A Few things that Have Changed in the Middle East over the last 20 years

Here are a few things that have changed in 20 years:

Israel and Jordan signed a peace treaty in 1994 that has withstood the test of time.

Israel unilaterally ended its occupation of southern Lebanon in 2000.

The only credible pan-Palestinian leader the Palestinian movement ever had, the late Yasser Arafat, rejected Israel's offer of de-facto statehood on about 95 percent of the West Bank, at Camp David in 2000.

Unsatisfied with Israel's offer, Arafat launched a Palestinian campaign of terrorism against Israelis in late 2000. The campaign was brought to a halt about two years later due to a combination of aggressive Israeli military tactics, including assassinations of Palestinian leaders, and the erection of the West Bank security fence.

U.S. President George W. Bush endorsed the creation of a Palestinian state, something Israeli prime ministers Yitzhak Rabin and Ehud Barak already had done.
Longtime hawk Ariel Sharon, as prime minister, endorsed the creation of a Palestinian state. His successor, Ehud Olmert, followed suit.

Israel withdrew its troops and settlers from the Gaza Strip in 2005, unilaterally ending its occupation there (then-prime minister Sharon believed there was no viable Palestinian partner for peace). Olmert hoped to do the same in the West Bank, until he learned the lesson of the Hezbollah-Israel war in 2006.

Six years after Israel's unilateral withdrawal from southern Lebanon, Hezbollah fired some 4,000 rockets into northern Israel during a 34-day war in 2006. The Israel Defense Forces failed to bring a halt to the rocket fire.

A militarized Palestinian state supported by Iran emerged on Israel's doorstep in 2007, when Hamas routed the more moderate Fatah faction from Gaza and took control of the strip. The seizure followed Hamas' victory in Palestinian legislative elections a year earlier.

After eight years of increasing rocket fire from Gaza into Israel, the IDF conducted a broad offensive in Gaza to curtail rocket fire from the strip. During the three-week war, Hamas' rockets reached as far east as Beersheva and as far north as Ashdod and Kiryat Gat.

In polls this decade, a majority of Israelis consistently expressed support for the creation of a Palestinian state.

The Palestinian polity has failed to come up with a leader (or leadership) willing and able to deliver on a peace deal with Israel.

Despite Israel's incessant warnings, Iran has moved closer to nuclear weapons capability, sapping Israelis' willingness to rely on guarantees of security from other countries.

A Liberal leaning Israeli's view of the Obama Middle East Tour de Force

I grew up with the author and can attest to her political beliefs. She is ideologically left of center (a child of the 1960s, to be sure)and very much in the general Israeli mainstream. Why does she support the Netanyahu view of Israel foreign policy? How does she view the current developments in the Arab-Israel Conflict? This piece is instructive and a window into those Israelis who normally do not vote right of center and how they view Obama's "outreach/pandering" to the Muslim world. The effects of Oslo on the Israeli conscience.

So Love Me Love Me Love Me, I'm a Liberal
Onnie Shifmiller
www.theotherisrael.wordpress.com


Andy is a great dad. Because of him, Rina loves jazz and biking , Jonah appreciates the virtues of single malt Scotch and both of them enjoy their inherited Schiffmiller twisted sense of humor. It is that last trait that sometimes influences my husband’s choices when he creates his “Abba mixes” Before long trips, Andy is known for burning CDs for the car ride that are are often eclectic and satirical. So, when Jonah finally finished “Tiranut” (Basic Training) he seized the opportunity to make Jonah his very own anti-war mix including such classics as Edwin Star’s ”War, What is it Good for ……”, Country Joe McDonald’s “I Feel Like I’m Fixin to Die” and, as you can tell by the title of this e-mail, two Phil Och’s classics: Draft-Dodger Rag and “I Ain’t Marchin’ Anymore”.

And, when I’m not enjoying an Abba mix, I’m usually listening to NPR despite it’s anti-Israel bias. Two days ago, my ears perked up when I heard that the upcoming segment would be an interview of President Obama. In anticipation of his upcoming Middle East trip, NPR’s Steve Inskeep and Michele Norris interviewed him at the White House to discuss how the United States could improve relations with the Muslim World. Ms. Norris wasted no time. She set the trap in her very first question. She asked if America should reduce support for Israel if it is serious about improving relations with the Muslim world.

Oh please, Oh please. Mr. President, “just say, no”. My wish was granted! The first words out of our new leader’s mouth was in fact, “No.” For a millisecond, I was so pleased. The trap was set but he didn’t take the bait. But, I judged to quickly. Mr. Obama continued that both sides, Israelis and Palestinians, needed to recognize that they both had to make sacrifices for peace. Israel had to agree to stop settlement construction, even projects designed to accommodate natural growth.

The tag-team strategy of the interviewers was seamless. Steve Inskeep jumped in right where his partner left off. He reminded the President that Netanyahu had not agreed to freeze settlements. Mr. Obama responded that while he understood Israel’s hesitation to sacrifice land, the present situation is not sustainable.

It was clear that President Obama was trying his best to be evenhanded, recognizing that both sides had suffered and both sides needed to sacrifice. Only the creation of a “Two-State Solution” could guarantee the viability of the region. Sounds reasonable except for a few picayune details.

This current presidential trip is designed to improve America’s relations with Muslim countries. OK, so my first question is: How many Muslim countries are there? I checked 3 different sites and the answers varied from 46 to 56 countries. Could it really be that the residents of 46 countries will enjoy a better standard of living, better educational opportunities, and improved health care if those damned Israelis just get out of Judea and Samaria? Do Indonesians really care if Yosi lives in Ginot Shomron or Tel Aviv? After all, it is the largest Muslim country. Do its 228 million residents really believe that their per capita income of approximately $4,000 will vastly improve if the synagogues of Efrat start sprouting minarets? Somehow, I doubt it. And I think that if America wants to improve relations with Pakistanis or Somalians, she could probably take more meaningful steps than pressuring Israelis to once again relinquish their farms and fields for the ephemeral and elusive peace.

But even if I believed that the key to improved U.S.-Muslim relations lay in dictating the internal policy of one country , I’d still disagree with settlement evacuation. I’m a child of the sixties. I grew up on Country Joe and Pete Seeger. I learned at an early age that George Wallace was the devil and “live and let live” was the order of the day. Law-abiding citizens had the right to live in peace wherever they chose.

So as Mr. Obama takes his first steps on Saudi soil, my question is this: Why do today’s liberals advocate for dismantling legal settlements? Surely, settlements can’t be an obstacle to peace. That would mean that the Palestinians, and those that support them, believe that only one type of people, those adhering to the Muslim faith, deserve to live on that land. That would mean that Jews are so intolerable, that the Palestinians can’t stand to have a single one living in their country. Is that what we liberals should support?

About 2 hours ago, I heard that there is a recording attributed (as yet unsubstantiated) to Osama bin Laden warning Muslims that Barack Obama is no different than the nefarious George Bush. I hope that President Obama and the rest of the liberal establishment quickly accepts that fact that the Israeli settlement issue is a smoke screen. Where a person makes his home is not a barrier to peace. Clearly, there are plenty of real challenges to improving relations with the Muslim world.

Onnie

Imagine the World if Obama Was President in 1936

Dear Gen. Tojo and Gen. Hitler.

I am sure that your desire for nuclear weapons is merely for peaceful use and your expanding need for energy as you insist. All this talk about the potential for using this for military purposes is mere bluff, I am sure. I will not allow those who express concerns about your vitriol contaminate the spirit of friendship that I extend to you. We in the United States have some misunderstandings about fascism, and you have some misunderstandings about freedom. I would like to like the opportunity to visit your countries so we can dialogue.

I'll catch a plane tomorrow. First stop Cairo.

Peace in our time.

Best,

Barack Obama

By NANCY ZUCKERBROD
The Associated Press
Tuesday, June 2, 2009 3:40 PM

LONDON -- President Barack Obama reiterated that Iran may have some right to nuclear energy _ provided it takes steps to prove its aspirations are peaceful.

In a BBC interview broadcast Tuesday, Obama also restated plans to pursue direct diplomacy with Tehran to encourage it to set aside any ambitions for nuclear weapons it might harbor.

Iran has insisted its nuclear program is aimed at generating electricity. But the U.S. and other Western governments accuse Tehran of seeking atomic weapons.

"Without going into specifics, what I do believe is that Iran has legitimate energy concerns, legitimate aspirations. On the other hand, the international community has a very real interest in preventing a nuclear arms race in the region," Obama said.

The comments echo remarks Obama made in Prague last month in which he said his administration would "support Iran's right to peaceful nuclear energy with rigorous inspections" if Iran proves it is no longer a nuclear threat.

Iranian state television described the news as Obama recognizing the "rights of the Iranian nation," a phrase typically used to refer to Iran's nuclear program.

The president has indicated a willingness to seek deeper international sanctions against Tehran if it does not respond positively to U.S. attempts to open negotiations on its nuclear program. Obama has said Tehran has until the end of the year to show it wants to engage.

"Although I don't want to put artificial time tables on that process, we do want to make sure that, by the end of this year, we've actually seen a serious process move forward. And I think that we can measure whether or not the Iranians are serious," Obama said.

Obama's interview offered a preview of a speech he is to deliver in Egypt this week, saying he hoped the address would warm relations between Americans and Muslims abroad.

"What we want to do is open a dialogue," Obama told the BBC. "You know, there are misapprehensions about the West, on the part of the Muslim world. And, obviously, there are some big misapprehensions about the Muslim world when it comes to those of us in the West."

Obama leaves Tuesday evening on a trip to Egypt and Saudi Arabia aimed at reaching out to the world's 1.5 billion Muslims. He is due to make his speech in Cairo on Thursday.

Obama sounded an optimistic note about making progress toward resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, although he offered no new ideas for how he might try to secure a freeze on new building of Israeli settlements. The United States has called for a freeze, but Israeli leaders have rejected that.

Asked what he would say during his visit about human rights abuses, including the detention of political prisoners in Egypt, Obama indicated no stern lecture would be forthcoming.

He said he hoped to deliver the message that democratic values are principles that "they can embrace and affirm."

Obama added that there is a danger "when the United States, or any country, thinks that we can simply impose these values on another country with a different history and a different culture."

Israel to Obama: "No You Can't!"

The synopsis...no comment needed.

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/11606

Israel to Obama: "No You Can't!"

Sultan Knish

June 3, 2009

North Korea is launching missiles, Iran is building nukes, Saudi Arabia is sponsoring hate that translates into worldwide terrorism, Sudan is still massacring and raping, China is busy ethnic cleansing Tibet into a Chinese province... but the Obama Administration is furious, yes "furious" at only one country, Israel.

What did Israel do? Well it's building a hotel in Jerusalem.

Washington is furious over the Interior Ministry's anticipated approval of a plan to build a new hotel in East Jerusalem, just 100 meters from the Old City's walls. In conversations with Israeli officials, senior American officials have made it clear that they want Israel to freeze all plans for expanding the Jewish presence in East Jerusalem, and especially in the Holy Basin - the area adjacent to the Old City.

What right does Israel have building a hotel in its own capital anyway? So far we've had Secretary of State Hillary Clinton demand an end to Jewish babies being born, as if she were Pharaoh dressed up in a power suit. The administration has demanded an absolute freeze on settlements, with Jerusalem to be viewed as a "settlement" too, in exchange for Abbas and Hamas, maybe sorta stepping up their security cooperation. The double standard here isn't exactly hard to find.

The Muslim world can build nukes (Iran), commit genocide (Sudan), occupy anyplace they want including the territory of a NATO ally (Turkey), and Obama will come hat in hand to them, bearing apologies and huge aid packages.

Israel however had better not even think of building a hotel in its capital city. Or having babies. Or the Obama Administration will be furious and leak supposed plans to "punish" Israel for having the temerity to keep on living, building and growing.

In only six months, the Obama Administration has already become the most Anti-Israel administration since the reign of "Apartheid" Jimmy Carter. In an NPR interview Obama described his administration's Anti-Israel trajectory as "Being Honest", which apparently makes Israel-Bashing, the New Honesty.

Obama expects Netanyahu to rush forward and begin the ethnic cleansing of 475,000 Jews from the West Bank and East Jerusalem, all to create a Palestinian state out of the Fatah and Hamas terrorist gangs. Now why exactly wouldn't Israel want to do that? Especially when Hamas and Fatah's main goals remain the destruction of Israel, and that most of their budgets go to training terrorists and trying to kill Israelis with bombs, shelling and rocket attacks.

Sure let's create a Palestinian state out of two mini-states that have no economy of their own, are entirely funded by foreign money, and over 17 years have shown no sign that they can A.) Run their own affairs B.) Stop the terrorism.

While the proposed Palestinian State has no economy, no plans for the future that don't involve blowing up Israel, and already plays host to a branch of Al Queda... it does have its own anthem. With lines like "With my determination, my fire and the volcano of my revenge", or "Palestine is my revenge and the land of endurance", the theme here is none too subtle. Revenge. Death. Killing. Not peace.

"Palestine" is nothing more than an instrument for destroying Israel. It's what the PLO was created for. It's what Iran keeps funding Hamas for. The mythical Palestinian nationalism has as much to do with it, as Afghani nationalism has to do with the Taliban. They are both projections of a much larger Islamist agenda.

And Netanyahu agreeing to a Palestinian state based out of Israel's own capital, would be as lunatic as an American President agreeing to a Taliban state in Mexico, and parts of Texas, Arizona and Washington D.C.

Nevertheless the Obama Administration which has already stated that it has no intention of honoring the Bush Administration's guarantees to Israel, expects Israel to rush off and create a terrorist state so Obama's Cairo speech will win a better Muslim reception.

That too is part of the pattern. Every one of Obama's attempts to appease Muslims have been stupid, misguided and dangerous. And usually have come at someone else's expense. Obama muscled Turkey into a leading role in NATO over European objections, despite Turkey's slide into Islamic radicalism. Obama risked the lives of US soldiers with a proposed release of detainee photos that was only halted when Iraq's Prime Minister Maliki forcefully pointed out to him that the release would stir up terrible violence and sabotage Obama's own plans for a timely pullout.

Now Obama is going three for nothing, trying to muscle Israel into putting its survival on the line so he can get some applause when he does his Islamic Apology Tour. And to his furious consternation, the democratically elected Prime Minister of Israel told him, "No".

No, isn't a word that egotists like Obama are used to hearing. But Obama didn't win any elections in Israel, and his administration can't come to terms with the man who did. That of course is diplomacy, which Barry Hussein isn't very good at. The Obama Administration has two diplomatic modes, the naif and the thug.

Russia, the Muslim world and America's enemies are getting the naif who's willing to give away the whole store for a kind word and a handshake. America's allies are getting the cheap trashy thug who brings the Queen of England an iPod with his own speeches on it, tells the head of the Greek Orthodox Church that he had better come to terms with Islam, shakes down an apology for his country's freedom of speech from the Danish Prime Minister and berates the Prime Minister of Israel for not agreeing to destroy his country, so Obama can get another round of applause in Cairo.

But while Obama is busy picking his fight with Israel, Israelis from the Prime Minister, down to ordinary citizens are telling Obama, "No you can't."

Israelis understand that the issue really isn't about settlements, as Hugh Fitzgerald puts it,

Opposition to what are so tendentiously called "the settlements" is not about the "settlements" at all. It is about whether Israel is going to be allowed to decide for itself the minimum conditions of its own survival, or whether others -- apparently to include an Administration so deeply unlearned in the history of the area, and in the claims, and rights, of the Jews to build these "settlements" (simply Jewish villages and towns) on land that was always intended for Jewish settlement by the League of Nations in its Mandate for Palestine.


After 17 years of terror, Israelis went to the polls and voted for security. They did not vote for a two state solution. They did not vote to be Obama's pinata, or to be thrown under the bus whenever Obama tries to play up to the Muslim world.

Brick by brick, Obama has built up an administration that is hostile to Israel. He is sabotaging Israel at a military and political level. By voting for security, Israelis chose their own security, over Obama's foreign policy ambitions in the Muslim world. Now Obama is punishing them for it. Fueled by a longstanding bias toward Israel, with a worldview fed to him by a racist church where Israel was accused of creating genetic bombs and genocide, the last thing Obama cares about is Israel's survival. And in response, Israel has told Obama, "No you can't."

It's About Time.....But....

Too little too late, and like every other scandal and travesty of justice perpetrated by the Democrats, the Obama administration, their accomplices in the media, and the illicit financiers like George Soros, this too will probably go by the wayside and ignored. It is about time some further investigations are launched into this criminal enterprise. I say go further and prosecute ACORN under the Rico Statutes of 1970 to wipe this radical and destructive operation off the American geopolitical landscape. This won't be easy of course, Obama is tightly woven into its fabric, and like the labor unions, he owes them big-time for his election win and he's not about to give up the immense power these goliaths possess. Take a look at the recent GM and Chrysler fiasco and you'll be the bunions have been paid off in spades. What the US Government has engaged in is unconstitutional and illegal and violates US anti trust laws. But again, where are the law suits, where is the media?

Just recently some sympathetic judges ruled that Atlanta, and other districts around the country could not dump the thousands of fraudulent voters from their rolls, even though it was proven to contain illegal aliens, fictitious people, famous singers and football players that obviously don't live there, and of course, dead people. ACORN was the primary culprit in almost ALL CASES and continue to ride Obama's coattails unscathed through the minefield evidence mounted against them. Instead of abolishment or reform, ACORN receives billions in TARP money as payback for a fraudulent ridden election well done.


Rep. King: Probe ACORN's Financial 'Spiderweb'
Tuesday, June 2, 2009 8:24 PM

By: David A. Patten

Iowa GOP Congressman Steve King is calling for simultaneous FBI and congressional investigations into what he calls a "spiderweb" of shadowy financial and business relationships linked to the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN).

"With ACORN, it's pervasive," King tells Newsmax, referring to criminal allegations and malfeasance leveled at ACORN's low-income, voter-registration operation. "It's everywhere. It's 12 or 14 states where there are investigations going on for voter registration [fraud].

"ACORN has admitted to … around 400,000 fraudulent voter-registration forms being introduced. They claim they don't hire people on commission, but they do hire people on commission," King tells Newsmax in an exclusive interview.

See Video: Rep. Steve King discusses his probe into ACORN - Click Here Now

King says ACORN has over 270 corporate affiliates and business units that have received more than $53 million in federal tax dollars. Recent stimulus legislation, he tells Newsmax, could give the organization access up to $8.5 billion.

According to a recent Fox News report, over 250 nonprofit groups list ACORN's New Orleans headquarters as their address. One of those groups is Citizens Services Inc., which received $800,000 from the Obama administration in return for a get-out-the-vote program during last year's campaign.

Although King charges that ACORN is "in the business of electing Democrats," he says its impact transcends politics. He tells Newsmax the organization has intimidated bank executives into making risky mortgage loans to people who shouldn't have received them, adding that is "a contributing factor, I believe, to this financial meltdown that we have."

King, who has represented Iowa's fifth congressional district since 2002, describes ACORN as "an organization that erodes the integrity of the election process," adding: "I believe it has completely the face of a criminal enterprise, and it should be thoroughly investigated by Congress and the Department of Justice. And it should happen simultaneously."

Although King says ACORN is responsible for "hundreds of thousands of fraudulent voter registration forms," the type of investigation he wants would go far beyond current state and FBI investigations for alleged voter fraud. Rather, it would look into the interlocking financial connections between ACORN and its affiliate organizations.

To date, there have been four post-election prosecutions by state authorities involving ACORN. All focus on voter fraud rather than finances.

"We need to do a lot more. We cannot let them bring down our election process," King tells Newsmax.

In the exclusive Newsmax interview, King also addressed the controversy surrounding House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's allegations that the CIA lied in stating she had been briefed on "enhanced interrogation" methods, such as water-boarding.

He says Pelosi's security clearance should be withdrawn until her assertions can either be verified or disproven.

King says the controversy stirred up by Pelosi's assertion "puts our national security at risk," because the CIA and 14 other U.S. security agencies no longer can have the "level of trust" they need to liaison effectively with the Speaker of the House. King blames this on Pelosi's "wild allegations."

He also points out that the speaker follows only the vice-president in the order of succession, should anything happen to the president.

See Video: Rep. Steve King discusses his probe into ACORN - Click Here Now










© 2009 Newsmax. All rights reserved.

Quote of the Day

"One single object ... [will merit] the endless gratitude of the society: that of restraining the judges from usurping legislation."

--Thomas Jefferson, letter to Edward Livingston, March 25, 1825