Shafted Shavit Shifts; Shuts Up Schocken

Excerpt:

...the truth must be told: The old left’s “guardians of the city” won’t evacuate a single settlement, won’t bring about the withdrawal from an inch of land and won’t bring peace a single day sooner. Why? Because their systematic disregard of Palestinian rejectionism and the region’s brutality makes them unreliable; their repulsion from the blue-and-white renders them irrelevant. This makes the Israeli public shut its ears to their justified arguments about the settlements, human rights and civil rights. The old left’s inability to prove that it is both Zionist and realistic renders it unable to carry out the great Zionist project of the 21st century – ending the occupation.

...I believe in a different peace. On the basis of my faith that all people are equal and all nations are equal, I insist that the Palestinians also make a contribution to the reconciliation. If they do, fine. If not, it will be our duty to try to end the occupation by ourselves. We cannot fulfill the mission unless we persuade the Israeli majority that we are flesh of its flesh. We will not be able to achieve true peace unless we leave the ghetto walls and deal with reality as it is.

Explanation:

At the beginning of the week Schocken attacked me savagely. He did something that the publishers of the New York Times, New Yorker and Washington Post wouldn’t dream of doing. So be it. I respect and like my publisher and accept both his virtues and weaknesses with love. Therefore I won’t respond in a personal manner, but to the issue at hand. I’ll conduct the debate in Haaretz’s style and spirit, and on the basis of the values of openness and culture that Haaretz represents.

And

The visible rejectionism of Ari Shavit

By Amos Schocken | Mar. 24, 2014 

Turning on the 'Jewish state'

By Ari Shavit | Mar. 20, 2014 

Four reasons why Israel must be recognized as a Jewish state

By Ari Shavit | Feb. 13, 2014 

-------------------------

UPDATE

Here's an excerpt from Schocken's attack on Shavit:

In order to create an artificial balance and justify his position, Shavit invents a Palestinian nationality. If there is a Palestinian nationality (if there is such a thing as a nationality altogether), then in Jordan there are apparently two nationalities – the Palestinian one and the Bedouin one.
“The nation-state of the Jewish people.” What sort of definition is that? Is an Italian Jew whose family has been in Italy since the expulsion from Spain not part of the Italian nationality? We’d all be better off abandoning this sophistry.

Schockening, no?

^

On 'Defiiling' the Temple Mount

‘Abd al-Malik Dhamsha, MK and head of the Islamic party, on Sharon's September 2000 visit to the Temple Mount:

It is a war that every Muslim should be part of. There is no Green Line when al-Aqsa is concerned and this [the reactions] will continue throughout Israel… I cannot see this murderer transgress the most holy place in this land and idly observe from the sideline. Am I not a human being? Am I devoid of emotions, am I not a Muslim? He entered the most holy mosque of the Muslims in order to defile it as a murderer, as a powerful man, a Zionist. Do you honestly believe that we will not face up to it? This act is addressed against our very existence, but we do exist. Our sole culpability is that we are humans and that we have a life and that we have a mosque and a land.

Haaretz, 3.10.2000, p.3  

^

A Joke at Munther Isaac's Expense

I read this:

Munther Isaac...at the Christ at the Checkpoint Conference that took place in Bethlehem a couple of weeks ago...told an antisemitic joke that sickeningly enough, elicited laughter from Evangelical Protestants in attendance at the conference...The scripture he was using in his talk was the parable of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10:29-37), which tells the story of a man being robbed and left for dead by the side of the road.

According to the parable, two religious men a priest and a Levite (Jews) walk passed him ignoring his plight. Finally, a man (known as the Good Samaritan), stops and helps him. Isaac then says the following:

By the way, the two religious people, why did they not stop? This question was asked to a Sunday school boy and the boy answered, “Well because he had no money left.”

The implication is that if the man suffering by the side of the road, the priest and the Levite, both Jews, would have stopped to help the man if he had ... money. A slight smirk can be seen on Isaac’s face before the camera cuts to the audience to show many (but not all) of them laughing.

Well, if Munther wants to be "funny", so can I.

Do you know why the two "Palestinians", who also passed by, did not help?

There were no "Palestinians", ever.

Shall I also be nasty?

They were the brigands who robbed him.

Munther, let's keep ourselves civilized and respectful?

^

Simple Truth

Today the West Bank is commonly referred to as occupied territory, despite the fact that the situation here does not meet the Geneva Conventions’ own definition of occupied territory. Having not previously been the territory of any existing sovereign state it would be more accurate to simply consider the West Bank disputed territory. But as the Levy report acknowledged, if any state has a legitimate claim to this territory it may well be Israel, given that the League of Nations earmarked this land for close Jewish settlement as part of the creation of a Jewish national home.

Source

^

The Meyer Lansky Window

Credit: BMedad

A synagogue in Florida.  Beth Jacob on Washington.

On Meyer.

^

'Protect Me From Geula Cohen'

From the Israel State Archives on the Peace Process

The US proposal and the reactions of Egypt and Israel (10-11 September 1978)

Carter and his team used the day off to put the finishing touches to the US proposal on the basis of the draft drawn up by State Department and NSC experts before the opening of the conference. They knew that it would be very difficult to change Begin's attitude...In the West Bank and Gaza the Arabs would receive full autonomy; after a transitional period of five years the final status of the area would be determined. The IDF would withdraw into specified security locations. The plan also included elements which it would be difficult fro Begin to accept:

• The principle of inadmissibility of acquisition of territory by war and other elements of Resolution 242, such as the statement that it applied "on all fronts" i.e. including the West Bank and the Golan Heights;

• Recognition of the "legitimate rights" of the Palestinian people and their right to take part in determining their future;

• The final status would include Israeli withdrawal to the June 1967 boundaries with minor modifications.

There were also paragraphs on a solution to the refugee problem, including the Jewish refugees (from Arab states) and Jerusalem. The status of Jerusalem would be determined in the negotiations on the West bank and Gaza. Israel, which had extended Israeli law to Jerusalem, wanted it excluded from the talks altogether. But the issue was important to the Saudis, whose political and financial support for Egypt was vital to the success of any agreement...

After the break, Barak presented the changes which Israel proposed, including the deletion of the reference to Resolution 242 "in all its parts" and the principle of "inadmissibility of acquisition of territory". Carter said that he would not have convened the conference unless Israel agreed to accept the resolution. The formula was important to Sadat in order to persuade Jordan to join the talks. As usual Dayan tried to direct the discussion away from abstract principles and legalities to practical problems. Israel was concerned about the possibility that this formula might commit it to withdraw from Judea and Samaria and the Golan. But the present negotiations were not on these issues. Israel had agreed to withdraw from all of Sinai and to abolish the military government in Judea and Samaria. A peace treaty would be made with Jordan, not the Palestinians...At 3 a.m. the meeting ended. Carter invited Dayan to his cabin for a talk. He claimed that Begin was an obstacle to peace and asked for Dayan's help. Dayan replied that Begin truly wanted an agreement.

...Meanwhile the Israeli delegation tried to persuade Begin that Israel could accept the formula that the agreement would be based on Resolution 242 "in all its aspects" with regard to the Palestinian problem. Begin pressed Rosenne, who supported this stand, to give way, and said that this was an American-Arab formula. Dayan accused Begin of forcing his views on the delegation: "It has become impossible to express any views which are different from yours." Begin protested: "Since the [war of ] attrition on the Suez Canal such a war of attrition has not been directed at one man." In the end he accepted the proposal of Barak and Rosenne, saying "It will all fall on my head. I will ask Ezer to protect me from [extremist Knesset member] Geula Cohen."

Source


But why term her "extremist"?


Why not just 

"Tehiyah MK strongly opposed to territorial concessions"?

^

I Won't Be Presenting A Paper

I tried and applied:

From: Yisrael Medad
Sent: 19 March 2014 12:12
To:
Subject: RE: Jordan River Conference

According to your pre-conference notice, the Jordan River Conference aims to focus its attention on the northern sources of the river Jordan its southern course and essentially, would cover in its study both banks of the river Jordan.

I read that the Aram Society is "concerned with all aspects of Syro-Mesopotamian cultures" and that furthermore, "the Syro-Mesopotamian man is born out of a process of cultural continuity" and that "the academic work of Aram is a multidisciplinary one for it combines many different scholarly fields such as archaeology, history, arts, religions, philosophy, literatures and linguistics".

My conceived paper would deal with the cultural, political, religious and historical imagery of the Jordan River in pre-state Mandate Palestine especially, but not exclusively, as an instrument of the Zionist Revisionist stream led by Vladimir-Ze'ev Jabotinsky who, in a poem, coined the phrase "two banks has the Jordan; this one is ours and so is that one".

It would trace various developments such as territorial claims, such as the 1919 map presented at the Versailles Peace Conference and the 1949 Memorandum of the Irgun Tzvai Leumi to the United Nations, the various graphic images of the map including the rifle held aloft over both Mandate Palestine and Transjordan, the attempts by the World Zionist Organization to create Jewish communities in Transjordan in conjunction with the Emir Abdallah as well as Labour movement kibbutzim along its western bank and various songs on the theme of the Jordan River such as those of Naomi Shemer and other Zionist artists. The paper will also touch on school books and other educational material which stressed the existence of Jewish political-military control of areas on both banks as a conscious mobilization instrument.

I have graduated the Hebrew University's Political Science Department with an MA and am currently Director of Information Resources at the Menachem Begin Heritage Center in Jerusalem.

The reply

Dear Mr. Medad

Thank you very much for your interest in the Aram conference on the "River Jordan", but we cannot accept your paper for two reasons. First, the conference is not dealing with the modern history of the Jordan River, and second, we would like to avoid any political paper which may cause misunderstanding and tension.

Yours sincerely,

^

Lessons from Waco

Excerpted from a piece - SACRED AND PROFANE, How not to negotiate with believers, by Malcolm Gladwell -  on Waco and the Branch Davidians:

That is standard negotiation practice, which is based on the idea that, through sufficient patience and reason, a deranged husband or a cornered bank robber can be moved from emotionality to rationality. Negotiation is an exercise in pragmatism—in bargaining over a series of concrete objectives: If you give up one of your weapons, I will bring you water...But, as the conflict-studies scholar Jayne Docherty argues, the F.B.I.’s approach was doomed from the outset. In “Learning Lessons from Waco”—one of the very best of the Mount Carmel retrospectives—Docherty points out that the techniques that work on bank robbers don’t work on committed believers. There was no pragmatism hidden below a layer of posturing, lies, and grandiosity. Docherty uses Max Weber’s typology to describe the Davidians. They were “value-rational”—that is to say, their rationality was organized around values, not goals. A value-rational person would accept his fourteen-year-old daughter’s polygamous marriage, if he was convinced that it was in fulfillment of Biblical prophecy. Because the F.B.I. could not take the faith of the Branch Davidians seriously, it had no meaningful way to communicate with them...

The West, Obama, Kerry, EU, Blair, et al., are stuck in the same mold of seeing the Arab animosity, hostility and rejection of Israel, Jews, Judaism and Zionism as a rational construction of claims for victimhood, of supposed real wrongs that were done to them.

That approach and outlook won't work. 


(thanks to EV)

^

Discussing and Deliberating with Congressmen

Here I am meeting last month with Congressmen David McKinley and Ben Johnson on their visit to Israel, which included Judea and Samaria:

That's at the Psagot Winery/Nahlat Binyamin events center.

^

Another New Book

Following the Daniel Gordis book on Begin last month, and the book on Yair Stern by Patrick Bishop, we now have this

JabotinskyA Life
Hillel Halkin
Vladimir Jabotinsky (1880–1940) was a man of huge paradoxes and contradictions and has been the most misunderstood of all Zionist politicians--a first-rate novelist, a celebrated Russian journalist, and the founder of the branch of Zionism now headed by Benjamin Netanyahu. This biography, the first in English in more than two decades, undertakes to answer central questions about Jabotinsky as a writer, a political thinker, and a leader. Hillel Halkin sets aside the stereotypes to which Jabotinsky has been reduced by his would-be followers and detractors alike.

Halkin explains the importance of Odessa, Jabotinsky’s native city, in molding his character and outlook; discusses his novels and short stories, showing the sometimes hidden connections between them and Jabotinsky’s political thought, and studies a political career that ended in tragic failure. Halkin also addresses Jabotinsky’s position, unique among the great figures of Zionist history, as both a territorial maximalist and a principled believer in democracy. The author inquires why Jabotinsky was often accused of fascist tendencies though he abhorred authoritarian and totalitarian politics, and investigates the many opposed aspects of his personality and conduct while asking whether or not they had an ultimate coherence. Few figures in twentieth-century Jewish life were quite so admired and loathed, and Halkin’s splendid, subtle book explores him with empathy and lucidity.

^

Will Barry Shrage Resign?

First, there was this response to the Harvard students' visit to arch-terrorist Arafat's grave:

TO:               Board of Directors, Past Board Members            
FROM:          Barry Shrage
DATE:           March 20, 2014      
SUBJECT:     A response to recent attacks on CJP and our Harvard Student “Trek”                          to Israel

Yesterday CJP and a group of deeply committed student leaders were the subject of vicious attacks by ideologically motivated bloggers from across the country.  The bloggers took one photo out of context to smear our Federation and a group of students whose only motivation was to tell Israel’s story and connect their fellow students to Israel in all its beauty and complexity.

The students who led the mission are among the brightest and most deeply committed I know.  They have consistently fought for Israel and against the forces of BDS at Harvard.  They created a huge and highly effective symposium at Harvard http://www.timesofisrael.com/harvard-conference-to-present-the-real-story-on-israel/     to counter the infamous “One State” anti-Israel conference that preceded it at the University.  The organizers include four IDF veterans who fought for Israel as soldiers and continue to fight on behalf of Israel on their campus.

The blog that you may have seen attacking the “trek” is a good example of the terrible polarization within the American Jewish community where a few bloggers at the extreme edge of the Jewish community can demonize those who try  to deal honestly with the complexities of life in Israel.

We at CJP are committed to continuing to work to bring both Jews and non-Jews to Israel, to help structure and fund missions that can capture and reveal the amazing achievements of Israel in technology, business, the arts and society and also to examine the complexities and challenges facing Israel today. We believe that understanding those challenges and opportunities from a first-hand perspective is the best way to create knowledgeable and informed supporters of Israel and to strengthen the bonds between the American and Israeli people.

Wow.  That's some counter-attack.  Barry is really pissed off.  Angry.

But, wait, there's a second response:

Thank you all so much for your support and feedback on yesterday’s email.  Our staff and volunteers worked hard on our response and the Harvard College Israel Trek leaders in Israel worked all night on their thoughtful reply to the distortions that threatened their work and their mission. The response was especially important because the kind of mission that they worked so hard to create is crucial for our Israel Advocacy efforts. A mission that is honest about Israel’s complexity and that allows for other voices always attracts the kind of Jewish and non-Jewish opinion leaders we need and invariably brings most of them closer to Israel and to an understanding of the dangers and dilemmas Israelis face every single day.

In yesterday’s message I emphasized the dangers of bloggers and others who use the power and reach of the internet to distort meaning. Anyone with even a passing knowledge of the work we do in support of Israel every day would never accuse CJP of using a mission to glorify Yasser Arafat.  Of course that kind of messaging ultimately distorts reality, weakens our community and worse yet weakens the ability of people like our trek organizers to do their work:  spreading Israel’s message and strengthening Israel Advocacy.

The Jewish community and the State of Israel are beset by many enemies, who privately wish for and publicly call for our eradication. They hardly need the assistance of some who are eager to spread distortions and facts taken out of context far and wide on the internet.

But  I failed to also point out that bloggers can serve a useful purpose.  They can closely monitor the work of the Jewish community.  Bloggers who operate with adherence to facts and proper context keep us on the right track and expose weaknesses that, if addressed can ultimately strengthen our community.   The picture that set off the controversy was originally posted by one such writer, Daniel Mael, a student at Brandeis who is also, like our student leaders on the Trek a strong supporter of Israel who has fought for Israel throughout his high school days (at Gann) and now at Brandeis.  His blogging throughout the day was honest and straightforward and actually strongly supportive of the mission while also expressing his shock at the picture at Arafat’s grave.  I’m afraid that my email yesterday unfairly placed him and perhaps many others in the company of some who were far less fair minded and for that I apologize.

Finally I need to say that I and many others were deeply shocked by the photo at Arafat’s grave. While the dialogue with Palestinian leaders was essential to the purposes and success of the mission the photo at the grave was deeply offensive. Yasser Arafat was a vicious terrorist who caused the death of thousands of innocents but in addition, his hatred of Israel caused him to destroy a promising peace process and the hopes and dreams of Israelis and Palestinians alike for peace between our peoples.

Clearly the group was not there to “pay respects” but even the appearance of “honoring Arafat’s memory” never  should have happened and must never be repeated, a view that is clearly shared by our student leaders as well.

Thank you again for your support As always I welcome your thoughts and feedback.

Shabbat Shalom and
Best wishes for a  beautiful and meaningful Passover.
Barry Shrage

Barry, I do not know how you would categorize me, but if the above is any indication of strong, committed, responsible and dedicated leadership, your board should request your resignation.

That was backtracking.  You erred in the first place and don't look good in the second.

______

A promotional poster for the trip:

^ 

Jabotinsky's Sword

I read this

A historic sword belonging to the Zionist leader Zev Jabotinsky was presented to the Israel Police in a special ceremony on Monday. Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu presented the sword to Israel Police Commissioner Yohanan Danino and others.
The sword was confiscated from Jabotinsky by the British authorities in Jerusalem in 1920. Jabotinsky had been organizing self-defense units to defend the Jewish community against Arab terrorists when he was arrested by the British and imprisoned.

A British historian of the Mandate period, Martin Higgins, in the Police Historical Archives claims to have "discovered it" and passed the "stolen" sword on to the one Shlomi Chetrit with the Israel Police Historical Unit:

החרב הגיעה לידי מרטין היגינס, היסטוריון בריטי המתמחה בתולדות משטרת המנדט, ובעקבות בקשת המשטרה, הוא הגיע לארץ עם החרב והעבירה לאנשי חוליית ההיסטוריה במחלקה.

"את שגזלה משטרת המנדט מז'בוטינסקי לפני 94 שנים, אני, בשם משטרת ישראל האמונה על ביצור שלטון החוק, משיב לידיך, ראש הממשלה" אמר דנינו לנתניהו. "החזרת החרב מסמלת את ניצחונו של עם ישראל, את תקומת המדינה ואת העובדה שהיום יש לנו משטרה ישראלית, שתפקידה לשמור ולחזק את הביטחון האישי. ברגע זה אנו עושים צדק היסטורי".

And I thought to myself - 'that's odd'.

So I opened up a book on my shelf and found this:

So, if the sword was extant in 1964 when Jabotinsky was reinterred in Israel at which time Yaakov Meridor placed it on Rosh Betar's coffin, where did it go to that the police "found" it?

Were there two swords?

________________

UPDATE

From what I have gathered this morning, the sword presented to the Prime Minister is definitely not Jabotinsky's British army sword. That is located at the Jabotinsky Institute. It is an Ottoman sword and has the half-crescent and star symbol engraved on it.

The story is that it supposedly was taken from Jabo's rooms during a search and perhaps was taken by him as a souvenir.  I doubt that.  But the check in England claims it was taken from him when he arrived at the Kishleh police station.



^

Futterman Is Fooling Us

Don Futterman, who I know and worked with on the Begin Center's "Junior Knesset" project more than a decade ago, is program director for Israel for the Moriah Fund, a private American foundation working to strengthen civil society and promote peace in Israel.   He wrote this in an article in Haaretz:

The majority of West Bank Palestinians polled today, according to Dr. Shikaki, favor a peaceful resolution to the conflict. When surveyed about which democracy they admire, Palestinians rank Israel first, above the United States, and place the Palestinian Authority last.  Such admiration bespeaks the mixed and complicated feelings toward Israel that would naturally result from years of occupation and close proximity, not monolithic hatred.  Few Israeli Jews hear these voices, perhaps because peaceful Palestinians threaten our government’s narrative more than violent ones.

Let's take a look at some polls on the question of "violence":

Public Opinion Poll Number 80 – November – 2013

Q15. In general, what is the best method to achieve the Palestinian people’sgoals of ending the occupation and establishing a state?Total/West Bank/Gazan= 1200/n= 750/n=450Peaceful negotiations 32.3/35.2/27.6Armed resistance (armed Intifada) 29.3/22.3/41.1Non-violent resistance (peaceful Popular Intifada) 27.1/29.5/23.1Other 2.5/1.7/3.6I don’t know \ No answer 8.8/11.3/4.6

Note there above that "peaceful negotiation" do not necessarily negate or are in tandem with "armed resistance" so the "majority" is quite unclear.

And in this next one, "armed resistance" isn't included so how can it be measured as opposed to non-violence?

Q16. In your opinion, as an individual, which of the following options ismost beneficial to improve the situation of the Palestinian people?Total/West Bank/Gazan= 1200/n= 750/n=450Joining a Palestinian political party 21.8/18.3/27.6Becoming involved in a non-violent movement or organization (non-affiliatedto a political party) (e.g. popular committer against the wall)22.7/20.9/25.6Taking part in regular non-violent demonstrations against the Israelioccupation 34.1/33.9/34.4I don’t know 16.9/21.1/10.0No answer 4.5/5.8/2.4

In a December 2012 poll, these results were recorded:

Hamas gains in strength among the Palestinian public. If new presidential elections were held in the PA, Haniyeh would win with 48% of the vote of those participating, to Abbas’s 45%. Three months ago, Abbas received the support of 51% and Haniyeh 40%. The percentage of vote for Haniyeh is the highest since Hamas’ electoral victory in 2006. In legislative elections, 35% of those who would participate say they would vote for Hamas and 36% for Fateh,. These results indicate a sharp increase in Hamas’ popularity compared to our September results when it stood at 28%;

Hamas is not non-violent.  Yesterday, we heard from Haniyah:

"Stop negotiating with the enemy," he told the PA. "We will not recognise Israel."Mushir al-Masri, a top Hamas leader, told the crowd that the group opposes peace talks with Israel and is always prepared for battle.  "Our fingers are on the trigger to defend our people," said al-Masri.

and thousands of Hamas supporters who attended a major rally in Gaza City [yesterday]  that was held under the motto, “Loyalty and Persistence on the Path of the Martyrs” heard Haniyah say 

that the Qassam Brigades, the armed wing of the resistance movement Hamas, is using tunnels as a new strategy in resisting Israel.  "Palestinian resistance fighters will face the Israeli occupation both from on the ground and beneath it until they liberate Palestine," Haniyeh told thousands of Gaza residents who rallied to mark the 10th anniversary of the assassination of Hamas spiritual leader Sheikh Ahmed Yassin.

And in 2010, there was this:

1. With regards to rebuilding confidence in the peace process please indicate which of the following options you consider to be ‘Essential’, ‘Desirable’, ’Acceptable’, ‘Tolerable’ or ‘Unacceptable’.Resist occupation through violence to achieve a state:Essential 36.7%; Desirable 18.7%; Acceptable 16.8%; Tolerable 14.0%; Unacceptable 13.7%

In 2008 

A new poll shows that an overwhelming majority of Palestinians support the attack this month on a Jewish seminary in Jerusalem that killed eight young men, most of them teenagers, an indication of the alarming level of Israeli-Palestinian tension in recent weeks.

The survey also shows unprecedented support for the shooting of rockets on Israeli towns from the Gaza Strip and for the end of the peace negotiations between Palestinian and Israeli leaders.

The pollster, Khalil Shikaki, said he was shocked because the survey, taken last week, showed greater support for violence than any other he had conducted over the past 15 years in the Palestinian areas. Never before, he said, had a majority favored an end to negotiations or the shooting of rockets at Israel.

In other words, Futterman is taking refuge in a one-time flash-in-the-plan, a poll which itself is unclear about the question and surely does not point to a conclusive trend whereas the recent history is consistent in favor of terror and violence.  And the "peace" they want, even through 'non-violence', is a violent end to Israel through the 'right of return' and non-recognition of Israel's Jewish national ethos.

Moreover, given the "glorifying" of terrorists, the continuous incitement over PA-sponsored media, the educational textbooks, etc., it is violnce that is the staple of activity. 

Futterman is fooling us.

^

Sitting on a Prime Minister's Tail

Telegram From the Embassy in Israel to the Department of State

Tel Aviv, April 5, 1955—4 p.m.859. Embassy submits the following comments in regards to Sharett’s presentation yesterday as reported Embtel 858...
...3. Sharett yesterday afternoon gave the impression of a man under great emotional strain who had been subjected to strong pressures from his colleagues during the morning Cabinet session.

Wow. 

The United States was sitting on Sharett's tail, meeting only a few hours following the Cabinet session.

Does that happen today still?

^

Drone Alongside the Temple Mount

This man

was arrested for supposedly flying (Hebrew) a mini-drone near the Temple Mount (he seems to have walked along the cemetery path adhacent to the Eastern Wall) to film shots of the view.

See here and here.

I can't wait to learn what the police think his "crime" is.

^

Protecting Settlers --- In 1955

“We are not going to withdraw our patrols. They are there to protect our settlers. If they were not there the settlers could not work in their fields and they could not harvest their crops. They would soon be overrun by people from the Gaza strip. Our patrols take their lives in their hands every time they go out. We cannot permit them to go out without protection and we are going to supply that protection.” As long as this situation remains “we shall have to hit back.” Nothing in UN charter precludes nation acting in self-defense. If present state of affairs goes on “then it is goodbye to the armistice agreement.” Such will be the inevitable outcome. We do not wish this to happen, you do not want this to happen.

That was from April 5, 1955 and the writer was US Ambassador Lawson reporting on a conversation with Prime Minister Moshe Sharett.

^

A 1954 US Diplomatic View

Found at FRUS

United States' diplomat waxing philosophical.

Imagine what we'll find in another 30 years when the documents of today are availbale for study and research.

P.S.

What really bothered the West:

Secretary of State John Dulles.


^

Herut Newspaper's Use of Quotation Marks

In many stories relating to Israel, certain terms are placed occasionally in quotations marks, as if to cast suspicion or doubt on their use or to scare.  It is done in connection with other stories, and recently also here, as we read:

A spokeswoman for the US State Department has acknowledged that the Kunming attack was an act of terrorism on Tuesday after China’s largest journalist association condemned Western media for “harbouring ulterior motives” when reporting last Saturday’s massacre that left 29 dead.

When asked to comment by a Hong Kong-based Phoenix TV reporter at a regular news briefing, Jen Psaki acknowledged that “the attack appeared to be an act of terrorism” because of a lack of “any other independent information”.  But she eventually gave in after being repeatedly asked to respond. “So we are calling this an act of terrorism,” she was quoted as saying.

Also on Tuesday, the government-backed All-China Journalists Association (ACJA), the country’s most authoritative journalist organisation, published a statement on its website stating “Some Western media ignored the most fundamental rule of journalism, displaying ambiguous attitudes and ulterior motives.”

The statement named television network CNN, and the Associated Press news agency, both US-based media organisations, claiming that in reports of the Kunming attack quotation marks were placed around words such as “terrorism” and “assailants” was used rather than “terrorists”... “Such practice shows ‘double standards’, violating the principle of objectivity in journalism and showing a lack of basic professional ethics,” the association said in its statement...

I, searching for some news items in the 1950s, found another use by the Herut newspaper in its July 26, 1956 issue:

The headline reads:

Rabbat Ammon: 

9 "Jordanians"

Wounded

Two points:

a) since the Herut Movement led by Menachem Begin never recognized the legitimacy of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, it being an imperialist creation on the territory of the Jewish National Home, its existence was in limbo for that newspaper;

and

b) the name of the capital of Jordan was always given as the original Biblical name.

A second item from February 15, 1960:

A Theft of Amatzia's Cattle Herd

Was Done by "Jordanians"

^

Security is in the Topography

From here:-

Actually, without the hills of Judea and Samaria, not only cannot Israel protect the Jordan Valley but also the rest of Israel.

^

Obama - Israel's Security Liability

If you read this

U.S. insists: Ya'alon has not apologized
Obama administration official denies Israeli defense minister apologized to counterpart Chuck Hagel in widely reported phone conversation for 'offensive and highly disappointing comments.'
The Obama administration is insisting on an explicit apology from Israeli Defense Minister Ya'alon and is refusing to make do with his widely-reported conversation on Thursday with Defense Secretary Hagel.

...The extent of Americans' rage with Ya'alon was also shown by unusual public statements made by two Jewish groups with close ties to the Obama administration who blasted the Israeli defense minister.  In the harsher of the two, Rabbi Jack Moline of The National Jewish Democratic Council, the main Jewish group affiliated with the Democratic Party, said that “Ya'alon has clearly crossed a line with these absurd and over-the-top attacks against Israel’s strongest ally. His remarks are simply inappropriate for someone of Ya'alon’s stature, and we condemn these counterproductive and damaging statements.”
The Israeli Policy Forum, a pro-peace group, said in a statement that it “condemns recent statements by Ya'alon that insulted the Obama administration and harshly criticized American foreign policy in the Middle East and around the world.”

you may have not read this:

Saudi Prince Criticizes Obama Administration, Citing Indecision in Mideast
By STEVEN ERLANGER
Published: December 15, 2013

An influential Saudi prince blasted the Obama administration on Sunday for what he called indecision and a loss of credibility with allies in the Middle East, saying that American efforts to secure a peace deal between Israelis and Palestinians would founder without a clear commitment from President Obama.

“We’ve seen several red lines put forward by the president, which went along and became pinkish as time grew, and eventually ended up completely white,” said Prince Turki al-Faisal, the former intelligence chief of Saudi Arabia. “When that kind of assurance comes from a leader of a country like the United States, we expect him to stand by it.” He added, “There is an issue of confidence.”

Mr. Obama has his problems, the prince said, but when a country has strong allies, “you should be able to give them the assurance that what you say is going to be what you do.” The prince no longer has any official position but has lately been providing the public expression of internal Saudi views with clear approval from the Saudi government.

because if you did read it, you're probably thinking to yourself, WTF!  What is with Obama? What's with his animosity to Israel?  Is he picking on the weaker one?  And what does that mean for Israel's future security?

And you may be thinking to yourself - those are Jews?

Put together, is Obama, as one of my friends noted, bitch-slapping?  Has he - not America - become a security liability for Israel?

^