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1239710783445&pagename=JPArticle%2FShowFull.)

The possibilities are absolutely nil that Netanyahu would cave to a degree that would actually satisfy the Palestinians. Certainly he wouldn't sign off on return to '67 lines, division of Jerusalem, etc. etc. Thus I don't see any danger of a Palestinian state actually being formed.

What I do fear, however, is the possibility of erosion of that newly emerging strong stand on behalf of Israel. We cannot re-educate our own people and shift the paradigm of thinking internationally unless we are consistent in demanding our rights and expressing our national dignity.

~~~~~~~~~~

I will add here -- as a point of information -- that there have been other proposals for dealing with the Palestinians beyond giving them a state, the most notable being (former MK and Rabbi) Benny Elon's "Right Road to Peace," which envisions an autonomous area, with local self rule and ultimately enfranchisement via Jordan. This is a plan that I thoroughly endorse.

In this plan, Israel retains sovereignty over all the land to the Jordan River. The Palestinians would be treated as a group living inside of Israel that is entitled to local autonomy and has citizenship elsewhere. This is more desirable than the Netanyahu plan, which, as I understand it, would grant land areas to the Palestinians for their autonomy.

Elon's plan also calls for the complete dismantlement of UNRWA and resettlement of the "refugees" in other places. The necessity of doing away with UNRWA is frequently overlooked, but it is one I will return to. It is years ago that I first wrote, in a major report on UNRWA, that there can be no peace here until the refugee issue is resolved -- UNRWA promotes and sustains that refugee status.

~~~~~~~~~~

Additionally, there have been proposals that Jordan federate with/annex Judea and Samaria -- or, more accurately, the parts of it that would be Palestinian areas, and that Egypt do the same with respect to Gaza. There is some solid rationale for this, as these countries controlled these respective areas from 1949-67, and the cultural linkages are strong. Terrorism would then be dealt with by the forces of the respective states involved. And the Palestinians would not have to develop an independent economy.

The stumbling block, of course, is a reluctance on the part of Jordan and Egypt. As well, there is a serious issue of having an extended Egyptian border adjacent to us: Gaza has always been seen as a roadblock to Egyptian infiltration into Israel in time of war.

~~~~~~~~~~

I turn now, as promised, to a look at what Sec. of State Clinton is saying.

Last week she met with the House Foreign Appropriations Middle East Subcommittee, with regard to the Obama administration's allocation of $840 million for the Palestinians. The policy she enunciated was this:

Were a unity government of Hamas and Fatah to be established, the US would work with that government only if it agreed to abide by Quartet stipulations, and all the ministers appointed to that government were on board with these stipulations.

However, there would be no requirement that Hamas itself, as a party to the unity government, also declare itself in conformity with those stipulations.

Can you believe it? Believe it.

This is exactly what Fatah leader Mohammad Dahlan told Hamas not long ago: Join us in a unity government. We won't ask you to recognize Israel or past agreements. Only the unity government will have to do this.

I mocked this convoluted approach when Dahlan said it, and I mock it now. It's game playing.

Some of the Congresspersons meeting with Clinton were less than enamored with her suggestion.

Mark Kirk (D- IL) wanted to consider an amendment to the allocations that would prevent this "flexibility." He said he had just spoken with King Abdullah of Jordan, who had told him that Hamas ministers follow orders from Teheran.

Adam Schiff (D-CA) said to Clinton, "it seems to me unworkable to have Hamas organizing terrorist attacks against Israel at the same time it has the power to appoint ministers to a coalition. "

Nita Lowey (D-NY) expressed similar concerns.

~~~~~~~~~~

Clinton suggested that Obama wanted to pursue this policy not just in the matter of allocations, but also with regard to "peace negotiations."

Obama is really eager to push those "peace negations" along. And so, if a unity government were to be established, we would be asked to negotiate with it even though one of its constituent parties still embraced terrorism.

Demonstrates a deep and enduring commitment to our security, does it not? Mitchell, when he was here, assured us this would be the case. Right?

~~~~~~~~~~

Fatah and Hamas are actually coming together in Cairo again today for one last effort at establishing that unity government. According to Khaled Abu Toameh, chances of success are considered slim, as neither side is prepared to adjust its stance and wide gaps remain.

A key source of disagreement is the eagerness by Fatah to demonstrate acceptance of previous agreements with Israel. While Hamas, for its part, accuses Fatah of being a pawn of Israel and the US, with Fatah coordinating with the US in the training of security forces.

Both Hamas and Fatah are accusing the other of arresting members of their party.

~~~~~~~~~~

And one last word about Hillary, who also said:

"For Israel to get the kind of strong support it's looking for vis-a-vis Iran, it can't stay on the sidelines with respect to the Palestinians and the peace efforts...they go hand-in-hand.

"If there is such an approach, then a lot of the Arab countries are saying to us there will be a sequencing of support that will strengthen the region's response to Iran."

This is the sort of blackmail that we can expect from the Obama government. On the face of it, it's nonsense. The Arab countries aren't doing Israel a favor by supporting efforts against Iran. They're doing themselves a favor -- they're plenty frightened. In fact, while they would be loathe to say so publicly, there are Gulf states that would be glad to see Israel take on Iran.

Israel's readiness to establish a Palestinian state would be irrelevant to the Arab states in this context. Especially is this so as most of the Arab states don't really care a wit about the Palestinians. Their pressure for a Palestinian state is simply a technique for weakening Israel.

Apparently State Department spokesman Robert Wood reflected an understanding of what nonsense Hillary had spoken, when he said on Friday that "these are two separate issues, and we believe they can be dealt with simultaneously...we must and can deal with these issues, these separate issues, very seriously."

~~~~~~~~~~

 http://www.arlenefromisrael.info/current-postings/2009/7/1/april-26-2009-reflections.html

Before Shabbat I would like to focus on sources of hope.

Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman has given an interview to The Jerusalem Post -- his first such interview since taking office.

If the international community wants to help bring stability to the area, he said, they should "stop speaking in slogans." His counterparts tend to speak as if they are in a campaign, using words like "occupation," "settlements," and "settlers." The slogans they rely upon -- such as "land for peace" and "two-state solution" -- are overly simplistic and ignore the root of the ongoing conflict.

"It's impossible to artificially impose any political solution. It will fail, for sure. You cannot start a peace process from nothing." The issues to deal with are "economy, security, stability."

Lieberman was emphatic in stating that there could be no negotiations that entertained the possibility of "right of return." "It cannot be on the table, I'm not willing to discuss the 'right of return' of even one refugee."

At the same time, he indicated that "somebody who really wants a solution, someone who desires a real peace and a real agreement, must realize that this would be impossible without recognizing Israel as a Jewish state...

"[The real reason for the deadlock with the Palestinians] is not occupation, not settlements and not settlers. This conflict is really a very deep conflict..."

What is more, it would be "impossible to resolve any problems in our region without resolving the Iranian problem [which is related to Hezbollah in Lebanon, Syria, and Hamas in Gaza]. He believes the prime responsibility for Iran rests with the international community.

~~~~~~~~~~

Meanwhile, Prime Minister Netanyahu responded to EU threats to suspend an upgrade in its relationship with Israel.

"Don't set conditions for us," Netanyahu told Czech Premier Mirek Topolanek during his visit here.

When Topolanek brought up the issue of settlements, Netanyahu responded, "If Israelis can't build homes in the West Bank then Palestinians shouldn't be allowed to either. I have no plans to build new settlements, but if someone wants to build a new home [in an existing one], I don't think there's a problem." The West Bank, he said, was "disputed territory" over which negotiations must be held. This cedes nothing.

~~~~~~~~~~

Understand that a very short time ago we had a foreign minister and a prime minister who couldn't wait to give away parts of Israel, divide Jerusalem and push our people back to the '67 lines, all in the name of what we "had to do" for peace.

So, Baruch Hashem for what we have now: Leaders who won't be threatened and stand for Israeli rights. May their strength increase.

There will be more to say on this.

~~~~~~~~~~

I'll look at Hillary's latest statement (a stupid threat) after Shabbat.

~~~~~~~~~~

 http://www.arlenefromisrael.info/current-postings/2009/7/1/april-24-2009-reasons-for-gratitude.html

As someone who was born in the US and spent most of my life there, I have still a great attachment to the nation. Let no one think otherwise. It is for this reason that I am so deeply concerned about what is going on now -- this is above and beyond concern about how US positions affect Israel or the world more broadly. Right now I am terrified for America and feel impelled to continue to sound the alarm. Americans must wake up.

A couple of issues have come to my attention, which I would like to touch upon here:

~~~~~~~~~~

The first (with thanks to Carolyn M.) is an article by Rick Santorum, former Senator from Pennsylvania. Today he is a practicing attorney and a Senior Fellow with the Ethics and Public Policy Center in Washington, D.C. This is a man with considerable expertise who knows whereof he speaks.

He has written an article called "The Elephant in the Room: Obama vs. The United States." Subtitle: "The president is contemptuous of American values. And one key nominee prefers the judgement of other countries and global elites."

Watching Obama in action has convinced Santorum that he has "a deep-seated antipathy toward American values and traditions."

Of immediate concern to Santorum is Obama's nomination of former Yale Law School Dean Harold Koh to be the State Department's top lawyer:

"Let's set aside Koh's disputed comments about the possible application of Sharia law in American jurisprudence. The pick is alarming for more fundamental reasons having to do with national sovereignty and constitutional self-governance.

"What is indisputable is that Koh calls himself a 'transnationalist.' He believes U.S. courts 'must look beyond national interest to the mutual interests of all nations in a smoothly functioning international legal regime. ...' He thinks the courts have 'a central role to play in domesticating international law into U.S. law' and should 'use their interpretive powers to promote the development of a global legal system.'

"Koh's 'transnationalism' stands in contrast to good, old-fashioned notions of national sovereignty, in which our Constitution is the highest law of the land. In the traditional view, controversial matters, whatever they may be, are subject to democratic debate here. They should be resolved by the American people and their representatives, not 'internationalized.' What Holland or Belgium or Kenya or any other nation or coalition of nations thinks has no bearing on our exercise of executive, legislative, or judicial power.

"Koh disagrees. He would decide such matters based on the views of other countries or transnational organizations - or, rather, those entities' elites."

http://www.philly.com/inquirer/opinion/42725037.html

~~~~~~~~~~

My second issue of concern -- intrinsically related to the first -- is the fact that the Obama administration -- as the result of information released when certain Justice Department memos were recently declassified -- is considering the prosecution of persons in the Bush administration involved after 9/11 with crafting laws that led to the possible deprivation of civil rights and even torture of suspected enemy agents during interrogation. Not only those who crafted the laws, but the lawyers who gave legal advice, interpreting the laws.

This is blood chilling. Don't like the way it was done before? Disavow the past. But don't take off after those who were seeking to protect America during a time of national emergency and serious threat.

And that is the point. The people involved were patriots, seeking to do right for America.

As Ben Johnson writes, in Front Page Magazine:

"The mere threat to prosecute lawyers for giving legal advice – a dubious and unprecedented action – will unleash the paralyzing fear into those tasked with providing American counterterrorism: nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance. Who will craft a robust anti-terrorism interrogation program about a hatching terrorist plot, or trust his instincts to shoot the oncoming jihadists, if he fears prosecution in eight years for doing what is legal today?"

Johnson describes the story of a Navy SEAL, Marc Luttrell, who was part of a covert mission in Afghanistan. He and his fellow SEALs were spotted by a group of "goat herders." They thought of killing them but let them go, knowing they would be accused of murdering "innocent civilians."

"Within an hour of their hesitation, al-Qaeda terrorists killed 19 SEALs. Luttrell reflected he and his men were 'tortured, shot, blown up, my best buddies all dead, and all because we were afraid of the liberals back home, afraid to do what was necessary to save our own lives.'” (emphasis added by Johnson)

http://www.frontpagemag.com:80/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=0751E7CB-7803-403A-85F0-18A13419809A

~~~~~~~~~~

The vast irony is that practice during the Bush administration DID save lives -- possibly many lives. Jeff Jacoby describes this:

"What's missing from all this sanctimony and censure is any acknowledgement of the circumstances under which the CIA interrogations took place, let alone the successes with which they have been credited. That may be a good way to score cheap political points. It doesn't add much to the public discourse.

"Context matters. Actions that are indisputably beyond the pale under normal conditions -- waterboarding a prisoner, for example -- can take on a very different aspect when conditions are abnormal, as they surely were in the terrifying wake of 9/11.

"...According to Deputy Assistant Attorney General Steven Bradbury's memo dated May 30, 2006, 'intelligence acquired from these interrogations has been a key reason why al-Qaeda has failed to launch a spectacular attack in the West' since 9/11. Senior terrorist Khalid Sheikh Mohammed at first 'resisted giving any answers' when asked about future attacks, but waterboarding led him to divulge 'specific, actionable intelligence.' One result was the foiling of al-Qaeda's planned 'Second Wave' -- a 9/11-like plot to crash a hijacked airliner into a Los Angeles skyscraper.

"But what if it hadn't been foiled? Suppose the CIA had been denied permission to use brutal interrogation tactics, and al-Qaeda had consequently gone on to murder thousands of additional victims in California. What kind of conversation would we be having once it became known that the refusal to subject KSM to the waterboard had come at so steep a price? How many of those now blasting the Bush administration for allowing torture would be blasting it instead for not preventing a second bloodbath?"

http://www.jeffjacoby.com/5370/a-tortured-debate-over-the-torture-memos

~~~~~~~~~~

Now it's possible that this move to prosecute will go nowhere. Obama, after denials that this path would be pursued, put the issue in the hands of Attorney General Eric Holder, who has now said, "We owe the American people a reckoning.”

Johnson claims, "Obamas's move carries out the marching orders of his party's far-left base, MoveOn.org, which boasted it 'bought' the Democratic Party in 2004," and is now pushing for prosecution.

But Admiral Dennis Blair, Obama's own national intelligence director, has written:

“I like to think I would not have approved those methods in the past, but I do not fault those who made the decisions at that time...

"We did not have a clear understanding of the enemy we were dealing with. Our every effort was focused on preventing further attacks that would kill more Americans."

~~~~~~~~~~

There are two sources for distress here. One is the holier-than-thou, retributive attitude -- the very antithesis of the spirit of unifying the nation which was at the heart of Obama's campaign. (I'm being told by Americans in the know that the entire mood in Washington now is one of weakening and belittling Republicans. So much so that it's barely a two-party system in operation. There's a meanness in the air.)

~~~~~~~~~~

The other source of distress is a policy that -- unequivocally! -- has now put Americans at greater risk of another terrorist attack.

I am keenly aware that a democratic nation must strike a balance between maintaining its values with regard to human rights and humane behavior, and protecting its citizens from enemies. And I know that not everyone agrees as to how that balance must be struck.

But I have the sense that the current administration, intent on a good guy approach, is oblivious to the seriousness of the Jihad threat leveled against the West and is letting its guard down.

~~~~~~~~~~

Johnson tells the story of what happened to FBI agent Harry Samit in August 2001. Highly suspicious of one Zacarias Moussaoui, he sent 70 e-mails to the FBI's National Security Law Unit (NSL) begging for permission to search this guy's laptop. The guidelines in place at that time -- which were actually stricter than what the law required -- had been established during the Clinton administration. Samit's request was denied.

Later it was learned that this computer contained the plans for 9/11.

Bush subsequently, and in response to 9/11, changed the way the game was played. Did he change it too much? Was there too much harshness? I'm not about to judge this now. What I do know is that if the rules had been different in August 2001, there would have been no 9/11.

~~~~~~~~~~

Protection against an enemy can bring about a pyrrhic victory -- in which a nation changes so much, so abandons its protection of human rights, that the very nature of that nation is changed.

But it is also the case that the enemies who would destroy America count on use of the American system to protect them even as they plot against the nation where they are kept safe. This is an obscene perversity in the end.

And so I advise Americans to consider this issue with the greatest of gravity. And to remember that indeed there really IS an enemy set on destroying America.

~~~~~~~~~~

 http://www.arlenefromisrael.info/current-postings/2009/6/28/april-23-2009-is-america-disappearing-1.html

Congratulations, that is.

The National Council of Young Israel (NCYI) -- the umbrella organization of the Young Israel movement Orthodox synagogues in N. America -- has released a statement saying that the "two state solution" being promoted by the US government is "untenable and unfeasible."

This position is most welcome and long overdue.

The Jewish establishment in the U.S. has been, to a very large extent, toeing the line of the US government with regard to "two states" as the key to peace in the region. Now NCYI President Shlomo Z. Mostofsky, addressing the refusal of the Palestinians to recognize Israel as a Jewish state, says, "It is unconscionable for the United States to attempt to jump-start peace talks prior to recognizing a basic premise that must be accepted by all parties..."

NCYI is now mounting a campaign to encourage people to contact appropriate US leaders and urge them to oppose the creation of a Palestinian state.

At the bottom of this posting I will supply contact information for the individuals they recommend being in touch with, as well as key arguments to use.

~~~~~~~~~~

The NCYI declaration is a response to President Obama's push for that "two state solution." Yesterday he made a statement indicating that he expects to see "concrete steps toward peace" made by both sides, because "we can't talk forever." Guess no one has told him that we're not even talking right now, because after a year of Annapolis conversations nothing happened.

We know what he's going to demand of us: some permutation of a freeze on settlements and a removal of checkpoints. May our government be strong enough to refuse. (The weak link, of course, is DM Barak.)

But what of the PA? The equation has been so one-sided that very little is demanded of the Palestinians. What we see is US-sponsored training of security forces, who will, in theory, combat terrorism. But this is highly problematic as there's a very real question of which authority these forces will answer to. I'd like to see, at a minimum, a demand that all incitement be removed from PA textbooks.

The possibility for a "two state solution"is nil, but that won't stop an arrogant Obama from trying to push it through.

~~~~~~~~~~

I provide here major sections of a report on Day Two of Durban 2, by Anne Bayefsky of Eye on the UN:

"On Tuesday, the UN's racist anti-racism conference 'Durban II' rammed through a final declaration three days before its scheduled conclusion. On Monday Iranian President Ahamadinejad had opened the substantive program by denying the Holocaust and spewing Anti-Semitism. A day later UN members rewarded Iran by electing it one of three Vice-Chairs of the committee which adopted the final declaration.

"The committee meeting was chaired by Libya and lasted fifteen minutes. No discussion of the merits of the Durban II declaration was tolerated.

"The document reaffirms the 2001 Durban Declaration which alleges Palestinians are victims of Israeli racism and mentions only Israel among all 192 UN member states. It also multiplies the anti-Israel provisions, using the usual UN code, by adding yet another rant about racist foreign occupation.

"Not surprisingly, such a manifesto encouraged the racists and Anti-Semites that had pressed for its adoption. Speaking on Tuesday the Syrian Minister of Foreign Affairs, Faysal Mekdad, alleged 'the right of return' of Jews to Israel - Jewish self-determination - was 'a form of racial discrimination.' He also objected to the 'Judaization of Israel' and to the 'ethnic cleansing of 1948.'

"Palestinian Riyad Al-Maliki claimed that 'for over 60 years the Palestinian people has been suffering under the ugliest face of racism and racial discrimination' and said an Israeli government 'declaration regarding the Jewish nature of the state is a form of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance.' Al-Maliki was delighted with the result of the conference and gloated by reading excerpts from the 2001 Durban Declaration that he was pleased to see had been reaffirmed.

"The remnants of the European Union which remained inside the conference - in particular France and the United Kingdom - entirely ignored their many promises not to accept anything which singled out the Jewish state. Though these Europeans undoubtedly enabled the hatemongering, their excuses in the coming days are predictable..."

http://www.nydailynews.com/opinions/2009/04/22/2009-04-22_durban_diary_day_two_the_outrage_continues.html

~~~~~~~~~~

We shouldn't expect much of Britain, for certain. Right now, in light of Israel's recent activities in Gaza, it is reviewing all arms exports to Israel. This is not a crisis, as all British arms exports to us constitute less than 1% of what we import. It's a question of attitude.

What is more, in line with that same attitude, Britain is about to permit Hamas politburo leader Khaled Mashaal to address a meeting of MPs and peers in the British parliament via video link from Damascus.

The invitation to the event reads: "Most serious commentators now believe that there can be no peace in the Middle East without talking to Hamas. In addition, we may be facing the last chance for a two-state solution."

I would love to ask the organizers of this event how a "two-state solution" can be achieved when Fatah and Hamas function separately, and Hamas is adamant about not recognizing Israel and not renouncing terror. It wouldn't pay me, however. I've spoken to British officials, and find they are never at a loss for answers, convoluted though they may be.

~~~~~~~~~~

We had heard during our Gaza operation that Hamas officials hid in Shifa Hospital in Gaza City. Now the IDF has revealed that Hamas PM Ismail Haniyeh set up a command center in that hospital. Hamas field commanders took advantage of the daily self-imposed IDF cessation of military activity, intended to permit humanitarian supplies to get into Gaza, to enter the hospital and receive instructions.

~~~~~~~~~~

When Avigdor Lieberman assumed the post of Foreign Minister, the Egyptians were none too happy about it. In fact, they said they would have nothing to do with him unless he apologized because he had severely criticized Mubarak for never visiting Israel, except for Rabin's funeral.

Well, Egyptian Intelligence Chief Omar Suleiman is in Israel now, and apparently the Egyptians have had a change of heart, or of policy, anyway. Suleiman met during the day today with PM Netanyahu, and with Defense Minister Ehud Barak. And tonight he met with Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman.

~~~~~~~~~~

Remember the cartoons about Mohammad published in Denmark in 2005 that set off world-wide Muslim riots? The editor who originally commissioned and published them, Flemming Rose, is currently here in Israel, the guest of the Shasha Center for Strategic Studies of Hebrew University.

In a lecture at the Center, Rose said that the Organization of Islamic States is pushing at Durban 2 for "a new world order" that would impose "nondemocratic and illiberal values on the West." The attempt is to re-write the rules of human rights and international law in a manner that undermines Western values of liberty: "We're seeing an erosion of support in the West for freedom of expression in the guise of preventing incitement against Islam."

The alarm that Rose is sounding should be heeded with utmost seriousness.

~~~~~~~~~~

Those to contact regarding a "two state solution":

President Barack Obama
Phone: 202-456-1111 Fax: 202-456-2461 e-mail form via: http://www.whitehouse.gov/contact/

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton
Phone: 202-647-6575 Fax: 202-647-2283 secretary@state.gov

Senator John Kerry (Chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee)
Phone: (202) 224-2742 Fax: (202) 224-8525 e-mail form via: http://kerry.senate.gov/contact/email.cfm

Congressman Howard Berman (Chair of the Congressional Committee on Foreign Affairs)
Phone: (202) 225-4695 Fax: (202) 225-3196
CA district alternate fax: (818) 994-1050
Only receives e-mail from constituents at http://www.house.gov/berman/contact/index.shtml

Congressman Gary Ackerman (Chair of the Congress. Subcommittee on the Middle East and South Asia)
Phone: (202) 225-2601 Fax: (202) 225-1589
e-mail form via http://www.house.gov/ackerman/pages/contact.html

~~~~~~~~~~

Reasons why the US should not be promoting a "two-state solution" follow. It's sufficient to select just a few and appropriate to keep communication relatively brief.

Remember, arguments should be couched in terms that interest elected US officials -- not in terms of what is good for Israel or what religious Jews believe about rights in Israel. You want to be heard; talk truthfully, but in their terms.

-- If the US attempts this again, and fails, the administration loses international prestige.

-- There is no reason to assume that the Palestinians are capable of establishing a stable nation. They do not have civil infrastructure in place and have relied upon international assistance rather than establishing a solid economic base

-- There is no political stability. No one address for all Palestinians. This makes it complicated. There could actually end up being two Palestinian states between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea. First this has to be worked out.

-- Establishment of a Palestinian state in the West Bank under the auspices of Fatah will increase the risk of terrorism in the Middle East. Hamas is waiting to take advantage of the situation. Hamas in the West Bank will threaten the moderate state of Jordan.

-- Fatah itself has not shown genuine desire for peace, as the PA still incites, and its textbooks teach Jihad. Peace cannot be imposed from the top -- the people must accept it. And the Palestinian people have not been educated to this.

-- If Hamas joins Fatah in a unity government, it says it will not renounce terrorism.

-- Jerusalem is very stable as it is. Dividing it to be two capitals may sound like a good idea, but this is absolutely not tenable, as Jewish and Arab neighborhoods are intertwined.

-- Israel has a sterling reputation for protecting holy sites of all religions. The PA has an abominable record on this. Turning religious areas over to the Palestinians is asking for trouble at an international level.

-- The Palestinians are insisting Israel must retreat to the '67 lines, even though these were only armistice lines and not borders. To push Israel back that way is to give it final borders that are not defensible.

-- It is in the best interests of the US to keep Israel strong, as this nation serves as a democratic beacon in the area and a defense against terrorism.

~~~~~~~~~~

 http://www.arlenefromisrael.info/current-postings/2009/6/24/april-22-2009-mazel-tov.html

On Sunday, a group of former Partisans (essentially, guerilla fighters against the Nazis) visited an Israeli Air Force Base, where they met with pilots and saw a pair of jets take off in a drill.

One woman, with numbers tattooed on her arm, asked an officer if his pilots could reach Iran.

"They can reach anywhere," he told her.

Another woman, in a wheel chair, said, "What I ask of you is to make sure there will not be another Holocaust."

~~~~~~~~~~

I now have a list of the nations who walked out on Ahmadinejad's speech yesterday in Geneva -- 23 EU nations and two others. They are listed at the bottom of this posting

I had indicated yesterday that they returned to continue participation. And, indeed, in the main they did, the French envoy, for example, claiming that dialogue is in and of itself valuable.

But the Czech Republic -- bravo! -- has left for good.

~~~~~~~~~~

Much is being made of the fact that Ahmadinejad made an adjustment in his talk in Farsi yesterday, cutting out a denial of the Holocaust that had been in the print version distributed by the Iranian government.

Are we supposed to be satisfied that instead he "just" said that we used the Holocaust as a "pretext" for aggression again Palestinians and that ours was the “most cruel and racist regime,” which must be "eradicated"?

Representatives of the Vatican are saying they were able to remain through the talk, since there was no Holocaust denial, this apparently being their only red line. (Our relationship with the Vatican leaves a good deal to be desired right now.)

~~~~~~~~~~

Navi Pillay, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights and Secretary General of Durban 2, while labeling Ahmadinejad's remarks "totally objectionable," defended his right to make them.

"...everybody has a right to speak, and more especially a head of state. And that was his right."

I find this fascinating. For one of the issues of contention within the preparatory meetings of the conference was that of free speech. The Arab/Muslim states are attempting to muzzle criticism of radical Islam, calling such criticism unacceptable Islamophobia. Their position, essentially, is that it is wrong to make any connection between Jihad/terrorism and dedication of the Jihadists/terrorists to Islam, in whose name they act.

~~~~~~~~~~

As some of you reading this know, in response to the comment of one reader who told me things are even worse than what I described the other day with regard to Obama, I've been engaged in dialogue with a handful of people, seeking a broad and thoughtful picture of the situation.

Here, briefly, I summarize, acknowledging that the situation (or my perception of it) may well shift:

The biggest worry with regard to Obama is not what he'll do to Israel directly, but what he's doing to the US and generating in world dynamics. We here in Israel must learn to stand on our own feet and know when and how to say 'no.'

As would be expected, there is some difference of opinion regarding how effective Congress can and will be in blocking Obama, and there are different perspectives on the development of a grass roots protest movement -- a backlash, with the tea parties possibly the beginning.

At least one savvy and well-connected individual I communicated with believes that saner and wiser heads in the Democrat party rein in Obama from time to time -- convincing him, for example, not to attend Durban 2.

Another experienced activist made what I thought an astute observation: that "he is still so impressed with the way so much of the American public views him with adulation that he has the naive impression that he can win over our enemies, too, by the force of his personality!"

Obama's approval ratings are slowly dropping but, indeed, the majority of Americans are still for him, and seem to have no clue. They are not focused on the Middle East and are shockingly oblivious to the dangers of Iran.

Mainstream media are not telling the story. The major critique of Obama is coming from right-wing radio talk shows and Fox news (and right wing Internet sites and blogs) -- and what I wonder is if they are preaching to the choir.

One thing I had not mentioned before, and should, is the attempt by US Homefront Security to label right wing protesters as a dangerous threat to the country. This is a serious and worrisome business, suggesting a diminution of civil liberties.

~~~~~~~~~~

Part of what is troubling about Obama is not what he's already done (although there's plenty of that) but rather an intuitive feeling he generates in his critics regarding where he's coming from and what he's about. There is a recognition that traditional American values are being abandoned wholesale and that the nation is being led who-knows-where.

This is a function of a number of things, including whom Obama appoints, who his mentors and financial supporters have been, as well as his eagerness to go an "international" route and his aforementioned courting of the Muslim world. There is an unsettling arrogance about him that rings bells, and an authoritarian approach that is anti-democratic.

~~~~~~~~~~

Analyst Barry Rubin, in a recent piece, shared thought on some of these issues. While he is more sanguine than I, he makes some interesting points.

Obama's position on Iran presents dangers to Israel, says Rubin, as does an approach that "emboldens radical, terrorist, Islamist forces and demoralizes relatively moderate Arab regimes." But his position on Israel and the "two state solution" actually is not that different from that of his predecessors. Bush pushed Annapolis and Condoleezza was constantly pressuring us for concessions.

Obama, Rubin tells us, is inherently anti-Israel, but has learned that "he could insult large sections of the American people and abandon the most basic assumptions of American patriotism and get away with it. In contrast, he learned that it is politically costly to attack Israel."

Most significantly, according to Rubin -- and I've addressed this numerous times -- the Palestinians are not ready to make even the smallest concession or compromise in the interests of achieving that "two state solution." This makes Obama considerably less dangerous than he would be if the Palestinians cooperated. No matter what he wishes, he cannot achieve the impossible.

~~~~~~~~~~

There has been much said regarding PM Netanyahu's demand that the Palestinians recognize us as a Jewish state, and whether he's back-tracked on this. (I don't think he has.)

He made a statement about this at the Cabinet meeting yesterday:

We don't know yet what the nature of a settlement we might offer to the Palestinians will be, as this is currently being formulated. We want them to rule over themselves except for powers that threaten our security and existence. [Note: He does not say we will give them a state.] However, one thing is clear:

"We insist that the Palestinians - in any diplomatic settlement with us - will recognize the State of Israel as the national state of the Jewish people.

"...The entire international community demands that we recognize the principle of two states for two peoples and we are discovering that this is two states but not for two peoples but two states for one people, or two states for a people-and-a-half. That is to say there is no doubt that we are being asked to recognize the Palestinian state as the national state for the Palestinian people but...it is clear...that the Palestinians have no intention of recognizing the national state of the Jewish People. Of course, this is completely unacceptable.

"...we insist that they recognize the State of Israel as the national state of the Jewish People. (Emphasis added)

"...We have never conditioned the start and existence of talks on advance agreement about this but neither can we see progress on a future settlement without their agreement to this condition. Therefore, not only have we not backtracked from it, we stand behind it strongly and I think that in this regard, we reflect a very broad consensus, not only around this table but among the entire nation, a great part of the nation, and rightly so."

http://imra.org.il/story.php3?id=43426

~~~~~~~~~~

Those who walked out on Ahmadinejad's talk:

Austria, Belgium, Britain, Bulgaria, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden -- all EU nations, plus Morocco, and St. Kitts and Nevis (a federated two-island nation in the Caribbean).

~~~~~~~~~~

 http://www.arlenefromisrael.info/current-postings/2009/6/24/april-212009-where-to-begin.html