 I was waiting for the crew at my local car wash to finish drying my car when a young man approached and asked where he could get the US Army decal that I display on the rear window.
“The Army gives them to people who have served, veterans, and I assume to active duty members as well,” I told him.
“You were in the Army?” he asked. Oh yes, a very long time ago before you were born, I replied, noticing a distinct accent.
He was joined by another young man. “Did you fight in the Middle East?” No, I said, but there has never been an absence of wars for America. We have never been free to ignore the rest of the world even if we wanted to.
In a similar fashion, as much as Israel may yearn for peace, they have never been permitted to function as a normal nation. From the hour that Israeli sovereignty was proclaimed, the nation was attacked by its “neighbors” and has, for all intents and purposes, been on a war footing ever since.
The two young men talking with me said they were Palestinians. Both came to America to find peace.
I think that tells you everything you need to know about the reality of Israeli-Palestinian relations—--if one can call the one-sided determination of the Palestinian leadership to “drive the Israelis into the sea.” Or the Iranian pledge to “wipe Israel off the map.” Or the Hezbollah forces in Lebanon being re-armed by the Iranians for whom they are a proxy army against Israel.
In the course of our chat, they said they were both from Gaza and I was reminded that the Israelis, in their futile quest for peace, had forced out their own people from the Gaza strip and turned the area over to Fatah, also known as the Palestinian Liberation Authority.
What they got in return was an endless cascade of rockets from Gaza, not just for a few weeks, but for months and years. Meanwhile, in Gaza, Hamas forced Fatah to retreat to the West Bank where they could have the protection of the Israelis who continue to desperately look for anyone with whom to negotiate a real peace.
In January of last year, the Israelis initiated Operation Cast lead in which their military targeted the sources of the Gaza rockets and looked for Hamas leaders who cravenly hid in the midst the population. The rocketing has largely stopped since then, though ugly individual attacks on Israelis have continued.
The Israeli solution has been to build a very high wall between them and the Palestinians and to maintain tight control over who passes through it. To do otherwise would be to subject their people to suicide bombers and other killers.
“Would you accept peace with Israel?” I asked. I was greeted with broad smiles. Yes, Palestinians want peace I was told, but “Hamas will not permit it.”
So, there you are. It has nothing to do with Washington’s foreign policy with regard to Israel and it has everything to do with the bad intentions of those who continue to use the Palestinian people as pawns of resistance to any Western presence in what they regard as their sacred lands.
The Islamic jihad knows no boundaries, killing Jews, Christians, Hindus and even Muslims with abandon. It took President Obama a year to say out loud that the U.S. is at war with al Qaeda. It took three days to say anything about the Christmas bomber.
Israel was sacred to the Jews for two thousand years before there ever was an Islamic religion. It was sacred to Christians for a thousand years before Islam existed. Jerusalem is never mentioned even once in the Koran, but, for reasons known only to Israel’s “neighbors”, they cannot find any reason to make peace with them.
The two young Palestinians were very happy to be living and working in America. They treated me with the greatest of respect and with good will. That’s the way it should be.
 Hamas and Hizbullah proclaim they will fight until Israel is destroyed, without causing an international furor.In spite of Israel's ongoing dialogue with the United States to search for the right formula for the resumption of talks, the position taken by the Obama administration, and the unfair pressure exerted by the European Union, have brought down the fragile structure which had previously made negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians possible. Though these negotiations did not bring about the desired peace, they did constitute an agreed channel for discussions between the two parties and brought about, for instance, the Olmert government's agreement to an American proposal to train Palestinian forces in Jordan under the supervision of Gen. Keith Dayton, thus paving the way for the creation of a regular Palestinian fighting force trained with Western methods. This was a major concession and a risky one. This force is intended to keep order in Judea and Samaria, but who is to say that it would not turn againstIsrael under different circumstances? Israel has shown a greater willingness in the past year to meet the Palestinians halfway, as exemplified by Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu's Bar-Ilan speech recognizing the two-state principle. Then there was the 10-month freeze on West Bank settlements. HOWEVER, BUOYED by US President Barack Obama's intense wooing of the Muslim world, the Palestinian Authority has chosen the opposite course, refusing to come back to the negotiation table and launching an all-out diplomatic, media and legal war against the Jewish state. The EU is ratcheting up the pressure, and has issued a declaration calling for a withdrawal to the 1967 borders and for Jerusalem to become the capital of both countries. This would, in effect, rendernegotiations useless by determining their outcome from the outset. It is as if the world has forgotten that Israel already made the most extraordinary concessions at Camp David and in Taba. Yasser Arafat not only turned down the Israeli proposals, he did not make any counter-proposition. The same scenario played out at Annapolis in 2008. According to a lengthy Al-Jazeera interview with Saeb Erekat on March 27, prime minister Ehud Olmert made even greater concessions, but that was not enough for PA President Mahmoud Abbas: He walked out when Olmert suggested a jointadministration of the Temple Mount. Erekat also said that when US president Bill Clinton told Arafat at Camp David that he would be the first president of a Palestinian state with east Jerusalem as its capital, but that he had to recognize the fact that vestigesof the Temple were buried under the Aksa Mosque and there would have to be joint administration of the Temple Mount, Arafat put an end to the negotiations. THERE WAS no Israeli denial following these revelations, and recent interviews by Abbas and Olmert support Erekat's version - though the latest round ofnegotiations carried out by Olmert and foreign minister Tzipi Livni enjoyed a degree of secrecy rarely seen here. As such, the extent of the concessions the two leaders had been ready to make was kept under wraps - perhaps for fear of the impact on the coming elections. That was a colossal miscalculation. The Knesset, the country and the world should have been told that the extremely generous terms offered to the Palestinians had been turned down, putting the blame squarely on Abbas. Such a step would have gone a long way to defuse the situation with Obama and his advisers. It seems that the new government led by Netanyahu had not been fully conversant with the details of the failednegotiations and was thus ill prepared to deal with the accusations leveled against it. Then came the Goldstone Report. The main message there is not so much the totally unfounded accusations of war crimes but an attempt to limit the extent to whichIsrael is "allowed" to use force to defend itself against terrorist organizations. Such a move was not totally unexpected coming from the UN, especially from the Committee on Human Rights, where Islamic and Arab countries have a decisive voice. What was not expected was that it would lead, for instance, to the White House asking for "clarifications" following a recent operation in Nablus. (In a confrontation with Israeli security forces, three terrorists who had murdered a father of seven were killed.) This demand, made at the request of the Palestinian Authority, constitutes a dangerous precedent. Coupled with the Goldstone Report, it tends to present a difficult dilemma to the government and to the security forces when contemplating military intervention. AT THE same time, terrorist organizations, at the behest of some Arab countries, will be able to keep attacking our citizens while sheltering behind their civilians, in hospitals, in schools and in mosques. Hamas and Hizbullah proclaim on every available channel that they will never recognizeIsrael and will fight until it has disappeared - without causing an international furor. In fact, Arab organizations, supported by leftist Western groups, are busy getting arrest warrants issued in European countries having relevant legislation against Israeli leaders and army officers for "war crimes," calling for boycotting Israeli products and demonstrating their support for Gaza. In each and every successive confrontation, Arab states and Palestinian movements have been defeated. Now they are seeking other ways to harassIsrael . They are waging an all-out media war to blacken its image and ultimately delegitimize its very existence. They are helped in this endeavor by hundreds of leftist organizations and civil society movements in the West. For them Israel is a neo-colonial power, as is the US. But Israel is easier prey because of its size and isolation. Anti-Semitism is also at work here. Palestinian and Arab media, with the full support of the Islamic establishment in Arab countries, use every anti-Semitic cliché in the book, and some of that leached into the West where it led to a renewal of classic European anti-Semitism. More at JPost 
 A Middle Eastern country is building a massive thick steel wall as a barrier between themselves and a Palestinian regime. The country is being condemned for its actions across the Arab world, denounced by Islamist figures like Hezbollah chief Hassan Nasrallah, and facing angry demonstrations at its embassies around the world. Signs with the president’s face daubed with a Star of David are waved, and furious slogans are chanted.
The new construction project, written about critically in the world press as “choking” Gaza, has been dubbed the “iron wall” and the “wall of shame.” Sound familiar? Nothing new? In fact, the situation is very new. The country that is being berated and condemned is not Israel.
The wall is being build by the Egyptian government to separate territory controlled by Egypt and the Hamas-ruled Gaza Strip. Israel is routinely charged with inhumanely and heartlessly fencing off Palestinian Gazans in a “prison,” despite the fact that Egypt’s official crossing to Gaza is also clamped shut, with the exception of a few days each month.
But with the construction of this new wall, Egypt is taking some powerful hits from within the Arab world. The wall being constructed is designed to stop the flow of smuggling between Egypt and Gaza through the border town of Rafah, an underground economy that is not limited to — but certainly includes — major weaponry and ammunition being stockpiled for terrorist attacks and to help Hamas rearm for the next war between Gaza and Israel.
Along with the weaponry brought in to replace the stockpiles decimated in Operation Cast Lead, millions of dollars worth of other commerce flows through the tunnels on a daily basis. Everything from food, to gasoline, to machinery, to farm animals. The tunnels are a major source of revenue for Hamas, which charges a premium for the construction and use of the tunnels and puts a tariff on any goods that are brought in. The planned 10 kilometer-long wall will include steel sheets that will reach 60 meters underground — an attempt to cut off the tunnels and the commerce that flourishes there. In addition to weaponry, the tunnels are also a conduit for terrorists, both reasons that the tunnels themselves were targeted in Operation Cast Lead. Construction of the wall began in early December, with the Egyptian government doing its best to keep news of it quiet for as long as possible. By mid-December, it became impossible to hide such a massive project, and news of the construction broke and began to spread. Even as reports began appearing in the media, Egypt refused to acknowledge its existence. An AP article dramatically described the construction in the same judgmental terms normally reserved for accounts of Israel’s building of barriers: A jackhammer pounded large steel beams side by side into the sandy soil on the Egyptian side of Gaza’s border, putting in place an underground wall that could shift the balance of power in this volatile area. Once completed, the steel barrier would cut off blockaded Gaza’s last lifeline. In the wake of the media attention, demonstrations condemning the Egyptian action have ensued, beginning in Jordan, where an organization of unions and professional associations protested construction of the wall.
Some 150 people gathered outside the Egyptian embassy in Amman earlier this month and burned photos of President Hosni Mubarak. The photos depict Mubarak with a Star of David stamped on his forehead. More at Pajamas Media
 Mideast envoy George Mitchell has threatened that the U.S. could freeze aid to Israel if the country fails to advance peace talks, YNetNews.com reported. Mitchell said the U.S. can legally cut its support for aid to Israel and that all options must remain open, YNet reports, though he clarified on PBS that the U.S. wants to put pressure on both sides in Israeli-Palestinian peace negotiations. The remarks come on the eve of his trip to Israel, aiming to bolster a peace process that failed to get back off the ground during the first year of the Obama administration. "We think that the negotiation should last no more than two years," Mitchell said in an interview on PBS' "Charlie Rose." "We hope the parties agree. Personally I think it can be done in a shorter period of time." Mitchell's comments also come days after Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas signaled he may participate in a U.S.-backed summit with Israeli and Egyptian leaders this year. Click here for more on this story from YNetNews.com FoxNews
 Egyptian authorities have announced that all aid convoys travelling to Gaza will be banned from travelling across Egypt after a riot broke out at the Rafah border crossing earlier in the week. Ahmed Abul Gheit, Egypt's foreign minister, said in remarks published on Saturday that members of Viva Palestina, the last convoy allowed through, had "committed hostile acts, even criminal ones" on Egyptian soil. "Egypt will no longer allow convoys, regardless of their origin or who is organising them, from crossing its territory," he told government-backed newspaper Al-Ahram. More than 50 people were wounded during a clash between Egyptian authorities and international members of the convoy on Tuesday after Egypt decided to allow 139 vehicles to enter Gaza, but said a remaining 59 vehicles would have to pass via Israel. The Rafah border is the only crossing point into the Palestinian territory not controlled by Israel.However, both Rafah and the Israeli-controlled crossings have largely remained sealed since 2007, when the Palestinian group Hamas gained control of the Strip. George Galloway, the British MP leading Viva Palestina, was himself deported by the Egyptian government on Friday. The politician was picked up by Egyptian officials at Rafah and driven to Cairo, the capital, where he was placed on a flight back to London. The Egyptian foreign ministry said Galloway had been declared "persona non grata" and would not be allowed to return to the country, accusing him of incitement over his criticism of the government. Arrest warrants were also issued for seven other members of the convoy after being accused of inciting riots in El-Arish, the Mediterranean port town where Viva Palestina entered the country. The Respect Party MP has been vocal in his criticism of Egyptian authorities in recent days. "It's always been a badge of honour to be deported by a tin-pot dictator and that's what happened," he said after arriving at London's Heathrow airport. Abul Gheit, who spoke to Al-Ahram during a visit to Washington, said future aid convoys will have to turn their supplies over to El-Arish's Red Crescent chapter. The relief organisation would then be responsible for transferring the aid to its Palestinian counterpart. Israel and Egypt have severely restricted travel to and from the Gaza Strip, and only very basic supplies are allowed in. Aid organisations say the siege has placed Gazans in a dire situation, made worse by the Israel's offensive last year that reduced much of the territory to ruins. Al Jazeera
 But if Obama gives them a state, there will dawn a new era of peace! "Hamas video: Settlers drink Palestinians' blood," by Ali Waked for Ynet News, January 3 VIDEO - In the backdrop of reconciliation efforts between Hamas and Fatah, Hamas' television aired a cartoon titled "Special Mission" slandering the Palestinian Authority apparatuses, which, according to the clip, serve Israel and the settlers. The video portrays a Palestinian officer carrying out orders of IDF troops while being humiliated by them, and assitsting [sic] settlers. The eight-minute video takes place near the security coordination HQ. Palestinian officer Bahlul (clown) is shown to be asked by his Israeli counterpart: "What is your mission?" to which he replies: "To defend the rule of law." When the Israeli officer asks what that is, the Palestinian replies: "To defend settlers." He also notes that settler provocations will not be disturbed or responded to by the Palestinians when asked how he would react in such a case. The video portrays Bahlul as saying that should he get an order from his Israeli colleague to arrest his family members he would do it. He notes that he is willing to fight the resistance and even shine the shoes of the Israeli officer and as a bonus to kiss them as well. "I'll divorce my wife if you tell me to," he said. The Palestinian officer is also seen trying to defend an Israeli settler who shot Palestinian children in Hebron. He shouts at the settler "you just killed my people, but I will respond with a commitment to peace." At this point in the clip, Bahlul draws a dove and presents it to the settler who had went on a killing spree by his father's orders. According to the setller's father "the most delicious thing is to kill Palestinians and drink their blood."... To see the video, go here. With thanks to JihadWatch
 The recent statements by the European Union's new foreign relations chief Catherine Ashton criticizing Israel have once again brought international attention to Jerusalem and the settlements. However, little appears to be truly understood about Israel's rights to what are generally called the "occupied territories" but what really are "disputed territories." That's because the land now known as the West Bank cannot be considered "occupied" in the legal sense of the word as it had not attained recognized sovereignty before Israel's conquest. Contrary to some beliefs there has never been a Palestinian state, and no other nation has ever established Jerusalem as its capital despite it being under Islamic control for hundreds of years. The name "West Bank" was first used in 1950 by the Jordanians when they annexed the land to differentiate it from the rest of the country, which is on the east bank of the river Jordan.
The boundaries of this territory were set only one year before during the armistice agreement between Israel and Jordan that ended the war that began in 1948 when five Arab armies invaded the nascent Jewish State. It was at Jordan's insistence that the 1949 armistice line became not a recognized international border but only a line separating armies. The Armistice Agreement specifically stated: "No provision of this Agreement shall in any way prejudice the rights, claims, and positions of either Party hereto in the peaceful settlement of the Palestine questions, the provisions of this Agreement being dictated exclusively by military considerations." (Italics added.)
This boundary became the famous "Green Line," so named because the military officials during the armistice talks used a green pen to draw the line on the map. After the Six Day War, when once again Arab armies sought to destroy Israel and the Jewish state subsequently captured the West Bank and other territory, the United Nations sought to create an enduring solution to the conflict.
U.N. Security Council Resolution 242 is probably one of the most misunderstood documents in the international arena. While many, especially the Palestinians, push the idea that the document demands that Israel return everything captured over the Green Line, nothing could be further from the truth. The resolution calls for "peace within secure and recognized boundaries," but nowhere does it mention where those boundaries should be. It is best to understand the intentions of the drafters of the resolution before considering other interpretations. Eugene V. Rostow, U.S. Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs in 1967 and a drafter of the resolution, stated in 1990: "Security Council Resolution 242 and (subsequent U.N. Security Council Resolution) 338... rest on two principles, Israel may administer the territory until its Arab neighbors make peace; and when peace is made, Israel should withdraw to "secure and recognized borders," which need not be the same as the Armistice Demarcation Lines of 194." Lord Caradon, the British U.N. Ambassador at the time and the resolution's main drafter who introduced it to the Council, said in 1974 unequivocally that, "It would have been wrong to demand that Israel return to its positions of June 4, 1967, because those positions were undesirable and artificial." The U.S. ambassador to the U.N. at the time, former Supreme Court Justice Arthur Goldberg, made the issue even clearer when he stated in 1973 that, "the resolution speaks of withdrawal from occupied territories without defining the extent of withdrawal." This would encompass "less than a complete withdrawal of Israeli forces from occupied territory, inasmuch as Israel's prior frontiers had proven to be notably insecure." Even the Soviet delegate to the U.N., Vasily Kuznetsov, who fought against the final text, conceded that the resolution gave Israel the right to "withdraw its forces only to those lines it considers appropriate." After the war in 1967, when Jews started returning to their historic heartland in the West Bank, or Judea and Samaria, as the territory had been known around the world for 2,000 years until the Jordanians renamed it, the issue of settlements arose.
However, Rostow found no legal impediment to Jewish settlement in these territories. He maintained that the original British Mandate of Palestine still applies to the West Bank. He said "the Jewish right of settlement in Palestine west of the Jordan River, that is, in Israel, the West Bank, Jerusalem, was made unassailable.
That right has never been terminated and cannot be terminated except by a recognized peace between Israel and its neighbors." There is no internationally binding document pertaining to this territory that has nullified this right of Jewish settlement since. And yet, there is this perception that Israel is occupying stolen land and that the Palestinians are the only party with national, legal and historic rights to it.
Not only is this morally and factually incorrect, but the more this narrative is being accepted, the less likely the Palestinians feel the need to come to the negotiating table. Statements like those of Lady Ashton's are not only incorrect; they push a negotiated solution further away. —Mr. Ayalon is the deputy foreign minister of Israel
 by Khaled Abu Toameh The leaders of the Palestinian Authority have reached the conclusion that, under the current circumstances, it would be a waste of time to return to the negotiating table with Israel.
They are convinced that the only way to get anything is by rallying pressure from the international community against Israel. It is for this reason that representatives of the Palestinians have been negotiating with the Europeans and Americans about the peace process -- not with Israel. The Palestinian leadership in Ramallah is negotiating about the peace process, but with the foreign ministers of France, Sweden, Norway, Germany and the UK and not with Israel. Almost every step this leadership takes is fully coordinated in advance with Western diplomats and their governments. They believe that at present Israel is more isolated than ever in the international arena, particularly in light of the UN’s Gaza War report, the “Goldstone Report.” The Palestinian leadership has chosen to confront Israel in the international arena, and not at the negotiating table. Abbas’s strategy is to further isolate Israel in the world through boycotts and anti-Israel resolutions at the UN and other international forums. They see growing support for Palestinians in many European capitals, and are convinced that this will eventually be translated into heavy pressure on Israel. This is why he is prepared to wait and wait. He believes that the longer he waits, the more Israel will come under pressure. Palestinian leaders see that the UN and almost all European governments have entirely endorsed the Palestinian narrative in the Israeli-Arab conflict Palestinian, namely that Israel must withdraw to the pre-1967 borders, including half of Jerusalem, and allow the establishment of a Fatah-controlled state in these territories. They see increased anti-Israel sentiments in the West and are encouraged that Israel will not be able to tolerate hostility, isolation and boycott for a long time. Abbas believes that the international community is negotiating with Israel on behalf of the Palestinians. He is fully convinced that only increased pressure on Israel, and not negotiations, will bring about a full withdrawal to the pre-1967 borders. And since the whole world, with the possible exception of the US Administration, “is on our side,” why bother return to the negotiating table with Israel? The belief among the Palestinian leadership is that it is only a matter of time before Israel succumbs to the growing international pressure. By negotiating with Abbas and his government, the Western governments are, in fact, keeping the Palestinians from resuming peace talks with Israel. Instead of negotiating with Abbas, these governments should be urging him to return to the negotiations with Israel as soon as possible and before it is too late. But for now Abbas does not seem to be in a rush; this is why those who believe that real peace talks could be “revived” in the near future are living under an illusion. Abbas has set out his demands and conditions in a clear and straight manner and he is waiting for the international community to help him achieve all his goals. If Abbas wants to prove his claim that Israel “does not want peace,” then he should return to the negotiating table tomorrow morning and show the world which party is to blame for the stalemate. Hudson New York
 The news of the day before Christmas is that former President Jimmy Carter has apologized for anything he has said or done to offend America’s Jewish community and presumably around the world.
The news was welcomed by the national director of the B’nai B’rith Anti-Defamation league, Abraham Foxman, who said that it was “incumbent for us to accept” the apology, but Foxman does not speak for me or for the American Jewish community.
I do not accept the apology and neither should anyone who holds the state of Israel as the fulfillment of a 2,000 year old dream of return to the land in which Judaism took root and flourished through exiles and dispersion.
My reasoning is that Carter has spoken only with the prospect that his grandson, Jason, is anticipated to run for public office in Georgia in a congressional district with what is reported as “a vocal Jewish population.” It’s politics. It’s not a confession of the heart. Jason hailed the apology as a “great step towards reconciliation”, but I suggest that it is deeds, not words, that matter.
The former President is credited with trying to resolve the Palestinian conflict with the Israelis and gained a Nobel Peace Prize along with the terrorist, Yassir Arafat, but that prize has long since been tarnished and discredited for having also been awarded to the charlatan Al Gore and the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and most recently to President Obama who has done nothing of significance to earn it.
It was Carter’s 2006 book, “Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid” in which he compared Israeli efforts to defend themselves against wars and a campaign of terrorism with South Africa's hateful system. Present attacks have abated only with Israel's action against Hamas in Gaza, a part of Israel from which the Israelis withdrew in yet another effort to achieve a peace that is still rejected.
If the so-called Palestinians and the greater Muslim community throughout the Middle East continue to plan war against Israel, an apology by Carter pales in the face of this reality. If the Jordanians and Egyptians could sign peace agreements with Israel, surely other Middle Eastern nations could do the same.
Carter’s apology is cosmetic. It is a Band-aid that ignores Israel’s claim to statehood and sovereignty. Israel became a nation in 1312 BCE (Before Common Era), a thousand years before the rise of Christianity and 2,000 years before the rise of Islam. Jews have had a continuous presence in Israel for the last 3,300 years.
Jerusalem is mentioned more than 700 times in the Jewish Holy Scriptures, but not once in the Koran. Jews pray facing Jerusalem. Muslims pray with their backs toward Jerusalem. The Al-Aqsa mosque in Jerusalem was deliberately built over a site sacred to Jews, deemed the rock where Abraham was commanded by God to spare the life of his son.
Al-Aqsa has twice been destroyed in earthquakes. Jews are forbidden access and restricted to prayers at the Western Wall.
The calumnies and lies about Israel that the former President has lent his name to and the support he has demonstrated for the enemies of Israel cannot be wiped clean by an apology.
A million Christian and Muslim Arabs call Israel home and enjoy full citizenship. They face an Iranian nuclear annihilation with their Jewish neighbors.
It is time for Israel’s enemies to embrace the message of peace on Earth, but a militant Islam forecloses that allusive goal for all mankind and the land where it was first proposed.
 by Soeren Kern The European Union on December 8 adopted a resolution that for the first time explicitly calls for Jerusalem to become the future capital of both a Palestinian state and Israel.
Backing away only slightly from a more controversial Swedish proposal to officially call for the division of Jerusalem, the EU declared: “If there is to be a genuine peace, a way must be found through negotiations to resolve the status of Jerusalem as the future capital of two states.” The original proposal drafted by Swedish Foreign Minister Carl Bildt, a well-known pro-Palestinian activist whose country currently holds the six-month rotating presidency of the EU, had called for the creation of a “State of Palestine with East Jerusalem as its capital.”
Israeli officials, angry over EU efforts to prejudge the outcome of issues reserved for permanent status negotiations, persuaded French diplomats to remove the offending text, as well as other references to a Palestinian state that would comprise “the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, and Gaza.”
Israel has always maintained that Jerusalem will remain its undivided capital, regardless of any future peace settlement with the Palestinians.
This has been the declared policy of all Israeli governments, both left and right. The EU statement, which comes just days after Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu announced a 10-month freeze on construction in West Bank settlements, will be viewed by many as a European attempt to pre-empt any possible resumption of Middle East peace talks by helping the Palestinians improve their negotiating position vis-Ã -vis Israel.
Although the 27-member EU has limited clout as a diplomatic player in the Arab-Israel conflict, the EU is the biggest donor of financial assistance to Palestinian Authority, which has been accused of diverting the money to promote terror against Israel.
The EU statement, which is predictably one-sided, could end up disincentivizing a new round of negotiations: the Palestinians may well be emboldened by the EU’s tacit acceptance of their key positions and be led to believe that if they hold out longer, the EU will support them on other core issues as well.
 The recent Swiss vote to ban minarets was seen by many as a further indication that European populations are waking up to the threat of Europe’s Islamization and the need to stop the trend. If so, the European Union—the centralized bureaucracy that, as documented in Bat Ye’or’s important book Eurabia, went “over the heads” of European publics to meld the European and Arab/Muslim civilizations in the first place—still hasn’t caught up and remains locked in a pro-Arab/Muslim disposition. At least, the EU’s stance on Jerusalem would suggest so. Last week the new EU foreign policy chief, Catherine Ashton, “came down hard on the Israeli government” in her maiden speech to the European Parliament and said: “East Jerusalem is occupied territory together with the West Bank. The EU is opposed to the destruction of homes, the eviction of Arab residents and the construction of the separation barrier.” Her words prompted Israel’s deputy foreign minister Danny Ayalon to reply: “Just as the Romans did not succeed in cutting off Jerusalem from Israel, so too will diplomats from the UN and the EU be unsuccessful as well.” Ashton, previously the EU’s trade commissioner and expected to be given considerable authority as a new sort of EU foreign minister, also called Israel’s recently launched ten-month moratorium on settlement construction a “first step”—representing, as the EUobserver comments, “a cooler tone than EU foreign ministers who last week took ‘positive note’ of the move.” The EUobserver also pointed out that the speech was “significant for what it left out: Ms Ashton did not say that Israel is the only democracy in the Middle East, that it faces a security threat from Palestinian ‘terrorists’ or that Palestinians should immediately return to formal peace talks—the classic tenets of Israeli supporters.” Ashton’s statements also come hard on the heels of an EU-Israel spat over Jerusalem in which the EU explicitly called for East Jerusalem to become the capital of a Palestinian state. That demand was later only partially toned-down under intense Israeli objections. In other words, even at a time when Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has publicly accepted the call for a Palestinian state and enraged part of his right-wing base with the settlement moratorium, the EU keeps reflexively embracing Arab/Muslim positions.
As always, the EU’s stance on Jerusalem ignores several facts. Jerusalem was unified under Israeli sovereignty in 1967, after nineteen years in which Jordan illegally occupied the city and finally used it to attack Israel despite being implored by Israel to keep out of the fighting. Under Israeli rule, Muslims and all other groups (except Jews—on the Temple Mount itself) have enjoyed full freedom of worship—a stark contrast to the nineteen years of Jordanian rule when Jews and Christians were denied access to Jerusalem’s holy places and Jewish synagogues and gravestones were destroyed and desecrated. Muslims already have full control over Mecca, Medina, and countless sacred locales and shrines throughout the vast Muslim world, and their demand for Palestinian sovereignty in Jerusalem and the redivision of Israel’s capital can reasonably be regarded as excessive – especially when, as noted, Israel gives Muslims full access to their Jerusalem shrines and full rights in the city. Indeed, Jerusalem is full of minarets, and any visitor to its Old City or its Arab neighborhoods can attest to the vibrancy of Muslim religious life there. The EU should be more concerned with Islamization on the continent than with taking harsh stances against Israel as it struggles to survive and to find the right mix of accommodation and steadfastness in an Arab/Muslim environment hostile its very existence. But for the EU, after decades of forsaking its Judeo-Christian roots for pro-Arabism, that may be too much to expect. Even if European populations are starting to grasp the consequences of this civilizational self-abnegation, Europe’s Brussels-based bureaucracy remains willfully ignorant of the stakes. FPM
 Palestinian security agents who have allegedly tortured Hamas supporters in the West Bank have been working closely with the CIA, the UK's Guardian newspaper has reported. The US Central Intelligence Agency has co-operated with the Preventive Security Force (PSF) and General Intelligence Service (GI) in the Palestinian territory, the report on Friday said. "The [Central Intelligence] Agency consider them as their property, those two Palestinian services," a western official told the Guardian. Most of the detained Hamas supporters are held without trial and allegedly tortured by the Palestinian agencies in the West Bank. Hamas backed the Guardian's findings on Friday during a press conference, and blamed Keith Dayton, the US General commanding the Palestinian National Security Force in the West Bank, for the arrest and torture of its supporters. Hamas called on Barack Obama, the US president, to remove Dayton from his position and said Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestinian president and Fatah leader in the West Bank, was responsible for the "crimes" against Hamas in the West Bank. Human rights organisations say it is common for detainees to be badly beaten and subjected to "shabeh", where they are shackled and held in painful positions for long periods. Hamas, which has de facto control of the Gaza Strip, has faced allegations that its own forces have detained and tortured people allied with Fatah, a rival Palestinian group that is a member of the Palestinian Authority. Between 400 and 500 Hamas supporters are currently being held by the PSF and GI, officials from the PA have said. But Adnan Aldenari, a Palestinian police spokesman, denied that the security forces in the West Bank were abusing detainees. "We have nothing to hide; or nothing to be ashamed of. When we had mistakes [they] were individual as committed by some officers and not expressive of our policy. "Our prisons and detention facilities are open and not secret as they are in some other countries. They are open to the media and human rights organisations." The Guardian reported that at least three detainees have died in custody this year due to being mistreated. The most recent was Haitham Amr, a 33-year-old nurse from Hebron, who died four days after he was detained by GI officials last June, the newspaper said. Shawan Jabarin, the general director of al-Haq, a Palestinian human rights organisation, told the Guardian: "The Americans could stop it any time. All they would have to do is go to [prime minister] Salam Fayyad and tell him they were making it an issue. "Then they could deal with the specifics: they could tell him that detainees needed to be brought promptly before the courts." A regional diplomat told the newspaper that "at the very least" US intelligence officers were aware of the torture and were not doing enough to stop it. The CIA does not deny working with the PSF and GI in the West Bank, but Paul Gimigliano, a CIA spokesman, said that the US agency does not hold a supervisory role. "The notion that this agency somehow runs other intelligence services ... is simply wrong," he told the Guardian. "The CIA ... only supports, and is interested in, lawful methods that produce sound intelligence." Al Jazeera
 Palestinian gunmen opened fire on a number of different occasions in recent days at Egyptian construction workers building a steel fence meant to separate Egypt from the Gaza Strip, Egyptian media reported on Thursday.According to reports, the shootings took place near Rafah crossing and led to the temporary suspension of works. There were no reports of injuries in the incidents, and Egypt has increased its forces along the border. The Arabic BBC network reported that, according to eyewitnesses in the Gaza Strip, a number of incidents have taken place in recent days in which fire was opened at the Egyptian side of the border fence. According to various reports, fire exchanges took place between Egyptian soldiers and Gazan smugglers. Egyptian newspaper al-Gumhuriya condemned the incident Thursday morning and defended Egypt's "sovereign right" to build the fence as a means to pressure Hamas. The paper's editorial argued that the fence currently under construction is "the same fence that exists now, with invisible reinforcements being made to its foundations." According to the report, steel plates which are 50 cm think and 18 meters long are being used to reinforce the fence, as well as plates with a 35 cm thickness and 15 meter length. The paper also slammed sources from the Egyptian opposition who criticized the construction of the fence. "There are those who wish to present Egypt as a contributor to the blockade on the Palestinians by blocking arms smuggling passages. But these people forget that the smuggling of arms through the Sinai is a direct attack on Egypt's sovereignty, and on its legitimacy. "It is Egypt's right to develop the fence which separates it from Gaza and it is its right to build a fence that will be strong and not be toppled by bulldozer, as this one was when hundreds of thousands of residents of the Strip stormed it in January 2008." The Egyptian report follows details revealed last weekend, according to which Egypt is building a think steel fence, with a significant portion of it to be underground. The fence will reach a depth of 20 to 30 meters and will span many kilometers along the Egypt-Gaza border, parallel to the Philadelphi route. Meanwhile, media in Cairo reported that the Egyptian security forces uncovered 10 more smuggling tunnels linking Gaza to the Sinai on Wednesday. Palestinian websites cited eyewitnesses as saying work on the fence is currently in the stage of laying the foundations for fixing the steel plates. It seems the laying of the plates themselves has yet to begin. YNet
 PALESTINIAN leader Mahmoud Abbas has declared that a final-status agreement between Israelis and Palestinians can be completed within six months if Israel freezes all construction in Jewish settlements and in East Jerusalem. In the most optimistic timeframe given by any key player in the Middle East in recent times, Mr Abbas said he had put a fresh proposal to Israel's Defence Minster, Ehud Barak. Mr Abbas made the comments in a wide-ranging interview with the Israeli newspaper Haaretz. Israel has announced a 10-month freeze on new construction in the West Bank but Palestinians say it is inadequate because it fails to include Arab-dominated East Jerusalem and allows for at least another 3000 new houses and public buildings to be built. The Abbas comments suggest that East Jerusalem -- the most sensitive issue of all as both Israelis and Palestinians want Jerusalem as their capital -- is the major obstacle to new peace talks. "But I demanded that construction stop . . . during this time, we can get back to the table and even complete talks on a final-status agreement. I have yet to receive an answer. "They tell me I had not previously demanded a construction freeze in the settlements. True, in 1993 we didn't do so, but then there were no agreements about a freeze. Now there is the road map." The road map was an agreement brokered in 2003 by the Middle East Quartet -- the UN, US, Russia and the European Union -- and backed by former US president George W. Bush. With the aim of a formal agreement by 2005 leading to a two-state solution, Israel agreed to halt all settlement activity and gradually withdraw from the West Bank while Palestinians agreed to cease all terrorist activities and incitement to violence against Israel and to improve security in the West Bank. "So come and see what we did," Mr Abbas said in the interview. "The security situation throughout the West Bank is excellent. But what steps have you (Israel) taken so far? "You have not met a single clause in the road map. You removed a few roadblocks and there are still 640. Every day there are arrests, house demolitions. I don't understand why. We have security co-ordination, so why do this?" Mark Regev, the spokesman for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, told The Australian yesterday that in a speech Mr Abbas gave in Arabic yesterday to a Palestinian conference, he included preconditions that he did not include in the interview. "What is of concern to us is that yesterday in the speech in Arabic, Abu Mazen (Mahmoud Abbas) placed more reasons why we can't start negotiations," Mr Regev said. "Up until now, he was talking about a settlement freeze. Now he is adding (a return to) 1967 borders. It's like we have to accept the outcome of negotiations before negotiations start. We are concerned that they are trying to avoid negotiations. "The reason we haven't been negotiating is the Palestinians have been placing new preconditions on talks." Asked about Mr Abbas's claim that he had put a proposal to Mr Barak and had not received any response, Mr Regev said: "Let's be fair: the 10-month cessation of new housing in the West Bank is unprecedented and has been called as such internationally. "No Israeli government has ever gone so far. "Internally in Israel, groups such as Peace Now have called it historic. "Yet he (Mr Abbas) ignores it. "It doesn't make sense to me." The Australian
 “Brothers and sisters, we will not be satisfied with Gaza. Hamas looks toward the whole of Palestine.” So said Hamas prime minister Ismail Haniyeh on Monday as he addressed a rally in Gaza City to mark the 22nd anniversary of Hamas’s founding as the Palestinian branch of the Muslim Brotherhood. As one report describes it, “Tens of thousands of Hamas supporters thronged downtown Gaza City…. Gaza was decked out in Islamic green, with Hamas flags fluttering from roofs, lampposts and cars. Some parents dressed small children in combat fatigues and green Hamas headbands. “The crowd packed an outdoor square where a huge banner draped over the wall of a building showed a picture of Jerusalem’s main Islamic shrine and photos of senior Hamas figures. “Leaders made fiery speeches, bands played and scout troops marched in processions….” At a time when both the United States and the European Union treat Palestinian statehood as one of the cardinal goals of international politics, seemingly these lines are worth pausing over.
When one speaks of “the Palestinians”—the allegedly deprived group that receives more attention and assistance than all others—one is speaking in large part of supporters of an Islamic-fundamentalist movement whose proclaimed goal is the destruction of Israel pure and simple. The people willing to “dress small children in combat fatigues and green Hamas headbands” are—in considerable part—“the Palestinians.” Hamas also reportedly released a statement on Monday that said it was still willing to reconcile with the rival Fatah movement, and that abducted Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit would not be freed until Israel acceded to all of Hamas’s demands for the freeing of major terrorists. Is Hamas’s confidence and bravado justified? According to the Israel Defense Forces, the answer is, yes. The IDF believes that “a new round with Hamas could be just around the corner” and that “this future conflict will be far different than its predecessor, and likely more lethal.” With the rocket and mortar fire from Gaza having, indeed, gone way down since Israel’s war on Hamas last December and January—from about 3,000 rockets and mortars in all of 2008 to about one-tenth that number so far this year—why the pessimism? One reason is that since that time Hamas has been engaging in an “unprecedented rearmament process.” Despite all the talk after the war about a concerted international effort to stop the smuggling into Gaza, Hamas has actually increased the smuggling and brought in long-range Iranian missiles, advanced Russian-made antitank missiles, and much else. But apart from all that brawn, Hamas is also applying brains. Next time around it “plans to use more civilian infrastructure; for example, the group has already taken control of over 80 percent of Gaza’s mosques, which it uses to store weapons and shelter command-and-control centers. “Hamas believes it can overcome Israel’s qualitative edge by either forcing the IDF to penetrate deep into the residential areas to target its command centers and bases that are being ‘padded’ with civilians, or by provoking the IAF to attack by air, an act which runs the risk of major international condemnation.” You could call it the Goldstone effect. Hamas knows that since last winter’s war, the side that has come in for moral censure—epitomized by the UN Human Rights Council’s Goldstone Report that accused the Jewish state of war crimes on the basis of spoon-fed Hamas propaganda—is Israel. The side that turns places of worship into weapons storerooms, uses civilians as military fodder, and dresses up children as holy warriors is, after all, “the Palestinians.” On the military side, the IDF is reportedly “preparing accordingly and…already training its forces based on future operational models. To date, several brigade-level exercises have been held.” On the moral side, Israel knows it will face the usual uphill struggle to establish that it has the right to defend itself. FPM
 Following are excerpts from an interview with Kuwaiti journalist Fuad Al-Hashem, which aired on Al-Arabiya TV on September 25, 2009. Interviewer: "First of all, I'd like to talk to you about a provocative article which you wrote during the war on Gaza, under the title: 'Use Chemical Weapons, Olmert.' In that December 2008 article, you called upon Olmert to intensify the torment of the people of Gaza, and you used the well-known slogan: 'Use chemical weapons, Olmert.'1 [...] "Do you believe in that slogan – 'Use chemical weapons, Olmert'?" Fuad Al-Hashem: "It's not my slogan. It's [a paraphrase] of a slogan used by the Palestinians themselves in the days of the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, when missiles were falling on Riyadh, on Khobar, and on Kuwait itself. They are the ones who coined this slogan..." Interviewer: "Missiles did not fall on Kuwait, because it was occupied..." Fuad Al-Hashem: "That's right. Instead of standing alongside [the Saudi city of] Al-Dammam, which later suffered from the Iraqi invasion as well, they chanted ['Use chemical weapons, Saddam, from Kuwait to Al-Dammam']. I just wanted to see how they would feel, what their reaction would be, if somebody were to utter a similar slogan." Interviewer: "But you do not subscribe to this slogan." Fuad Al-Hashem: "I don't control the button for the Israeli nuclear weapons. I never said I did. Olmert controls the nuclear button." Interviewer: "True, but as a journalist, you express your opinions. Were you hoping that Olmert..." Fuad Al-Hashem: "No, I just wanted to give them a taste of their own medicine." [...] Interviewer: "During that same war, you wrote about the killing of Nizar Rayan, a Hamas leader. That article was provocative too, because you talked about a struggle 'from between eight thighs.' You were criticized in the wake of that article." Fuad Al-Hashem: "Yes. Strongly criticized." Interviewer: "You don't regret writing this?" Fuad Al-Hashem: "No. The people who criticized me should ask themselves one question. In a time of war, when Israel is killing fighters on the streets of Gaza – what is a leader doing at home? He was among his wives when he was killed. What does a fighter do, in wartime..." Interviewer: Maybe he was strategizing... Fuad Al-Hashem: "Strategizing from between eight thighs is not appropriate for revolutionaries. In all the revolutions throughout history – the Cuban revolution, the Bolivian revolution..." Interviewer: "Don't you think that if someone is killed by the weapons of the Israeli occupation, it is inappropriate for a journalist to talk about [his wives'] thighs?" Fuad Al-Hashem: "He's the one who married eight..." Interviewer: "Four wives." Fuad Al-Hashem: "Four wives – that makes eight thighs. I got it right. I just translated the number of wives into the number of thighs." Interviewer: "But don't you think that was offensive?" Fuad Al-Hashem: "If that was offensive, I wish they had offended us in such a trivial way during the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, and had accused us of something, or objected to something that way. But they supported the Iraqi invasion, and that is something we will never forget. [...] "The Al-Watan newspaper has many Palestinian workers, and I help many of them..." Interviewer: "You help them personally?" Fuad Al-Hashem: "Yes, I help pay for their children's schooling. They are wretched people. They are the victims of their leaders and their regime, who flung them into this wilderness. Look at the price that the Palestinian people paid for the position taken by the late Arafat regarding the invasion of Kuwait. Look what happened to the Palestinians in the Gulf." More at MEMRI
 Iran's official news agency says President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has reiterated his support for Hamas during a visit by the Palestinian militant group's Syrian-based leader.
In a meeting with visiting Hamas politburo head Khaled Meshaal, Ahmadinejad said that Iran would constantly stand besides the Palestinian nation until what he called "imminent collapse of the Zionist regime (Israel)."
Iranian TV quoted Meshaal as saying that Hamas would continue its fight against Israel and its supporters "until final victory."
"The government and the people of Iran will always stand by the Palestinian resistance and the Palestinian people," Ahmadinejad said during the meeting. "Today Palestine is symbol of the global front of freedom-seekers and militants."
Iran does not recognize Israel and supports Lebanese-based Hezbollah and Hamas - two of the chief militant groups fighting Israel.
 Viva Palestina, an organization that materially and morally supports the terrorist organization Hamas, launched its third convoy to Gaza last Sunday. Dubbed "The Return to Gaza," the convoy is an international effort, with groups joining from the UK, the U.S. and dozens of other countries. While some members of the Viva Palestina USA branch met their counterparts over the weekend in London, most will be joining the convoy in Istanbul on December 15 th. The convoy plans to enter Gaza on December 27 th after traveling through France, Italy, Greece, Turkey, Syria, Jordan and Egypt. It does so amid an ongoing British government inquiry and American-based requests for investigations to determine whether its support for Hamas has broken any laws. The brainchild of British MP George Galloway, the first Viva Palestina UK convoy publicly gave over $1 million to Hamas officials in March 2009. The second convoy, which departed New York in July with approximately 200 Americans, raised more than $1 million from fundraising events, largely through Galloway's speaking engagements around the country.
The money was purportedly transferred to Egypt where supplies were purchased for distribution in Gaza. Due to a blockade imposed by Egypt, the group spent only 24 hours in Gaza, meeting with Hamas Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh and visiting Hamas run-facilities, such as the Ministry of Prisoners, which is devoted to helping the families of Palestinian martyrs in Israeli jails. One of Viva Palestina's stated goals is to "distribute necessary medical aid to the Palestinian people." However, a closer look at the activities of the past two convoys indicates that the organization actually benefits Hamas more than individual Palestinians. After the U.S. convoy in July, questions were raised about where the medical aid and the cash donations went. Several participants noted in personal blogs that they were concerned over the matter. As an example, one participant wrote: "I did not witness the presentation of the ten truck-loads of medical aid that VIVA PALESTINA purchased in Cairo and was donated by Egyptian businesses. I was told by VIVA PALESTINA leaders that that aid was distributed to several NGOs. I wish that VIVA PALESTINA would report an inventory of the contents, of the trucks, and a list of the NGOs who received the aid." Perhaps in response to such doubts, as well as to complaints addressed to the federal government about its support for Hamas, Viva Palestina USA released a statement on its website on October 31st titled "Viva Palestina Addresses Concerns."
It claimed that the organization "does not and in fact will not favour any political party within Palestine" and "the donations were given to a non-governmental consortium in Gaza called Expertise in Consulting and Development (CODE) which was, in turn, responsible for distributing the aid in a manner consistent with our goals, as well as with the community's needs." CODE receives significant funding, however, from the Union of the Good, designated by the U.S. Department of the Treasury in 2008 as an organization created by Hamas to "transfer funds to the terrorist organization."
The Treasury press release notes, "In addition to providing cover for Hamas financial transfers, some of the funds transferred by the Union of Good have compensated Hamas terrorists by providing payments to the families of suicide bombers." More at IPT
 |
|
|
Copyright Muslims Against Sharia 2008. All rights reserved.
E-mail: info AT ReformIslam.org
|
|
|
Posts
