Let's Talk About What's Really Unhelpful

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon have ganged up on Israel for having the audacity to build housing for its citizens in its capital, with both falsely calling it "unhelpful."

According to a Reuters article Rice chides Israel on new home-building plan:

US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice warned Israel on Friday its plan to build 300 housing units in east Jerusalem threatened US-backed efforts to reach peace with Palestinians.

"We are in a time when the goal is to build maximum confidence with the parties and this doesn't help to build confidence," she said in rare US criticism of Israel.

"There should not be anything which might prejudge final-status negotiations," Rice said after talks with Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni on the sidelines of a NATO meeting.

In an Agence France-Presse story UN chief: Israel's settlement expansion plan 'not helpful', the UN Secretary General further piled it on the Middle East's only democracy.

UN chief Ban Ki-moon on Thursday said Israel's decision to expand a Jewish settlement in east Jerusalem was "not helpful" and he would discuss the matter with his partners in the diplomatic Quartet for Middle East peace.

"The UN position on the illegality of settlements is well known," he told reporters.

"This new tender for 300 new homes in east Jerusalem so soon after this Annapolis Middle East peace conference, I think, is not helpful," he added, referring to a recent US-hosted peace summit.

"I will be discussing this matter with my Quartet partners."

But the Palestine Liberation Organization's powerful executive committee issued a statement in which it blasted the expansion project as a "serious violation" and called on the United States and the UN Security Council to put pressure on Israel.

I'd like to mention a few things that really are unhelpful.

• Pandering to Arab extremism is unhelpful.
  
  Criticizing Israel for building homes in its capital is pandering to Arab extremism and is most unhelpful.
  
  There is clearly zero probability that Har Homa and other Jewish neighborhoods would be given to the Palestinian Arabs. Pretending otherwise only feeds absurdly unrealistic hopes to the contrary and lowers the probability of the Arabs accepting the existence of Israel, which is the major requirement needed for peace.
• The showering of Israeli towns, particularly Sderot, with thousands of Kassam missiles is unhelpful.
  
  If the interlocutors which to be truly helpful, they might work on civilizing Hamas, although they might have a slightly easier job starting with Fatah.
• Pressuring one side to freeze construction in the disputed territories while turning a blind eye to the other side carrying on massive construction is unhelpful.
  
  Connected to this is:
• Ignoring the seminal United Nations Resolutions and agreements between the parties.
  
  The Armistice Agreements signed in 1949 specifically stated the Green Line was not to prejudice negotiations over permanent borders. United Nations Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338 call for negotiations to determine secure borders.
  
  Acting as if the Green Line should be the basis of any negotiations subverts both the letter and intent of both. If nothing else, it lessens confidence that any future agreements will be honored. (Of course, since the Palestinian Arabs have yet to honor any of their agreements, that confidence can't get much lower anyway.)
• Pretending Mahmoud Abbas, aka Abu Mazen, is a moderate interested in peace is not helpful.
  
  He may wear a suit, but the Holocaust denier who serves as leader of the Palestinian Authority has shown no inclination to compromise, a prerequisite for peace. Both the PLO and Fatah, Abu Mazen's PLO faction, continue to call for the destruction of Israel is their charters.

The list could go on and on.

The major point is everyone is pressuring the wrong side.

The Palestinian Arabs don't need their confidence raised; they need it to be lowered. They already know that they'll get their own independent state in most of the disputed territory whenever they choose to join the civilized world; the need is to get them to finally believe continuing their quest to destroy Israel will be counterproductive.

On the other hand, Israel has no basis for confidence in the Palestinian Arabs adhering to any agreement they make. It is also the Palestinian Arabs who continue with unhelpful actions, of which terrorism is just the beginning. The various interlocutors ought to start pressuring the Palestinian Arabs to make some confidence building gestures.

What Goes Around, Comes Around

The following, excerpted from a release from Agence France-Presse and found in Gulf in the Media, demonstrates a few obvious truths usually ignored by supporters and appeasers of terrorism, such as

• it's difficult to put the terrorism genie back in the bottle
• the weapons you use on others are likely to be turned back on you
• terrorists aren't the most reliable people, so appeasing them doesn't mean they won't kill you

Okay, so that's a bit redundant, but the lessons never seem to be learned.

The Arab states that were the driving force in modern terrorism as long as it was directed against Israel have repeatedly seen the terrorism weapon aimed back at them. The Saudis keep funding terrorists, directly and indirectly, but that hasn't kept terrorists from repeatedly attacking both religious targets (such as Mecca) and secular targets (such as meetings of OPEC ministers).

Egypt has a serious problem with the Muslim Brotherhood, which has repeatedly murdered tourists and assassinated one of its prime ministers.

Jordan found its very existence threatened by the PLO until it kicked out the PLO in Black September.

Black September brought the PLO into Lebanon, leading to the Lebanese civil war. The PLO's mini-terror-state made a shambles of Southern Lebanon until Israel forced it to flee.

Lebanon's ignoring Hezbollah's hegemony in its south led to tremendous destruction once again when Hezbollah launched a terror war against Israel in 2006.

One of the most interesting examples was the former Soviet Union, which trained terrorists when it thought they served its purposes, only to now suffer frequent terrorist attacks itself.

Even the United States has faced disastrous consequences of support for questionable "allies," with our support for the opponents of the Soviet Union in Afghanistan leading to the ascendancy of the Taliban and the creation of Al Qaeda.

Saudis bust Islamist ring planning attack during hajj: ministry

Security forces in Saudi Arabia, the target of Islamist attacks since 2003, arrested an Al-Qaeda linked group planning a "terrorist act" during this week's Muslim pilgrimage, the interior ministry said on Friday.

"The authorities have arrested a group which planned to carry out a terrorist act aimed at harming security and damaging the (hajj) pilgrimage," General Mansur al-Turqi, a ministry spokesman, told AFP.

The spokesman said the attack planned by a "deviant group", the Saudi term for militants linked to Al-Qaeda, did not however target Islam's holiest sites in Mecca or the pilgrims.

Earlier, the Dubai-based television Al-Arabiya said Saudi authorities arrested an Al-Qaeda linked group planning to carry out attacks during the hajj, quoting Saudi security officials.
…
Interior Minister Prince Nayef bin Abdul Aziz said in early December that his forces had foiled "more than 180 terrorist operations" since a wave of bombings and shootings by the Saudi branch of Al-Qaeda broke out four years ago.

The conservative Muslim kingdom also said it arrested 208 suspected Al-Qaeda militants over the past few months plotting assassinations and an attack on a logistical oil facility.

Saudi Arabia, the world's top oil producer and exporter, announced in February 2006 that it had foiled an attempt to blow up the world's largest oil processing plant, in Abqaiq in the Eastern Province.

The militants, who are followers of Saudi-born Al-Qaeda chief Osama bin Laden, espouse the ideology of "takfeer" -- branding other Muslims as infidels in order to legitimise violence against them.

The hajj, in which every Muslim is expected to take part at least once in a lifeterm if they have the means, has been hit by a series of disasters over the years, mostly caused by stampedes or fires.

There were no major incidents reported during this year's hajj.

However, in December 1979, 151 people were killed and 560 wounded after Saudi security forces stormed the Grand Mosque in Mecca to rescue pilgrims held hostage by Islamist militants for about two weeks.

And in July 1989, one person was killed and 16 wounded within the Grand Mosque sanctuary in a double attack blamed on 16 Kuwaiti Shiites who were executed later the same year.

Four hundred and two people were killed, including 275 Iranians, according to official Saudi figures, when security forces tried to break up an anti-US demonstration by Iranian pilgrims during the hajj in July 1987.

Open Letter From a Hamas "Senior Political Advisor" to Condoleezza Rice

The following is excerpted from a letter which may be found in full in Haaretz and which originally appeared in The Palestine Chronicle.

The writer is described as "a Senior Political Advisor at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Gaza" and "the top advisor to deposed Palestinian Prime Minister Ismail Hanyieh."

Appropriately sarcastic comments are interspersed, in brackets, with the excerpts.

Open letter to the Secretary of State

Dr. Ahmad Yousuf - Senior Political Advisor
Ministry of Foreign Affairs - Gaza

The Honourable Secretary of State
Ms. Condoleezza Rice
U.S. Department of State
2201 C Street NW
Washington, DC 20520

Dear Secretary Rice,

I am writing to you in light of the conference in Annapolis to fulfill our obligations to the Palestinian voters who have overwhelmingly legitimized our governance. Your administration cannot want peace more than the Palestinian people want and need peace.

[The fact that the Palestinian Arabs in the disputed territories overwhelmingly elected the terrorist Hamas group into office demonstrates they have little interest in peace.]


However, peace initiatives and conferences are ineffectual if the basic ingredients for success are not present.

[True enough. Until the Palestinian Arabs decide they want peace, the most basic ingredient will be missing and any peace initiatives and conferences will be ineffectual, if not downright counterproductive.]

Meaningful steps toward a resolution cannot take place while the legitimacy of the elected government in Palestine continues to be ignored by your administration.

[Nor can they be made when the elected government of the Palestinian Arabs continues to strive for the destruction of Israel.]

Not only is the policy to isolate Hamas unethical it is ineffectual as well.

[Yousuf is half-right: the policy to isolate Hamas has been half-hearted, so though it is certainly ethical it has been relatively ineffectual.]

Your administration ignores the realities on the ground. The Change and Reform Party, the name of the new political party we formed for the Palestinian elections, won an overwhelming majority in the occupied territories. To pretend otherwise is not only futile but detrimental to US interests in the region for many years to come and likely to add to the anti-American sentiment throughout the Middle East and the Muslim world. You cannot preach about exporting democracy in Iraq and Afghanistan and ignore the democratic process in Palestine.

[Part of the democratic process is to take responsibility for the results. If voters elect a collection of terrorists, they cannot expect to be treated the same way they would be if they elect reasonable leaders.]

Many people make the mistake of presuming that we have some ideological aversion to making peace.

[From the Hamas Charter: "[Peace] initiatives, the so-called peaceful solutions, and the international conferences to resolve the Palestinian problem, are all contrary to the beliefs of the Islamic Resistance Movement." "There is no solution to the Palestinian problem except by Jihad."]

Quite the opposite; we have consistently offered dialogue with the U.S. and the E.U. to try and resolve the very issues that you are trying to deal with in Annapolis.

[They might try offering dialog rather than Kassams to the people of Israel.]

Our conflict with the Israelis is a grievance-based conflict.

[True enough; their basic grievance is that Israel exists.]

We want to end the occupation of our land and the systematic human rights abuses that our people suffer from daily.

[From 1967 until the outbreak of the first "intifada," the Palestinian Arabs in teh disputed territories had more freedom and more rights than Arabs anywhere else in the Middle East except for those living as citizens of Israel. They continued to have more rights that their brethren elsewhere in the Middle East until most of the areas they lived in were turned over to the Palestinian Authority.]

We do not have any ideological problems with living side by side with Christians and Jews.

[From the Hamas Charter: "Under the shadow of Islam it is possible for the members of the three religions: Islam, Christianity and Judaism to coexist in safety and security. Safety and security can only prevail under the shadow of Islam, and recent and ancient history is the best witness to that effect. The members of other religions must desist from struggling against Islam over sovereignty in this region."]

When we have not been occupied we have successfully done this for thousands of years. However, they can not live in peace and security in a land that was usurped. Indeed if you asked a Jewish person where they would have been safest to live over the last two millennia, with Arabs or Europeans, the answer would be obvious. Nor do we have any ideological arguments with the West. We are not anti-American, anti-European or anti-anyone. The root of the problem which neither Israel nor the US is willing to acknowledge, let alone address, is the dispossession of the Palestinian people upon the creation in their homeland of Israel in 1948.

[For Hamas, the disputed territories are not the issue; the issue is the mere existence of Israel. Hamas is willing to live in peace without Israel, but not with Israel.]

It would come as no surprise to us if this letter were to be met with dismissal, in keeping with this administration?s policy of not dealing with "terrorists," despite the fact that we entered the democratic process and held a unilateral ceasefire of our own for over two years.

[The Hamas concept of a cease fire is highly an interesting one: Israel is to cease defending its civilians while Hamas keeps firing at them.]

Meanwhile the entire Palestinian people are being punished for having the temerity to hold a free and fair election and choosing us as their government.

[See above. The Palestinian Arabs have the right to choose terrorists as their leaders, but when they do not have the right to expect to be free of the consequences.]

It is hard to get across the appalling level of privation that the Palestinian people and in particular the 1.3 million Palestinians who live in Gaza currently suffer from.

[The Palestinian Arabs have indeed suffered the consequences of their war against Israel. It's unfortunate they continue to choose war over peace, desperation over prosperity. It's difficult for normal human beings to understand why, nearly sixty years after a few hundred thousand Arabs left their homes as part of the drive to destroy Israel, millions are still forced to live in squalid refugee camps, not only by their Arab brethren but by their own elected government.]

Our isolation is complete, confining us in a ghetto (worse than the Jewish ghettos of Warsaw) where our sewage, power and water systems have been destroyed, all normal supplies constrained and even humanitarian aid withheld.

[Humanitarian aid to the Palestinian Arabs has actually increased since they elected Hamas.]

Many people have not been paid for nearly two years, over 75% are unemployed and now the Israelis are threatening to cut off fuel and power supplies and to invade us once again.

[Hamas has launched thousands of Kassam missiles at Israeli towns, yet expects Israel to continue to supply the energy needed to manufacture them!]

You have made it a precondition to any engagement with us that we accept certain conditions. Yet you don't apply the same preconditions to the Israelis. You don't require of them recognition of Palestinian rights or a renunciation of the terrible violence that they daily invoke on us. Nor do you require that they comply with previous agreements or the settlement building would long since have stopped.

[To a degree, he is correct. There is no comparison between demands that Hamas stop murdering people and demands that Israel stop providing needed housing for its people. The fact that the American government even considers pressuring Israel to restrict where its citizens are allowed to live is testament to how successful Arab terrorism and rejectionism has been.

Still, there is little reason not to talk to Hamas, although there will be virtually nothing to talk about unless Hamas completely changes its character. Talking can be done while still physically isolating Hamas, something that should be done with more vigor than has been heretofore.

One slight inconvenience is that the talking must be via electronic means, since everyone in Hamas is a wanted terrorist who we would have to imprison if they left Gaza.]

Your predecessor General Collin Powell stated that the U.S. has to find a way to engage with Hamas because it won the Palestinian elections and it continues to enjoy support among a large portion of the Palestinian people. He did not make that statement because he is less of an American or less committed to the service of America. He simply practiced at home what you are preaching about democracy abroad.

[See above. Engage (in talks) and isolate.]

If you were even-handed in this conflict, if you engaged with us openly then the chances of peace would dramatically increase.

[Quite true. It's time we stopped pandering to Arab terrorism. We should demand of the Arabs as much as we demand of the Israelis. Here's one place to start: if we insist Israel should not build in the disputed territories, we should tell the same thing to the Arabs. Their continuing expansion of settlements in the disputed territories prejudices any future negotiations, in violation of the principles of Oslo.]

In the meantime, the people will hold steadfast to their rights and national constants. The internationally sanctioned resistance will not be quashed until the occupier packs its bags and leaves.

[See the Hamas Charter again. He is not speaking about leaving Gaza - Israel completely left Gaza in 2005. He is not speaking about leaving Judea and Samaria - Israel long ago gave to the Palestinian Authority the areas where most Palestinian Arabs reside. He is talking about leaving Israel.]

And the aspiration of a free and independent Palestinian state is realized.

[Those aspirations could have been realized at any time in the last sixty years, had the Arabs felt such a state was more important to them than the destruction of Israel.]

No surprise: Fatah again demonstrates it wants to destroy Israel

This isn't really a surprise, but again shows how so many people put their heads in the sand.

Fatah, remember, is Mahmoud Abbas' faction of the PLO. It was founded two years before the disputed territories fell under Israel's administrative control. Its goal has always been the destruction of Israel and had no interest in establishing an independent Palestinian Arab state in the currently disputed territories when they were under Arab control.

The following is excerpted from an article in the Jerusalem Post.

In Fatah map all of Israel is Palestine

By Khaled Abu Toameh
Fatah is planning to mark its 43rd anniversary this year with a new poster that presents all of Israel as Palestine.

Designed specifically for the occasion by Abdel Mun'em Ibrahim, the poster features a map of Israel that is entirely draped with a Palestinian keffiyeh scarf.

It also carries a drawing of a rifle as a symbol of the "armed struggle" against Israel.The poster, which has been endorsed by the Fatah leadership, has already been posted on a number of Fatah-affiliated Web sites.

The underlying message of the poster is that Fatah, like Hamas, does not recognize Israel's existence.

The emblem is in violation of Fatah's declared policy, which envisions an independent Palestinian state alongside, and not instead of, Israel.

By including a rifle in the poster, Fatah is sending a message to the Palestinian public that it has not abandoned the option of "armed resistance," despite current peace talks with Israel.

Force does work

From: Ynetnews.

Latest events in Gaza show that capitulation to terror not the only way

By Jackie Levy

The events of this past week should be remembered. After the Qassam attacks on Sderot have become a natural law; after we got used to it, and thought that Gaza-region residents also got used to it; after we got accustomed to the fact there is no need to look for a motive for each and every Qassam, as they simply keep on pouring down one by one.

After our eyes were opened and we realized that Sderot is a price that the government of Israel is willing to pay; after all this, suddenly the IDF utilized high-level intelligence, coupled with impressive execution ability, and hit the enemy with a lethal and accurate blow. This time, it was done without impassioned speeches and silly words such as “Haniyeh will never forget etc. etc.”

And suddenly, Haniyeh proposed that we all sit down and talk. His Hamas emissaries were interviewed by Israeli media outlets and said that we must not forget abducted IDF soldier Gilad Shalit, and that we can talk business.

The events of this past week should be remembered, because we tend to forget quickly. It is not nice to say that someone only understands force, particularly if that someone is Arab. Yet what can we do, this is how it is with enemies, regardless of whether they are Arabs or members of South African tribes. They only understand force. Otherwise, they apparently would not be enemies.

Hamas was never a movement of freedom and liberty. We are talking about a nationalistic fascistic movement, and fascists of this type only recognize two conditions: Blood thirsty battle cries, or mumblings of obsequiousness and capitulation.

We should recall that up until recently it appeared that suicide terror attacks at shopping malls, buses, and all sorts of other locations were also preordained; that there is nothing we can do about it. The simple fact is that this curse had been stopped, and it was not a result of goodwill either, and not even because the Palestinians have failed to enlist volunteers. It was stopped by military blows, which may have not been accurate enough at all times, but were nonetheless determined.

The idea that we can do nothing in the face of terror, aside from giving in to its demands, was the twisted logic of an honest politician called Yossi Beilin; it was the line that led Beilin to the simple conclusion that those who choose terrorism win in advance. This implied that anyone who does not choose the path of terror is a sucker. Many messianic Jewish terrorists were affected, as we know, by radical rabbis. It is very possible that others were influenced by Beilin as well. They paid close attention to his words.

It is rather symbolic to see the IDF marking the end of that worldview in the same week that marks the end of the Beilin era in Israeli politics. We can therefore conclude with two observations: First, Beilin’s doctrine is increasingly losing its grip on reality, and that’s good. Secondly, Beilin’s style, wisdom, honesty and dedication are also increasingly disappearing, and that’s very bad.

Middle Israel: In praise of Yossi Beilin

The following article appeared in The Jerusalem Post. Asa-El is right about the importance of dreamers, but when dreamers begin deluding themselves, they do more harm then good.

By Amotz Asa-El, December 20, 2007

First, a word to that portion of our offshore talk-backers for whom this headline constitutes blasphemy: Better one naïve Jewish humanist in Zion than a thousand fascist Jews around the Diaspora's fleshpots.

Beyond this, Yossi Beilin, who this week announced his resignation as leader of Meretz, does not need this relativist appreciation to win a place of honor in a public arena where he loomed so much taller than the countless cynics, cronies, gofers, ignoramuses, briefcase carriers, second-generation hacks, verbose generals and retired secret agents who have come to crowd it in recent decades.

Beilin's has been a tragic career. Launched at 26 the morning after the Yom Kippur War, it is drawing to a close on the eve of his 60th birthday, with the peace for which he labored all these decades as elusive as the electoral victories he so quixotically tried to hand his political baptizer, Shimon Peres. Beilin may still enter the next Knesset, maybe even join this or that cabinet - perhaps once again through Labor - but having failed once to win Labor's leadership, then to just win a seat on its Knesset list and now to rally behind him a party as compact as Meretz, he is likely to humbly concede that he just was not born to lead.

It's nothing to be ashamed of; most people were not born to lead, and many born leaders led well, but to catastrophes. Non-leaders, at the same time, from Harry Truman to Levi Eshkol, often proved remarkable once at the helm. The tragedy about Beilin has been that in a public ecosystem such as Israel's, where power is so raw, worshiped and coveted, he had little appreciation for it. For him power really was but a means, certainly no end in itself. That is why the first thing he did as minister of economics in 1996 was to announce that utterly redundant agency's dismantlement. Most other Israeli politicians in his position would have set out to bolster it with yet more unaffordable budgets, under-par staffers and busywork tasks.

Beilin was not only impartial, he was also insightful, courageous and original on a broad range of issues that were not related to the Arab-Israeli conflict, and therefore remained little known abroad.

Though a junior official at the time, he stood up to then-defense minister Yitzhak Rabin, insisting that Israel backtrack from its military relationship with South Africa's apartheid regime, if not because of its barbarity then because of its mortality. Rabin - ever gruff, arrogant and ignorant - laughed Beilin off, memorably dismissing him as "Peres's poodle" to an entire country's giggling, but the fact is that two years on the South African regime to which Rabin was so attached was deep in history's dustbin.

Unlike most other Israeli leaders, Beilin actually thought about the issues regardless of what a particular motion or policy had in store for him personally. That is how he ended up conceiving and budgeting birthright israel, the universally admired program that brings here annually thousands of Jewish youngsters who might otherwise have never seen the Jewish state. That is also why as deputy finance minister in 1989 he defied his party's dogma and opposed calls for fiscal expansion and monetary relaxation.

Similarly, and unlike his frequently anti-religious colleagues, Beilin - who as a young adult toyed for several years with Jewish observance - believed that the Left must be prepared to make great concessions to ultra-Orthodoxy, in order to turn it into a strategic partner in a historic land-for-peace deal.

For all these reasons it is a great shame to see Yossi Beilin floored. Yet the biggest shame is to see the colossal failure of his career's main gamble, which was to weld it to the gospel of peace.

BY HIS own account, Yossi Beilin was traumatized by the Yom Kippur War, which caught him in the Sinai, where he witnessed its carnage. That is where his views concerning nationalism's futility and the conflict's resolution emerged. Eventually, he played first violin in the era that followed the war and was dominated by the territorial debate between the Land-for-Peace and Greater Israel camps.

Paradoxically, Beilin's tragedy has been exactly the same as his historic archrivals': His formula was put to the test - and failed. And just like Uri Ariel, Zvi Hendel and Hanan Porat can't bring themselves to admit that settling in Gaza and Nablus was a colossal mistake, Beilin failed to concede that Oslo had failed. Moreover, he still contends that peace is not only obtainable - mechanically and quickly - but that its pursuit supersedes all other agendas, as it will constitute a big bang that will reinvent all aspects of our life here, from economics to culture.

Curiously enough, whether in its political aloofness, historic impatience or psychological quest for cataclysm, this outlook is the perfect inversion of Gush Emunim's dogma. And now, the territorial era that gave rise to political careers like Beilin's on the Left and Porat's on the Right has ended. Ours is the era of the fence, which monumentalizes the failures of both Land-for-Peace and Greater Israel; and Beilin, who bet his future on the eruption of a big peace, has only himself to blame for having shaped his career so that it left him no place in this era of sobriety, where there is so much else to do regardless of the conflict.

The fault is his, but the loss is ours. Israeli leadership sure could use a few more people who probe issues and seek change rather than use public office to embezzle, patronize and womanize.

It certainly can use more dreamers. For my part, whenever encountering the vehemence with which the very mention of Beilin's name is greeted by his many detractors, I am reminded of our forefathers dumping their own Yossi into a pit - just because they couldn't stomach his dreams.

Abbas: No Final Peace

The following came from WAFA, the "Palestine News Agency."

President: No Final Peace Unless all Prisoners Released

RAMALLAH, December 20, 2007 (WAFA)-President Mahmoud Abbas confirmed on Thursday that there would be no final peace unless all Palestinian prisoners released from the Israeli jails.

In a message for hailing the prisoners inside the Israeli jails, President appreciated their sacrifice for the sake for realizing the aspirations of the Palestinian people on the path of establishing an independent Palestinian state , with Jerusalem as its capital.

President stressed that he will not spare effort to release all Palestinian prisoners from Israeli jails.

This is further evidence, as if any were needed, that the so-called "moderate" leader of the Palestinian Authority really has no interest in peace.

Abbas is not talking about innocent civilians or soldiers such as the kidnapped Israelis Gilad Shalit, Ehud Goldwasser and Eldad Regev. He is talking about terrorists who murdered or attempted to murder innocent people long after the PLO pledged to end Arab terrorism against Israel.

He is not only being hypocritical, but is implicitly encouraging additional terrorism by committing himself to work for the freedom of any Arab who tries to murder Jews.

The Insidious Campaign to De-Judaize Israel

The Simon Wiesenthal Center picked up on the Latin Patriarch Michel Sabbah's outrageous rejection of Israel as a Jewish state and sent out the following message in which it calls upon Pope Benedict to repudiate Sabbah's rejection.

View PRIMER's earlier blog entry on Sabbah's denial.

Yesterday, December 19th, the Vatican’s chief cleric in Jerusalem declared that Israel discriminates against non-Jews by calling itself a Jewish State. In response, The Simon Wiesenthal Center called on the Vatican to reject Patriarch Michel Sabbah’s demand for Israel to "discard its identity as a Jewish State".

Patriarch Sabbah, who has been a frequent critic of Israel, once said of the Israelis, "In the end we will send them away just as we did to the Crusaders."

"Patriarch Sabbah’s denial of the State of Israel as a Jewish State is nothing less than a campaign to de-legitimize her and is fodder for those with a long-held dream of a Middle East without a Jewish State," said Rabbi Marvin Hier, founder and dean of the Wiesenthal Center.

Further, Sabbah’s latest outburst contradicts both Pope John Paul II’s 1987 declaration that, ‘The Jews have a right to nationhood as do all other peoples according to international law’ and the United Nations Declaration of 1947 that called for an Arab and Jewish State.

"Israel does not need lessons from Patriarch Sabbah on how to treat citizens of other faiths and religions," said Hier. "He would better serve the Christians in the Holy Land by going to Gaza and defending the beleaguered Christian minority there from Hamas extremists. We call on Pope Benedict to reject Sabbah’s demand and all those supporting this insidious campaign to de-Judaize the State of Israel," Rabbi Hier concluded.

Is She Serious?

The following was breaking news from JTA.

Rice: Sharon's settler ties were an issue

Condoleezza Rice said Ariel Sharon's ties to the settlement movement discouraged her from promoting Israeli-Palestinian peace.

In an interview Tuesday with the BBC, the U.S. secretary of state was asked why the Bush administration waited seven years to push hard for Israeli-Palestinian peace.

"I've always believed that there is a very important role for diplomatic multilateral engagement, but it comes at the right time," she said. "So for instance, on the Middle East peace process, I don't think in 2001, with the intifada having just been launched and frankly, Ariel Sharon, the father of the settlement movement, having just been elected prime minister of Israel, that there was much prospect for a final-status negotiation. And so we've worked progressively over the years to help build a new foundation, new circumstances and we've now gotten to a place where we can do that."

Rice was national security adviser to President Bush from 2001-2005 before assuming her current role. In that post, she strongly discouraged Colin Powell, Bush's first secretary of state, from brokering Israeli-Palestinian peace.

Sharon, Israel's prime minister during that time, resisted dealing with then-Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat, accusing him of facilitating terrorism.

This is one of those stories that seems to come from Ripley's Believe It or Not.

There was, of course, a good reason Sharon accused Arafat of facilitating terrorism: Arafat not only facilitated terrorism, he promoted it.

The existence of Israeli communities in Judea and Samaria and whether someone helped build them have nothing to do with whether or not it's the proper time for peace; whatever time the Palestinian Arabs decide peace is better than war will be the proper time for peace and if they every so decide, the existence of Jewish communities in the currently disputed territories won't be a factor.

Language is Important

The Waterbury Republican-American published an excellent letter today (December 20, 2007). The letter includes a sober analysis of what in the past has effectively been a land for terrorism and war policy.

The letter also contains one example of how even intelligent analysts fall into the trap of using the misleading terminology anti-Israel propagandists have instilled into the general consciousness.

See whether you can find the misleading terminology in the letter before it's described after the letter. If you find any other misleading terminology besides that which I picked out, I'd like to hear about it.

Israel Should Think Twice Before Ceding More Land to Arabs

2008 will find Israel under pressure to return to the Palestinians the West Bank of the Jordan River, a region Israel captured in 1967. Seeking to bolster his legacy, President Bush will use diplomatic levers to force Israel into an agreement. The European Union, no friend of Israel, will pile on. The world media will do their part by publishing stories critical of Israel.

Before yielding, Israel should remember the consequences of its last two land transfers.

In 2000, then-Prime Minister Ehud Barak withdrew Israeli troops from southern Lebanon as a gesture of peace. The troops had been deployed in Lebanon since 1982 to prevent Hezbollah, a terrorist group, from attacking Israel. In 2006, Hezbollah attacked Israel from southern Lebanon. More than 150 Israelis died and hundreds were wounded. Nearly 400,000 people fled northern Israel to escape Hezbollah's rockets.

In 2005, then-Prime Minister Ariel Sharon returned to the Palestinians the Gaza Strip, another territory Israel captured in 1967. Sharon believed his move would promote peace. Instead, Palestinians use Gaza as a base from which to launch rockets into Israel.

Many Israelis oppose giving up more land until the Arab world embraces democracy, which may not happen for years. Other Israelis shout the slogan "land for peace." Ignoring the results from Lebanon and Gaza, they believe the Arab world will accept Israel once the Palestinians get a homeland.

The political debate in Israel will be harsh. Israelis must look into the hearts of Palestinians to see if they want peace or, more likely, just additional time to wear down Israel.

Mark Shea
Hamden

The misleading language comes up in the very first sentence, which refers to returning the West Bank to the Palestinian Arabs. There is also a later reference to having returned Gaza to the Palestinian Arabs.

Since the Palestinian Arabs have never had possession of the West Bank, which itself would more accurately be referred to as Judea and Samaria, it cannot possibly be returned to them.

Judea and Samaria could be returned to Jordan, which illegally occupied it from 1948 until 1967, but certainly not to the Palestinian Arabs.

Similarly, Gaza was not returned to the Palestinian Arabs, who had never before possessed it; While Gaza could have been returned to Egypt, it was given to the Palestinian Arabs.

The problem involves more than mere semantics; it lies at the heart of some of the negotiations Israel has held, in which there has been talk of an exchange of territory, proposals calling for Israel to give up some of its territory in exchange for the Palestinian Arabs giving Israel territory in the disputed territories on which Israelis are living.

Since the Palestinian Arabs don't possess the territory on which Israelis are living, they can't give it to Israel. The reality is when one talks of an exchange, it's just a way of pressuring Israel to not only give away most of Judea and Samaria, but to also give away portions of what has been part of Israel since its re-establishment in 1948.

Using the misleading language about returning territory leads from a territorial compromise in the West Bank to something that goes way beyond a territorial compromise — a territorial give-away.