So the laughter of Purim is past, and we’re back to the world of the “negotiations” – with the distortions, and posturing, and lies. And so, I sigh. Needless to say, I like Purim better.
There are, in fact, two negotiating processes that call for examination. Today I will look at what is euphemistically referred to as the “Peace Negotiations” between Israel and the Palestinian Arabs. Actually, there haven’t been any direct negotiations for a while now, as each side communicates only with US representatives.
Yesterday, Abbas met with Obama at the White House. Reports are that Obama “pressed” him:
“We’re going to have to take some tough political decisions and risks if we’re to move it forward. My hope is that we can continue to see progress in the coming days and weeks.”
The posturing is certainly clear: “…continue to see progress…” Precisely what progress has there been so far? And what tough political decisions does Obama REALLY expect Abbas to make?
Obama’s words notwithstanding, there was no implied threat leveled at Abbas, as there had been at Netanyahu, a few weeks ago.
There are several issues that have become the focus of these stalled “negotiations.”
One is the matter of the PA recognizing Israel as the State of the Jewish People. Netanyahu has presented this demand, up front, as a necessary condition for peace. What’s been going on is that Abbas has now begun hedging it, claiming that in this or that fashion, in this or that context, he or his predecessor, Yasser Arafat, had already done so.
Well, folks, this is simply not the case. Nor will it be the case. There are two very essential reasons for this. The first has to do with the Muslim Arab perception that Israel is illegitimate – a Jewish interloper in the Muslim world. From a religious perspective, it is incomprehensible that they would acknowledge as legitimate a Jewish state on land they perceive to be Muslim. Islam is supposed to supersede Judaism, so how could a Jewish state arise in a Muslim area?
And that is precisely why Netanyahu makes this demand: Unless the PLO/PA acknowledges – officially, on the record – that a Jewish state can be legitimate in this part of the world, the Muslims will continue to seek our annihilation.
The second has to be do with “right of return”: If Israel is Jewish, this would preclude a mass exodus of ersatz refugees, who are Muslims, into Israel. But “right of return” is something Abbas swears not to relinquish.
It is being claimed, first, that the Arab world recognized a Jewish state with UN General Assembly Resolution 181, which in 1947 recommended partition of the Mandate land into a Jewish state and an Arab state. The catch here is that ALL of the Arab states rejected this resolution.
Then Abbas said that recognition was offered as part of the Oslo Accords in 1993, but this is not the case either. The PLO recognized “Israel,” not as a Jewish state. In fact, Abbas is cited as having recently lamented that:
“We recognized Israel in mutual recognition in the (1993) Oslo agreement — why do they now ask us to recognize the Jewishness of the state?”
Perhaps even more troubling than the Palestinian Arab position on this issue is the US position. Talk about duplicity. For a while press statements from the Americans acknowledged the right of Israel to be recognized as a Jewish state and accorded Israel that recognition. Then the backtracking began, with statements about how, yes, the US acknowledged a Jewish Israel, but that was not necessarily the position of all parties, and it was yet to be determined how this would be resolved in negotiations. Blah, blah…
Most recently, Kerry was cited as saying to a Congressional committee that:
…he thought it was “a mistake for some people to be raising it [Jewish state recognition] again and again as the critical decider of their attitude toward the possibility of a state and peace.” (Emphasis added)
Translation: we cannot get the PA to change its stance here, so it’s time to start criticizing Israeli leaders, who are just troublemakers, for making this demand.
Kerry being true to form.
Another major issue has to do with the release of Arab prisoners. Israel had committed to releasing 104 in four groups, over the course of the nine months of negotiations. This was to induce Abbas to come to the table in the first place.
The final group of 26 is supposed to be scheduled for release in a little over a week. The problem now is that this group is said to include Arabs who are Israeli citizens and the notion of releasing them at the demand of the PA arouses the considerable ire of many Israelis (myself included).
PA leaders refer to these Israeli citizens as “our revolutionary Palestinian brothers from the Interior (i.e., Israel). …. from Palestine that was occupied in 1948, our brothers from the 1948 occupation.” (Emphasis added)
This is a dead giveaway, for anyone who is paying attention, with regard to how the PA sees Israel, even the Israel established in 1948 – as totally not legitimate, and certainly not a Jewish state, because it all belongs to the Palestinian Arabs.
Obviously, the Arab prisoners who are Israeli citizens – with the full rights and benefits bestowed by citizenship – were encouraged to absorb this mindset and to be disloyal to their country: acts of violence as expressions of that disloyalty put them in prison. But as they are Israeli citizens, it is for Israel to deal with them. How galling is it then, that the PA should seek their release.
Before Israeli prisoners can be released, there will have to be another vote in the full Israeli Cabinet, and it is far from a sure thing that this would pass.
Minister of Economics Naftali Bennett (head of Habayit Hayehudi) is a member of the Security Cabinet. Yesterday he made a statement that there would be no Israeli Arabs released in this last group.
What is more, he is calling for a Cabinet meeting to discuss cancellation of this entire final group (tranche) of 26 prisoners:
“Now that it is clear to everyone that there is no advance in the negotiations – all there is is the firing of missiles [from Gaza] and an escalation by [Abbas] on his side – I think it is time for the Cabinet to discuss the matter of the fourth tranche in order to try and find the logic [in a release] when [Abbas] is already saying – ‘I just want the terrorists and then I will derail the negotiations.’
“So, we will give him terrorists just so he can derail the negotiations? What is the logic in this?”
Bennett is absolutely correct here.
The last issue I will mention is that of the continuation of the talks beyond the deadline of April 29th. What is going to happen is anyone’s guess. Abbas is threatening to go to international agencies, starting with the UN, should negotiations come to an end.
Should he do this, he would have abrogated the terms of Oslo (not for the first time), and then Israel would be a position to declare the Accords null and void – but would be exceedingly unlikely to do this. This is something I would like to revisit in some detail at the appropriate time.
The US desperately wants the negotiations to continue.
Regretfully, our government has made statements about a readiness to continue as well. A different tone from that of Bennett, who has addressed the foolishness of extending this situation. I hasten to point out here that Netanyahu’s declarations of readiness do not mean that he is truly eager to pursue that “two state solution” (see about Ya’alon below) or even that he thinks the talks actually will continue. I have had information from some very solid sources indicating that the prime minister anticipates that the negotiations may end in failure in the coming weeks. This is Netanyahu being himself.
And Abbas? He is milking the situation for all it’s worth – making threats, attempting to secure additional concessions: he certainly understands the eagerness of the Americans for an extension of the talks and he plays them for all he can.
If we should withhold release of the Israeli Arabs, this might finish it for Abbas, whose reputation rests in some good measure on his ability to secure the release of prisoners. He may find he would have to walk away in that situation. What he is actually doing now is demanding as the price for staying at the table (along with other things) the release of additional prisoners beyond the 104 that had been originally discussed.
Just days ago, Defense Minister Ya’alon made a statement to Israeli TV regarding the peace process:
Abbas, he said, was “a partner for taking, but not a partner for giving. He’s not a partner for a final agreement, at the end of which there is recognition of Israel’s rights as the nation state of the Jewish people, an end of the conflict and an end to all demands. He [Abbas] says this openly.”
I continue to find it difficult to believe that a man this high in the government would make such statements on a critical issue without a nod from the prime minister.
Ya’alon further said that he was opposed to the release of Israeli Arab prisoners. Maybe, he declared, Abbas “got from Kerry” the impression that Israeli citizens would be released, but that Israel had not made such a commitment.
By: Lloyd Marcus
I had an extraordinary telephone conservation with my 86 year old black dad, a lifelong Democrat and huge Obama fan. He called to ask me, “Is Obama anti-Christian?” Dad has been a Christian pastor for over 50 years. I said, “Dad, I have been telling you about Obama’s anti-Christian policies for the past five years.” Dad replied, “And I have not been listening.”
Dad confessed that he simply could not bring himself to go against a black man in the White House. I felt dad was expressing the sentiments of many blacks of his era. I asked Dad to explain why he could not honestly assess our black president.
Dad became passionate. He said it was because of deep, deep scars he suffered at the hands of white people. Dad said, “I don’t hate white people, but my scars run very deep; calling me a n***** and rubbing my head for luck.”
He shared about the awful things he experienced while in the Merchant Marines around 1946. Dad and Jackson were the only blacks on the ship. Dad was a Quartermaster.
He said the crew was sea-weary, exhausted and emotionally spent after almost losing their ship in a storm. The crew was extremely excited and really looking forward to their much needed shore leave when they landed in St Petersburg Florida.
Upon their arrival, word came down that every crew member had shore leave except Marcus and Jackson. St Petersburg had a curfew for “coloreds”. Blacks could not be on the streets after dark.
Dad said he broke down in tears. Jackson was enraged and began cussing. He yelled at Dad for crying. “Marcus, knock it off!”
Word spread among the sailors that there were two coloreds on the base. The sailors were outraged by Dad and Jackson’s presence on their base. On several occasions the two young black men had to be encircled by guards for protection.
Dad and Jackson took their chip which granted them a hair cut to the base barber shop. The barber said, “I ain’t never cut a darky’s hair and I ain’t gonna start now! My razor just might slip and cut a darky’s ear off.”
Jackson and Dad had to eat their meals in the mess hall alone after everyone else had eaten.
Another ship arrived at the base. When the crew of that ship heard about the two n****** on base, a mob of them stormed the building where Jackson and Dad were. The angry mob planned to lynch the two n******.
Chased by the mob, Dad and Jackson, assisted by shipmates, fled down back stairs to the office of the officer-in-charge who confronted the mob. “Now look here boys. I know you don’t want these coloreds here. I don’t want them here either. We told them people in New York not to send them down here, but they did it anyway. And by golly, we are gonna do right by them.” The mob dispersed.
Then, the officer had the nerve to instruct Dad and Jackson, “Now you boys leave them alone.”
On another occasion, Dad and his white buddy, Armstrong, had to catch a train to meet their ship in California. While waiting at the train station, an official approached Dad, “What are you doin’ boy? Don’t you know your place?” The official escorted Dad to the rundown horrible colored waiting room.
Enraged, Dad said he turned to Armstrong and said, “You white son of a b****!” Dad said he was not a curser and he knew it was not Armstrong’s fault. He was just so humiliated and frustrated.
In the 1950s when Dad broke the color barrier to become a Baltimore City fire fighter, his humiliation continued. In the firehouse, Dad could not drink from the same coffee pot as the white firemen; separate eating utensils, sleeping area and bath room.
Dad said he could go on and on about racial injustices which have left him with deep scars.
Dad is not on the internet. He said, “My computer and I are not on speaking terms.”
I told Dad I was going to send him information in the mail confirming that Barrack Obama is anti-Christian. http://bit.ly/1lC00Qb
For the first time, I felt emboldened to challenge Dad regarding this sensitive issue. I said, “Dad, once you know the truth about Obama, which loyalty will reign supreme? Will it be your loyalty to a fellow black man or your commitment to Jesus Christ.”
Dad chuckled and replied without hesitation, “It will be to Jesus Christ.”
By: Nelson Abdullah
Conscience of a Conservative
No magician ever tried to perform a magic act with an ugly female assistant. The art of magic is distraction and it applies to politics as well. Politicians know this is among the most important rules they must learn. The first time I heard the expression, “Chicks up front” was back in the 1970s during the anti-war demonstrations that were sprouting up on so many college campuses. It was chanted by the young leftists who were waving the pro-Viet Cong flags. “Chicks up front” meant putting the pretty girls in the front line of the demonstration to guarantee that the event was covered on television and in the newspapers. After all, sex sells, and that’s the best way to get the sympathetic media to show the film and print the photos. Nothing seems to have changed today.
A video is being shown around on conservative web sites of a pretty girl wearing a pro-Obama t-shirt making a speech denouncing her one time hero as a fraud and liar to everything she stood for. She then pulls off her shirt, revealing to everyone’s disappointment, that she is still wearing clothes, and proceeds to set the t-shirt on fire, burning it in protest.
And the conservatives loved it. The men did, anyway but for all the wrong reasons. Most of the comments were divided between how hot she looked and how she should eat her own words of support for Obama.
One conservative writer named Daniel Greenfield, found out just who this pretty girl was and wrote about her on Front Page Mag. Turns out her reasons for burning her shirt aren’t what you may may think. Her complaint about Obama is that he isn’t far enough to the Left as she wants.
About That “Girl Burning an Obama” Shirt Viral Video…
“The video is going viral on conservative sites so I thought that it might be a good idea to provide some context.
Carey Elizabeth Wedler is Adam Kokesh’s girlfriend. Kokesh is a radical anti-war activist who worked with Code Pink and MoveOn.org. He briefly had a TV show on Putin’s RT propaganda network.
Wedler has been pulling the “I’m no longer an Obama fan” routine for a while now over the usuals for the Ron Paul crowd, mainly drone strikes on Al Qaeda terrorists.
Like Kokesh and the rest of that crowd, Wedler is a sick twisted individual filled with hate for her own country. You can see a sample of that in her post after the Boston Marathon bombings: “The Victims of American Terrorism”.”
Carey Wedler isn’t attacking Obama from the right, she’s attacking him from the left. She feels that he hasn’t done enough to surrender to terrorists.
Read the rest here along with the embedded links: http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/dgreenfield/about-that-girl-burning-an-obama-shirt-viral-video/
So the next time a liberal tries to distract you from what they are really doing, remember the rule that all magicians follow: distraction. It always works. Put the chicks up front.
My name is Nelson Abdullah and I am Oldironsides.