He Must But Can He? Does He? Will He?

Douglas J. Feith is the former undersecretary of defense for policy (2001-05) and currently a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute. He authored "War and Decision: Inside the Pentagon at the Dawn of the War on Terrorism" (HarperCollins) and he has an op-ed in the Washington Times on President Obama's Cairo speech, :

Must-y Cairo rhetoric

Some excerpts

[Obama] hoped to relieve tensions between Islam and the West, but what light did he cast on those tensions?

...The speech was unsatisfying in a standard way. It was a "must-y" talk in which the president, instead of addressing problems analytically, merely asserted time and again what other people "must" do. Palestinians "must abandon violence." Israelis "must take concrete steps" to improve life for the Palestinians. The Arab states "must recognize" their responsibilities. Muslims "must" close the fault lines between Sunni and Shia. Mr. Obama used the word more than 30 times.

The problem with "must" is that it kills analysis. A good policy discussion brings forward a sensible set of goals and well-considered assumptions and then weighs the pros and cons of various courses of action that aim to achieve the goals. But the promiscuous use of "must" short-circuits all this.

When Mr. Obama asserts, for example, that "Hamas must put an end to violence, recognize past agreements, and recognize Israel's right to exist," what is he actually saying? Is he predicting that Hamas will do that? Is he saying he thinks Hamas itself sees its interests that way? Is he ordering Hamas to perform, or else? Or else, what? Does he actually think the United States can compel Hamas? These questions are of the essence, but they're blown aside by a gust of "must." Is it realistic to expect Hamas to become a nonviolent, law-abiding, good neighbor of Israel? Mr. Obama says it "must."

...Of course, it may be that there's more serious thought in the Obama administration's policies than the president chose to reveal in Cairo. It was only a speech, after all.

...He would not have suggested that the Arab-Israeli conflict is fundamentally about Israeli West Bank settlements or about Israel's denial of the Palestinians' "legitimate aspirations" for a state of their own in the West Bank and Gaza. The notion that Arab objections to the Jewish state are focused narrowly on the territories the Arabs lost to Israel in 1967 is ahistorical in a way that should be obvious: The conflict predated the 1967 war, or there would not have been a 1967 war, let alone the Arab-Israeli War of 1948-49.

The Arab cause against Israel and Zionism is rooted in religious and nationalistic principles. It's far more than a hodgepodge of practical grievances about boundary lines, settlements and refugees. It's been a century-long war based on the conviction that all the land governed by the Jews in Palestine - including Israel within its pre-1967 boundaries - is Arab land.

...If Mr. Obama thinks the conflict is less than a principled rejection of Israel and Zionism, his diplomacy will strain U.S. relations with Israel without moving the region closer to peace. American pressure on Israel to ban natural growth within existing settlements - that is, to prevent families from adding new bedrooms when they add new children - is sure to remain unconstructive.

Israel's enemies have made a fetish of the settlements because the issue fits within their grander campaign to delegitimize all of Israel as a Jewish settlement on Arab land. The right of Jews to settle in the West Bank is rooted in the same law and history that Zionist leaders invoked in declaring Israel's statehood in 1948. Mr. Obama may not know this, but key parties in the region do. The president's peace policy will have better prospects if he systematically discourages - and does not inadvertently encourage - ongoing efforts to deny Israel's legitimacy.

...The Cairo speech...exposed superficial thinking by the president about important subjects. In the words of an old political quip: Deep down, it was shallow. It raises the question of whether Mr. Obama can manage major problems that he seems not to understand. The answer is: He must.

West Bank

In my first follow-up to the posting by me on the new regulations which instructs consular officials at the Jerusalem Consulate-General to note an American citizen's birthplace in Judea or Samaria as the "West Bank",(*) everyone knows that

The name "West Bank" was apparently first used by Jordanians at the time of their annexation of the region in 1950, and has become the most common name used in English and some of the other Germanic languages.

America's officialdom does get its foot stuck in its bureaucratic mouth, so to say.

So, in other words, the "West Bank" which doesn't really exist as a geo-political entity, and let us not forget as I was reminded, that in 1988, Jordan yielded any claim to represent the Arabs who prefer to be called "Palestinians", now takes precedence over a city 3000 years old which was the capital of the two Jewish commonwealths during the monarchy, the First and Second Temple periods and throughout the years of exile?

This is politics at its worse.

The CIA Handbook asserts:

The West Bank - the larger of the two areas comprising the Palestinian Authority (PA)...

P.S.

And it seems that there's a newer regulation, CT.CON 280 from February 2009 but doesn't affect the essence of the registration process.


UPDATE

As I stressed in a previous post, in principle, there is no such a thing as "West Bank" for, if the US claims it is sticking to the 1947 UN Resolution as its basis, the WB never existed even then, and I would argue that not even now does it officially exist as a geopolitical entity.

But even so, can a Jew or anyone for that matter, since alternatives are allowed, ask that the terms "Judea" or "Samaria" since "Gaza" is permitted? Why not?

And let's continue our search for names that would illustrate the silliness of the State Dept. attempt to whitewash geopolitical reality.

Hebron, Wales

Palestine, Texas, US

Bethel, Alaska (maybe Governor Sarah Palin can help?)

Bethel in the Berkshires that's CT

Bethel, Anglesey, Scotland

And this:

West Bank provides lending, deposit and trust services for individual and businesses. We have ten full-service banking locations in Des Moines, Iowa City and Coralville, Iowa

History Revisionism

President Obama and Abraham Lincoln are a pair the US media informs us.

CBS:

From the start of his political career, Obama seems to have modeled himself on Lincoln. Both were born in other states - Hawaii for Obama, Kentucky for Lincoln - before settling in Illinois. Each became a lawyer then served in the state legislature before serving a single term in Congress. Each rocketed onto the national political stage with powerful speeches and became commander-in-chief without any military experience.

For Lincoln, the turning point was his 1857 speech at the Illinois state house for preserving the union. "A house divided cannot stand, Lincoln said, drawing inspiration from scripture. I believe this government cannot endure permanently, half slave and half free."

The next year, Lincoln's debates with Stephen Douglas in a U.S. Senate race he lost placed him at the center of the nation's most pressing question. (Two years later, he would edge out Douglas for the presidency.)...Obama has learned from Lincoln, and what he's learned is how to hold a civil debate without giving up your main position, meaning you don't have to put your finger in your enemy's face and scold him. You can have dignity and composure and still win an argument," Brinkley says.

Newsweek:

It is the season to compare Barack Obama to Abraham Lincoln. Two thin men from rude beginnings, relatively new to Washington but wise to the world, bring the nation together to face a crisis. Both are superb rhetoricians, both geniuses at stagecraft and timing. Obama, like Lincoln and unlike most modern politicians, even writes his own speeches, or at least drafts the really important ones—by hand, on yellow legal paper—such as his remarkably honest speech on race during the Reverend Wright imbroglio last spring.

But what did Lincoln say in that 1958 speech?

According to Kearney Smith in the TLS, this:-

In debate with Stephen Douglas in 1858 at Ottawa, Illinois, Lincoln said: “I have no purpose to introduce political and social equality between the white and black races. There is a physical difference between the two, which, in my judgment, will probably forever forbid their living together upon the footing of perfect equality; and inasmuch as it becomes a necessity that there must be a difference, I, as well as Judge Douglas, am in favor of the race to which I belong having the superior position. I have never said anything to the contrary”.

Lincoln repeated these beliefs several times. In his First Inaugural Address in 1861, he said he had no “purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery, in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so”. Instead, Lincoln dedicated most of the speech to denying that States could legally secede from the Union by arguing that the Union was older than the Constitution.

Lincoln’s “solution” for black people in the United States was to send them back to Africa. He toyed with several plans to do that, which prompted William Lloyd Garrison, the abolitionist, to denounce him: “President Lincoln may colonize himself if he choose, but it is an impertinent act, on his part, to propose the getting rid of those who are as good as himself”.

Oops.

New JPost Blog Post

Here.

Good Achievement for Benefit of the Temple Mount

Did you know that the administrative regulations of Israel's 1967 "Preservation of Holy Sites Law", published in 1969 and amended in 1981 (source is in Hebrew), lists the following locations in Jerusalem, in addition to the Western Wall, as holy sites: Cave of Shimon The Righteous; The Little Sanhedrin Cave; the Cave of Ovadiah Bartenura; Zechariah's Cave; Avshalom's Pillar.

That's all.

No Temple Mount.

Now this:

For the first time since 1968, the Jerusalem municipality has compiled an official list of historic buildings and sites worthy of preservation. The list, consisting of 8,000 items and posted on the city's web site, still lacks the statutory backing necessary to prevent further damage to or demolition of these unique structures. According to sources in the municipality, though, publication of the list itself will aid in their preservation.

The list is extremely diverse...the Temple Mount is also on the list

Avirama Is Either Ignorant, A Racist Or, Both?

In the settlements, which Menachem Begin promised to nurture and expand, lived Hanan Porat and his friends, Jews of European origin in knitted skullcaps. The average Shas supporter, who suffered from their racism in the state religious schools, felt alienated and excluded.

is what she published in Haaretz. She was trying to paint Sefaradi support for the settling of the Land of Israel as some Ashkenazi rite.

Idiot.

Sefaradim have always been in the forefront of the enterprise, do not suffer discrimination in our communities, do not feel alienated or excluded and love the land more than we Ashkenazim do.

And she seems to get it, while continuing her florid prose:

Now most Shas voters no longer go to the synagogue in the morning and to soccer games in the afternoon. They are active "settlers," or brothers, cousins or friends of "settlers." Their wives wear headscarves, their children are Lithuanian ultra-Orthodox for all intents and purposes, and they are all right-wingers.

West Bank Birthing

The United States Consulate General in Jerusalem, which is where all American citizens residing in Jerusalem, east and west, as well as Judea and Samaria come to for consular services cannot have "Israel" appended to the name of the city "Jerusalem" if their child is born in Shaare Zedek, Bikkur Cholim, Misgav Ladach or the two Hadaash hospitals. Jerusalem as a sovereign part of Israel is not recognized.

Now, there's something else I just discovered.

If a child is born at home in one of the Jewish communities in Yesha, the registration of birth and passport will carry _______, West Bank.

and made inquiries through official channels (that's what I do) and was answered:

If a child is born in the West Bank, whether they are Israelis or Palestinians, place of birth on the U.S. passport is either the city (Efrat, Ramallah, etc.) or the area – the West Bank in that case. This information is available on the internet: search for 7 FAM 1360 APPENDIX D BIRTH IN ISRAEL, JERUSALEM, AND ISRAELI-OCCUPIED AREAS, and you’ll find this.

In addition, since the couple’s previous children were born in ________ (and not, say, in Beit Shemesh, etc.), their passports would have to be amended the next time they are renewed. Mr. _______ can correspond our office directly any time at JerusalemACS@state.gov.

American Citizen Services, Special Consular Services

But the "West Bank" doesn't exist as a geo-political entity. The 1947 UN Resolution referred to Judea and Samaria. There's nothing "natural" in this.

What gives?

Well, I searched and came up with this:

7 FAM 1360 APPENDIX D BIRTH IN ISRAEL, JERUSALEM, AND ISRAELI-OCCUPIED AREAS (CT:CON-254; 04-29-2008)

U.S. Department of State Foreign Affairs Manual Volume 7 – Consular Affairs 7 FAM 1300 Appendix D Page 11

a. Background. As a result of the June 1967 Arab-Israeli War, the Government of Israel currently occupies and administers the Golan Heights, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. U.S. policy recognizes that the Golan Heights is Syrian territory, and that the West Bank and the Gaza Strip are territories whose final status must be determined by negotiations.
b. Birth in the Golan Heights: The birthplace that should appear on passports whose bearers were born in the Golan Heights is SYRIA.
c. Birth in the West Bank or in the No Man’s Lands between the West Bank and Israel: The birthplace for people born in the West Bank or in the No Man's Lands between the West Bank and Israel is WEST BANK; Those persons born before May, 1948 in the area known as the West Bank may have PALESTINE listed as an alternate entry. Those born in 1948 or later may have their city of birth as an alternate entry. Persons born in the West Bank in 1948 or later may not have Palestine transcribed as an alternate entry.
d. Birth in the Gaza Strip: The birthplace for people born in the Gaza Strip, is GAZA STRIP. PALESTINE is the alternate acceptable entry provided the applicant was born before 1948.
e. Birthplace in Israel: Write ISRAEL as the place of birth in the passport if and only if the applicant was born in Israel itself (this does not include the Gaza Strip, the Golan Heights, Jerusalem, the West Bank or the No Mans Lands between the West Bank and Israel). Do not enter ISRAEL in U.S. passports as the place of birth for applicants born in the occupied territories.
________________________________________
Page 12

f. Birthplace in Jerusalem: For a person born in Jerusalem, write JERUSALEM as the place of birth in the passport. Do not write Israel, Jordan or West Bank for a person born within the current municipal borders of Jerusalem. For applicants born before May 14, 1948 in a place that was within the municipal borders of Jerusalem, enter JERUSALEM as their place of birth. For persons born before May 14, 1948 in a location that was outside Jerusalem’s municipal limits and later was annexed by
the city, enter either PALESTINE or the name of the location (area/city) as it was known prior to annexation. For persons born after May 14, 1948 in a location that was outside Jerusalem’s municipal limits and later was annexed by the city, it is acceptable to enter the name of the location (area/city) as it was known prior to annexation.
g. Birthplace in Area Formerly Known as Palestine: An applicant born in the area formerly known as Palestine (which includes the Gaza Strip, the Golan Heights, Jerusalem or the West Bank) may object to showing the birthplace. In such cases, explain the Department of State (CA)’s general policy of showing the birthplace as the country having present sovereignty. The Senior Passport Specialist, Supervisory Passport Specialist or Adjudication Manager at a domestic passport agency or center or supervisory consular officer or regional consular officer at a U.S. embassy or consulate may make an exception to show PALESTINE as the birthplace if the applicant was born before 1948. If the applicant was born in 1948 or later, the city or town of birth may be listed if the applicant objects to showing the country having present sovereignty.
h. For a person born before May 14, 1948 in a place that was outside Jerusalem's municipal limits and later was annexed by the city, either PALESTINE or the name of the location (area or city) as it was known before annexation may be used as an alternate entry. For a person born after May 14, 1948 in a place that was outside Jerusalem's municipal limits and later was annexed by the city, the alternate entry is the name of the location (area or city) as it was known before annexation.
i. If the applicant lists as place of birth on a passport application a jurisdiction other than that provided in this 7 FAM 1360 Appendix D, the passport authorizing officer should annotate the passport application with the correct place of birth code reflected in this guidance. If the passport applicant objects to the listing of the current area of sovereignty as defined in this guidance, the applicant may elect to list the area or city name as listed in this section. However, Passport authorizing officers will advise applicants that foreign officials who examine the passport and are unfamiliar with (or object to) the area name may question its appearance in the passport and possibly deny entry to the bearer. (See 7 FAM 1380
Appendix D.)
________________________________________
Page 13

Area
Name
Birthplace Alternate Entry
Gaza
Strip
GAZA
STRIP
PALESTINE (if born before 1948);
City or Town of birth regardless of date of
birth
Golan
Heights
SYRIA
City or town of birth
Israel
ISRAEL
PALESTINE (if born before 1948);
City or Town of birth regardless of date of
birth
Jerusalem JERUSALEM “PALESTINE” (if born before 1948 in an area
which was later annexed by Jerusalem);
City or area of birth as it was known prior to
annexation regardless of date of birth.
West
Bank
WEST
BANK
PALESTINE (if born before 1948);
City or Town of birth regardless of date of birth
Sinai
EGYPT
None

Hmmm.

So, if my child's passport reads just "Jerusalem" as his/her birthplace, could it be that he/she/ was born in Jerusalem, New Zealand? Or Jerusalem, Georgia, United States of America? Or in Michigan? Or Maryland? Or either Ohio, Alabama, North Carolina or maybe Arkansas? And what about Jerusalem, UK?

Which Jerusalem then if no country is added?


P.S.

United States Position on Jerusalem
(February 7, 1963)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is a memorandum of conversation between William Crawford Jr. and Mr. Shaul Bar-Haim from the Israeli Embassy meeting and discussing the U.S. position on the status of Jerusalem.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PARTICIPANTS
Mr. Shaul Bar-Haim, Counselor, Israel Embassy
NE--William R. Crawford, Jr.
UNP--Stephen J. Campbell

Mr. Crawford recalled a conversation between Assistant Secretary Talbot and Ambassador Harman on July 17, 1962,/2/ in which Mr. Talbot had said we would no longer take the initiative in presenting our views on the status of Jerusalem to governments contemplating the initial establishment of a diplomatic mission in Israel. In describing the limits of this concession, Mr. Talbot said we would not acquiesce in Israel insistence on issuance of visas or consular exequaturs that would inhibit the freedom of movement of U.S. Consular Officers within the corpus separatum, or in other Israel moves which we would view as eroding our stand in principle on the status of Jerusalem.

Mr. Crawford further recalled that the Israel Embassy had subsequently taken strong exception to our reference to the corpus separatum, in conversations between Mr. Strong and Minister Gazit on July 20 and 30, respectively. These exchanges led the Israel Embassy, in a conversation between Mr. Bar-Haim and Mr. Crawford on August 6, 1962 to seek our approval of its own recapitulated formulation of the U.S. position. We reserved our reply, saying we would like to refer the Israel formulation to officers in the Department with long experience on this problem.

Mr. Crawford said this study has now been completed, and our comments on the Israeli formulation are evidenced in the following revision of it:

1. The Government of Israel may take as its guidance in interpreting the United States position on Jerusalem the U.S. Aide-Mémoire of July 9, 1952, and Secretary Dulles' speeches of June 1, 1953, and August 26, 1955, of which Israel is fully informed.

2. In the United Nations resolution of partition of Palestine, Resolution 181(II) and in the Swedish-Dutch draft resolution subsequently considered by the General Assembly, various solutions to protect the interests of the U.N. in Jerusalem were laid down, but in both Resolution 181 and Swedish-Dutch draft, the geographic area of Jerusalem was the same; i.e., as defined in Resolution 181. The attitude of the Department is that, while the United States Government is of an open mind as to the type of arrangements which might be made for the area to satisfy the international community's interest in it, the geographic boundaries of this area are as set forth in Resolution 181. The U.S. believes that whatever arrangement is made should have the concurrence of Israel and Jordan, and the necessary majority of the Members of the United Nations. (Mr. Talbot's use of the term corpus separatum on July 17 was in reference only to this geographic definition.)

3. This basic U.S. view concerning the geographic definition of the area describes also the area of jurisdiction of the United States Consulate General in Jerusalem.

Mr. Crawford stressed that the basic U.S. position is as stated in Paragraph 1. Paragraph 2 should be regarded as "informal comment and current amplification". As regards Paragraph 3, we have not dissented from the Israeli formulation provided Israel recognizes that the term corpus separatum does in fact describe the area of jurisdiction of the U.S. Consulate General in Jerusalem. As footnote to Paragraph 3, we would point out that the Consulate General's area of jurisdiction includes areas in Jordan which are over and above the area defined by Resolution 181.

Mr. Crawford said Israel would note that the foregoing involved no change in the long-standing U.S. position on Jerusalem. It is somewhat our feeling that Israel made a mountain out of a molehill in contesting Mr. Talbot's use of the term corpus separatum. We saw no advantage in reopening discussion of the U.S. position, but felt we should not avoid comment when the Israel Embassy sought to formulate our position for us.

Mr. Bar-Haim said he hopes this U.S. commentary will put an end to the exchange.

Mr. Bar-Haim said he wished to raise a question earlier discussed by Mr. Gazit with Mr. Strong: the use of the term "Jerusalem, Palestine" in the passports of U.S. officials in Jerusalem. Israel wishes the U.S. would drop this practice. The use of the term "Palestine" is historical fiction; it encourages the Palestine entity concept; its "revived usage enrages" individual Israelis; the Jordanians, also, would be happier if it were dropped; this is a trivial irritant; the U.S. position on Jerusalem would in no way be eroded by ceasing to use this term.

Mr. Crawford replied that, insofar as he could recall, Mr. Strong had implied to Mr. Gazit that pushing this matter will serve little practical purpose. If Israel, nevertheless, wishes to press this officially, we will look into it. By way of preliminary, informal comment:

1. The present practice has caused no problem in the past fourteen years.

2. It is not a "revival".

3. It is difficult to see how it "enrages" Israel opinion.

4. The practice is consistent with the fact that, in a de jure sense, Jerusalem was part of Palestine and has not since become part of any other sovereignty.

5. We would not see this as simply a question of dropping the phrase "Jerusalem, Palestine" from the passports of those few officers we have in Jerusalem. What about related questions such as quota nationality, in regard to which U.S. legislation and regulation continue to employ the term Palestine?

6. Israel has been informed that we do not approve actions which might be regarded as watering down our stand in principle regarding Jerusalem. Israel has termed this "trivial", but we would necessarily have to judge it against the background of other actions of the past year, such as Israel's elimination of the Foreign Liaison Office in Tel Aviv and its request that we cease taking the initiative in representations to other states regarding the location of their missions in Israel.

7. We question whether the Jordanians would be happier if we drop the term. They fear the ridicule of other Arab states.

Mr. Bar-Haim said he appreciates Mr. Crawford's informal comment but hopes this matter can be looked at by the Department


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Foreign Relations of the United States, 1961-1963: Near East, 1962-1963, V. XVIII. DC: GPO, 2000.

and this:

Of the 184 nations with which America has diplomatic relations, Israel is the only one whose capital is not recognized by the U.S. government. The U.S. embassy, like most others, is in Tel Aviv, 40 miles from Jerusalem. The United States does maintain a consulate in East Jerusalem, however, that deals with Palestinians in the territories and works independently of the embassy, reporting directly to Washington. Today, then, we have the anomaly that American diplomats refuse to meet with Israelis in their capital because Jerusalem's status is negotiable, but make their contacts with Palestinians in the city.

In 1990, Congress passed a resolution declaring that "Jerusalem is and should remain the capital of the State of Israel" and "must remain an undivided city in which the rights of every ethnic and religious group are protected." During the 1992 Presidential campaign, Bill Clinton said: "I recognize Jerusalem as an undivided city, the eternal capital of Israel, and I believe in the principle of moving our embassy to Jerusalem." He never reiterated this view as President; consequently, official U.S. policy remained that the status of Jerusalem is a matter for negotiations.

In an effort to change this policy, Congress overwhelmingly passed The Jerusalem Embassy Act of 1995. This landmark bill declared that, as a statement of official U.S. policy, Jerusalem should be recognized as the undivided, eternal capital of Israel and required that the U.S. embassy in Israel be established in Jerusalem no later than May 1999. The law also included a waiver that allowed the President to essentially ignore the legislation if he deemed doing so to be in the best interest of the United States. President Clinton exercised that option.

Quotable Words

Overseas "apology tours," public displays of empathy and inviting the likes of Iran to Fourth of July receptions at our embassies will not alter these underlying realities. Nor will reducing national-security budgets on such key items as missile defense and advanced weapons systems (while dramatically increasing unnecessary and inevitably inflationary domestic spending) make our adversaries more amenable to sweet reason. Sadly, such gratuitous indications of self-doubt and weakness only encourage the very adversaries whose favor we are currying.

The Obama administration finds itself surprised almost daily by, among other things:

• The recalcitrant and unyielding regime in North Korea, testing its nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles.

• Iran's persistence in pursuing precisely the same weapons programs, as well as continuing its activities as the world's central banker for terrorism.

• Hamas' continued refusal to renounce terrorism, acknowledge the state of Israel's existence and abide by prior Middle East agreements (which is hardly surprising, given that doing so would require Hamas to repudiate the fundamental principles on which it was founded).

• Russia's continued belligerent attitude toward former territories of the Soviet Union and Moscow's generally unhelpful attitude in dealing with North Korea, Iran, the Middle East and countless other problems.

John Bolton

Goldstein Will Host Carter

Carter to hold rare meeting with settler leader

Former United States president Jimmy Carter is planning a rare meeting with a settler leader in the West Bank during his visit to Israel this weekend, the Carter Center announced Wenesday. Carter will meet with Shaul Goldstein, an official of the Yesha Council of Settlements, at his West Bank home on Sunday.

Aw, peanuts.

The Story Behind A Picture

The picture:




The story:

Israeli TV newscasters Tuesday night interpreted a photo taken Monday in the Oval Office of President Obama talking on the phone with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu as an "insult" to Israel...

Was there a subliminal message intended from the White House to Netanyahu in Jerusalem, who is publicly resisting attempts by Mr. Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to force Israel to stop any kind of settlement activity in occupied territories once and forever?

Maybe he has a problem with long legs:



Of course, he just could be following in the (pardon the pun) footsteps of Adlai Stevenson:

I Didn't Say It

“Many men who had anal sex with men before marriage want the same thing with their wives, because they don’t know anything else, this is one reason we need sex education in our schools.”

So, if Medad didn't say it, who did say it?

Wedad.

Wedad?

Her:



Yes she did:

Wedad Lootah, a Muslim and a native Emirati, who wears a full-length black niqab — with only her brown eyes showing through narrow slits — and sprinkles her conversation with quotes from the Koran, is the author of the book, “Top Secret: Sexual Guidance for Married Couples” and for eight years a marital counselor in Dubai’s main courthouse.

More Shiloh Views

The new traffic circle:


The new bus stop at the traffic circle seen from up-the-hill:


The vineyards near Givat Harel (with Jebel A-Tawil in background):


More vineyards:


Foliage down the block:

Sarah Silverman Is Sick. Yes.

Reference.

Explanation:

Sarah Silverman was honored as best actress for her performance in the viral video “I’m … Matt Damon” and for her contribution to a voting initiative video. Lisa Kudrow won for outstanding comedic performance as the star of the series “Web Therapy” on lstudio.com.

The awards will be presented in New York on June 8, hosted by Seth Meyers (“Saturday Night Live”). The Webbys are known for their brief acceptance speeches, where winners are limited to five words. (Stephen Colbert, a special achievement winner last year, said: “Me. Me. Me. Me. Me.”)

...The Webbys are presented by the International Academy of Digital Arts and Sciences, a 550-member group of Web experts. Every category has two winners: one picked by the Webbys and the other chosen by online voting.

Oh, No, Carter Is Coming

The Carter Center said Tuesday that [Jimmy] Carter will arrive in Jerusalem from Damascus toward the end of this week. His first meeting in Israel will be with Noam Schalit, father of Israeli soldier Gilad Schalit, who has been held by Hamas militants for three years.

Carter also will meet with representatives on both sides of the Arab-Israeli conflict, take a listening tour of a West Bank settlement, appear before a Knesset committee and meet with President Shimon Peres.

Which community will he visit?

Maybe Shiloh which he tried to dismantle back in the beginning of 1978?

;->)

Seth Freedman Adopts Antisemtic Semantic

One way or another, the Israeli authorities have sucked the lifeblood out of the Palestinian people as a whole, refusing them any kind of opportunity for "natural growth",

That was the writing of Seth Freedman in The Guardian.

We Jews are so good at sucking blood, the Pal. Court Jew claims.

Seth, take a look at the company you keep:

"Jews Suck America's Blood"

"Solid Proof that Jews suck blood"

Seth, any idea how many Jews over the ages were killed because of that claim you use?

Where Is PETA?

After an incident when a donkey was laden with a bomb at the Gush Etzion checkpoint and was blown up in a terrorist attack, I contacted PETA and extracted from them a protest(*).

Read this:-

Under the cover of morning fog, a group of around 10 Palestinian gunmen armed with "huge amounts of explosives" launched a failed Gaza border assault at the Karni Crossing on Monday, in which booby-trapped horses were used

Why not contact PETA?


------

(*)

February 3, 2003

Yasser Arafat, President
Palestinian National Authority
Ramallah, West Bank
Palestinian Authority

1 page via facsimile: 972 7 282 2365

Your Excellency:

I am writing from an organization dedicated to fighting animal abuse around the world. We have received many calls and letters from people shocked at the bombing in Jerusalem on January 26 in which a donkey, laden with explosives, was intentionally blown up.

All nations behave abominably in many ways when they are fighting their enemies, and animals are always caught in the crossfire. The U.S. Army abandoned thousands of loyal service dogs in Vietnam. Al-Qaeda and the British government have both used animals in hideously cruel biological weaponry tests. We watched on television as stray cats in your own compound fled as best they could from the Israeli bulldozers.

Animals claim no nation. They are in perpetual involuntary servitude to all humankind, and although they pose no threat and own no weapons, human beings always win in the undeclared war against them. For animals, there is no Geneva Convention and no peace treaty—just our mercy.

If you have the opportunity, will you please add to your burdens my request that you appeal to all those who listen to you to leave the animals out of this conflict?

We send you sincere wishes of peace.

Very truly yours,

Ingrid Newkirk
President, PETA

Can You Locate Shiloh?

Back in 1876:

That Darn Teleprompter

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Finally, Israel's True Judicial Revolution

In a close and secret vote, the Knesset voted MKs David Rotem (Israel Our Home) and Uri Ariel (National Union) as its representatives on the Committee for the Appointment of Judges.

Rotem, who chairs the Knesset Law Committee, was a foregone favorite to win one of the two slots - while Ariel was a surprise winner for the "opposition" slot. Ariel's race against Bar-On was the subject of great tension, with some Likud members saying they would vote for Bar-On - despite Bar-On's centrist-left orientation. In the event, Ariel received 59 votes, one more than Bar-On's 58.

The results of the vote mean that the nationalist camp, for the first time in memory, has a slight edge in the appointment of judges in the coming year.

An insight:

During the past decade and a half, a remarkable gap has opened up in Israel between the unprecedented activism of the country’s Supreme Court, on the one hand, and the paucity of substantive intellectual debate about the court’s practices, on the other. The Israeli High Court has been among the boldest anywhere in the democratic world, going well beyond the letter of the law in striking down the actions of the government and legislature in a range of areas including foreign and defense policy, religion and state, family law, edu­ca­tion, and the appointments of high-ranking officials. Moreover, a sub­stantial segment of the public has responded to many of the court’s decisions with alarm, and has made judicial activism a subject of mass de­­mon­­strations as well as a central issue in national elections.

In such circumstances, one would have expected Israel’s legal scholars to play a constructive role in shaping the public debate—by providing well-grounded arguments that could shed light on the pros and cons of judicial activism, by examining the jurisprudential philosophy of the court in its theoretical and comparative contexts, and by offering the public an example of reasoned debate in which adversaries are treated with respect. Unfor­tu­nately, the scholarly community in Israel has not risen to the occasion. With the notable exception of current Supreme Court President Aharon Barak—who, through his many books, articles, and extensive court decisions spanning two decades, has made himself not only the leading practitioner of an activist judicial philosophy but also its preeminent theoretician—Israeli scholars have produced hardly any written work on judicial activism beyond a smattering of narrowly focused papers in law journals. And, since critiques of the trend towards activism have been especially sparse, what little discussion has taken place has been rather uninspired, a dialogue among scholars who largely agree with one another.
But if scholarly writings on judicial activism have been rare, comprehensive treatments aimed at the general reader have been even scarcer.

In Arabic, It's (Fanjara) No, It's Ajrafeh

To the Editor:

Re “Israelis Say Obama Is Ignoring Old Understandings on Settlement ‘Freeze’ ” (news article, June 4):

Let us remember first that the West Bank, Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem are occupied territories under international law and Security Council resolutions. Time and again, building settlements in occupied territories is a violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949, which blandly states that “the occupying power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.”

Neither the Geneva convention nor its commentaries recognize or use alternatively the natural growth or physical-extension qualifier to justify the transfer of parts of the occupying-power population into the occupied territories. This makes sense since two wrongs do not make a right.

Given the number of Israeli settlers now in the occupied territories, any weaseling to facilitate new settlements will only complicate the negotiations and undercut the fair resolution of the problem.

Hussein Mubarak
Consul General of Egypt
New York

Fanjara Ajrafeh = chutzpah

and thanks to my Jordanian friend

Today's Quiz

Quotation:

CLINTON: Well, that was an understanding that was entered into, so far as we are told, orally.

Quiz questions:

a) Which Clinton is talking?

b) What understanding is being referred to?

c) What is being entered?

d) What is the term "orally" referring to?


Answer can be found here, in the answer given to the third question of George Stephanopolous.

Why Not Consider Another Idea ?

Even the Washington Post lets a good letter slip through:

David Ignatius suggested that, to bring peace to the Arab-Israeli conflict, President Obama "will first have to make some enemies" ["Obama Tugs at the Settlement Knot," op-ed, June 4]. But no policy has worked for 70 years since the Peel Commission first recommended a two-state solution in 1937, since the Arabs rejected the United Nations mandate in 1947 or since President Bill Clinton's two-state solution was approved by Israel but rejected by the Palestinians in 2000.

Perhaps, then, new thinking is needed to come up with a fresh solution. Israel will never accept a Hamas-governed state on its West Bank. Neither will Jordan, which would have to share a border of more than 60 miles with an Iranian-sponsored terrorist state and would be risking the end of its kingdom, in which 70 percent of the population is Palestinian.

Why not consider the idea of the West Bank federating with Jordan? The Palestinians get an end to the Israeli occupation; Israel and Jordan get territorial security, knowing Hamas will not threaten them. Like an American state that is part of the federal government, the West Bank would have its own governor, its own set of local laws and its own elected members of the Jordanian parliament. Nothing else has worked. It's worth considering.

JAY GARFINKEL,
Washington

The writer is host of the weekly radio program "Israel Magazine."

Mrs. Clinton, Meet Daniel Kurtzer

More on the the ridiculous "we-can't-find-the record" over at the State Dept. story on Israel's right to continue natural growth

Here, at IMRA:

Interview with Israel Television Channel Ten
American Embassy Tel Aviv - Press Section
U.S. Ambassador Daniel Kurtzer Interview with Israel Television Channel Ten
March 25, 2005

AMBASSADOR KURTZER: ...the President said to the Prime Minister at the time and then committed in writing that the reality is that there are Israeli population centers in the territories that are going to have to be taken into account in any final status negotiations and the outcome that the United States would support means that we are not going back to the 1967 lines. It is very clearly written in a letter that has been made public. That hasn't changed whatsoever.

QUESTION: You say they are going to be taken count and we are not going to go back to the 1967, but in this letter there is no - they don't say about Maale Adumim and Ariel. They just say it in general?

AMBASSADOR KURTZER: The letter is not specific on which place. But the President and the Prime Minister clearly understood that major Israeli population centers - which is the phrase that is used in the letter - includes major Israeli population centers. We know what they are; the people of Israel know what they are and that is going to remain American policy.

QUESTION: This is the American current view about the settlement blocs?

AMBASSADOR KURTZER: That's correct.

QUESTION: So President Bush is willing to leave settlement blocs in Israeli sovereignty in the future agreement just as Clinton was?

AMBASSADOR KURTZER: He said it clearly in the letter of last April - I can say it again to the people of Israel. The President remains committed to what he said in that letter: That in a negotiation on final status, the outcome is going to mean that Israeli major population areas in our view should remain within the State of Israel....

I believe there is full understanding between the Prime Minister and the President and between the Prime Minister's office and his advisors and the President's office and the President's advisors. Our discussions with the Prime Minister, with Dov Weissglas, Shalom Turgeman, with all of the officials who are associated with the Prime Minister's office have been very clear and quite specific and that is what allowed us last April to reach a very specific understanding that was then incorporated in a letter that the President signed and was able to make public. So, I do not believe there are any misunderstandings between us...

...the United States and Israel do not have misunderstandings with respect to U.S. commitments. Those commitments are very, very firm with respect to these Israeli major population centers, our expectation that Israel is not going to be going back to the 1967 lines. This is the President's policy. This President has been very determined in having consistent and sure policy throughout his time in office. That is the reality, that is the truth.

(Kippah tip: Carl)

Congrats to Carl

Carl over at Israel Matzav is using the term "revenants" instead of 'settlers'.

Great!

Words To Quote

"...but even worse...would be the sealing of yet another trade route from West to East because of squabbling among the faiths. One by one they are being lost..the followers of Islam and Christianity, who in violation of God's desire and teaching and above all his good sense would rather kill than haggle."

Michael Chabon,
"Gentlemen of the Road"
pp. 108-109
paperback edition,
Ballantine Books, 2008


An insight:

At the end of Gentlemen of the Road...Michael Chabon has a quiet afterword with his readers, in which he confides that, despite the book’s official title, he cannot help but think of it as “Jews with Swords”, a working title that has not failed to cause amusement in those who heard it first. The author is not so inclined to find it entirely a laughing matter. The Jews, after all, he sees as arch-adventurers, and not the less adventurous for having embarked on their long history of persecution and peregrination in a spirit of reluctance, or even unreadiness. Their great warrior tradition (“Here’s to Judas Maccabeus, / Boy, if he could only see us”, as Tom Lehrer once put it) can be obscured only too easily by the image of Woody Allen “backing toward the nearest exit behind a barrage of wisecracks and a wavering rapier”. The gentlemen of the road in Gentlemen of the Road seldom waver, or wisecrack, or retreat.

Obama, They Ain't Listening To You

Continuing the follow-up to Obama's plea for non-violence:

4 gunmen killed as major terror attack averted at Karni Crossing

A major terrorist attack was averted on Monday morning after IDF troops spotted and fired at Palestinian gunmen approaching the border of Israel and the Gaza Strip, the IDF said.

...gunmen shot at an IDF patrol south of the Karni Crossing, on the border...Palestinians launching mortars at the IDF position, and the army responding with tank shells. At a certain point, a number of vehicles tried to assist the gunmen in their escape, but an IAF helicopter shot at them.

Palestinians later confirmed that four people were killed in the fire fight.

This Is Not An Aliyah Ad

Attention young couples living in the NY metro area...

The Orthodox community of Stamford, CT, is planning a Shabbaton on the weekend of June 19-20, 2009 for young couples looking to relocate to the suburbs. This Shabbaton will give young couples and their families an opportunity to meet residents of the Orthodox community in Stamford over a Shabbat weekend. You’ll be able to learn about the advantages of living in this flourishing community, and connect with other like-minded families also interested in relocating to the suburbs.

Stamford has two Orthodox synagogues, an Orthodox day school (K-8), and a Chabad nursery school program and summer camp. It also boasts a kosher bakery and dairy eatery at the JCC, mikveh, eruv, Chevra Kadisha, Daf Yomi, full array of adult education programs, Yeshiva gedola with chavrusa learning for adults and children, youth groups and activities, teen minyan, and a Shomer Shabbat baseball program.

Houses, condos, and rentals are all available within walking distance of the two shuls, and it takes only 43 minutes to get to Grand Central on the Metro North train and less than an hour from Manhattan, Riverdale, Queens, Teaneck, Monsey, and the Five Towns.

I guess the main Aliyah here is to the Torah.



P.S.

Aliyah, the act of ascending is used for immigrating to the Land of Israel as well as receiving an honor of being called to the Torah reading.

New Reality TV Show Mirrors Mideast Conflict Resolution

Well, that's what I thought when I read this item:

Fox developing arranged marriage reality show

Arranged marriageFox is developing a wedding reality series where brides-to-be don’t meet their husbands until they exchange vows.

In A. Smith & Co.’s “I Married a Stranger,” a woman frustrated by the dating scene agrees to marry a man she’s never met. While she prepares for a blind wedding, friends and family are shown selecting a spouse from a pool of six eligible suitors offered by producers. The men are eliminated one by one until only two candidates remain. Both finalists walk down the aisle, but only one makes it to the altar to reveal himself to his new wife.

“She never meets him until the actual moment when they say 'I do,’ ” a source close to the project said. “It’s like the big scene that comes after an entire season of 'The Bachelor,’ only this is in every episode.”

And there's a problem: a two-program competition:

If Fox picks up the show, "Stranger" will have some conceptual competition: CBS has a similar series, "Arranged Marriage," planned for midseason.

An Insight Into Obama Speechifying

Roger Cohen asserts that

Obama is arguably our greatest speechmaker without a single memorable line.

but explains his rhetoric:

You guys over there — read Afro-Americans, Muslims, Iranians, Palestinians — have your history, your suffering, your grievances, your hopes. And you guys over here — read whites, Christians, Americans, Israelis — have another past and pain, other resentments and aspirations.

So let us view these differences honestly, air them, recognize our common humanity, overcome mistrust, build coalitions through seeing our shared interests, and rise above hurt by valuing the future’s promise over the past’s scourge.

...The Cairo speech was a brave idea executed with sensitivity. It furthered the strategy of an American rapprochement with Islam to isolate “extremists” (terrorists no longer). It restored balance to U.S. diplomacy on Israel-Palestine by speaking of the “intolerable” situation of Palestinians.

It acknowledged the realities of the Middle East by opening the door a crack to Hamas, urging it to unify Palestinians and recognize Israel. It re-branded America as a power that listens rather than imposes. It beckoned Iran and it summoned the region’s repressed youth to educational opportunity.

Cracks are most dangerous when there's a flood out there.

Obama Whamma

The Washington Times' James Robbins writes:

Obama Drops Key Clause in Jerusalem Embassy Memo

...Presidential Determination 2009-19, latest in a series of pro forma memos to the Secretary of State entitled "Suspension of Limitations Under the Jerusalem Embassy Act."...is a legally required waiver under said act to continue to delay the May 31, 1999 deadline for moving the U.S. Embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem.

Nearly identical memos like this have been issued every six months for the last decade. Standard procedure, no big deal, right? Well in the Bush years the memo contained the sentence,

"My Administration remains committed to beginning the process of moving our embassy to Jerusalem."

The Obama team has edited that passage out. This explains the Friday evening release. Congress should revisit the Jerusalem Embassy Act and remove the loophole that has allowed this charade to continue for ten years. Meanwhile the president should explain exactly what his policy is on this issue, and why he is not committed to beginning the process of moving the embassy.

Clinton Stands Firm...

...on Israeli settlements.

Yes, Hillary Clinton stands firm on Israeli settlements


(Now what were you thinking?)


The story goes on:

Critics of Obama claim that allowing natural growth within the settlements is a reasonable compromise. They add that the Obama administration has been tougher on the Israelis than it has been on the Palestinian Authority.

Again, Clinton rejected such assertions: "We've made it very clear to [Palestinian Authority] President Abbas what we expect from him, as well."

Shiloh Means Music

A while back, I found an African Gospel group, GAEL, who had it hit "J'taime Shiloh".

Well, let's expand on music.

If you like Gospel music, check out Shiloh, a 5 piece Gospel acoustic band from Central Massachusetts. Belinda Morse, Janis Nelson, Dan Joubert, Phil Welsher, and Bob Nelson sing lead and harmony vocals. The band members play guitar, banjo, mandolin, dobro, pedal steel, and electric bass. Shiloh's music is influenced by Southern Gospel, Folk, and Bluegrass.

There's a Nashville Shiloh Band.

There's the Shiloh Evangelical Gospel Music Academy including Shiloh Super African Live Gospel Band with the Kushite Voices from Ghana, and the Junior LTJBM Live Gospel Band.

The Shiloh Bluegrass Band which showcases Bluegrass & Bluegrass Gospel music located in Central Indiana. And not to get mixed up, there's a Shiloh Grass Band.

And there's a The Shiloh River Band with Country Style Rock'N Roll. And Shilo Band, with a New Generation Of Country as well as a heavy metal band.

Some videos:

Hillary Keeps Up the Pressure

The Ice Lady speaks:

STEPHANOPOULOS: So is there any room for compromise on the settlement issue?

CLINTON: Well, I don't think we want to pre-judge the effort. I think that, if you look back, certainly from my perspective, every Israeli leader that I have personally known and others who I have looked at through an historical lens has come to the same conclusion...

STEPHANOPOULOS: But [Netahyahu's] team says now that, if you continue to push this, it's going to bring down his government.

CLINTON: ...Now, remember, the Israelis made a commitment in the road map in the prior administration.

STEPHANOPOULOS: But they say that includes an understanding for natural growth inside the settlements.

CLINTON: Well, that was an understanding that was entered into, so far as we are told, orally. That was never made a part of the official record of the negotiations as it was passed on to our administration. No one in the Bush administration said to anyone that we can find in our administration...

STEPHANOPOULOS: Not Elliot Abrams? He wrote about that.

CLINTON: Nobody in a position of authority at the time that the Obama administration came into office said anything about it. And, in fact, there's also a record that President Bush contradicted even that oral agreement.

But the fact is that the road map, which was agreed to officially, adopted by the Israeli government, said something very clear about settlements.

So I think that what the president is doing is saying, Look, everybody should comply with the obligations you've already committed to. And for the Palestinians, let's not forget: They must end incitement against Israel. They must demonstrate an ability to provide security.

Hope she doesn't slip on the melting ice.

Thanks for IMRA's Archives We're Diplomatically Unfrozen

Following up on Hillary Clinton's adamant insistence that nothing was officially discussed, deliberated or agreed upon regarding the future of natural growth in Yesha's Jewish communities, Aaron Lerner's IMRA's archives came up with this smoking gun:

U.S., Israel Discuss Internal Growth in West Bank Settlements

The Bush administration is negotiating with Israel over whether its settlements in the West Bank can grow within existing settlement boundaries, Secretary of State Colin L. Powell said yesterday...U.S. officials have quietly discussed ways to accommodate Israeli concerns, but in public statements they have insisted that a freeze on settlement growth means a freeze.

In an interview with Egyptian television, however, Powell said: "We are concerned about all kinds of settlement activity, to include different definitions of what growth is. And we're working with the Israelis to define what a settlement is and what the difference is between natural growth and expansion, and is natural growth something that is consistent with the Israelis' commitments to us."

Israeli officials and some administration officials said Powell's statement appears to be the first official acknowledgment that the United States is prepared to adopt a more flexible definition of a freeze as sought by Israel.

...At a briefing on Aug. 18, when asked if natural growth of settlements was open to interpretation, spokesman J. Adam Ereli said: "I don't have anything for you on that." But last month, also during an interview with Egyptian television, Deputy
Secretary of State Richard L. Armitage mused openly about a definition of natural growth. "If you have settlements that already exist and you put more people into them but don't expand the physical, sort of, the area -- that might be one thing," he said...In fact, some key administration officials, such as Elliott Abrams, the top
Middle East specialist on the White House's National Security Council staff, privately have long pressed for a more expansive definition of natural growth.

...In April, President Bush said that Israel could expect to retain some West Bank settlements in a final peace deal because of "new realities on the ground." In a letter to national security adviser Condoleezza Rice at the time, a top Israeli aide to Sharon committed to quickly seeking restrictions on settlement growth, including having U.S. and Israeli officials "jointly define the construction line of each of the settlements."...

His WashPost source.

Tzipi Livni And A Vociferous Crowd

MK Tzipi Livni had a difficult time at the launch for Haggai Segal's new book on the murder by Hagana members of his uncle, Yedidyah Segal in Haifa in early 1948.

A few in the audience at the Begin Center were displeased at her remarks regarding the future of Israel as the Jewish state:

Yet More on Obama's Cairo Speech

From Frank Gaffney's Deciphering Obama in Cairo

More often than not, the President portrayed Muslims as the Brotherhood always does: as victims of crimes perpetrated by the West against them - from colonialism to manipulation by Cold War superpowers to the menace of "modernity and globalization that led many Muslims to view the West as hostile to the traditions of Islam." Again, no mention of the hostility towards the infidel West ingrained in "the traditions of Islam." This fits with the meme of the Shariah-adherent, but not the facts.

Here`s the irony: Even as President Obama professed his determination to "speak the truth," he perpetrated a fraud. He falsely portrayed what amounts to authoritative Islam, namely Shariah Islam, as something that is "not exclusive," that "overlaps" and "need not be in competition" with "America. Actually, Shariah is, by its very nature, a program that obliges its adherents to demand submission of all others, Muslims (especially secular and apostate ones) and non-Muslims, alike.

This exclusiveness (read, Islamic supremacism) applies most especially with respect to democratic nations like America, nations founded in the alternative and highly competitive belief that men, not God, should make laws. Ditto nations that stand in the way of the establishment of the Caliphate...

and, from Barry Rubin's Obama's Cairo Speech and the Israel-Palestinian Conflict

...but Obama is wrapping this into his attempt to show Muslims that he is on their side it might be deemed especially effective. But putting almost all emphasis on the Holocaust—which in Arab and Muslim views is a European crime whose bill they are unfairly paying—may be the wrong approach.

He also roots Jews desire for their own country mainly in persecution, to which the Arab/Muslim answer has been that this isn’t their responsibility or that Jews can live happily—as Obama wrongly hints they have done in the past—under Muslim rule.

While Obama tries hard, his approach may reverberate only for a small minority of politically powerless Western-oriented liberals who already understand it.

Turning to Palestinians, he uses an appealing image but one so wrong that it undermines Obama’s entire approach. The Palestinians, he says, have “suffered in pursuit of a homeland” for more than 60 years.

But if that were true the issue would have been solved 60 years ago (1948 through partition), 30 years ago (1979 and Anwar Sadat’s initiative) or 9 years ago (Camp David-2). What has brought Palestinian suffering is the priority on total victory and Israel’s destruction rather than merely getting a homeland. This is the reason why the conflict won’t be solved in the next week, month, or year...

Yesha Pro-Feminism

UPDATE


Give Women Guns

I propose curbing gun violence not by further restricting the availability of guns but by expanding and reorienting it. Men would still be forbidden to walk the streets armed, in accordance with current laws, but women would be required to carry pistols in plain sight whenever they are out and about.

Were I to board the subway late at night, around Lincoln Center perhaps, and find it filled with women openly carrying Metropolitan Opera programs and Glock automatics, I’d feel snug and secure. A train packed with armed men would not produce the same comforting sensation. Maybe that’s because men have a disconcerting tendency to shoot people, while women display admirable restraint.

Do Pals. Listen To Obama?

One Michael Landauer of the Dallas Star was particularly impressed by the way Obama invoked the Civil Rights Movement in America in making the case for nonviolence and quotes this:

Resistance through violence and killing is wrong and does not succeed. For centuries, black people in America suffered the lash of the whip as slaves and the humiliation of segregation. But it was not violence that won full and equal rights. It was a peaceful and determined insistence upon the ideals at the center of America 's founding. This same story can be told by people from South Africa to South Asia; from Eastern Europe to Indonesia . It's a story with a simple truth: that violence is a dead end. It is a sign of neither courage nor power to shoot rockets at sleeping children, or to blow up old women on a bus. That is not how moral authority is claimed; that is how it is surrendered.

and he continues:

That is a powerful message coming from the first black president of the United States. He doesn't play the race card. He doesn't talk much about slavery and the civil rights movement. But when he goes there, he does it with a specific purpose, aiming it at the conflict between Jews and Muslims in Israel, where peace seems impossible. But his words remind us that things that once seemed impossible don't have to be.

Fools Paradise.

Let's see if they listened over the weekend:

Palestinian armed with knife arrested near Hebron's Jewish quarter

Pipe bomb thrown at IDF force near Kalkilia; none injured

Car Stoned by Arabs in Samaria

Bomb Attack near Kalkilye

Business as usual

International Law and the Legality of Jewish Revenant Communities

Stephen M. Schwebel, a Judge of the International Court of Justice since 15 January 1981, was Vice-President of the Court from 1994 to 1997 and served as the President of the Court in the triennium 1997–2000, which marked the busiest docket of 22 new cases in the history of the Court. Judge Schwebel is at present an independent arbitrator and counsel in Washington, DC, and a door tenant of Essex Court Chambers in London.

A former Deputy Legal Adviser of the United States Department of State and Burling Professor of International Law at the School of Advanced International Studies of The John Hopkins University (Washington), Judge Schwebel is the author of three books and some 150 articles on problems of international law and organization.

An long excerpt from:

What Weight to Conquest? AGGRESSION, COMPLIANCE, AND DEVELOPMENT,
Pages 521-526

In his admirable address of December 9, 1969, on the situation in the Middle East, Secretary of State William P. Rogers took two positions of particular international legal interest, one implicit and the other explicit. (1) Secretary Rogers called upon the Arab States and Israel to establish "a state of peace ... instead of the state of belligerency, which has characterized relations for over 20 years." Applying this and other elements of the American approach to the United Arab Republic and Israel, the Secretary of State suggested that, "in the context of peace and agreement [between the UAR and Israel] on specific security safeguards, withdrawal of Israeli forces from Egyptian territory would be required." (2)

Secretary Rogers accordingly inferred that, in the absence of such peace and agreement, withdrawal of Israeli forces from Egyptian territory would not be required. That is to say, he appeared to uphold the legality of continued Israeli occupation of Arab territory pending "the establishment of a state of peace between the parties instead of the state of belligerency." (3) In this Secretary Rogers is on sound ground. That ground may well be based on appreciation of the fact that Israel's action in 1967 was defensive, and on the theory that, since the danger in response to which defensive action was taken remains, occupation - though not annexation - is justified, pending a peace settlement. But Mr. Rogers's conclusion may be simply a pragmatic judg­ment (indeed, certain other Permanent Members of the Security Council, which are not likely to share the foregoing legal perception, are not now pressing for Israeli withdrawal except as an element of a settlement).

More questionable, however, is the Secretary of State's explicit conclusion on a key question of the law and politics of the Middle East dispute: that "any changes in the pre-existing [1949 armistice] lines should not reflect the weight of conquest and should be confined to insubstantial alterations required for mutual security. We do not support expansionism." Secretary Rogers refer­red approvingly in this regard to the Security Council's resolution of November 1967, which,

Emphasizing the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war (4) and the need to work for a just and lasting peace in which every State in the area can live in security,
Emphasizing further that all Member States in their acceptance of the Charter of the United Nations have undertaken a commitment to act in accordance with Article 2 of the Charter,
1. Affirms that the fulfillment of Charter principles requires the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East which should include the application of both the following principles:
(i) Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict; (5)
(ii) Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgement of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force; ..." (6)

It is submitted that the Secretary's conclusion is open to question on two grounds: first, that it fails to distinguish between aggressive conquest and defensive conquest; second, that it fails to distinguish between the taking of territory which the prior holder held lawfully and that which it held unlawfully. These contentions share common ground.

As a general principle of international law, as that law has been reformed since the League, particularly by the Charter, it is both vital and correct to say that there shall be no weight to conquest, that the acquisition of territory by war is inadmissible. (7) But that principle must be read in particular cases together with other general principles, among them the still more general principle of which it is an application, namely, that no legal right shall spring from a wrong, and the Charter principle that the Members of the United Nations shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State. So read, the distinctions between aggressive conquest and defensive conquest, between the taking of territory legally held and the taking of territory illegally held, become no less vital and correct than the central principle itself.

Those distinctions may be summarized as follows: (a) a State acting in lawful exercise of its right of self-defense may seize and occupy foreign territory as long as such seizure and occupation are necessary to its self ­defense; (b) as a condition of its withdrawal from such territory, that State may require the institution of security measures reasonably designed to ensure that that territory shall not again be used to mount a threat or use of force against it of such a nature as to justify exercise of self-defense; (c) where the prior holder of territory had seized that territory unlawfully, the State which subsequently takes that territory in the lawful exercise of self-defense has, against that prior holder, better title.

The facts of the June 1967 "Six Day War" demonstrate that Israel reacted defensively against the threat and use of force against her by her Arab neighbors. This is indicated by the fact that Israel responded to Egypt's prior closure of the Straits of Tiran, its proclamation of a blockade of the Israeli port of Eilat, and the manifest threat of the UAR's use of force inherent in its massing of troops in Sinai, coupled with its ejection of UNEF. It is indicated by the fact that, upon Israeli responsive action against the UAR, Jordan initiated hostilities against Israel. It is suggested as well by the fact that, despite the most intense efforts by the Arab States and their supporters, led by the Premier of the Soviet Union, to gain condemnation of Israel as an aggressor by the hospitable organs of the United Nations, those efforts were decisively defeated. The conclusion to which these facts lead is that the Israeli conquest of Arab and Arab-held territory was defensive rather than aggressive conquest.

The facts of the 1948 hostilities between the Arab invaders of Palestine and the nascent State of Israel further demonstrate that Egypt's seizure of the Gaza Strip, and Jordan's seizure and subsequent annexation of the West Bank and the old city of Jerusalem, were unlawful. Israel was proclaimed to be an independent State within the boundaries allotted to her by the General Assembly's partition resolution. The Arabs of Palestine and of neighboring Arab States rejected that resolution. But that rejection was no warrant for the invasion by those Arab States of Palestine, whether of territory allotted to Israel, to the projected, stillborn Arab State or to the projected, international­ized city of Jerusalem. It was no warrant for attack by the armed forces of neighboring Arab States upon the Jews of Palestine, whether they resided within or without Israel. But that attack did justify Israeli defensive measures, both within and, as necessary, without the boundaries allotted her by the partition plan (as in the new city of Jerusalem). It follows that the Egyptian occupation of Gaza, and the Jordanian annexation of the West Bank and Jerusalem, could not vest in Egypt and Jordan lawful, indefinite control, whether as occupying Power or sovereign: ex injuria jus non oritur.

If the foregoing conclusions that (a) Israeli action in 1967 was defensive and (b) Arab action in 1948, being aggressive, was inadequate to legalize Egyptian and Jordanian taking of Palestinian territory, are correct, what follows?

It follows that the application of the doctrine of according no weight to conquest requires modification in double measure. In the first place, having regard to the consideration that, as between Israel, acting defensively in 1948 and 1967, on the one hand, and her Arab neighbors, acting aggressively in 1948 and 1967, on the other, Israel has better title in the territory of what was Palestine, including the whole of Jerusalem, than do Jordan and Egypt (the UAR indeed has, unlike Jordan, not asserted sovereign title), it follows that modifications of the 1949 armistice lines among those States within former Palestinian territory are lawful (if not necessarily desirable), whether those modifications are, in Secretary Rogers's words, "insubstantial alterations required for mutual security" or more substantial alterations - such as recognition of Israeli sovereignty over the whole of Jerusalem. (8)

In the second place, as regards territory bordering Palestine, and under unquestioned Arab sovereignty in 1949 and thereafter, such as Sinai and the Golan Heights, it follows not that no weight shall be given to conquest, but that such weight shall be given to defensive action as is reasonably required to ensure that such Arab territory will not again be used for aggressive purposes against Israel. For example - and this appears to be envisaged both by the Secretary of State's address and the resolution of the Security Council - free navigation through the Straits of Tiran shall be effectively guaranteed and demilitarized zones shall be established.

The foregoing analysis accords not only with the terms of the United Nations Charter, notably Article 2, paragraph 4, and Article 51, but law and practice as they have developed since the Charter's conclusion. In point of practice, it is instructive to recall that the Republic of Korea and indeed the United Nations itself have given considerable weight to conquest in Korea, to the extent of that substantial territory north of the 38th parallel from which the aggressor was driven and remains excluded - a territory which, if the full will of the United Nations had prevailed, would have been much larger (indeed, perhaps the whole of North Korea).

In point of law, pro­visions of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties are pertinent. Article 52 provides that: "A treaty is void if its conclusion has been procured by the threat or use of force in violation of the principles of international law embodied in the Charter of the United Nations" - a provision which clearly does not debar conclusion of a treaty where force has been applied, as in self-defense, in accordance with the Charter. And Article 75 provides that: "The provisions of the present Convention are without prejudice to any obligation in relation to a treaty which may arise for an aggressor State in consequence of measures taken in conformity with the Charter of the United Nations with reference to that State's aggression."

The state of the law has been correctly summarized by Elihu Lauterpacht, who points out that territorial change cannot properly take place as a result of the unlawful use of force. But to omit the word "unlawful" is to change the substantive content of the rule and to turn an important safeguard of legal principle into an aggressor's charter. For if force can never be used to effect lawful territory change, then, if territory has once changed hands as a result of the unlawful use of force, the illegitimacy of the position thus established is sterilized by the prohibition upon the use of force to restore the lawful sovereign. This cannot be regarded as reasonable or correct. (9)

.....................................................................

Notes

First published in American Journal of International Law (1970), 64

(1) The text is published in full in New York Times, December 11, 1969, p. 16.
(2) Ibid.
(3) Ibid
(4) The resolution's use of the word "war" is of interest. The June 1967 hostilities were not marked by a declaration of war. Certain Arab States have regarded themselves at war with Israel - or, at any rate, in a state of belligerency - since 1948, a questionable position under the law of the Charter. In view of the defeat in the United Nations organs of resolutions holding Israel to have been the aggressor in 1967, presumably the use of the word "war" was not meant to indicate that Israel's action was not in exercise of self-defense. It may be added that territory would not in any event be acquired by war, but, if at all, by the force of treaties of peace.
(5) It should be noted that the resolution does not specify "all territories" or "the territories" but "territories." The subparagraph immediately following is, by way of contrast, more comprehensively cast, specifying "all claims or states of belligerency."
(6) Resolution 242 (1967) of November 22, 1967; 62 AJIL 482 (1968). President Johnson, in an address of September 10, 1968, declared:
We are not the ones to say where other nations should draw the lines between them that will assure each the greatest security. It is clear, however, that a return to the situation of June 4, 1967, will not bring peace. There must be secure and there must be recognized borders ...
At the same time, it should be equally clear that boundaries cannot and should not reflect the weight of conquest. Each change must have a reason which each side, in honest negotiation, can accept as part of a just compromise. (59 Department of State Bulletin 348 [1968])
(7) See, however, Kelsen (2nd ed. by Tucker), Principles of International Law (1967), pp. 420-433.
(8) It should be added that the armistice agreements of 1949 expressly preserved the territorial claims of all parties and did not purport to establish definitive boundaries between them.
(9) Elihu Lauterpacht, Jerusalem and the Holy Places, Anglo-Israel Association, Pamphlet No. 19 (1968), p. 52.

New form of terror attacks?

New form of terrorism?

Henya Meshulam, a Jewish teen-age girl from Hevron, was killed Friday afternoon in a car crash near the city of Efrat. The accident occurred when an Arab driver failed to give the right of way to the vehicle in which Henya was a passenger, and crashed into the side of the car. Several people were injured in the crash.

One day earlier, Israeli citizen Dr. David Matar, a pediatrician and husband of Nadia Matar - Head of the Women in Green - was wounded under similar circumstances near the site of Friday's fatal crash. Dr. Matar suffered broken bones when an Arab driver crashed into his car.