Today Saeb Erekat, PA negotiator, declared that Israel was twisting Palestinian words, as they never said they were going to declare a state unilaterally.

No? You could have fooled me.

All they want, he explained, is to preserve the two-state solution, as one state is not an option. And, since negotiations are stalemated (through no fault of theirs, of course), they want the Security Council to endorse the two-state solution, with the border of the new Palestinian state set at the Green (pre-'67) Line.

This strikes me as patently ridiculous.  Every mention within the international community of the two-state solution or anything akin to it -- Oslo, which was formally signed, the informally agreed-to Road Map, etc., specifies that the details must be determined via negotiations. 

Even SC Resolution 242, which doesn't even mention Palestinians, never mind address a "two-state solution," says Israel's borders must be determined via negotiations.

And let's look back even further than this:  When Israel signed an armistice agreement with Jordan in 1949, it stated explicitly that the armistice line that was being established (which is the Green Line) would not prejudice negotiations in the future to determine the final border for Israel.  The Green Line wasn't it.

~~~~~~~~~~

At least one Israeli government source is cited as saying that the statement by Erekat is an effort to backtrack after it became apparent that the EU and the US were not supportive of a unilaterally declared state.  Slip-sliding...

But I'm seeing something else, as well:  "One state is not an option..." 

Yet not long ago leaders in the PA were saying that if the negotiations weren't going to progress, it was time to think about one state.  Of course, in voicing this threat, they were envisioning a "bi-national state" that would render it impossible for Israel to be a Jewish state -- that would, ultimately, be Arab/Muslim in nature.

But then matters shifted.  WE said, well, if negotiations aren't going to progress, and there are going to be unilateral declarations from the PA, we might unilaterally move to assume full sovereignty over significant parts of Judea and Samaria. That would make the bulk of Judea and Samaria, which the Palestinians covet, very Jewish indeed, and block the very possibility of forming a viable Palestinian state.

So they, slip-sliding, said, uh oh, let's reverse tactics.

What we learn from this is the value of making offensive moves and not appeasing.

~~~~~~~~~~

There might have been some advantage to the unilateral declaration of a Palestinian state, however. 

MK Uri Ariel, of the right wing Ihud Leumi (National Union), is one of those who sees it this way:
"I pray for Mahmoud Abbas, the president of the Palestinian Authority, to declare a state unilaterally. That is the only way we can finally annul the wretched Oslo accord, which exacted a price in blood and brought the PLO terrorists into the state of Israel.

“A statement of this nature means that the government will have no choice but to annex all of the communities in Judea and Samaria.  In practice, it will have to annex the entire region and formally turn it into a part of the state of Israel.” 

Everything is so much in flux, it's difficult to predict what will come next.  But it remains extremely unlikely that we'll extend sovereignty over even parts of Judea and Samaria except in response to some PA stance that essentially voids Oslo.  More's the pity. 

At very least there has been a paradigm shift of sorts -- as Israel is making it increasingly clear that return to the Green Line is not an option.

~~~~~~~~~~

And, as the PA leaders continue to slip-slide, we must not forget the option of "armed resistance," which they maintain is their right. This past August, Fatah (the major constituent party of the PA) held a congress, its first in 20 years.  This provided the party with an opportunity to genuinely moderate, by adjusting its constitution to eliminate the call for violence.  That, however, is not what happened. They continue to embrace this option.

~~~~~~~~~~

And it happens that I see the following news item as having a connection to their embrace of this option:

The PA is calling an international conference, which will be attended by representatives of such countries as Spain, Canada, Britain, Ireland, South Africa, and Sweden who are involved in international legal systems.

A major goal they intend to advance in the course of the conference: Securing a change in the status of their terrorists in Israeli prisons to "prisoners of war."

According to Israel National News, this will enable them to secure more "rights" for the prisoners under the Geneva Conventions.  But frankly I find it hard to believe that it would be possible to provide them with any more rights. As it is, I'm ashamed that these terrorists are treated as well as they are.  They not only can have family visitations, but also conjugal rights. And they can actually earn a degree from an Israeli university while sitting in our prisons.

I would suggest the possibility that what they really want is to redefine terrorism down. Terrorism, what terrorism?  Our brave soldiers are merely engaging in "resistance against the occupation," which is their right under international law. Watch and see.  

~~~~~~~~~~

Sources in the Netanyahu government are claiming that there is no crisis with the US over our building in Gilo.  Although surprised at the intensity of the US response (with the US saying it is "dismayed" about this), these sources maintain that it is understood that there will be no building freeze in Jerusalem. This reaction, they say, is a show for PA consumption. 

I'm not sure if this take is quite accurate.  Obama has actually given an interview to Fox news, in which he criticized the plans to build in Gilo, saying this makes it more difficult to re-start negotiations and "embitters" the Palestinians. Embitters?  Give me a break.

~~~~~~~~~~

A question occurs to me here:

The statement about how it's understood that there is no freeze in Jerusalem makes it clear that we are abiding by some informal and very quiet agreement regarding a freeze at least in major settlement blocs in Judea and Samaria (whatever the parameters with regard to completing units for which tenders have already been issued). 

This was supposed to be done to make the PA happy, so negotiations could begin.  Obviously, Obama is still hoping -- oi! is he hoping -- this will happen. But if the PA is intransigent, and there are no negotiations, precisely how long do we wait before we say the deal is off?  This is the danger inherent in these open-ended arrangements.

~~~~~~~~~~

The articles about Fort Hood keep coming, and just when I think I've read enough, one appears that is significant enough to merit being shared.  (Thanks, Dick B) 

This powerful piece has a significantly different tone because it is written by an ex-army man.  Lieutenant Colonel Allen B West (US Army, Ret) was actually a Battalion Commander at Fort Hood and is now running for Congress in FL. 

He wrote:

"...A military installation, whether it is Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine, or Coast Guard, is supposed to be a safe sanctuary for our Warriors and their families. It is intended to provide a home whereby our "Band of Brothers and Sisters" can find solace and bond beyond just the foxhole, but as family units.

"A military installation is supposed to be a place where our Warriors train for war, to serve and protect our Nation.

"On Thursday, 5 November 2009 Ft Hood became a part of the battlefield in the war against Islamic totalitarianism and state sponsored terrorism.

"There may be those who feel threatened by my words and would even recommend they not be uttered. To those individuals I say step aside because now is not the time for cowardice. Our Country has become so paralyzed by political correctness that we have allowed a vile and determined enemy to breach what should be the safest place in America, an Army post.

"...Saudi Arabia is sponsoring radical Imams who enter into our prisons and convert young men to a virulent Wahabbist ideology….one resulting in four individuals wanting to destroy synagogues in New York with plastic explosives. Thank God the explosives were dummy. They are sponsoring textbooks which present Islamic-centric revisionist history in our schools.

"We must recognize that there is an urgent need to separate the theo-political radical Islamic ideology out of our American society. We must begin to demand surveillance of suspected Imams and mosques that are spreading hate and preaching the overthrow of our Constitutional Republic……that speech is not protected under First Amendment, it is sedition and, if done by an American, treason.

"There should not be some 30 Islamic terrorist training camps in America.  That has nothing to do with First Amendment Freedom of Religion. The Saudis are not our friends and any American political figure who believes such is delusional.

"When tolerance becomes a one way street it certainly leads to cultural suicide. We are on that street. Liberals cannot be trusted to defend our Republic, because their sympathies obviously lie with their perceived victim, Major Nidal Malik Hasan.

"I make no apologies for these words, and anyone angered by them, please, go to Ft Hood and look into the eyes of the real victims. The tragedy at Ft Hood Texas did not have to happen. Consider now the feelings of those there and on every military installation in the world. Consider the feelings of the Warriors deployed into combat zones who now are concerned that their loved ones at home are in a combat zone.

"Ft Hood suffered an Islamic jihadist attack, stop the denial, and realize a simple point.

"The reality of your enemy must become your own."

http://thesilentmajority.wordpress.com/2009/11/07/%E2%80%9Ctragedy-at-ft-hood%E2%80%9D-from-lt-col-allen-b-west-us-army-ret/

Share this man's words broadly, my friends.

~~~~~~~~~~

"The Good News Corner"

From many places on the earth, there are Jews who come home to Israel.  In some cases, individuals whose ancestors were Jews come here to reclaim their heritage and join with us.

See this video of descendants of the Jews of Kaifeng, China, come to Israel to re-connect with their Jewish roots and convert formally to Judaism.

http://www.youtube.com:80/watch?v=edhtdoPukk0  (Thanks, Cheryl)

~~~~~~~~~~

http://arlenefromisrael.squarespace.com/current-postings/2010/2/3/november-18-2009-slip-sliding-in-the-pa.html

The PA had appealed to the EU for support in their efforts to unilaterally declare a state.  I was certain that the response would be encouraging and enthusiastic.  After all, the EU has been deeply enamored of the Palestinians for years, exhibiting a political bias in their favor and lavishing upon them huge sums of money for which they demand insufficient accountability.

But no!  I was wrong.  This is what Carl Bildt -- the foreign minister of Sweden, which currently holds the rotating EU presidency -- said today:

"The conditions are not there as of yet...I would hope that we would be in a position to recognize a Palestinian state, but there has to be one first, so I think that is somewhat premature."

Forgive me if I take a moment to savor this.  "There has to be one first..."  Chickens coming home to roost.  All these years in which the PA leaders did zilch to build the solid basis for a state has perhaps caught up with them. They imagined, perhaps, that they could coast forever -- constructing a virtual state diplomatically without actually producing one. 

Methinks that the response was a self-protective one, at bottom.  Ultimately the EU would look silly if it backed a state that doesn't have its act together and would fail to function.

But oh, the disappointment in Ramallah must be huge right now.  (Although Abbas, predictably, says he'll keep at it.)

~~~~~~~~~~

In point of fact, the Palestinians have been there, and done that, before. 

In 1988, the Palestinian National Council (the legislative body of the PLO, which at that time met in Algeria) proclaimed an independent state, which was endorsed by the UN General Assembly.  This was via Resolution 43/177, which  "acknowledged the proclamation of the State of Palestine by the Palestine National Council...and affirmed the need to enable the Palestinian people to exercise their sovereignty over their territory occupied since 1967."

What happened subsequent to this was nothing. Because there was no state.  You will note, please, that there is no representative from Palestine in the General Assembly, only a Palestinian with observer (non-voting) status.

~~~~~~~~~~

To declare a state unilaterally a second time would not be terribly smart.  In fact, right now it seems that this whole gambit is likely to weaken the PA, and diminish whatever respect it has in the street and internationally.  Abbas has backed himself out on a limb and cannot climb down without looking foolish. 

Ultimately this may strengthen Hamas, which will have a field day with the failure of the PA to garner international support.

The State Department has come out solidly for formation of a Palestinian state only via negotiations, and the EU has declared itself prepared to help get the PA back to the table.  But if the PA does return to the negotiating table -- even though we haven't, in line with absolute PA demands, frozen all building activity in Judea and Samaria and Jerusalem -- its position will be diminished by virtue of the fact that it was coerced. 

Arabs, culturally, are very big on issues of pride and face.  On at least two occasions already, Abbas has been upset with Obama for pushing him to take positions he didn't want to.  Once in September, when Abbas met with Netanyahu on the sidelines of the UN, after swearing he wouldn't.  And a second time weeks later, when Abbas, at US prompting, withdrew a motion in the UN Human Rights Council on the Goldstone Report, which caused him considerable flack in the Arab world and prompted a quick reversal.  He's barely recovered from that.

If the PA refuses to come back to the negotiating table, there would be stalemate, which would not sit well at all in a number of Western capitals, most notably Washington DC.  What I wonder at this point is whether Abbas is willing, or able, to be coerced into backing down.

~~~~~~~~~~

You might be interested in seeing a piece by Jonathan Schnazer of the Jewish Policy Center, regarding ways in which a unilateral declaration of statehood could backfire on the PA.

www.jewishpolicycenter.org/1502/unilaterally-declaring-a-state-could-backfire-on

~~~~~~~~~~

Now as to a decision, or policy statement, that does not reflect a whole lot of reason.  (Can't expect too much reason in one day, I guess.) 

US Envoy Mitchell, acting on behalf of his government, has brought pressure to bear on us to stop building in the southern Jerusalem neighborhood of Gilo.  Gilo?  It seems strange that the US should focus on this neighborhood in particular (but see more below).

 Gilo is fully within the municipal borders of Jerusalem and is constructed on land that had been Jewishly purchased (there is no suggestion that it rests on Arab land).  It made news repeatedly some eight years ago when there was shooting at residential housing along its southern periphery by terrorists in adjacent Beit Jala.

While it is beyond the Green Line, so are numerous other neighborhoods of Jerusalem -- Ramat Eshkol, French Hill, Pisgat Zeev, etc.  From our perspective, this is irrelevant as it falls within full Israeli sovereignty and is an integral part of the city.

~~~~~~~~~~

The pressure from Mitchell in this regard has had no effect on Israeli policy.  Just today Jerusalem's Construction and Planning Committee approved the building of 850 new housing units, and Interior Minister Eli Yeshai signed the approval.

Said Jerusalem mayor Nir Barkat, in a statement released by his office:

"Israeli law does not discriminate between Arabs and Jews, or between east and west of the city. The demand to cease construction just for Jews is illegal, also in the US and any other enlightened place in the world.

"It is inconceivable that the US government would demand a construction freeze in the US based on race, religion or sex, and the attempt to demand this from Jerusalem constitutes a double standard and is unacceptable. The Jerusalem Municipality will continue to enable construction in every part of the city for Jews and Arabs alike."

Bravo!

~~~~~~~~~~

And here we have a PA response to this, from Saeb Erekat:

"We condemn this in the strongest possible terms. It shows that it is meaningless to resume negotiations when this goes on."

Meaningless, huh?  Does this provide a clue regarding whether the PA will ultimately back down and come to the negotiating table?

I want to get this straight:  If they can't get Gilo, there's no point negotiating a Palestinian state?

~~~~~~~~~~

The British government also objected, saying:

"The Foreign Secretary has been very clear that a credible deal involves Jerusalem as a shared capital. Expanding settlements on occupied land in east Jerusalem makes that deal much harder. So this decision on Gilo is wrong and we oppose it."

So let's take a look at a map.  (The Green Line is yellow here.)  Gilo is not even in the east of Jerusalem.  It is, as I said, beyond the Green Line to the south.  Everything that was not in Israeli possession before '67 is being called "east Jerusalem."  And the presumption being made is that it all belongs to the Arabs. 

In their dreams.

~~~~~~~~~~

"In their dreams" is pretty much what Gilo residents have to say about this, as well.  YNet is reporting that people in the neighborhood are furious about the US demands, which they see as totally out of line.

Most interesting was this quote from Meir Turgeman, a Jerusalem council member, who blames what's happening on  "collaborators who went and leaked it out."

He explained:

"I don't believe that the Americans are up to date on the construction situation in Gilo and they aren't interested in it either. This came from within. There are people in this country and on the city council who are collaborating with external bodies who don't have Jerusalem's best interests at heart.

"There hasn't been construction in the Gilo neighborhood in over 10 years. What brought it on the agenda now all of a sudden? This is a good and diverse neighborhood. An example of Arabs and Jews living together in peace for many years.

"If anyone supports this and freezes construction in Gilo, the neighborhood's residents will go out and fight. We will not sit quietly and we will not allow any government to hurt Gilo."

So, Bravo! a second time.

~~~~~~~~~~

Yesterday I wrote about the way in which former president Clinton misused demographic data to make the case that we must give the Palestinians a state before our Jewish state is swallowed up.  That argument has been thoroughly debunked.  To begin with, there was an over-estimation in the number of Palestinians in Judea and Samaria, and Gaza. An over-estimation to the tune of about 1 million people.  In addition, Palestinian birthrates have either stabilized or dropped (during various time periods), while Jewish birthrates have increased.

To see details and have access to various articles on the subject, see:

http://www.israeldemography.com:80/  (Thank you Michael W.)

~~~~~~~~~~

One more article (of the probably dozens I've seen) on the Fort Hood jihad massacre. This by Charles Krauthammer, who speaks of "Medicalizing mass murder." 

"...Presto! Secondary post-traumatic stress disorder, a handy invention to allow one to ignore the obvious.

"And the perfect moral finesse. Medicalizing mass murder not only exonerates. It turns the murderer into a victim, indeed a sympathetic one. After all, secondary PTSD, for those who believe in it (you won't find it in DSM-IV-TR, psychiatry's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual), is known as 'compassion fatigue.' The poor man -- pushed over the edge by an excess of sensitivity."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/12/AR2009111209824.html

~~~~~~~~~~

Then you might want to see what was put out on this by Caroline Glick's "Latma" website of satirical video clips:

http://www.carolineglick.com/e/2009/11/video---latma-on-ft-hood-attac.php

~~~~~~~~~~

Iran, Iran, Iran.  The story that was horrendous gets more horrendous, as IAEA inspectors conclude Iran may have more hidden nuclear plants. And still Obama waivers.

~~~~~~~~~~

http://arlenefromisrael.squarespace.com/current-postings/2010/2/3/november-17-2009-an-eruption-of-reason.html

They're preparing their state for unilateral independence. Abbas has already spoken to UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon.  PA leaders have already approached the EU and they plan to take the issue to the Security Council. Etc. etc.

~~~~~~~~~~

But now we're starting to see our government's response to these threats.  At yesterday morning's Cabinet meeting there was a stiffening of positions.

Silvan Shalom (Likud), Deputy Prime Minister, who's been singing a less conciliatory song of late, said:

"I think the Palestinians need to know that unilateral moves will not yield the results they hope for. Every action will receive an appropriate Israeli response."

While Minister of Infrastructure Uzi Landau (Yisrael Beitenu) declared:

"The unilateral Palestinian move is a hostile initiative. I think it is brazen. The initiative is meant to torpedo any chance for negotiations. It must be made clear that any unilateral declaration on their part that is meant to deteriorate the chances for negotiations needs to be accompanied from our side with annexation of territories in Judea and Samaria." 

~~~~~~~~~~

Broadly, what he was referring to were the Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria -- not all of Judea and Samaria, which would include areas that are heavily Arab-populated.  Within Jewish-populated Judea and Samaria are some major community blocs, a few cities, a scattering of smaller villages, and that small part of Hevron that we control, with Kiryat Arba immediately adjacent.

Caroline Glick, in her column last Friday, made a similar suggestion.  She said that -- in response to the various pressures and attempts to diminish us that we currently endure -- it's time to incorporate into Israel all Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria, plus the Jordan Valley, which is crucial for our security.

Technically, the process would not be one of annexation, for these areas are part of unclaimed Mandate land.  All we need to do is claim them, by extending Israel's civil law to these regions -- just as we extended civil law to eastern Jerusalem and the Golan. (Communities in Judea and Samaria today are administered under Israeli military law.)

While ALL of the land is ours from the river to the sea, extending Israeli civil law to areas such as Ramallah would be a "tad" difficult now.  This could have, and should have, been done in 1967.

But how marvelous it would be if we made it clear to the world that Gush Etzion, and Ma'aleh Adumim, Ariel, and Shilo, and Beit El, and Jewish Hevron (see below) and Kiryat Arba, etc. etc. are all fully under Israeli sovereignty.  That there could be no expectation, ever, of our returning to pre-67 lines.  And how wonderful for the residents of these areas, finally and at long last, to be governed under the same laws that govern residents of Tel Aviv.

What Landau was suggesting was something that would be done only in response to a unilateral Palestinian action. 

But to have this mentioned in a Cabinet meeting... a move in the right (double entendre intended) direction.

~~~~~~~~~~

That Prime Minister Netanyahu was thinking roughly along the same lines was made clear later in the day yesterday.

For the past two days a major Forum has been held here in Jerusalem, run by the Saban Center for Middle East Policy (which is part of the Brookings Institute in Washington DC and is directed by Martin Indyk). 

Last night Netanyahu addressed the Forum.  His talk included this:

"There is no substitute for negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian Authority and any unilateral attempts outside that framework will unravel the existing agreements between us and could entail unilateral steps by Israel."

~~~~~~~~~~

Today, Landau, in cooperation with Transportation Minister Yisrael Katz, has carried this one step further, proposing legislation with regard to extending our sovereignty.  The full content of that proposed legislation has not been spelled out (if indeed it is even worked out), but what seems clear is that it is conceptualized as a response to a Palestinian unilateral move.

But now Landau was a bit more specific, and a great deal more expansive, in terms of what areas he is talking about:  "Israeli sovereignty over all of area C."  (Citation from to the Post.)

This refers to the division of Judea and Samaria agreed upon with the Oslo Accords:  Area A = full PA control, Area B = PA civic control and Israeli military control, and Area C = full Israeli control.  This encompasses an area far greater than that of all the Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria combined -- which comprise less than 5% of the whole.

Designed as it would be to counter Palestinian unilateral action, it would render a Palestinian state an impossibility.

I hasten to caution, however, that unless we're pushed a whole lot harder, something like this is not likely to go very far in the Knesset.  In fact, it's most likely to go nowhere.  More's the pity.

But I like it that this is entering the political discourse. 

~~~~~~~~~~

I would like here, in this context, to recommend an article by Timna Katz, "Love of the Land: The Testing Ground of Shdema":

"The lesson of Oslo is tragic but profound. Oslo turned the 'peace process' into the country’s supreme value and goal. To keep this process going, the Israeli leadership was prepared to sacrifice almost every Jewish and Zionist truth. It exchanged the old values and ideals for a realpolitik that served the enemy’s narrative and goals. Even when the results of Oslo proved to be the polar opposites of its intended goals -- war instead of peace, increased Arab rejectionism instead of increased Arab acceptance, international isolation instead of international normalization – Israel continued down the same disastrous path. The one and only justification against total capitulation to Arab demands that Israel mustered was the ‘security’ card: Israel can’t immediately relinquish all of Yesha because she has no choice but to defend herself against ‘terrorism’.

"While the damage of the above approach has been great, its bankruptcy has become so evident that even current leaders who continue to dance to the Oslo tune have started to pay lip service to the old values and truths: that the Land of Israel belongs to the Jewish People and Jews cannot be ‘occupiers’ in the Biblical heartland and cradle of their civilization."

http://rickscafamerican.blogspot.com/2009/11/love-of-land-testing-ground-of-shdema.html

~~~~~~~~~~

Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman has predicted that the chances that a unilaterally-declared Palestinian state would receive Security Council sanction are very low.  In addressing the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee today, he said:

"...the Americans also understand that unilateralism buries any chance for peace. They will be very uncomfortable with such a move."  And indeed, US senators visiting here today expressed displeasure with PA intimations of unilateralism and the expectation that the US would veto this.

Leiberman then reiterated the government position:

"Any unilateral move will be met with a unilateral move on our part. We have a lot to do in response."

And he made a very significant point:

"Unilaterally declaring a state is a violation of the agreements [the PLO] signed with Israel, and Israel will also be freed of its obligations."

~~~~~~~~~~

What irks me the most is the way in which the PA continues its eternal role as victim -- in this instance painting itself as the negotiating partner ever-eager for peace that has had to confront an intransigent Israel.

Consider this statement today by Ahmed Qurei, member of the PLO Executive Committee and former PA prime minister:

"So far we have made negotiations our top priority, but this has led nowhere apart from additional settlements, creating facts on the ground and reinforcing the process of Judaizing Jerusalem."

"...as people living under occupation, we are committed to looking into other options. Diplomacy is an option, turning to the UN is an option, the popular struggle is an option. All options are available and we have many possibilities."

~~~~~~~~~~

I will remind one and all that:

[] The PLO is still committed to Israel's destruction, having never amended its charter.

[] The PA during the entire period of Oslo has supported terrorism in one guise or another.

[] The PA textbooks are still rife with incitement.

[] The PA idea of negotiations is to make intractable demands without conceding anything.  They are still seeking return to pre-67 lines (including in Jerusalem) and return of "refugees."

[] The PA was twice offered a state in negotiations and twice turned it down.

[] Since the formation of the PA via Oslo over 15 years ago, this authority has neither built proper infrastructure nor  established the civic underpinnings for a responsible and self-sufficient state.

Note: The PLO is the over-arching umbrella organization that ostensibly speaks for all Palestinians; it negotiated the Oslo Accords. The PA is the (theoretically interim) administrative entity established by Oslo.  In reality the two are broadly overlapping.

~~~~~~~~~~

Former president Bill Clinton also spoke at the Saban Forum. He talked turkey to the Palestinians, telling them, "Take where we are and the reformulation of the settlement issue and find a way [to move forward]," by which he meant it was time for them to stop making a federal case about the fact that Obama had insisted on a settlement freeze and then backed off on that.

But he also threw statements at us -- in an attempt to push us along -- that were either inaccurate or unreasonable.  First, he used the demographic card, telling us that because Palestinians are having children at a faster rate, our Jewish state is at risk.  But this argument has been disproved by statistics in recent years.

And then he said that it was only a matter of time before Hamas would be able to put a GPS system on its rockets launched into Israel.  "The trajectory of technology is not your friend, … you need to get this done and you do have partners."

This facile warning, this attempt to frighten us into an agreement, on the face of it is nonsense, because we're currently supposed to be negotiating with the PA in Judea and Samaria, and Hamas in Gaza is outside the loop in any event. 

Why do ostensible leaders (or former leaders) persist in ignoring this elephant in the room?

~~~~~~~~~~

"The Good News Corner"

This past Shabbat we read "Chaye Sarah" as our Torah portion.  It tells of the death of Sarah and the purchase by Avraham of a field, which held a cave, for Sarah's burial.  This was in Hevron, and Avraham paid Ephron the Hittite 400 silver shekels for it.  (Bresheit 23:16) All of our patriarchs and matriarchs, with the exception of Rachel, are buried there, in the Ma'arat HaMachpela.  (The original double cave is hidden way beneath the current structure.)

It is customary in recent years to visit Hevron during the Shabbat of this reading.  But this year was incredible:  20,000 people came.  They were hosted by families in Hevron and in adjacent Kiryat Arba.  They slept in yeshiva buildings and in tents. 

Surely this is something akin to a miracle, and echoes the theme of the awakening of our people that is emerging slowly now.

For more about the Machpela:  http://www.machpela.com/.  Enter the site, take the tours.

~~~~~~~~~~

http://arlenefromisrael.squarespace.com/current-postings/2010/1/21/november-16-2009-responding-with-strength.html 

From Washington, PM Netanyahu flew to Paris, where he met with President Sarkozy.  News reports today have it that Netanyahu delivered a message to Syrian president Bashar Assad that he would be willing to resume negotiations with Syria at any time and any place, without preconditions.  Assad is supposed to be in Paris to meet with Sarkozy today and presumably will get this message.

Huh? you may be asking.  What?

Assad is the one who has been putting out feelers regarding seeking "peace" in recent days, but has explained that achieving peace doesn't come only via negotiations, it also involves "resistance."  

Syria was the destination point for the horrendous collection of weapons confiscated on the arms ship Francop.  Just as Syria has fostered the smuggling of weapons across its border to Hezbollah in Lebanon, in violations of the embargo on arms to Hezbollah. And Assad has declared how solid is his nation's relationship with Iran.

Does Netanyahu really see it as constructive to have peace negotiations with Syria now?  Does he think there may be the opportunity to reach an honest agreement that is beneficial to us?

~~~~~~~~~~

I may be one of the last hold-outs on the right.   It's possible that Netanyahu has flipped.  It's possible he has sold out.  (I know I'm likely to hear from people who tell me it's obvious he has.)  But I'm going to say what I said the other day:  I don't know.  I am nervous as hell, but will not yet judge because my information is insufficient.

I remain ever mindful of the broader context -- including the need for support with regard to Iran -- that must be factored into the equation.  It's a big step from selling Israel out to playing a game in order to position Israel better at a very threatening time. That game is dangerous, but Netanyahu may be proceeding with appropriate intent. May.  We have not yet heard about anything that he has actually conceded or caved on.  No concessions he has made. It's all worried speculation. And a lot of secrecy.

Consider this: Assad's unequivocal demand is to have the Golan Heights returned to Syria. Matter of national pride and all that.  He always says there will be no peace with Israel without that.

Netanyahu knows this very well.  He knows that this is a pre-condition that Assad insists upon, whether formally or not. Yet he says he is willing to enter negotiations with Syria if there are no pre-conditions.  Does he expect at the get-go that his offer will be rejected by Assad? Is he planning a "pretend" negotiation that will lead nowhere?

Or...is he prepared to relinquish the Golan under the "right" circumstances?

According to the newspaper al-Arabiya , Netanyahu said in Paris that he would relinquish the Golan in return for peace.  The prime minister's office absolutely denies this.

~~~~~~~~~~

The Golan is legally part of Israel proper, governed under Israeli civil law.  That makes its status different legally from that of Judea and Samaria.  Netanyahu cannot simply sign away the Golan -- the process would be stringent.

I will not review here in detail all of the many reasons why we should never, ever give up the Golan. But if this issue becomes serious, you can bet I'll come back to it.

~~~~~~~~~~

Let us, for the moment, return to our other headache, the Palestinians:

A senior official in Fatah announced today that the PA Central Elections Committee is going to recommend that the elections (for president and the legislature), scheduled for January 24, be postponed because it would not be possible for Palestinians in Gaza to vote.

Gee, what a surprise.

~~~~~~~~~~

Understand please that Abbas has not resigned.  He simply declared with great drama that he was weary and would not run in the next elections.  So... if the elections are postponed until who-knows-when, for the interim he is still PA president.

And factor this in, as well:  According to the newspaper Asharq Al-Awsat in London (as cited in IMRA), the Fatah Central Committee has declared itself firmly in favor of Abbas as the candidate for the presidency.  (Abbas has been pumping for this sort of endorsement.)

What is more, according to this paper, in the event that Abbas does decide not to run when the election is finally held, there is no support within the Central Committee for the candidacy of Marwan Barghouti, who is a member of the Central Committee now, but serving five life sentences in an Israeli prison.  (The assumption is made, repeatedly, that he'll get out in the course of a trade, and thus be able to function politically within the PA.)  

This is interesting, as Barghouti is frequently touted as a possible successor to Abbas and the man best able to make things happen.  There are even left-wing Israelis who have -- ludicrously -- pumped for this.

~~~~~~~~~~

Lastly we have this: According to the Palestinian news agency Maan, Hamas leader Dr Aziz Ad-Dweik has announced that by the end of this month Hamas will sign the reconciliation agreement brokered by Egypt.  Egypt has penciled into the margins of the agreement some reservations voiced by Hamas -- what, specifically, was not explained, but we know that attending to Hamas reservations can only lead to greater radicalism.  At any rate, Hamas now feels its concerns have been attended to.

Declared Dweik, "By the end of the month you'll hear what will delight your hearts."

The PA already signed the Egyptian proposal, but will have to sign, or initial, the new, adjusted agreement.  No problem is anticipated on this score (but who knows).  The signing would signal the beginning of the process of establishing a unity coalition. 

Then there would be a whole new drama to attend to, with a different dynamic in place. 

There are all sorts of heavy implications, regarding the "peace process," establishment of a state, and the training by the US of PA security forces (a big concern).  I will visit each of these issues as the situation unfolds. 

I am particularly interested in seeing how those supporting a Palestinian state will respond to a Fatah-Hamas coalition (should it evolve), and what sorts of pretzels they'll turn themselves into as they seek to justify it. I hope that the Hamas reservations are sufficiently blatant in their radical perspective so that it will be impossible to claim that Hamas has "moderated."

~~~~~~~~~~

Thank Heaven for Shabbat, especially after this upside-down week.  Next posting will be early next week.

~~~~~~~~~~

 http://arlenefromisrael.squarespace.com/current-postings/2010/1/21/november-12-2009-no-closer.html

~~~~~~~~~~
 
But here we sit, and there is the sense of going round, of spinning with the rumors and the game-playing.  Not being able to tell quite what is the truth of our situation or where we'll end up.
 
One piece of information I received today -- off the record -- may be encouraging.  And while I cannot share the information, I can certainly pass on my tentative sense that it's not all bad.
 
~~~~~~~~~~
 
However, there is absolutely nothing optimistic about the declaration by Fatah Central Committee member Mohammad Dahlan that the PA may seek a resolution by the Security Council that would recognize the borders of a Palestinian state. I shared here just days ago the comment by former law professor Ruth Lapidot that there is no agency that recognizes nations, so whether the Palestinians could pull this off at all is debatable. 
 
But at the end of the day, we must hope that Obama, committed to the negotiation process, would veto this as inappropriate. 
 
Abbas -- in a talk he gave at his Mukata headquarters in Ramallah in commemoration of the fifth anniversary of Arafat's death -- echoed Dahlan's theme:
 
"A Palestinian state is a truth recognized by the world, and we are now leading a battle to have its border recognized."
 
Sounds like this is the tactic they've settled on for now.
 
~~~~~~~~~~ 
 
But even this is complicated.   Khaled Abu Toameh, in a piece today, reported that Al-Quds al-Arabi in London is saying that some members of Fatah are criticizing Fayyad's plan for a state in two years, because they had not been consulted in advance.  So their power struggle might at some level undercut plans to advance their state. (Nothing new in that.)
 
~~~~~~~~~~
 
Returning to Abbas and his talk at the Mukata:  Assuring the crowd that the Palestinian people will not give up, he declared that "our revolution is the most difficult and the longest revolution in history."   
 
He didn't explain why the "revolution" continues, when the people could have had a state in 2000, and again in 2008.  His mentor, Arafat, turned down the first offer, and he, the second.
 
Instead, he delivered the inevitable accusations:

"Israel is violating international law. Israel is behaving like a country above law. The international community must force Israel to stop its violations and end its occupation of the Palestinian territories, including east Jerusalem.

"We gave peace a precious chance, but we see that Israel is continuing to steal land and 'Judaize' Jerusalem. This is in addition to excavation under al-Aksa mosque."

"Judaizing Jerusalem"  One of my favorite of the accusations coming from the PA.  Is this not an oxymoron, as Jerusalem IS Jewish?

But with the oxymoron, came the libel -- that blatant and ubiquitous lie -- regarding excavations under the mosque.  They never quit.

~~~~~~~~~~

Could this, just possibly, be enough to move Obama with regard to his position on Iran?

According to official Iranian media sources, last night, at a meeting of the Committee for Economic and Commercial Cooperation of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, Ahmadinejad placed a challenge before Obama.  It's time, he said, for the American president to make good on his promise of "Change."

"The support of both Israel and Iran can't go hand in hand. No change is made unless great choices are made.

"We would welcome the changes, and wait for big and correct decisions to be made… We will clasp any hand that is extended sincerely toward us, but changes should be made in practice."

Put plainly, Ahmadinejad was saying, "Obama, old buddy, it's us or Israel, you can't have both."

Now, it's something of an understatement to say that Obama has bent over backwards overlooking and justifying unacceptable behavior from Muslim nations.  But this sort of audacious challenge might be too much for even him.  

~~~~~~~~~~

The Security Council held a closed-door debate yesterday about implementation of resolution 1701, which brought our 2006 war in Lebanon to a close.  In the course of the discussion, according to one participant, the US accused Iran of violating a UN arms embargo by secretly sending weapons to Syria via the arms ship the Francop.

US deputy ambassador Alejandro Wolff told the council that the concealed arms shipment, "clearly manifested from Iran to Syria" -- in violation of a March 2007 arms embargo -- provides "unambiguous evidence of the destabilizing proliferation of arms in the region."

Israel has released documents -- such as a customs form from the Iranian Armed Forces -- and photos to substantiate the fact that the origin of the arms cache was Iran and that its destination was Syria.

What I want to know is, now that the closed door session is over and the accusation has been made -- what? Where do we see follow-through, penalties, restriction on Iranian activities, or plans for increased sanctions?

Where do we even see a public statement on this by the US?

~~~~~~~~~~

I recommend Daniel Pipe's comments on the events at Fort Hood.  Identifying himself as "a charter member of the jihad school of interpretation," which "perceives Hasan's attack as one of many Muslim efforts to vanquish infidels and impose Islamic law," he rejects other explanations of Hasan's actions as "weak, obfuscatory, and apologetic."

What makes his piece stand out is that he lists a number of other jihadist attacks and the lame explanations that were offered with regard to them. For example: "His recent, arranged marriage may have made him stressed" (killing with an SUV in northern California).

Pipes concludes:

"If the jihad explanation is overwhelmingly more persuasive than the victim one, it's also far more awkward to articulate. Everyone finds blaming road rage, Accutane, or an arranged marriage easier than discussing Islamic doctrines. And so, a prediction: what Ralph Peters calls the army's 'unforgivable political correctness' will officially ascribe Hasan's assault to his victimization and will leave jihad unmentioned.

"And thus will the army blind itself and not prepare for its next jihadi attack."

http://www.radicalislam.org/news/sudden-jihad-or-inordinate-stress-ft-hood 

Pipes is director of the Middle East Forum.

~~~~~~~~~~

"The Good News Corner"

"Wing of Love" is a wild life park situated in Kibbutz Kfar Menahem in central Israel.  But it's a very special park, with a unique mission.  Fourteen to 18 year olds with police records live on the premises, and work there, on court order. In the main, they assist with the rehabilitation of protected species of fowl and assist with park maintenance. The goal is for the boys to bond with the animals and each other, in an atmosphere of hope.

Michele Klein, spokeswoman of the park, explained the park's philosophy to ISRAEL21c:

"The boys are under our wing - one wing - because they are also supposed to develop their own wing...they are participating in the process that will allow them to fly the rest of the way on two wings. And this place is meant to be a garden of love for people and animals..."

Volunteers from a variety of fields -- from air force cadets to persons in hi-tech -- work with the boys, providing them with contacts they would not otherwise have.

~~~~~~~~~~

When there is heart disease, blood vessels around the heart either become clogged or die. Now Israeli researchers -- Dr. Britta Hardy and Prof. Alexander Battler of Tel Aviv University -- have developed a protein that can be injected straight into the muscles of the body to stimulate regrowth of tiny blood vessels in just weeks.

"The biotechnology behind our human-based protein therapy is very complicated, but the goal is simple and the solution is straightforward," says Hardy. "We intend to inject our drug locally to heal any oxygen-starved tissue."

Where damaged vessels around the heart are concerned, the hope is to reduce the need for by-pass surgery. But this work was begun in an effort to prevent limb amputation.

~~~~~~~~~~

http://arlenefromisrael.squarespace.com/current-postings/2010/1/21/november11-2009-round-we-go.html

~~~~~~~~~~

A sum-up:

Netanyahu's speech to the GA during the day yesterday was replete with comments (painful to read) about how he really truly wants to achieve a peace deal with the Palestinians -- how he'll go to the negotiating table any time, and encourages Abbas to join him there, etc. etc.

The big question, to which I still have no answer, is whether he really truly means it, or is doing damage control -- confident that the Palestinians won't bite.

From a reliable source I today learned that there are people within the administration (although no names were named)pushing Obama to abandon the "peace process" and recognize a Palestinian state . 

That might motivate Netanyahu to seek ways to keep the process alive -- or at least to keep it from appearing  moribund. 

~~~~~~~~~~

While he says he will go to the negotiating table without preconditions, he does stipulate red lines with regard to achieving an agreement.  Yesterday he spoke about end of conflict, the need for the Palestinians to recognize us as a Jewish state, and the fact that we will never accept Palestinian "refugees": "The Palestinians must recognize that the fantasy of flooding Israel with refugees is gone.”  

And he spoke as well about the need for the Palestinian state to be demilitarized:  “We cannot permit another Gaza in the heart of our country.”  I mention here, however, that there are serious analysts who claim this would not be possible, that once a sovereign state (again, G-d forbid) were to be established, we could not deny it an army.  At any rate, he makes security a priority and if he is serious about this, it is an absolute given that we need high places in Samaria, and the Jordan Valley, and strategic depth provided by communities adjacent to the Green Line -- Ma'aleh Adumim, Gush Etzion, etc.

All of this, as fair and reasonable as it is in terms of our needs and rights (yes, I know we have more rights than these!), is unacceptable to the Palestinians. Thus, as long as these are Netanyahu's red lines, no matter how he protests that he's working hard for a final settlement, and no matter how much he may mean it, the simple unalterable truth is that there will not be one.

~~~~~~~~~~

Netanyahu and Obama met last night for almost two hours.  But there was a black-out on the meeting and the standard joint press conference and photo op never materialized.  All we can say with some certainty is that Iran and the "peace process" were both discussed. 

There was some speculation that the silence either meant that there was no meeting of the minds during discussions and thus nothing positive to report, or that Netanyahu caved in some substantial way and didn't want to make it public.  But we don't know this. (See below)

From the White House came a statement about how the president remains committed to our security. That gave me an uneasy feeling (never mind that his concept of Israeli security is not the same as mine), for I've observed that this is a throw-away line -- intended to mollify and reassure -- that frequently accompanies an Israeli concession. 

~~~~~~~~~~

Netanyahu even cancelled his routine meeting with Israeli reporters.  Clearly he did not want to be questioned.  Responding later to comments that the meeting must have gone badly, he said:

"The atmosphere during the meeting with President Obama was very open and very warm. The importance of the visit will be ascertained in the future."

The meeting, he added, had been "positive and to the point," and that it had dealt with the peace process and Israel's security.  "We discussed these issues in detail, practically, and out of friendship."

Which tells us what, exactly? 

This business of the meeting's importance being "ascertained in the future" leads me full circle to my opening comment about the possibility that we're on the cusp of changes. SOMETHING was decided or agreed upon.  The silence did not simply reflect dissension.

While security is an issue raised in the context of forming a Palestinian state, we must remember that it applies as well to Iran -- about which Netanyahu was mum here.

~~~~~~~~~~

Already the Palestinians are backing off with some of their threats.  Today PA negotiator Saeb Erekat denied that he ever called for the PA to be dismantled: "I didn't say that. Nobody said that."

Right...

~~~~~~~~~~

You might want to see this incisive article by Elliott Abrams about the complete and total failure of Obama's Middle East policy.  While I don't agree with all of it (we shouldn't be too complacent about PA security forces taking on terrorism -- a subject I must return to), he makes several excellent points. At the end of the day we could say that Obama is an equal opportunity president -- he and his secretary of state alienate all parties equally.

Abrams, who is now senior fellow for Middle Eastern studies at the Council on Foreign Relations, has served in a number of positions in government, most recently as Deputy National Security Advisor for George Bush.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/017/187pwixc.asp  (Thanks, Cheryl)

~~~~~~~~~~

Netanyahu is now on his way to France, where he will meet with President Sarkozy tomorrow.  Not likely to be an easy trip.  Today French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner said this:
"What really hurts me, and this shocks us, is that before there used to be a great peace movement in Israel. There was a left that made itself heard and a real desire for peace.

"It seems to me, and I hope that I am completely wrong, that this desire has completely vanished, as though people no longer believe in it."

A fairly vile but not atypical statement.  Being ready to make major concessions and surrender Israeli rights is what qualifies one as "for peace."

While Sarkozy has been a disappointment in several respects, his relationship with us is far better than Kouchner's.

~~~~~~~~~~

From one savvy reader has come this comment with regard to the Fort Hood jihad massacre:

"The biggest question of all, and one NO ONE is asking: How many more traitors have infiltrated our military and how demoralizing will it be for our brave young men and women in uniform to be looking over their shoulders in fear of their comrades in arms?"

I thought this worth repeating, and thank you, Micki.

~~~~~~~~~~

In this very regard, David Horowitz (publisher of Front Page Magazine, don't confuse him with the editor of the Jerusalem Post) has provided a no-holds barred analysis of the situation:

"The Ft. Hood killings are the chickens of the left coming home to roost...The fifth column formed out of the unholy alliance between radical Islam and the American left is now entrenched in the White House and throughout our government."

http://frontpagemag.com/2009/11/09/our-brain-dead-country-by-david-horowitz/

~~~~~~~~~~

I also heard from a former associate of mine, who used to do undercover work (in a hijab) in places of Muslim radicalism.  She picked up on what I wrote yesterday regarding Anwar al-Awlaki, who served as imam in a mosque in VA that both Hasan and three of the 9/11 terrorists attended. She identified the mosque as the Dar al-Hijrah Mosque in Falls Church, Virginia, which, she said was and is one of the most radical mosques in the US.  She found going there scary.  (Not, she says, that the one in Silver Spring he was reported to have attended is much better.)

(This lady knows I appreciate her comments, and I won't identify her even by first name.)

~~~~~~~~~~

 http://arlenefromisrael.squarespace.com/current-postings/2010/1/14/november-10-2009-now-what.html

"...The goal of the Islamists, of many of those very same Imams who ministered to Hasan's religious questions, and the larger Saudi funded Wahhabi organizations that fund and train them, is not to create a single Nidal Malik Hasan eager to die for the Jihad, but to create tens of thousands of Hasans and thousands of Fort Hoods in the United States alone. While they smile and lie through their teeth to the media, they are already working on spinning the incident to their advantage, to play the old game so common in Europe and America of positioning themselves as the alternatives to those 'other' crazy Muslims like Hasan who might be tempted to take weapons in hand, if their recommendations about increasing tolerance are not followed. And the first recommendation of course is to avoid radicalizing Muslims by not attributing the attack to his Islamic beliefs.

"How they must chuckle as they urge law enforcement to suppress the truth about Islamic violence in order to avoid marginalizing and further radicalizing Muslims... even as they themselves promote radicalism, host pro-terrorist speakers and preach the Koran's message of Jihad, death to the unbeliever and a Sharia ruled Caliphate across the earth. How they must laugh as the very law enforcement agencies that are meant to uncover and prevent crimes, instead cover up for their crimes. And they go on taking their invites to the White House, running their Islamic academies and putting out their ideology, one strain for the general American public, and another for their own boys, and beneath it of it one great engine of death humming along as it helps turn out the next Nidal Hasan...

"All the warning signs were there. Not simply for Nidal Malik Hasan, reading and hearing the same call to death over and over again for years, until he reached a decision that is considered praiseworthy within the context of the Koran... but for Islam in general.

"All the warning signs are there. They are in the Koran and in books sold in every Muslim bookstore in America and Europe. They are on tapes and on YouTube. They are in the bodies of their victims and the Muslim killers. They are there in the long flowing black Abayas and beards that mark radicalized Muslims, but they are just as there behind the false smiles of Western born and educated killers like Nidal Malik Hasan who drive around with bumper stickers reading, 'Allah is Love', only for his targets to realize too late that in Islam, love is indivisible from death, and that the worship of Allah is most praiseworthy when it is carried out through Jihad, the murder of infidels.

"The bloody common denominator of all these things is Islam. And while our brave and brilliant politicians insist that we are not at war with Islam, shunning and even imprisoning those who say otherwise, Islam is at war with us and has been since its inception nearly a millennium and a half ago. And will continue to be until we either once again force it back and break its momentum, or until it destroys us all.

"...The warning signs were there. The warning signs are still there. Not just for Nidal Hasan, but for Islam itself. We have seen the bodies and we have buried some of them ourselves, family, friends and fellow countrymen. We have heard the screams. We know what has been. It does not take a prophet to know what is to come.

"All the warning signs are there. The question is what are we going to do about them?"

http://sultanknish.blogspot.com/

~~~~~~~~~~

America, take heed!!

Lest you doubt what Greenfield says: 

Anwar al-Awlaki is a US-born Muslim and served as imam at Virginia mosques that were attended by both Hasan and three of the 9/11 terrorists.  (You're reading this correctly -- Hasan and 9/11 terrorists attended the same mosques.)

On his website al-Awlaki (who is now in Yemen) has posted praise for Hasan for being a "man of conscience" and doing "the right thing." He explained that no decent Muslim could serve in the US Army, which "is directly invading two Muslim countries and indirectly occupying the rest," unless he intends to "follow the footsteps of men like Nidal."

Hasan's actions, he said, had drawn attention to the essential dilemma of Muslims living in the US, who may find that they are forced to either "betray Islam or betray their nation."

I myself firmly believe that the future of the US depends in good measure on the ability of her citizens to grapple forthrightly with all of this.

~~~~~~~~~~

According to Khaled Abu Toameh in today's Post, a senior PA official said Abbas was surprised by Israeli news reports regarding secret agreements between Fayyad and Obama with regard to unilateral declaration of a state. And a source close to Fayyad said there was no such deal.

I don't know how much credence can be given to the denial of the Fayyad associate.  What matters more is this additional wrinkle in the situation:

Apparently Abbas is upset because he says the US is trying to replace him with Fayyad. (There's a reasonable likelihood that this is an accurate perception, as Fayyad is the darling of the Western nations).  

Said the PA official:

"The Americans should know that Fayyad is the prime minister and not the president. Any attempt to bypass President Abbas will fail, because he's the only address.

"There's a feeling that the Americans have reached a decision to turn Fayyad into the president of the Palestinian Authority.  This has created tensions between the two men."

(In Israel the "only address" is the prime minister, and the presidency is a ceremonial position.   In the PA, the prime minister serves at the pleasure of the president.)

Tension between the two men, and a desire by Abbas to undercut any deal that might have been made between Fayyad and Obama, can only serve us well in this instance.

~~~~~~~~~~

Meanwhile, the Post ran another article that attempted to shed light on the legal aspects of such a unilateral declaration.  The point presumably of greatest significance is that a unilateral declaration of statehood would represent a material breach of Oslo, which prohibits change in the status of the West Bank and Gaza pending the outcome of permanent status negotiations.  (Apparently our changing the status of Gaza "didn't count," as we were surrendering something.)

Frankly, I don't believe for a second that the Palestinians would care if they breached Oslo.  And there would certainly be nations that would go along.  

The big question is whether Obama would.  Dan Diker, foreign policy analyst at the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, is cited as being concerned that the American administration, weary with the stalled negotiations, might be headed in that direction. 

Other analysts, however, are more dubious about this because the US was a signatory to Oslo.

~~~~~~~~~~

From my perspective what is most pertinent is this: Hebrew University Professor Emeritus Ruth Lapidot says that there is no international body or institution that recognizes states.  Individual countries do so according to their own considerations.  Thus, I am assuming, the Security Council, while it might theoretically override resolutions 242 and 373, could not put an official stamp of recognition on a unilaterally declared Palestinian state.  Presumably -- barring a very unlikely situation in which some other resolution substituted for this recognition -- there is no way in which international troops would be sent in via chapter 7.

~~~~~~~~~~

Balagan, which means, roughly, confusion, mess, or muddle, is a lovely and oft-used Hebrew word.  There is no adequate one-word translation into English.  And right now that's what we're seeing with all of the above: a massive balagan.

So if you have found what I've written confusing, take heart.  It's not because your capacity to understand is deficient, but rather because the situation is confused in a major way.  And who knows what tomorrow brings.

~~~~~~~~~~

Prime Minister Netanyahu did speak at the General Assembly today, although I have no information on what was said.

What I do know is that he was heckled by a couple of people over Gaza.  Very sad indeed.  Jokingly, he said that he received a better reception at the UN.

~~~~~~~~~~

Tonight Netanyahu and Obama will be meeting at the White House.  I confess that I shudder a bit at the prospect.

Ethan Bronner of the NY Times has written, "when Secretary of State Clinton was in Jerusalem last week, she asked Mr. Netanyahu to include in negotiating guidelines specific references to the creation of a Palestinian state within the 1967 borders and Jerusalem. He declined." (Thanks Winkie!)

This is apparently the reason why it took Obama so long to agree to see Netanyahu.  The word was that he wanted something in return for the visit, but I trust that this was not it.

We need to pray for the backbone of our prime minister, who is walking into the lion's den. Obama's maximalist position is quite clear.  We know what we're dealing with.

~~~~~~~~~~

"The Good News Corner"

My readers are all familiar with the claims being regularly made by Muslims that we are digging under the Al Aksa Mosque on the Temple Mount in an attempt to make it collapse.

Recently, the Western Wall Heritage Foundation held a special tour to which a broad spectrum of officials was invited to see for themselves what sort of excavation work is actually being done.  All testified that they saw no sign of digging under the Mount.

Unfortunately, a similar invitation to the Muslim Wakf (Trust) was turned down because "we will not receive approval from settlers to enter a Muslim-owned area."  Anything to avoid seeing the reality, I suppose. There are negotiations going on that may help them to change their minds; additionally, representatives of Arab countries may be brought in to witness the excavations first hand.

The good news is what is going on in those excavations.  The work, which has been in progress for over four years, begins in the Muslim Quarter of the Old City and connects to the Western Wall tunnels (which run adjacent to and not under the Mount).  At this point the digging has gone down 12 meters and it is anticipated will go another four.  Important archeological remains from the First Temple have been uncovered.

The tunnels (which are also amazing):

 ~~~~~~~~~~

http://arlenefromisrael.squarespace.com/current-postings/2010/1/14/november-9-2009-responses.html

This has been known -- it is not a surprise. And it has not caused undue concern: since August there has been no movement forward in real terms on the part of Fayyad -- a lot of talk, a lot of plans advanced on paper, but no massive building of infrastructure begun and no administrative reorganization.  Leaders in the PA talk a great deal and do next to nothing constructive.

However, today's Haaretz has added additional information that potentially moves Fayyad's plans up a notch in terms of reason for concern.    

I say "potentially" because I am not certain that the information is solid, and even more so not certain that matters will play out as projected.  There are a host of reasons to discount what is being said (which I will share below).

And yet, I take the possibility seriously enough -- even if is a remote possibility -- so that I want to provide information on what has been said, and advice regarding an appropriate response.

~~~~~~~~~~

What Haaretz says is this (I have added emphasis):

"Concerns are growing in Israel's government over the possibility of a unilateral Palestinian declaration of independence within the 1967 borders, a move which could potentially be recognized by the United Nations Security Council.

"Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu recently asked the administration of U.S. President Barack Obama to veto any such proposal, after reports reached Jerusalem of support for such a declaration from major European Union countries, and apparently also certain U.S. officials.

"The reports indicated that Palestinian Prime Minister Salam Fayyad has reached a secret understanding with the Obama administration over U.S. recognition of an independent Palestinian state. Such recognition would likely transform any Israeli presence across the Green Line, even in Jerusalem, into an illegal incursion to which the Palestinians would be entitled to engage in measures of self-defense.

"...some Israeli officials told Haaretz that alongside the clauses reported in the media...Fayyad's plan also contains a classified, unreleased portion stipulating a unilateral declaration of independence.

"The plan specifies that at the end of a designated period for bolstering national institutions the PA, in conjunction with the Arab League, would file a 'claim of sovereignty' to the UN Security Council and General Assembly over the borders of June 4, 1967 (before the outbreak of the Six-Day War, during which Israel took control of the West Bank and Gaza).

"Fayyad is also seeking a new Security Council resolution to replace Resolutions 242 and 338 in the hope of winning the international community's support for the borders of a Palestinian state and applying stronger pressure on Israel to withdraw from the West Bank.

"...Israeli sources said Netanyahu discussed the proposal in meetings with U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and special Mideast envoy George Mitchell and requested that the U.S. tell Fayyad that it would not support his proposal and would veto it in the Security Council. Netanyahu has yet to receive a clear response from Washington on its stance on Fayyad's plan."

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1126594.html

~~~~~~~~~~

My concern was aroused because of the mention of the Security Council.  This international body -- as corrupt and immoral as it is -- has authority within international law.  Its resolutions are binding and if passed under chapter 7 authorize enforcement.  

SC Resolution 242, passed after the Six Day War in 1967, most specifically says Israel is entitled to secure borders and implies that thus Israel does not have to return to the Green Line.  Any withdrawal from Judea and Samaria by Israel would come only within the context of negotiations, which would include termination of all states of belligerency, respect for Israel's sovereignty -- with acknowledgement of Israel's right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force.

Israel has no obligation under 242 to move an inch until these conditions are met.  What is more, the negotiations were to be with existing states that had been at war with Israel, and not with Palestinians (who are not mentioned).

As I mentioned just the other day, this was not passed under chapter 7, which means there was no enforcement -- Israel was not perceived within this document as an aggressor that had to be pushed back.

SC Resolution 373 called for a ceasefire at the end of the Yom Kippur War in 1973, and then for immediate negotiations to secure a just peace.

What Haaretz is suggesting Fayyad will be seeking is a UN resolution saying negotiations are not required and that there need not be attention given to providing Israel with secure borders.  Instead, a Palestinian state in all land outside the Green Line would be unilaterally declared and accepted as legitimate under international law.

There is no statement within this article suggesting that the resolution approving the state would be under chapter 7; what is implied is more in line with international pressure.

~~~~~~~~~~

Possible reasons why this may all be hot air:

[] It's one more threat, along with all the other threats a desperate PA is tossing out right now.

[] The PA simply will not be ready to come together as a state in less than two years, so that even those supporting the concept of a Palestinian state will recognize that it would be disastrous and make everyone look foolish to precipitously declare one.

[] There is a question as to whether the Security Council would undo significant previous resolutions.

[] This is being floated in part by left wing elements here in Israel who will use this as a reason why we have to concede more in order to preclude this eventuality.

On top of this, we must remember that Fayyad may well not be president in two years, Hamas may have taken over or there may be a unity agreement between Fatah and Hamas, the PA may have been dissolved (more on this below), or we may be at war with the PA.

~~~~~~~~~~

All of this said, I think a bit of preventative action can only be to the good.

The key here, once again, is Obama.  If he is absolutely pledged to support only a Palestinian state established via negotiations, there is no cause for concern with regard to this threat.  For then he would veto any alternate proposal in the Security Council. What is more, once the PA understood this was his position, it would take the wind -- such as it may be -- out of its sails.

The article indicated that Obama had made no commitment in this regard in response to Netanyahu's request.

Americans must pursue this.  A firm and public commitment must be secured from the president stating that the US will honor only a Palestinian state that has been declared via negotiations.  He must promise to veto any attempts to establish a state unilaterally via the Security Council.

Communication should go to President Obama and elected representatives in Congress.

Provide the URL for the article and begin by saying there are reports that PA president Fayyad wants to by-pass negotiations with Israel and unilaterally declare a state within all the lands beyond the Green Line -- with the state to be endorsed via a UN SC resolution. And that President Obama might support this.

Using your own words, remind them that:

[] Israel has declared itself ready to come to the negotiating table, while the PA has demanded preconditions -- preconditions that it never demanded before when negotiating with Olmert or Barak.

[] The PA has twice turned down exceedingly generous offers from Israel -- most recently in 2008 from former prime minister Olmert, who offered a sharing of Jerusalem and close to 98% of the West Bank. This leads to a conclusion that the PA leaders do not negotiate in good faith and want no compromise what-so-ever.  A unilateral declaration is their way of circumventing the need for them to make any concessions. 

[] UN Security Council Resolutions 242 and 373 specifically call for negotiations.  What is more 242 recognizes that the Green Line does not provide Israel with secure borders, and that Israel is entitled to security.

Ask that the president commitment himself to recognizing a Palestinian state only via negotiations, and to vetoing in the Security Council any proposal for a Palestinian that is unilaterally established.

President Obama:

Fax: 202-456-2461   White House Comment line:  202-456-1111

 e-mail form via:  http://www.whitehouse.gov/contact/

For your Congresspersons: 

http://www.house.gov/house/MemberWWW_by_State.shtml 

And your Senators:

 http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm 

~~~~~~~~~~ 

I recommend that you raise this with the leadership of various Jewish organizations and pro-Israel churches as well.  If it is the case that Obama is wavering on this issue, he needs to understand that supporting a unilaterally established Palestinian state would be considered a betrayal of Israel and not sit well with a host of his constituents.  

~~~~~~~~~~ 

I am not, it should be noted, advocating here that we promote a Palestinian state via negotiations.  I am, rather, advocating that we speak in terms that will be understood by US leaders and resonate with them. 

~~~~~~~~~~ 

As for the Palestinian threat du jour:  Khaled Abu Toameh tells us that officials in Ramallah are reporting that Abbas is considering dissolving the PA and declaring the negotiations a failure. 

However..."Abbas was now waiting to see if the US and other parties would exert enough pressure on Israel to stop settlement construction and recognize the two-state solution before he makes any decision." 

Threat du jour, and also joke du jour. 

~~~~~~~~~~ 

The Guardian (UK) has reported that senior Hezbollah officials are saying that they are rapidly rearming in preparation for a new war with Israel, which they anticipate within months, perhaps in the spring.  They are fortifying positions north of the Litani river -- where they would be less vulnerable than they were in 2006.  "But," says a Hezbollah commander, "we still have plenty of capabilities in the south."  There will be a new strategy for defending the south, they say. 

Of note here:  It has been announced by Lebanese prime minister-designate Saad al-Hariri that a unity government is about to be formed.  Hezbollah and the gov't of Lebanon have finally reached an agreement, after five months of negotiations (during which time there was no functioning government), for Hezbollah to be in the coalition.  

This is of considerable significance if and when we do fight in Lebanon again -- for we would be fighting the government and not a terrorist organization.  

~~~~~~~~~~ 

Reports are being released with regard to warning signs that all was not right with Nidal Malik Hasan well before he went on his Fort Hood rampage.  Fellow students and an Islamic community leader all knew of doubts Hasan had about fighting in Iraq because it was pitting Muslim against Muslim.  Additionally, he was reported to have made a classroom presentation that supported suicide bombing. 

According to YNet: 

"His fellow students complained to the faculty about Hasan's 'anti-American propaganda,' but said a fear of appearing discriminatory against a Muslim student kept officers from filing a formal written complaint. 

"'The system is not doing what it's supposed to do,' said Dr. Val Finnell, who studied with Hasan from 2007-2008..." 

Time for America to do a whole lot of soul-searching. 

I'm reading that Homeland Security in the US is trying to deflect anti-Muslim anger following the shootings. I would suggest that there is a great deal more to be dealt with. 

~~~~~~~~~~ 

This morning reports were floating of a meeting that would take place between Netanyahu (who had left for Washington) and Obama. But as of this moment there has been no official confirmation. Quite simply, who knows? 

Obama, in the meantime, has cancelled his talk at the General Assembly in order to be present at a memorial service for those killed in Fort Hood.  

Apparently, a small number of Federation heads will meet with him at the White House.  I'd love to know what those Federation leaders will be.

http://arlenefromisrael.squarespace.com/current-postings/2010/1/12/november-8-2009-reason-for-concern.html

As there seem to be an inordinate number of issues of deep concern facing us, I find myself posting daily again (in spite of my determination to do so less frequently).  Please Heaven, may matters look a bit brighter soon.

~~~~~~~~~~

Iran. THE topic of greatest significance right now.

It's been obvious from the start that Iran was not going to buy into the deal offered by the UN, in partnership with the US, France and Russia, that would have called for Iran to ship low-enriched uranium out of the country.  But we've watched the Iranians conduct themselves in predictable form: dragging out their response.

They still haven't officially given an answer, but today they came one step closer when Iranian parliamentarian Alaeddin Boroujerdi said no uranium was going to be shipped out of the country.

What made news following this was an interview that Russian president Dmitry Medvedev gave to the German Der Spiegel magazine, which suggests that if there is not progress with Iran sanctions may be necessary. This was of interest because Russia has been a major stumbling block with regard to effective sanctions.  But I found his very wishy-washy statement to be anything but reassuring:

"If the Iranian leadership takes a less constructive position, then anything is possible in theory...we wouldn't want this to end with international sanctions because sanctions, as a rule, take us in a very complex and dangerous direction. But if there is no movement forward, nobody is ruling out such a scenario."

~~~~~~~~~~

Russia has its own vested interests and is playing its own game right now.  Of more concern to me is the US.

Caroline Glick, in her column yesterday, addressed Obama policy vis-a-vis Iran, and her comments merit serious attention:

"On Wednesday morning...scores of thousands of Iranians in cities throughout the country took advantage of the regime's planned demonstrations celebrating the 30th anniversary of the seizure of the US Embassy in Teheran to protest against the regime. These regime opponents willingly placed themselves in front of the batons, tear gas cannons and guns of Iranian regime goons to protest June's stolen presidential election and to call for the overthrow of the mullahs' regime of tyranny and its replacement with a democracy.

"The protesters turned regime supporters' calls for 'Death to America,' and 'Death to Israel' into big, deadly jokes by calling out, 'Death to the Dictator' (that is, supreme ruler Ali Khamenei) and 'Death to Russia.'

"Far from embracing the regime's 30-year war against the US and the nation-state based international system, [they] asked the US to forgive Iran for taking 52 US Embassy personnel hostage in 1979."

And what was Obama's response?

"Obama's pledge not to support the anti-regime protesters was part of a larger message in which the president of the United States effectively groveled at the mullahs' feet and begged them to allow the US to enrich uranium for them.

"Obama said, 'I have made it clear that the United States of America wants to move beyond this past, and seeks a relationship with the Islamic Republic of Iran based upon mutual interests and mutual respect... We have recognized Iran's international right to peaceful nuclear power. We have demonstrated our willingness to take confidence-building steps along with others in the international community.... 

"And when Khamenei responded to Obama's obsequious bowing and scraping by saying that negotiating with the US was a 'naïve and perverted' enterprise, the Obama administration had nothing to say.

"The White House won't even acknowledge that the Iranians have already rejected the IAEA-brokered deal...Indeed, rather than accept that the Iranians are playing them for fools, administration officials were furious at Israel for Defense Minister Ehud Barak's announcement early last week that their proposed deal with Iran would have little impact on Iran's nuclear weapons program.

"According to Channel 10, the White House demanded that Netanyahu applaud their efforts. They threatened Israel with unspecified sanctions if he failed to announce his support for their pathetic attempts at appeasement. And so he did. And about five minutes after Netanyahu applauded the Americans for their brilliant offer to enrich uranium for Iran, the Iranians rejected their offer as insufficient.

~~~~~~~~~~

And what about the Obama administration's response to the Israel capture of the arms ship Francop?  Glick has confirmed my original impression, that there was none of substance:

"[The capture of the ship] has had no discernible impact on American policy. The US did not denounce either Syria or Iran for breaching the UN Security Council resolution barring Iranian arms shipments as well as the Security Council resolution prohibiting nations from arming Hezbollah. The US did not state that in response to what Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu called a 'smoking gun,' it will reconsider its decision to send an ambassador to Damascus or its commitment to appeasing Iran through its nuclear talks in Geneva..."

 http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1257455195053&pagename=JPArticle%2FShowFull

~~~~~~~~~~

Here it is again, advanced one more step: The threat of Palestinian violence that I've been watching.

According to YNet, a senior Fatah official has now said that if "serious progress was not made soon in peace talks" then Fatah would consider reverting to "popular warfare."  This source said an increasing number of Fatah "operatives" were pushing for violent resistance.

Operatives is the terms used in the YNet article.   In Israeli lingo it is frequently associated with terrorists.  Looks like this means the guys who would commit violent acts are clambering for the word that it's time for the "go ahead."

Said the official:

"We are not talking about terror attacks and weapons, but we are talking about protests and [throwing] stones, like the anti-fence protests, and about strikes and protests by the people, so that the world understands that the next step will be unpleasant and we go back to the way things were before Oslo."

Well, I'm not buying that for a minute.  "Violent resistance" suggests a good deal more than strikes and throwing stones. Especially as he alludes to "the next step."

~~~~~~~~~~

Two thoughts occur to me here.  The first is that this might be a threat, just as we're seeing other threats from the Palestinians at the moment:  If we don't want this to happen, we had better freeze those settlements immediately.  Or if Obama doesn't want this, he had better lean mighty hard on us.

I am a bit disinclined to take this as only a threat, however, because this is not an isolated reference to a reversion to violence.  And when something is repeated multiple times, there's more of a chance that there's something to it.

But then, I respond to the threat that we'll go back to the way things were before Oslo and I laugh.  What the person making this statement wants to do is tell the world that there is a "peace process" that was started with Oslo -- and which theoretically brought improved conditions -- and that the whole thing might be lost if there is not forward progress.

Well, hell, I'd go back to before Oslo any day. And that's not just because it would mean we would not be tied into some  concept of a "Palestinian entity" (Oslo did not refer to a Palestinian state).  The reality is that the very worst terrorism took place after Oslo -- specifically during the Second Intifada that began in 2000 as Arafat's response to the peace offer made by Ehud Barak, who was then prime minister.  Many more Israeli Jews have been killed in terrorist attacks since Oslo than before.

~~~~~~~~~~

Let me return here to the killings in Fort Hood.  It's possible to dismiss this incident as the action of one mentally deranged person, and a politically correct atmosphere encourages that interpretation.  Not only am I greatly dubious of this take, I would warn Americans to not be complacent with regard to what happened.

Israel National News reports that he shouted Allah Akbar before he began shooting.  If this is true, it is damning.  As every Israeli knows, this is the cry of the jihadist before he begins a terror rampage.

JINSA -- the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs -- is an agency that demonstrates considerable level-headedness. And JINSA, in its most recent report (# 937), addressing the actions of Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, says, "It is no longer unthinkable."

"JINSA has long followed stories about attacks planned and executed against American military personnel. After the conviction in April of three Muslim men charged with conspiring to kill American soldiers at Ft. Dix...A defense attorney called the sentence 'unusually lengthy' in a case where 'no one was harmed.' The Deputy U.S. Attorney replied, 'These men do not deserve leniency because of the good work of the FBI. They should not receive some benefit because there are not some dead soldiers lying on the ground.'
 
"We agreed...
 
"Since then, jihadists waging war in our country killed American soldiers in Arkansas and in Texas. Motivated by religious ideology to believe Americans in general and soldiers in particular, are the enemies of Muslims and of Islam, jihadists are arming, training and conspiring-and now doing-what had been unthinkable in the United States. 
 
"They have to be stopped.

~~~~~~~~~~

I share here as well what was written on the subject, on Frontpage, by Robert Spencer.  An authority on jihad, he maintains the highly respected "Jihad Watch" site:

"...Major Hasan’s motive was perfectly clear — but it was one that the forces of political correctness and the Islamic advocacy groups in the United States have been working for years to obscure. So it is that now that another major jihad terror attack has taken place on American soil, authorities and the mainstream media are at a loss to explain why it happened – and the abundant evidence that it was a jihad attack is ignored.

"...he identified himself as Palestinian [though American born] and was a devout Muslim – so what? These things, of course, have no significance if one assumes that Islam is a Religion of Peace and that when a devout Muslim reads the Koran’s many injunctions to wage war against unbelievers, he knows that they have no force or applicability for today’s world. Unfortunately, all too many Muslims around the world demonstrate in both their words and their deeds that they take such injunctions quite seriously. And Nidal Hasan gave some indications that he may have been among them.

"...One of his former colleagues, Col. Terry Lee, recalled Hasan saying statements to the effect of 'Muslims have the right to rise up against the U.S. military'; 'Muslims have a right to stand up against the aggressor'”; and even speaking favorably about people who 'strap bombs on themselves and go into Times Square.'

"...The effect of ignoring or downplaying the role that Islamic beliefs and assumptions may have played in his murders only ensures that – once again – nothing will be done to prevent the eventual advent of the next Nidal Hasan."

 http://frontpagemag.com/2009/11/06/jihad-at-fort-hood-by-robert-spencer/

~~~~~~~~~~

I now have the names of the nations that voted with Israel and the US in the General Assembly, against endorsing the Goldstone Report:

Australia, Canada, Czech Republic, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Nauru (a Pacific island nation), the Netherlands, Palau (a Pacific island nation), Panama, Poland, Slovakia, The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and Ukraine.  (Thanks, Jeff)

What I see here in this pathetically small grouping of nations of honor is the presence of east European states -- actually outnumbering the western European nations.  A reminder, once again, of where our future alliances are likely to be.

~~~~~~~~~~

http://arlenefromisrael.squarespace.com/current-postings/2010/1/12/november-7-2009-endless.html

"Israel rejects the Assembly's decision, which bears no connection to the reality which Israel faces. In operation Cast Lead, the IDF showed standards of fighting and morality that were higher than those of any of the resolution's initiators.

"Israel will continue to act, like other democracies, to protect its citizens from international terror, as was proven this week.”

~~~~~~~~~~

In point of fact, Israel has now filed an official grievance with UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon and the UN Security Council, following the capture of the arms ship:

"The intended route of the Francop, coupled with the types of weaponry found on board, raise serious concerns that this incident also constitutes a violation of UN Security Council Resolution 1701 and 1373."

Resolution 1373 of 2001, among other things, prohibits states from "providing any form of support, active or passive, to entities or persons involved in terrorist acts"  This would apply to Iran, supplying weapons to Hezbollah.

Resolution 1701, hammered out at the end of our most recent war in Lebanon (i.e., our war with Hezbollah) in 2006, was designed to prevent the re-arming of Hezbollah and to keep the area south of the Litani River free of any armed presence except Lebanese army and UNIFIL.  It is forbidden to provide any entity in Lebanon with weapons or military equipment.  What is more, it is forbidden to allow planes or ships to be utilized in the transport of such weapons.

The Israeli grievance thus also said;

"Iran’s national shipping company (IRISL) has been repeatedly found to be involved in transporting weapons and other banned items in violation of UN Security Council resolutions."

Prime Minister Netanyahu, in his statement after the contents of the ship were uncovered, called what Iran was doing a war crime.  What is now being pushed by our diplomats is a position internationally in which countries would refuse to work with the Iranian shipping line at all (which would serve to severely weaken Iran).

I hope you will not hold your breath waiting for an appropriate UN response.  Better chastise us than go after Iran.

~~~~~~~~~~

Also as expected, Abbas has declared his intention not to run again in the presidential election.  This was not a tactic, he said, and his decision was final.

Although there was a flurry of phone calls to Abbas from world leaders, more than not, the reaction was tepid. There was no huge and horrified outcry -- although Fatah is planning a demonstration to take place in the next few days, to urge him to stay.

The statement from our government was that this was an internal matter in which we should not get involved. There was no response to the heated accusations by Abbas that our refusal to totally freeze building was killing the "peace process." Netanyahu did make a statement saying that if Abbas had the courage to do so, he could be a partner for peace.

Nor, do I believe, did the US bite with regard to accusations. One wonders if Obama perceives the way in which he has created this situation by raising expectations.

Hamas forthrightly accused Abbas of playing games.  Its message to Abbas was that it was time to stop waiting for Israel and the US to change, to admit that negotiations had failed, and to turn towards Hamas and reconciliation.

By today a senior member of the Fatah council, Mohammed Shtaya, told Al-Jazeera that there was a good chance that Abbas would change his mind -- if there was a significant shift in the political situation.

~~~~~~~~~~

How about this! 

I have been making the assumption that when he came to the States next week, Netanyahu would be meeting with Obama.  I have invested energy in speculating on what would be discussed.  Nor have I been alone in this, as I've been in communication with others very much in the know who have been making the same assumption.  In fact, one news source cited Barak, whose pronouncements on arranging a peace plan with Obama to sell to the PA made me very nervous. Barak, it seems, talks off the top of his head, in line with what he wishes would happen.

But according to the news today, there are no plans in place for Netanyahu and Obama to meet.  The prime minister is going to address the General Assembly of the United Jewish Communities.  The GA is the single largest gathering of Jews within an organizational context in America, and Netanyahu has a very legitimate agenda in terms of strengthening Israel-Diaspora ties and helping American Jews to better understand Israel.

News sources report that before Obama agrees to meet with Netanyahu, he wants something in return.  In return for a meeting? This from the man who believes in dialogue with enemies?? If this is the case, I will be rather pleased if our prime minister does not meet with the president, because it means he refuses to be coerced.

What I have just picked up, however, is information about Obama speaking at the GA as well.  Hmmm...  And no meeting scheduled but perhaps an informal meeting on the sidelines?

~~~~~~~~~~

According to the Guardian, Iranian scientists have experimented with an advanced nuclear warhead design. 

Don't know about you, but this makes my blood run cold.  After Shabbat I hope to have more to say about the IAEA and its destructive head, ElBaradei.

At any rate, Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon has said that talk of our attacking Iran's nuclear facilities is not an idle threat.

According to defense analyst Yaakov Katz:

"I believe the option is viable and is ready.  In other words, the question for today for Israel is not a 'can or can't we'... it's a question on a political level of 'should we or shouldn't we?'"

If we do end up deciding that we must hit Iran, I wonder if Obama will understand the degree to which he will have made this necessary. 

~~~~~~~~~~

The news is a bit mind-boggling:  A Muslin US soldier, Nidal Malik Hasan, using two weapons, one a semi-automatic, last night killed 12 and wounded 31 at Fort Hood, the largest US army base -- a base from which troops are dispatched to Iraq and Afghanistan.  A US-born citizen of Jordanian heritage, Hasan is a psychiatrist (first reported dead, it seems he is not).  He was scheduled to be shipped out to Iraq.  A great deal of information has yet to be uncovered.

See this commentary by Dr. Aaron Lerner of IMRA:

http://imra.org.il/story.php3?id=46321

~~~~~~~~~~

Lori Lowenthal Marcus, co-founder of Z Street (ziostreet.wordpress.com) attended the J Street Conference and has written about it.  Her description is well worth reading:

http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/11/at_the_j_street_meeting.html

~~~~~~~~~~

http://arlenefromisrael.squarespace.com/current-postings/2009/12/27/november-6-2009-catching-up.html