The Lie That Broke Israel's Back

by Steve Apfel


Israel now has a quasi-state to contend with.  "A victory for the values of truth," exclaimed Sudan's U.N. diplomat after the General Assembly voted to admit Palestine as a non-member observer.


It's a victory for the Palestinian camp, perhaps, but in truth it was a defeat -- of historic proportions.  Recalling one thing and reaffirming another, the resolution the GA voted on was packed with lies.  Most were blatant.  One lie -- you could say the catchphrase of the Palestinian perpetual show -- enjoyed the sanctity of accepted wisdom.          


"The Palestinian territory occupied since 1967" appeared, in one form or another, some dozen times in the U.N. resolution.  This whopper of an old lie, told so often and for so long as to merge fantasy with reality, made Israel's defeat at the U.N. a long time coming.  One might say that it made Israel's defeat historically inevitable.


"Occupied Palestinian Territory" (OPT) is a thing of smoke and mirrors.  Historically, it never happened; legally, there never was Palestinian territory for Israel to occupy.  Israel took the territories from Egypt and Jordan in 1967, and there's no getting away from that.  So today Israel has more right than Jordan to be occupying the West Bank, and more right than Egypt to be occupying Gaza (if Israel's blockade may be called occupation).  "Palestine" never enters the equation.  Turn Middle East wars and laws upside-down and any way you like, but if the territories belong to any U.N. member, or quasi-member, they belong to Israel.


Not even the famous U.N. Resolution 242 can help.  It told Israel to withdraw from territories once held by Jordan, illegally, and Egypt, and it envisaged those territories' return to those two countries.  [Editor: But Resolution 242 did not require or suggest return of "the territories", just "territories", meaning part of the territories.] "Palestine" never got a mention in Resolution 242 -- for a couple of good reasons.


Palestinians were not among the belligerents involved in the Six-Day War.  Anyway, the people who were going to stake claim to a nation they would call Palestine were a year away from being born.


More than anyone, King Hussein of Jordan understood perfectly that a cart before the horse never gets off the blocks. So he told the 1988 Arab League summit in Amman: "The appearance of a distinct Palestinian national personality comes as an answer to Israel's claim that Palestine is Jewish."


The Hashemite monarch was explaining to fellow potentates why a Palestinian nation had to be conceived in 1968.  If it were not, then the West Bank and Gaza would be Israel's by dint of war and law.  Arab armies had been vanquished in six days, the territories lost to Israel.  That made it imperative for the PLO to revise its covenant, which it did on July 17, 1968.  The PLO meddled with Article 24, erasing the old declaration that the West Bank and Gaza were not occupied and now insisting that they were.  With that sleight-of-hand, a newborn nation came into the world -- with a newborn bastard illegal occupier.


Armed with nothing but chutzpah, the PLO lost no time cementing the lie that the Jewish state had usurped the foundling's heritage.  From there to the accepted wisdom of "Occupied Palestinian Territories" took no more than a quick step.  


For all that, "Palestinian territory occupied by Israel" is more than a risible lie of history.  It has had the power to alter history.  For one thing, the international community took to the idea.  For another, a goodly proportion of American, and even Israeli, Jews nailed their colors to that mast.  For a third, an economic bubble has OPT to thank.  Monthly pay slips for untold hundreds of U.N. staffers depend on that fallacious real estate.  Hundreds of NGOs and staffers would be the poorer without it.  And remember, OPT is the article of faith on which anti-Zionists peg their zeal.  Their god demands little: hate Zionism and revere OPT.  Hence the daily invocations.  Label products from "occupied territories."  Boycott Israel and divest because of OPT.


Then there is the U.N. and its dependency on OPT.  Some U.N. organs were custom-made for it -- embedded the fabled territory in their names.  One of those organs has a bona fide legal expert at the helm, sporting a grand title but no salary, for he plays the part out of conviction.  And what is that conviction but the creed of the anti-Zionist faithful, the "Israel may not be found innocent" creed?  It's right there in this U.N. lawman's sonorous title: "Special Rapporteur to the UN Council on Human Rights on violation of Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law in the Occupied Palestinian Territory."


So Israeli crimes are pre-supposed, and the U.N. lawman tours a land of the U.N.'s own making to look for them.



But for the OPT whopper, the world would be a quieter place.  And Israel with its settlement enterprise would not now be under U.N.-complicit threat. 

Steve Apfel is director of the School of Management Accounting, Johannesburg.  He is the author of Hadrian's Echo: The whys and wherefores of Israel's critics and a contributor to "War by other means" (Israel Affairs, Special Issue. July 2012).

Source: http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/12/the_lie_that_broke_israels_back.html

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Our Enemies Want to Destroy us, They won't Compromise

by Daniel Siryoti, Shlomo Cesana and News Agencies

Prime Minister Netanyahu condemns anti-Israel remarks at Hamas 25th anniversary celebration, saying "we have always overcome these threats" • At rally attended by hundreds of thousands of Hamas supporters, organization's political chief Khaled Mashaal says "Palestine is ours."

"My dream is to die as a martyr for Gaza and for Jerusalem" Khaled Mashaal kissing the ground on his first ever visit to Gaza Friday. |Photo credit: Reuters

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu (center) at his cabinet meeting on Sunday: Hamas claims of "victory" in Operation Pillar of Defense vindicates Israel's hesitation to hand over West Bank. Photo credit: Reuters

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu addressed this weekend's celebrations in Gaza — marking the 25th anniversary of Hamas and the arrival of Hamas politburo chief Khaled Mashaal — telling his cabinet on Sunday that the event proved that the Palestinians did not intend to compromise with Israel. 

Referring to the fiery anti-Israel speeches made by Hamas officials at the rally, the prime minister said that "In the last 24 hours we glimpsed, once again, the true face of our enemies. They have no intention to compromise with us, they want to destroy our country, and obviously they will fail. Throughout our history, the people of Israel have always overcome such threats."

On Saturday, in a defiant speech during his first ever visit to Gaza, Mashaal told a mass rally he would never recognize Israel and pledged to "free the land of Palestine inch by inch."

"Palestine is ours, from the river to the sea," Mashaal said, referring to all the territory between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea, including Jerusalem. 

On Sunday, Netanyahu slammed Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas for failing to condemn the inciting Hamas remarks. "Sadly, Abbas is working toward reunification with Hamas, which is supported by Iran. He didn't condemn the calls to wipe out Israel, just like he didn't condemn the rockets that were fired [from Gaza] at Israel," the prime minister said.

Netanyahu stressed that he was ready to withstand international pressure and vowed that he would not abandon Israel's interests. "We want true peace with our neighbors," he said. "But we don't shut our eyes. We don't bury our heads in the sand." 

"We refuse to repeat the mistake of unilateral withdrawal, and other withdrawals that essentially gave rise to Hamas' power in Gaza," Netanyahu said, referring mainly to the 2005 Israeli withdrawal from settlements in Gaza. 

"I am always amazed at the delusions of those who are willing to continue this process and call it peace," Netanyahu continued.

On Saturday, Mark Regev, a spokesman for Netanyahu, also condemned the comments and called them an obstacle to peace.

"Today we heard from Hamas in Gaza a hateful and extremist message, a message that says no to peace and no to reconciliation, a message that says every Israeli man, woman and child is a legitimate target."

"That sort of extremism won't help peace, the opposite is true. And I would ask Palestinian [Authority] President, Mr. [Mahmoud] Abbas, if you see Hamas as a political partner, what does that say about your dedication to peace," Regev said. 

"We heard a very crystal clear message of hate that Israel should be destroyed and that the Jewish state should be wiped out of the map," he said. 

Hamas' charter calls for the destruction of Israel but its leaders have, at times, indicated a willingness to negotiate a prolonged truce in return for a retreat to the 1967 borders, something Mashaal made no mention of at Saturday's event.

Mashaal, born in the West Bank in 1956, left with his family for exile in 1967 after Israel captured the territory. He now spends his time between Cairo and Qatar, and was expected to cross back into Egypt on Sunday or Monday to resume his position as Hamas' key point person with foreign donors.

Saturday's rally in Gaza, marking 25 years since Hamas was founded, was attended by hundreds of thousands of people — Hamas supporters from Gaza and the entire Arab world — including Hamas' top leaders, namely Gaza Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh. 

The group decorated the speakers podium with a huge model of an M-75 rocket — the type of rocket Hamas fired at Tel Aviv and Jerusalem during the latest round of violence. 

Mashaal arrived in Gaza on Friday through the Rafah border crossing with Egypt, accompanied by his deputy, Moussa Abu Marzouk, and other senior Hamas officials. According to Arab media reports, Mashaal wore a bulletproof vest throughout his Gaza stay. 

Mashaal, who kissed the ground when he entered Gaza, said Friday that "God be blessed. My dream is to die as a martyr for Gaza and for Jerusalem. We will not stop at 1967 borders, we will continue to 1948 borders, until the liberation of occupied Palestine. We will continue to be a thorn in the Zionist enemy's side."

A Hamas military spokesman also took the podium, saying, "we will continue on the path of Ahmed Jabari," the Hamas military commander who was assassinated by Israeli forces on Nov. 14, sparking Operation Pillar of Defense. "We vow to continue the jihad (holy war) and the resistance until we vanquish the occupation and purify our holy sites. All of Gaza thanks Turkey and Iran for supporting our resistance." 

Mashaal, who took the stage to the sound of cheers and adoration, said that "the crimes of Israel against the Palestinian people, our land and our holy sites, only serve to intensify our continued resistance. We will remain loyal to Jerusalem, to al-Aqsa and to our holy places and we won't give up a single inch of occupied Palestine."

"The Zionist enemy will continue to suffer defeats until they are gone from here," Mashaal continued. "We are not afraid of [Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin] Netanyahu. We are not afraid of anyone. We will continue with the resistance until we achieve victory. Palestine is Arab and Muslim. We will not recognize the Israeli occupation. Israel and the occupation are not legitimate. Israel's attempts to falsify history and falsify facts will fail."

In a jab directed at Abbas, who told Israeli television last month that he does not intend to return to his birthplace, Safed, Mashaal said that, "we won't give up Jerusalem or Haifa or Beersheba or Safed."

Mashaal also mentioned Operation Pillar of Defense, the latest round of violence between Israel and Gaza terrorists which ended with a cease-fire agreement last month, saying, "resistance is not a goal, it is a means. I ask of the world: If you know of a different means of liberating Palestine and Jerusalem and the refugees, please tell us. We have been trying for 64 years, and only resistance has proven effective."

"We are not fighting the Jews for being Jews, but rather the Zionists and their aggression, for having stolen our land," Mashaal added. 

Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman later issued a response to the rally, saying that, "the bombastic declarations and boastful words in Gaza come only as an effort to mask the great blow Hamas suffered during Operation Pillar of Defense. The proof is the fact that since the day the operation ended, there has been complete calm in the south and they haven't dared shoot or provoke Israel again."

Daniel Siryoti, Shlomo Cesana and News Agencies

Source: http://www.israelhayom.com/site/newsletter_article.php?id=6670

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

A Double-Standard Abstention

by Melanie Phillips


The double standard was breathtaking. The UN vote to give the Palestinians the status of a non-member, observer state has smashed the Middle East peace process to bits.

In bringing this to the General Assembly, Mahmoud Abbas was in unilateral breach of his obligation under the Oslo Accords to proceed by way of bilateral negotiations with Israel.

In response, Israel made a very sharp point of its own by announcing it would now build 3,000 homes in East Jerusalem and the West Bank. It also said it would approve planning and zoning for a more sensitive area called E1 between Jerusalem and the settlement bloc of Ma’ale Adumim.

Israel was thus showing its fury not just with the Palestinians but also with the world. For the UN move not only legitimised an entity that has no legitimacy, thus substituting politics for law, but also punished the permanent victim of its murderous aggression. 

The proper response to Palestinian aggression, racism and contempt for international agreements is to cut their funding. 

Yet the UK, which merely abstained after Abbas refused to meet its conditions for supporting him, responded with outrage — not at the Palestinians but at Israel.

Like other EU countries summoning the Israeli ambassador for a dressing-down, it claimed that the construction “threatened the viability of the two-state solution” and threatened unspecified punishments.

But it is the PA and the UN who have torn up the peace process. There is no longer any agreement to bind Israel to anything.

Nor is Israel changing much on the ground, since the proposed new building is in existing Jewish areas. It is generally assumed that these would become part of Israel under any final agreement. As for E1, Israel has said no decision has been taken to build there.

So why did the UK respond in this obnoxiously perverse way? One explanation that some will favour is its irredeemable hatred of Israel and the Jews. 

Let’s park that one for now. Rather more relevant to the row is that Britain obsessively pursues a fundamental category error.

It believes that the peace process is the only way to achieve the only solution to the Middle East impasse, which is a Palestinian state. In the light of all that has happened, such a belief is totally delusional. 

Israel has always accepted a two-state solution. The Palestinians have gone to extreme lengths to demonstrate they will never do so. Instead, they blow up Israeli civilians and indoctrinate Palestinian children to hate and murder Jews. They refused to negotiate with Israel even during a 10-month moratorium on new settlement building. 

This is because what they want is not a state of Palestine but the destruction of Israel. They abrogate their agreements and thus destroy the prospect of a negotiated solution — because they do not want one. 

Yet here’s the really delusional thing about the UK’s peace-process obsession. It is precisely because the Palestinians refuse to co-operate with this supposedly vital process that the UK is ever more desperate to get them on board. 

So instead of punishing them for not co-operating, it turns a blind eye to every outrage they commit — while blaming Israel, whose own willingness to negotiate they take for granted, for “provoking” them. 

So the UK gives a free pass to racist aggression while punishing its victim. Which is what it and the rest of the so-called “civilised” world have been doing in the Middle East ever since the 1920s. And that, not settlement building, is the real reason why this conflict is the most intractable in the world.

Melanie Phillips

Source: http://melaniephillips.com/a-double-standard-abstention

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Israeli Special Forces Tracking Chemical Weapons inside Syria

by Shlomi Diaz, Daniel Siryoti, Eli Leon, News Agencies and Israel Hayom Staff

Sunday Times, troops on the ground to monitor Syria’s non-conventional armaments and sabotage their development • U.N. to reinforce units stationed on Golan Heights after Syrian rebels reportedly capture large areas near Israeli border.

Shlomi Diaz, Daniel Siryoti, Eli Leon, News Agencies and Israel Hayom Staff

An Israeli soldier sits atop his tank overlooking the Syrian village of Bariqa, close the Israel-Syria border on the Golan Heights. | Photo credit: AP

Syrian rebels in Allepo on Saturday.

|Photo credit: AFP

Israel is keeping a close eye on developments in Syria amid reports that President Bashar Assad's regime or the rebels fighting him are on the verge of using chemical weapons. The Sunday Times reported that Israeli special forces were operating in Syria to track the regime’s stocks of chemical and biological weapons. The operation is part of a "secret war" to monitor Syria’s non-conventional armaments and sabotage their development, the British publication stated. 

“For years we’ve known the exact location of Syria’s chemical and biological munitions,” an Israeli source told the Sunday Times, referring to the country’s spy satellites and drones. “But in the past week we’ve got signs that munitions have been moved to new locations.”

Meanwhile, rebel forces released a video on Saturday claiming to show victims of a chemical weapons attack perpetrated by the Assad regime. Several men and an elderly woman were shown in a makeshift hospital with bandages covering their damaged faces. As of Sunday afternoon the video's authenticity or the veracity of the rebels' claims had yet to be confirmed by any outside or third-party source. 

The rebels also said over the weekend that they have succeeded in capturing most of the territory in Syria that borders Israel, and the United Nations said it planned to reinforce its units stationed on the Golan Heights as a result. The U.N. is concerned about the violence spilling into Israel, as well as other extreme developments that could ignite the region. 

No official Israeli representative, however, has thus far said whether any order has been given to reinforce Israel Defense Forces positions along the Syrian line.

The growing fear that the civil war in Syria could unleash the world's first use of chemical weapons in nearly three decades is based on two grim scenarios — neither considered likely but both carrying risks of civilian massacre and a major escalation of violence.

The first is that Assad, in a last-ditch effort to save his regime, would order chemical attacks — either as a limited demonstration to the rebels of his willingness to use the internationally banned weapons, or in a large-scale offensive designed to turn the tide of a conflict that already has killed an estimated 40,000.

The second is that some portion of Assad's arsenal could be moved to Iran or Lebanon or fall into the hands of foreign fighters with ties to terrorist groups who are helping Syrian rebels. The Syrian Foreign Ministry claimed over the weekend that rebels captured a plant that manufactures toxic chlorine near the city of Aleppo, but did not say whether the plant was used to weaponize the chemical.

British Foreign Secretary William Hague said Saturday that he has seen "some evidence" that Assad's regime is preparing to use chemical weapons against rebels and that military intervention had not been ruled out.

"We and the U.S…. have seen some evidence of that and that is why we have issued strong warnings about it. We have done so directly to the Syrian regime," French news agency AFP quoted Hague as saying. Asked what evidence had been presented, Hague said "we absolutely cannot be specific about that because clearly those are intelligence sources that these things come from."

Global concerns over Syria's chemical weapons stockpiles intensified after U.S. officials privately said last week that the regime had begun mixing precursor chemicals that could be used for the lethal nerve agent sarin.

News confirmed by The Associated Press this week that an unknown number of weapons in Syria were recently loaded with sarin exacerbated the West's fears.

Syria has never confirmed that it even has chemical weapons. But it is believed to possess substantial stockpiles of mustard gas and a range of nerve agents, including sarin, a highly toxic substance that can suffocate its victims by paralyzing muscles around their lungs.

James Quinlivan, a Rand Corp. analyst who studies the elimination of weapons of mass destruction, said Syria is thought to have hundreds of tons of chemical weapons material, including not only sarin and mustard gas but possibly also the nerve agent VX, which, like sarin, kills by attacking the central nervous system.

The precise dimensions of Syria's chemical weapons arsenal are not known, in part because it has never been subjected to outside inspection. Experts say it is a formidable collection, but the weapons date back almost 40 years – when Assad's father, President Hafez Assad, began accumulating them – and have not been modernized.

"Frankly, you'd stand as much chance of committing a self-inflicted wound as of actually killing opponents," said Aram Nerguizian, a Mideast security expert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. "These systems are not going to achieve the end state that the regime wants, which is regime survival."

For example, the arsenal apparently does not include weapons that combine or mix chemical ingredients after a shell or missile is fired; instead the mixing must be done manually prior to launching the weapon, Nerguizian said.

U.S. officials have warned Assad there would be unspecified "consequences" if he used his chemical weapons or lost control of them. That could include military intervention, aided perhaps by allies such as Turkey. The U.S. and its allies might also launch a pre-emptive military operation to secure the weapons before they could be used.

One administration official, speaking on condition of anonymity because the official was not authorized to talk publicly, defined what would trigger a response: The use of chemical weapons, or movement with the intent to use them, or word that they were falling into the hands of a group like Hezbollah, that the U.S. considers a terrorist group.

America and its allies have already begun preparing.

A U.S. special operations training team is in neighboring Jordan, teaching troops how to secure chemical stockpiles, according to one current and one former U.S. official briefed on the matter. 

U.S. officials have said it could take as many as 75,000 ground troops to secure all of Syria's dozens of chemical sites in a worst-case scenario in which the intervention would face Syrian resistance. The Obama administration has been consulting with Turkey, Jordan, Israel, Russia and others on possible courses of action.

"We're prepared for the full range of contingencies," Pentagon press secretary George Little said Friday.

The U.S.-led NATO alliance this week agreed to move Patriot missiles to Turkey as a defensive measure. Patriots are capable of neutralizing a chemical warhead aboard a missile by incinerating it in flight, although a portion of the chemical could fall in populated areas.

Jeffrey White, a defense expert at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, said that in addition to air-delivered weapons, the Syrian military can put chemical warheads on missiles like the Soviet-designed Scud, as well as artillery shells and short-range rockets and fire them into populated areas.

"Without intelligence warnings from external sources, rebel combatants and civilians would be highly vulnerable to surprise chemical attacks, increasing the chances for major casualties," White wrote in policy paper this week. In his view, Washington should be prepared for the "growing possibility" of chemical attacks in Syria.

Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said Thursday that the U.S. is concerned that "as the opposition advances, in particular on Damascus, that the regime might very well consider the use of chemical weapons."

Former CIA officer Reuel Marc Gerecht said Assad and his minority Alawite tribe view the fight against the rebels as a "war to the death." Thus, "it's not at all inconceivable that he would use" his chemical arms, he said.

"There is no telling what a mad dog will do when it's cornered," said Rep. Adam Schiff, a Democrat and a member of the House Intelligence Committee. He added he still finds it hard to believe Assad would take that step.

Some experts believe a more likely scenario is that groups with terrorist ties who are helping the rebels might acquire some of Assad's weapons of mass destruction.

"I think the big problem is when and if Assad loses control of his weapons and sites," said David Friedman, a former head of the Israel Defense Forces chemical-biological protection division. "Then, of course, weapons might fall into opposition hands and they might use it. This is a real danger and threat."

Earlier this week, Syria's deputy foreign minister, Faisal Mekdad, said in a TV interview that Syria would not use chemical weapons against its own people.

"We cannot possibly commit suicide," he said. "Syria is a responsible country."

Meanwhile, rebel commanders from across Syria have joined forces under a united command they hope will increase coordination between diverse fighting groups and streamline the pathway for arms essential to their struggle against Assad's regime.

While many of the brigades involved in the fighting are decidedly Islamist in outlook and some have boasted about executing captured soldiers, two of the most extreme groups fighting in Syria were not invited to the rebel meeting in Turkey or included in the new council – a move that could encourage Western support.

The new body, expected to be announced officially on Sunday, hopes to form the basis of a united rebel front.

Some 500 delegates elected the 30-person Supreme Military Council and a Chief of Staff on Friday and planned to meet soon with representatives from the opposition's newly reorganized political leadership, participants said.

"The aim of this meeting was to unify the armed opposition to bring down the regime," said a rebel commander from near Damascus who attended the meeting. "It also aims to get the situation under control once the regime falls."

Britain, France, Turkey and several Gulf Arab nations have recognized the National Alliance, effectively considering it a government in exile.

The U.S. is expected to recognize it at an international "Friends of Syria" conference in Marakesh, Morocco, that begins Wednesday.

It remains unclear how the new military command will relate to the National Alliance and whether foreign powers will back it.

But two of Syria's most extreme rebel groups were not included: Jabhat al-Nusra, which has claimed deadly suicide bombings and is believed to be linked to al-Qaida, and Ahrar al-Sham, an Islamic fundamentalist brigade comprising foreign jihadists.

U.S. officials have said the Obama administration is preparing to designate Jabhat al-Nusra a terrorist organization.

The Syrian government did not comment on the new rebel command and throughout the uprising has considered the rebels terrorists backed by foreign powers that seek to destroy the country.

Shlomi Diaz, Daniel Siryoti, Eli Leon, News Agencies and Israel Hayom Staff

Source: http://www.israelhayom.com/site/newsletter_article.php?id=6668

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

The Arab Economy Autumn!

by Emad El Din Adeeb



Anybody closely following the movement of funds to and from the Arab world will have noticed a number of disturbing phenomena:

Firstly, more than one third of investments from Arab Spring states are no longer being invested domestically, rather these funds are being invested abroad, whether we are talking about in foreign banks or foreign investment funds.

Secondly, direct investment in Arab Spring states decreased by two-thirds over the past two years. These states are now primarily relying on funds from citizens living abroad or loans, grants and aid from foreign countries or international institutions.

Thirdly, the Arab tourism sector has been strongly affected, particularly in countries that are experiencing political tensions and security instability, like Egypt, Lebanon, Syria and Tunisia. The income from tourism is essential for these countries and approximately 40 percent of the local population benefit from the tourism industry, whether directly or indirectly.

Fourth, many business owners in these countries are now prepared not just to freeze their operations or stop their expansion plans, but rather to completely get out of the labour market altogether.

The present situation in many of these states has seen investors being prepared to sell their factories, companies and shares at as much as a 50 percent discount in return for immediate and up-front payment, on the condition that these payments are made outside of the country. This is because the central banks in the Arab Spring states are imposing heavy taxes on money transfers abroad.

As for real estate, on the surface the real estate market seems to have remained level, however when it comes to the stage of serious negotiations it becomes clear that we are in a “buyer’s market”, rather than a “seller’s market”. In addition, the dollar is a big incentive when it comes to this.

I am well aware of what can be described as many people having no choice but to sell off their shares or real estate in the recent period, and this is something that has no basis in logic or religion.

Therefore the Arab Spring has led to an economic autumn!


Emad El Din Adeeb

Source: http://www.asharq-e.com/news.asp?section=2&id=32106

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Barack Obama as Captain Ahab

by Peter Wehner


One of the things that has become apparent during the presidential campaign and now, during the negotiations over how to avoid the “fiscal cliff,” is the importance the president places on raising the rates on the top 2 percent of income earners. I’ve written before on why I believe conservatives shouldn’t make a “no new taxes” pledge and why keeping the top rate at 35 percent (which I support) isn’t a matter of high principle.

At the same time, Speaker John Boehner and House Republicans–who after all have been willing to put $800 billion in revenues (through closing loopholes and deductions) on the table–have been far more open to compromise than President Obama, who has not given an inch. In particular, the president has made it clear that he would gladly go over the fiscal cliff rather than give up on his obsession to raise tax rates on the top 2 percent.

For Obama, the top two percent are the Great White Whale–and he is Captain Ahab.
The question is why. Captain Ahab’s neurotic obsession was understandable (Moby Dick, after all, had destroyed his boat and bit off his leg). So what explains Mr. Obama’s obsession?

It can’t be what he claims, which is improving the economy or reducing the deficit. As Charles Krauthammer pointed out, “the alleged curative effect on debt of Obama’s tax-rate demand — the full rate hike on the ‘rich’ would have reduced the 2012 deficit from $1.10 trillion to $1.02 trillion. That’s a joke, a rounding error.”

So if what is driving Obama isn’t an economic argument, what else might it be? Part of it is, as Krauthammer argues, political. Mr. Obama believes forcing Republicans to agree to raise tax rates on the top bracket will fracture the party. But there may be something else at play as well. Barack Obama is a man of the left, a proud progressive, and what animates the left today isn’t a positive vision to achieve the common good; it’s a seething resentment toward those who are successful and a commitment to make them pay more in the name of “fairness.”

To understand the president’s worldview, it’s worth recalling some of the most revealing statements he’s made over the last four years. The first is his response to Charles Gibson during a 2008 debate with Hillary Clinton, when Obama said he would favor raising capital-gains taxes in the name of fairness–even if doing so would create a net revenue loss. The second was Obama’s comments to Joe Wurzelbacher, also made in 2008, that “when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody.” And the third took place in 2012 when the president said, “If you’ve got a business — you didn’t build that.  Somebody else made that happen.”

Mr. Obama’s aim when it comes to taxes, then, isn’t, as he and other liberals often argue, simply to raise revenues. Rather, it is to advance their understanding of “fairness,” which they take to be synonymous with justice, both taken to mean that the top earners in America, at every given moment in time, aren’t sacrificing enough in the form of higher taxes. They should always pay more.

If there were no political or institutional checks on Obama, I’m quick sure he’d tax the top 2 percent at a much higher rate than he’s arguing for now (39.6 percent). But just like he was willing to jettison his commitment to the single-payer system (which in the past he has admitted he prefers) in order to pass the Affordable Care Act, Mr. Obama is a patient ideologue. He is willing to take what he can get now in order to continue his transformational project for America. Part of that transformational project is going after “the rich.” It has become, for him, something of an obsession.

The president may win this particular battle. But if he does, his compulsion won’t end. For ideologues, for the Captain Ahabs of the world, it never really does.

Peter Wehner

Source: http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2012/12/07/barack-obama-as-captain-ahab/

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

The Fantasy of Hamas’s Moderation

by Max Boot


Hamas, at least according to one increasingly popular line of reasoning in both the U.S. and Europe, is supposed to be turning more moderate because of its governance responsibilities in the Gaza Strip. Indeed, many commentators claimed to see evidence of its growing maturity in its decision to agree with Israel on a relatively fast cease-fire deal after the most recent round of fighting. Many call for engaging in negotiations with Hamas on the assumption that it is tacitly accepting a two-state solution.

Such analysis has always appeared to be the triumph of hope over experience and never more so than following Hamas political leader Khaled Meshaal’s triumphal homecoming to the Gaza Strip–a territory he had never previously visited in his life but where he exercises a large degree of influence. His speech, to mark the 25th anniversary of Hamas’s founding, was not exactly a model of moderation. Here is what he had to say:

Mr. Meshal said the Jewish state would be wiped away through “resistance,” or military action. “The state will come from resistance, not negotiation,” he said. “Liberation first, then statehood.”

His voice rising to a shout, Mr. Meshal said: “Palestine is ours from the river to the sea and from the south to the north. There will be no concession on any inch of the land.” He vowed that all Palestinian refugees and their descendants would one day return to their original homes in what is now Israel.

“We will never recognize the legitimacy of the Israeli occupation, and therefore there is no legitimacy for Israel, no matter how long it will take,” he said. “We will free Jerusalem inch by inch, stone by stone. Israel has no right to be in Jerusalem.”

On one level there is nothing terribly surprising in his remarks: they are simply an affirmation of everything Hamas has stood for throughout its existence. But they should give pause, at least for a little bit, to those naive analysts who think that Hamas is somehow moderating. Hamas is quite capable of reaching temporary cease-fires or prisoner releases with Israel in its own tactical interest. But it shows no sign of giving up its goal of annihilating the Israeli state. That is not an acceptable basis for peace talks.

Max Boot

Source: http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2012/12/09/the-fantasy-of-hamass-moderation/

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Allowing Muslim Violence to Determine Permissible Speech

by Daniel Greenfield

The “Innocence of Muslims” case marked the first time in the United States in nearly a century that a man was imprisoned over the hostile reaction to his speech. The precedent for that had already been set with the Koran burnings and the Mohammed cartoons, but for the first time the United States acted on the concept that the outcome of speech determines its protected nature.

That is the important point that Nathaniel Sugarman makes in his article on the UN assault on the American Bill of Rights

Resolution 16/18 calls for criminalization of “incitement to imminent violence based on religion or belief,” and it “condemns… any advocacy of religious hatred against individuals that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence.” At first glance, this language does not seem restrictive; even in the U.S., incitement is not a protected form of speech. The issue is the respective ways in which the U.S. and the OIC define “incitement.” U.S. Courts use a content-based test to determine whether speech is incitement.
Brandenburg, which is still the law, ruled that in order for speech to be unprotected as incitement, the speech must (1) intend to produce imminent lawless action, and must be (2) likely to produce such action. In other words, there is both a subjective and objective prong, both concerning the speech itself. By contrast, the OIC endorses a “test of consequences,” which punishes speech based not on its content, but based on the result. This is a completely subjective test, and fails to consider the words uttered by the speaker, focusing only on the reaction of others. How would this play out in practice? Violence claimed to be in response to cartoons of Muhammad, could, under the OIC’s definition, retroactively define the cartoons as incitement.

What this really does is make Muslim violence into the arbiters of what legal and illegal speech is, retroactively. Hate crimes have already moved us all too close to adopting a standard in which the perception of speech determines its legality, but the Islamic effort moves us beyond mere perception into consequence, acting as a kind of Felony Murder rule for speech in which the actions of a hostile third party in antagonism to that speech, rather than in cooperation with it, determines its legality. And all that is needed to suppress any speech is for a hostile and violent reaction to take place in its aftermath.

Speech then becomes subject to mob rule and terrorism becomes the determinant of permissible and impermissible speech.

Daniel Greenfield

Source: http://frontpagemag.com/2012/dgreenfield/allowing-muslim-violence-to-determine-permissible-speech/

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Washington Post Cheerleads for Terror

by Leo Rennert

Khaled Meshaal, supreme leader of the terrorist group Hamas that has claimed the lives of hundreds of Israelis, paid his first visit to Gaza on Dec. 7 amid joyous pomp and circumstance arranged by his followers who rule the coastal Palestinian territory. 

The Washington Post, in its Dec. 8 issue, not only reports this event, but sanitizes Meshaal with a sympathetic biography that ignores the blood on his hands from Hamas during the second intifada, and more recently during escalating rocket attacks against civilian populations in southern Israel. The Post article also is silent about Meshaal's genocidal Hamas agenda for elimination of Israel and the murder of Jews. ("Exiled Hamas leader Khaled Meshaal visits Gaza for first time" by Joel Greenberg). 

With more than a touch of Stockholm syndrome, Greenberg, a Post Jerusalem correspondent, calls Meshaal's visit a "triumphant" coup that "gave an aura of legitimacy" to Hamas. With undisguised empathy for Meshaal, Greenberg depicts his visit as carrying "a strong symbolic meaning after a life spent moving from one Arab state to another." 

He also tells Post readers that Meshaal's visit managed "to amplify Hamas' message of armed resistance" against Israel. ("Armed resistance" is Greenberg's and Meshaal's way of using a neutral euphemism for terror attacks against civilians.} 

Greenberg dwells at length on Meshaal's meandering life -- from having to leave his boyhood home in the West Bank in 1967 to taking refuge in Jordan, from which he was expelled in 1999 -- without once mentioning Israeli victims of Hamas under his leadership. Greenberg instead is more interested in focusing on how Meshaal reaped "enhanced stature" among Palestinians with his appearance in Gaza. (Greemberg also keeps secret from readers why Meshaal was expelled from Jordan -- Amman didn't care for his buildup of a radical Palestinian paramilitary group that threatened to destabilize the Hashemite monarchy.) 

During Meshaal's "triumphant" visit, we are told that he kissed the ground upon arriving in Gaza via the Rafah border crossing from Egypt and that he boasted, "Today Gaza and then Jerusalem, Haifa Jaffa, God willing." Again, Greenberg eschews the implications of such a bloodsoaked agenda. 

In sum, if you believe Greenberg and the Post, Meshaal manages to do one better than Shakespeare: Unlike Lady Macbeth, Meshaal -- with an assist from Greenberg's script -- does succeed to "out, that damned spot, out I say."

Leo Rennert is a former White House correspondent and Washington bureau chief of McClatchy Newspapers

Source: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2012/12/washington_post_cheerleads_for_terror.html

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Clear Facts about the Settlement Issue

by Yoram Ettinger

1. Judea and Samaria (Jewish roots) or West Bank (Arab roots)?

“Judea” (יהודה) is the origin of the term “Jew” (יהודי). Its Hebrew spelling combines one of God’s names: Jehova (יהוה) and one of God’s acronyms: ד'. Judea and Samaria are the cradle of Jewish history, religion, culture, holidays, ethos, language and yearnings. The official name of the area was "Judea and Samaria" from Biblical times until April 1950, when Jordan occupied/annexed the area, renaming it "West Bank," as distinguished from the east bank of the Jordan River. Judea and Samaria was the official name used by the 1922-1948 British Mandate of Palestine, as well as by the U.N. 

2. Are Jewish settlements in Judea and Samaria an obstacle to peace?

Jewish settlements were established in Judea and Samaria after the 1967 War. However, it was pre-1967 Arab terrorism which annihilated the Jewish communities of Hebron, Gush Etzion and Gaza and raged in Jerusalem, Tel Aviv and the Galilee during the 1920s, 1930s and 1940s — Arab terrorism aimed at preventing the establishment of an “infidel” Jewish state in the “abode of Islam.” Several Arab armies, and Palestinian terrorists, raided Israel in 1948 and persisted in anti-Jewish terrorism before the 1967 establishment of Jewish settlements in Judea and Samaria. 

3. Is the strategic goal of Mahmoud Abbas to uproot the Jewish settlements in Judea and Samaria?

Mahmoud Abbas is the chairman of the Palestinian Liberation Organization, which supersedes and oversees the Palestinian Authority. The PLO was established in 1964, three years before the establishment of Jewish settlements in Judea and Samaria. The 1964 Covenant of the PLO referred only to the pre-1967 area of Israel. The current PLO Covenant targets Judea, Samaria and the pre-1967 area of Israel for “liberation.” 

Abbas is, also, the leader of Fatah, which was established in 1959, eight years before the establishment of Jewish settlements in Judea and Samaria. The August 2009 Sixth Convention of Fatah called for the continued struggle “to eradicate the Zionist economic, political, military and cultural existence." The strategic goal of Abbas is to uproot the Jewish state and not, merely, the Jewish settlements in Judea and Samaria.

4. Would the uprooting of Jewish settlements advance peaceful coexistence?

Peaceful coexistence on the one hand, and the uprooting of Jewish or Arab communities on the other, constitute an oxymoron. The 1.6 million Arabs, among 6 million Jews, within pre-1967 Israel do not constitute an obstacle to peace; nor do the 350,000 Jews, among 1.7 million Arabs in Judea and Samaria. The uprooting of Arab communities in pre-1967 Israel would be as immoral as would be the uprooting of Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria. "Judenrhein areas" contradict peaceful coexistence. In fact, the litmus test of Palestinian/Arab intent is the acceptance or rejection of Jewish settlements in Judea and Samaria. 

5. Does Jewish construction in Judea and Samaria prejudge the outcome of negotiation?

Palestinian construction in Judea and Samaria — which is dramatically larger than Jewish construction there — presents facts on the ground, just as Jewish construction does. Western tendency to single out Jewish construction in Judea and Samaria, while ignoring Palestinian construction, prejudges the outcome of negotiations! Opposition to Arab presence in pre-1967 Israel should not be tolerated; so, too, should the opposition to a Jewish presence in Judea and Samaria. Israel’s government razes illegal Jewish homes in Judea and Samaria. Israel should, also, raze the 1,100 illegal Arab homes built annually in Jerusalem and the thousands of illegal Arab homes in Judea and Samaria.

6. Are Jewish settlements in Judea and Samaria legal?

Judge Stephen Schwebel, former president of the International Court of Justice, determined that Israel's presence in Judea and Samaria was rooted in self-defense and therefore did not constitute "occupation." Eugene Rostow, former dean of Yale Law School, former undersecretary of state and co-author of U.N. Security Council Resolution 242, which sets out the criteria for Israel-Arab peacemaking said U.N. Resolution 242 does not call for withdrawal to the pre-1967 boundaries; Israel’s withdrawal from Sinai amounts to a 90 percent withdrawal from post-1967 areas; the legality of Jewish settlements in Judea and Samaria “cannot be terminated except by a recognized peace between Israel and its neighbors, and perhaps not even then, in view of Article 80 of the U.N. Charter, ‘the Palestine article,’" which upholds the 1922 British Mandate for Palestine. This 1922 international legal instrument considered Judea and Samaria part of the Jewish national homeland: “Jews have the same right to settle [in Judea and Samaria] as they have to settle in Haifa.” The 1993 Oslo Accord does not prohibit the construction of Jewish settlements in Judea and Samaria. 

The campaign against Jewish settlements in Judea and Samaria is based on gross misrepresentations. It is not a peace-enhancer; it is an appeasement-enhancer, fueling terrorism and undermining the pursuit of peace.　

Yoram Ettinger

Source: http://www.israelhayom.com/site/newsletter_opinion.php?id=3012

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.