There is a constant effort — especially by the anti-Israel left–to portray those who express mainstream Israeli public opinion and the views of professional analysts as “right-wing” or “Likudnik.” This leads me to wonder what one would have to say to please these people. What would be the equivalent of a “liberal” position for Israel according to them? What kinds of positions would they see as legitimate?
What follows is not meant to exaggerate in any way but is, I believe, a genuine list of what they demand. To please them, I presume one would have to say the following:
Thus far the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan has weathered the storm that has swept across the Middle East since the beginning of the year. But the relative calm in Amman is an illusion. The unspoken truth is that the Palestinians, the country’s largest ethnic group, have developed a profound hatred of the regime and view the Hashemites as occupiers of eastern Palestine — intruders rather than legitimate rulers. This, in turn, makes a regime change in Jordan more likely than ever. Such a change, however, would not only be confined to the toppling of yet another Arab despot but would also open the door to the only viable peace solution — and one that has effectively existed for quite some time: a Palestinian state in Jordan.
On September 28th, the world was supposed to celebrate, but conveniently forgot the anniversary of the Israeli-Palestinian Interim Agreement, widely known as the Oslo Accords. Three political stooges, Yasser Arafat, Yitzhak Rabin, and Shimon Perez received the Nobel Peace Prize for signing this worthless piece of paper, which was based on fake promises made by Yasser Arafat in a letter to then Israeli Prime Minister Rabin on September 9, 1993.
As September approaches, many are waiting with bated breath to learn if Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas will deliver on his threat to unilaterally declare an independent Palestinian state and seek recognition of it through the U.N. But in putting the Palestinian demand for statehood to a vote, Abbas will end up subverting the international organization’s longstanding solution to the Arab Israeli-conflict — U.N. Security Council Resolution 242 — with unpredictable results.
The 18th annual Dr. Manfred R. Lehmann Memorial Israel Day Concert in Central Park set the tone for an ebullient celebration of Israel’s 63rd birthday as premiere entertainers and prominent speakers appeared before thousands at the Summer Stage in the park. Thousands of “Celebrate Israel” parade participants and spectators filed into Central Park after the conclusion of the 47th annual parade for some traditional Jewish entertainment and enlightenment.
Recently, UCLA professor of English and advocate of a single state solution to the Israeli-Arab conflict Saree Makdisi spoke in the student union at the University of Pennsylvania. The lecture, sponsored by the Penn Middle East Center (MEC), the English Department, the Greenfield Intercultural Center, and the Penn Arab Student Society, represented another in a series of events sponsored by the university-funded Middle East Center that brought known anti-Israel speakers to Penn, including UCLA’s James Gelvin, Stanford’s Joel Beinin, artists Reza Kanazi and Radio Rahim, and numerous film screenings. To get a better sense of the level of bias at MEC, consider the following: in the first four months of 2011, the MEC underwrote eight events co-sponsored by Penn for Palestine and associated groups, but none by the Penn Israel Coalition or other pro-Israel campus groups. Moreover, by inviting an English professor like Makdisi, whose academic specialty is eighteenth and nineteenth-century British poetry, MEC privileges his anti-Israel politics over his lack of specialized knowledge of the Middle East.
Editor’s note: This article was written in response to a post on the “Free Muslim Coalition Against Terrorism’s” website promoting a one-state solution to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict.
Stating the truth that Judea and Samaria are parts of Israel (historically, biblically and according to all agreements and UN resolutions) is not a claim, it is a fact. Withdrawing from those lands completely and leaving it in the hands of “Fatas” — the new Fatah-Hamas alliance — will make Israel more vulnerable and that is not only according to Jews, it is the basis of the planned, stepwise hudna (a Muslim tactical ceasefire for the purposes of regrouping before again attacking the enemy) that the Palestinians are counting on to subdue Israel.
What surprised me more about President Obama’s speech to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) than its content was the way the audience fawned all over him and clapped at his every platitude. It was like a meeting of the Soviet Politburo in the 1960’s. He reiterated his views on shrinking Israel (with land swaps but he knows that Israel has no significant amount of land to swap). America, he assured us, will be at Israel’s side during this entire process to hold her hand as she gets used to the inconvenient truth, based in Marxist ideology, that the proletariat (the Palestinians) need more room to expand at the expense of the successful bourgeoisie Israelis. Building a new country not based on Western standards and without asking it to stop its annihilationist charters and Islamist conquest is fine with the Obami. Israel is being asked to turn over the keys to people who have in mind its future destruction.
In a recent major speech at the State Department, President Obama, addressing the “democratic” revolution in the Middle East and North Africa — predictably Israel became the main point of attention again. Obama, like many of his predecessors (Carter, both Bushs, and Clinton) has made another attempt to resurrect the peace process between Israel and so-called Palestinians.
“Our mood is not one of celebration. Our mood is one of caution and concern. Unease sits heavily on our shoulders”, declared US Senate majority leader Harry Reid (D-NV) at the 2011 AIPAC Policy Conference in Washington, DC. Expressing concern about the security of Israel he said, “At no time in Israel’s history has her future faced such tension and such serious tests. Uncertainty awaits us on many fronts.”
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was greeted with great enthusiasm and thunderous applause at the concluding banquet of the 2011 AIPAC Policy Conference in Washington last night. “America! We’re with you, this day and every day”, he said, mentioning the tragic death tolls in the aftermath of the tornadoes in Joplin, Missouri.
Let’s make it simple by calling the Fatah — Hamas marriage “Fatas” for the sake of brevity. Fatas is no peace movement and does not follow the teachings of Ghandi nor Martin Luther King.
And yet recent headlines from the left and emanating from would-be conquerors in the Palestinian camp would have us believe otherwise, read: Israel fears Palestinian nonviolence, Here comes your non-violent resistance, Non-Violent Resistance.
In an address aimed at placating his disgruntled Jewish supporters, President Barack Obama told his audience of over 10,000 at the annual AIPAC policy conference in Washington on Sunday that “a strong and secure Israel is in the interest of the United States and the bond between our two vibrant democracies must be nurtured.”
Taking intense criticism from pro-Israel supporters since he delivered a significant Middle East policy speech on Thursday in which he called for Israel to negotiate a future Palestinian state based on the 1967 borders. He also referred to Palestinians living under Israeli “occupation” but sought to heal wounds by enumerating actions taken by the US to foster Israel’s security.
Articles/Entries
