Wednesday, May 25, 2011

What those Netanyahu speeches really mean…

Thankfully we have those nice folks over at Likud Party central to nicely document any clarification you might need to read Bibi’s lips at AIPAC and in the US Congress. From the Likud Manifesto (but according to commenter Emmanuel, this version is not the latest one):


The Jewish communities in Judea, Samaria and Gaza are the realization of Zionist values. Settlement of the land is a clear expression of the unassailable right of the Jewish people to the Land of Israel and constitutes an important asset in the defense of the vital interests of the State of Israel. The Likud will continue to strengthen and develop these communities and will prevent their uprooting.

Or try this (emph. is mine):


The Government of Israel flatly rejects the establishment of a Palestinian Arab state west of the Jordan river.

The Palestinians can run their lives freely in the framework of self-rule, but not as an independent and sovereign state. Thus, for example, in matters of foreign affairs, security, immigration and ecology, their activity shall be limited in accordance with imperatives of Israel's existence, security and national needs.

So now you know...

And now note also this bit:

Declaration of a State
A unilateral Palestinian declaration of the establishment of a Palestinian state will constitute a fundamental and substantive violation of the agreements with the State of Israel and the scuttling of the Oslo and Wye accords. The government will adopt immediate stringent measures in the event of such a declaration.
So it isn’t that Likud isn’t capable of updating its… dare I say Charter, it’s more that’s they’re not willing to update it in that particular way (accepting the creation of a Palestinian state). And with these the Palestinians are supposed to negotiate ‘without preconditions’?

Thursday, May 19, 2011

NYT: Credo of a Zionist Annexist

The NYT ran a piece by Danny Danon, outlining his vision for Israel’s reaction to any plan to recognise a Palestinian state, titled ‘Making the Land of Israel Whole’ (d’yageddit?) Danon isn’t just any old Zionist though, he’s a Likudi deputy speaker of the Israeli Knesset. 972mag’s Dahlia Scheindlin calls the article a howler. She’s wrong: ‘howler’ is too much of an understatement.

OVER the past few months, analysts in Israel and abroad have warned that Israel will face what Defense Minister Ehud Barak has termed a “diplomatic tsunami.” [my link] In September, the Palestinian Authority plans to bring the recognition of a Palestinian state based on the 1967 boundary to the United Nations General Assembly for a vote. The Palestinians’ request will almost certainly be approved.

While most voices in the Israeli and international news media are calling on Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to grant major concessions to the Palestinians to forestall such a move, he should in fact do the opposite: he should annex the Jewish communities of the West Bank, or as Israelis prefer to refer to our historic heartland, Judea and Samaria.

In 1995, as part of the Oslo accords, Israel and the Palestinians agreed that “neither side shall initiate or take any step that will change the status of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip pending the outcome of the permanent status negotiations.” If the president of the Palestinian Authority, Mahmoud Abbas, and prime minister, Salam Fayyad, decide to disregard this section of the accords by seeking United Nations recognition of statehood, it would mean that Israel, too, is no longer bound by its contents and is freed to take unilateral action.

The first immediate implication would be that all of the diplomatic and security assistance that Israel provides to the Palestinians would be halted, and the transfer of tax revenues — upward of $1 billion per year — would end permanently. This alone could threaten the very existence of the Palestinian Authority.

Second, a United Nations vote on Palestinian statehood would give Israel an opportunity to rectify the mistake we made in 1967 by failing to annex all of the West Bank (as we did the eastern half of Jerusalem). We could then extend full Israeli jurisdiction to the Jewish communities and uninhabited lands of the West Bank. This would put an end to a legal limbo that has existed for 44 years.

In addition to its obvious ideological and symbolic significance, legalizing our hold on the West Bank would also increase the security of all Israelis by depriving terrorists of a base and creating a buffer against threats from the east. Moreover, we would be well within our rights to assert, as we did in Gaza after our disengagement in 2005, that we are no longer responsible for the Palestinian residents of the West Bank, who would continue to live in their own — unannexed — towns.

These Palestinians would not have the option to become Israeli citizens, therefore averting the threat to the Jewish and democratic status of Israel by a growing Palestinian population.

While naysayers will no doubt warn us of the dire consequences and international condemnation that are sure to follow such a move by Israel, this would not be the first time that Israel has made such controversial decisions.

In 1949, Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion moved the Knesset to Jerusalem and declared it the capital of the State of Israel despite the 1947 United Nations partition plan, which had designated the city an international zone. Immediately after the 1967 Six-Day War, Prime Minister Levi Eshkol annexed East Jerusalem and declared that the city would remain a united and undivided entity. And in 1981, Prime Minister Menachem Begin extended Israeli sovereignty to the Golan Heights.

In each of these cases, Israel’s actions were met with harsh international criticism and threats of sanctions; all of these decisions, however, are cornerstones of today’s reality.

Our leaders made these decisions based on the realization that their actions would further Zionist values and strengthen the State of Israel. The diplomatic storms soon blew over as the international community moved on to other issues. It would be wise of Mr. Netanyahu to follow in their footsteps.

If the Palestinians decide that they want to end the Oslo agreement and begin experimenting with unilateral actions, then an unexpected opening will present itself for Israel. Our leaders must seize this opportunity and right a historic wrong by annexing parts of our homeland.

Tuesday, May 17, 2011

By its friends yee shall know it (part Umpteen)…

Of all the idiots in this world, none other than Glenn Beck (GLENN BECK!!!), by now apparently a little too crazy even for Faux Noise, is declaring his undying support for Israel, in Operation Restoring Faith:

Beck detailed current challenges facing the nation — “Things in Israel are going to get bad…it’s only a matter of time.”

“They are going to attack the center of our faith, our common faith, and that is Jerusalem. And it won’t be with bullets or bombs. It will be with a two-state solution that cuts off Jerusalem, the old city, to the rest of the world.”

“It is time to return inside the walls that surround Jerusalem and stand with people of all faiths all around the world.”

He may be right about things starting to hot up in Israel but… “people of all faiths”, Glenn? You’re going to stand with the ‘raghead terrorists’ that demand a return to their homeland?

Monday, May 09, 2011

A Zionist sees sense…

It’s not the first time I’ve had to acknowledge Ehud Barak seems capable of common sense thinking. This is after all the man who also echoed namesake Olmert's sentiment about Israel’s [paraphrased from memory] ‘sleepwalking into a one state solution’ and who stated with competent realism that Iran doesn’t pose a realistic threat to Israel.

Now (H/T to JsF and the translator there) in a Hebrew piece in
Ha’aretz Barak seems to take reasonable measure of what worldwide growing BDS can do (and will do) to Israel’s economy, as well as clearly state Israel’s limited capability:

"...[Israeli defense minister Ehud Barak believes that a UN declaration of Palestinian statehood without a prior Israeli political initiative will paint Israel into a corner previously occupied by South Africa during the apartheid era. His admonition is pungent and scathing: 'There are elements in the world, quite powerful, in various countries, including friendly ones, in trade unions, [among] academics, consumers, green political parties', he warns, 'and this impetus has culminated in a broad movement called BDS (boycott, divestment, and sanctions) which is what was done with South Africa. This will not happen overnight. The day after September, people will say: 'so now October has come, the sky hasn't fallen, nothing has happened'. This is not true."

Will this happen in December or January?

"It will start coming at us like a glacier, from all corners. There are people in the European Council that deal with export and import, and they are capable, without any government decision, of inflicting significant damage on the Israeli economy. We will see this taking place in academia, we will see this taking place in dockworker unions, consumer groups, and this will seep into governments. This is unwise [apparently referring to Israeli policies which will bring about this outcome]. To me, this uncontrollable process looks more dangerous than what the [Israeli] public perceives at the moment. We have been ruling over another nation for 43 years, this is unprecedented. Perhaps China can allow itself to control some small nations in various corners of its empire, and perhaps Russia can [failing to discern that Tibetans and Chechens have citizenship]. We cannot, there is no chance that the world will accept this. The far right is exposing Israel to dangerous and unwarranted isolation."

Yep, the Far Right. The people in the bunker. Members of the band that played on…