From all I gather, The University of Maryland is a fine school with many strong academic departments. Certainly it is large with a beautiful campus and many new and magnificent buildings. Maryland has much of which to be proud. It has a new president - Wallace Loh - very impressive.
This memo will address my thoughts about the graduation and some comments from others about the world he and all 2011 graduates face.
While there, we also enjoyed a private tour of the David Driskell Center (art museum featuring works of David Driskell - one of America's most prominent living black artists - and other outstanding Black artists) and I will write about that as well.
Our tour was conducted by the Associate Director, Dorit Yaron. Bob Steele, The Director, was unable to be with us due to a prior commitment. My love of art and deep appreciation of its role in a civilized world was enhanced by our ability to tour this museum which, incidentally at the time, featured an artist we love - Joseph Holston. We own three of his lithographs and would love to purchase more of his art.
The second part of this memo will focus on Obama's actions vis a vis Israel and the Palestinians.
First: The Graduation ceremony, held in the fabulous Comcast Center, for all 2011 graduates, was dignified, students were very respectful, unlike other graduations we have attended for our children. I do not know whether it reflects the somber times but it was nice and encouraging to see.
The first ceremony speaker was Demaurice Smnith, a prominent attorney and Executive Director of the NFL Players. He told the graduates not to allow others to define them, to be passionate about and steadfast in their goals. I take exception to Smith's broad message because it could also explain the actions of terrorists who are passionate and refuse to allow others to define and/or thwart their actions.
Had Smith suggested passion in pursuit of worthiness I would have agreed but his remarks smacked of Goldwater's famous comment: "Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice." (For which Goldwater was derided and which helped cost him the election.)
We live in a world that embraces relativism and perhaps I am parsing Smith's comments too critically but I disagree that passion is always commendable or the correct basis for action. Tea Partyer's are passionate in their beliefs yet, are constantly derided by the liberal press and media and get nothing but grief from progressives who question their motives and disparage their actions. Liberals cannot be allowed to have it both ways. Particularly is this so when progressives believe their causes are worthy and therefore, cannot be questioned.
The speaker at the second ceremony - specific to our grandson's degree - was a Congresswoman from the 4th District of Maryland and her talk was so chocked full of banal platitudes that I thought she would choke.
I mention this because I had just finished reading "Ratification" and the Constitution and First 10 Amendments. This beautifully written, elegantly concise and comprehensive document has served our nation well and has protected our basic rights when adhered to and has threatened them when interpreted beyond its intent.
Stop and think, it took Obama and a Democrat controlled Congress over 2000 pages to intrude in our personal health care and rip away any vestige of personal rights. This is where we have come from and where we are today and that is frightening to me and should be to all.
The 2011 graduates hold the key to our nation's future and I wish them all well.
They face monumental problems pertaining to an increasingly vulgar, debauched, increasingly bizarre culture which my generation not only failed to prevent but also helped birth, an economic situation that borders on perilous - so I have posted a few samples of various ads, pictures articles and commentary to help clue you in to our society. (See 1,1a, 1b, 1c, 1d, 1e, 1f, 1g, 1h ,1i and 1j below.)
---
As for The Driskell Museum, it is a small jewel.
The Museum is located in a former campus natatorium and has a large display area but is cramped for storage.
It features works by American Black Artists and has a fine collection of some of the the better known contemporaries - Gilliam, Lawrence, Bearden, Driskell, Woodruff, Andrews, Holston, Cole, Puryear, Catlett etc. -and some I had never seen nor knew about.
The State Museum of Georgia(GMOA) has just been given the Larry and Brenda Thompson Collection which David Driskell, among other advisers, helped them establish.
The Thompson collection is one of the finest in the nation as is Walter Evan's Collection which just was given to The Savannah College of Art and Design (SCAD.)
Black American artists have come into their own, their prices are rising and the quality of their work is growing and various collections are becoming increasingly available for public viewing.
Being able to go back into the Drskell's stacks was a rare treat and we are very grateful to Bob Steele for providing us this opportunity and for Dorit, taking the time to accompany us along with one of their beautiful staffers who prepared us with an assortment of art catalogues etc.
---
While I was away, Obama made his second major speech to the Arab/Muslim World and proceeded to alter our nation's territorial demands vis a vis Israel.
There are those who assert Obama threw Israel under the bus as he has done with so many others who stand in his way. Others commend him for yanking on Israel's chain.
I was not surprised by Obama's demands that Israel must return to its 1967 borders with some alleged security modifications.
Obama is a man in a hurry. He proved that in his stampeding health care efforts, various initial trips and pronouncements around the world, attacks on GW's 'flawed decisions', many of which Obama himself later embraced, and his desire to swim away from Western Culture because of former misguided Colonial Policies. Obama even went so far as to insult one of our historic and closest allies by returning a gift of a bust of Churchill. He even was willing to accept a Nobel Prize for non-achievement!
Obama may be in a hurry but when it comes to Israel and Jews, he happens to be dealing with a people who have been around some 5000 plus years. We did not just ride into town and fall off a watermelon truck. Consequently, Obama was told by Israel's Prime Minister, Netanyahu, that he was unwilling to buy into Obama's concepts and then Netanyahu proceeded to issue a public explanation as to why.
I am going to post a series of comments by others to give you a flavor of representative responses pro and con.
As for yours truly, I repeat what I have said and written so often.
First, as to the liberal Jews: They remind me of Claude Rains, the great actor, who played the starring role in the movie: "Ship of Fools." Over seventy percent voted for Obama and will probably do so again. They fear they will be attacked if they are loyal to Israel because that would imply disloyalty to America, for if they go against Obama they will be called down for being racist and un-American.
Worst of all far too many Jews are simply lackeys and incapable of avoiding self-destruction. The same can be said for our black brothers when it comes to their knee jerk loyalty to the Democrat party which has taken them for granted and held them down with terrible school policies, pernicious support and imposition of welfarism etc.
Supporting Israel's existence is not a disloyal act. It is simply supporting a democracy in a sea of festering anti-Americanism - an area inhabited by peoples who have been hoodwinked by their own tyrannical Arab and Muslim leadership as witnessed by the recent attacks upon their own in Libya, Syria, Iran etc..
As for opposing Obama and being called a racist - that is a clever manufactured trick used by the elitist press to support their anointed and with able assistance by a president who is divisive and plays the racial card whenever he feels threatened and/or his hair-brained policies are opposed.
In terms of self-destruction, most liberal Jews cannot logically defend their opposition to conservative thinking and policies so they resort to the same tread worn bilious pap that is thrown at those who challenge their thinking with facts and history that disprove so many of their misguided social concepts and bankrupt economic theories.
Former Israeli Ambassador Dan Gellerman pointed out that, by even leaving diplomacy aside, what Obama did was the same as inviting a friend to dinner and then serving him food you know he does not like and to which he has an allergic condition.
As I listened to Gellerman, I was reminded of the many 'fraggings' of American Officers by young, poorly trained and disciplined American soldiers during Viet Nam.
At the very least, Obama has proven again to be a tasteless and insensitive president and at worst a naive fool and dangerous president.
Before Obama leaves office he will have the blood of tens of thousands of innocent people on his hands because of his incompetence, rash and misguided policies and, most of all, arrogance.
Whether Israel's presence and strength accord with Obama's thinking and/or plans its existence is a factual reality, its strength is a deterrent to those in the region who would do the U.S. and Western Societies harm and Israel, perverse as it may be, is a shield under which the Saudis can find some comfort for their own survival considering Iran's intentions and growing nuclear threat.
We re-elect Obama not only at our own peril but also that of the world.(See 2, 2a,
2b, 2c, 2d, 2e, 2f, 2g, 2h, 2i, 2j, 2k and 2l below.)
Dick
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1)http://www.buzzfeed.com/burnred/50-hilarious-personals-from-la-times-magazine-281t
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1b) "Mexican authorities found two trucks on the way to the United States which were crammed with 513 illegal aliens. So the Democrat get-out-the-vote campaign has already begun in earnest."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1c) Who's your baby’s Daddy? The following are genuine excerpts from the form replies Detroit women have written on Child Support Agency Forms in the section for listing 'Father's Details,' or putting it another way...
1. Regarding the identity of the father of my twins, Makeeshia was fathered by Maclearndon McKinley I am unsure as to the identity of the father of Marlinda, but I believe that she was conceived on the same night.
2 I do not know the name of the father of my little girl. She was conceived at a party at 3600 East Grand Boulevard where I had sex with a man I met that night. I do remember that the sex was so good that I fainted. If you do manage to track down the father, can you please send me his phone number? Thanks...
3. I don't know the identity of the father of my daughter. He drives a BMW that now has a hole made by my stiletto in one of the door panels. Perhaps you can contact BMW service stations in this area and see if he's had it replaced.
4. I have never had sex with a man. I am still a Virginian. I am awaiting a letter from the Pope confirming that my son's conception was ejaculate and that he is the Saver risen again.
5. I cannot tell you the name of Alleshia's dad as he informs me that to do so would blow his cover and that would have cataclysmic implications for the economy I am torn between doing right by you and right by the country.. Please advise.
6. I do not know who the father of my child was as they all look the same to me.
7. Tyrone Hairston is the father of child A. If you do catch up with him, can you axe him what he did with my AC/DC CDs? Child B who was also borned at the same time..... well, I don't have clue..
8. From the dates it seems that my daughter was conceived at Disney World. Maybe it really is the Magic Kingdom.
9. So much about that night is a blur. The only thing that I remember for sure is Delia Smith did a program about eggs earlier in the evening. If I had stayed in and watched more TV rather than going to the party at 8956 Miller Ave, mine might have remained unfertilized.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1d) If you need an inspirational ... or, umm, not-so-inspirational quote to share, you can thank Jeff in Sacramento for sharing these with us.
“A graduation ceremony is an event where the commencement speaker tells thousands of students dressed in identical caps and gowns that "individuality" is the key to success.” -Robert Orben
"People will frighten you about a graduation ... They use words you don't hear often: 'And we wish you Godspeed.' It is a warning, Godspeed. It means you are no longer welcome here at these prices."-Bill Cosby
“At commencement you wear your square-shaped mortarboards. My hope is that from time to time you will let your minds be bold, and wear sombreros.” - Paul Freund
"If A equals success, then the formula is: A = X + Y + Z, X is work. Y is play. Z is keep your mouth shut." - Albert Einstein
"Game shows are designed to make us feel better about the random, useless facts that are all we have left of our education." - Chuck Palahniuk
"If opportunity doesn't knock, build a door." - Milton Berle
"I have never let my schooling interfere with my education."- Mark Twain
“Commencement speeches were invented largely in the belief that outgoing college students should never be released into the world until they have been properly sedated.” - Garry Trudeau
“A man who has never gone to school may steal from a freight car;
but if he has a university education, he may steal the whole railroad.” - Theodore Roosevelt
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1e) A Tale of Two Cities --- scares the Dickens out of me
By Dave Weinbaum
Just this morning they announced a blood test that will tell us the day we are going to expire. My results revealed that I had already died five times—all on stage.
Politically, our economy is teetering between depression and hope—the real kind, based on fact. Compare a couple of states that have gone the Lib/progressive way and the conservative route over the last 50 years. I've chosen Texas and Michigan , but other states could be subbed. New Jersey, New York, California and Barack Obama's state, Illinois could easily be substituted on the left. North Dakota, Florida or Alaska could pose on the right.
For the sake of brevity, I'll stick with the classics: Texas VS Michigan: Here are the issues, followed by results.
• Personal Income Taxes-Texas no. Michigan yes.
• Corporate Taxes-Texas very low. Michigan very high—until new Republican Governor Snyder cut it 86% this year.
• Senators-Texas two Repubs. Michigan two Dems.
• Representatives-Texas 21 Repubs Ten Dems. Michigan eight Repubs seven Dems. (2008 election results)
• Unions-Texas is a Right-to-Work-state. (A law preventing you from having to join a union or pay dues to same as a condition of employment.). Michigan: Huge union presence. Along with gullible auto executives, unions killed and now own the car business in front of legitimate stock and bond holders—courtesy of the Obama Administration.
• Illegal immigration-Texas-big problem with no help from Obama Administration. Michigan, not so much.
• Unemployment Rate-Texas 8.1%. Michigan 11% (even with the government taking over Chrysler and GM and handing it to the unions.)
• Population-Texas gained 466,000 in same period Michigan dropped 33,000.
Further, a comparison between Detroit and Dallas is additional evidence of a forward VS backward society, one which government seeks to control and the other which promotes entrepreneurial growth and, dare I say, capitalism.
Detroit is dying. Houston and Dallas are thriving.
I heard the History Channel was cancelled — too many repeats.
The legacy of Detroit has been that of a socialistic "equal" justice environment, not surprisingly the same now promoted by the Obama Administration. Unless we consider the politicians who exploit this canard to get elected as stupid, we have only one other option—the intentional destruction of economies for their own power/monetary gains for them and their friends.
Societies all over the world have experimented with Socialism. Stalin's USSR, Hitler's Nazi Germany and Mao's China have disintegrated their respective countries. They've been responsible for about 200 million deaths, many of which were their own citizens and the collapse of their economies.
Today, countries of the Euro Continent are on the verge of bankruptcy, i.e. Greece , Spain, Britain and Portugal.
Why isn't the list of death and destruction enough to convince our brilliant president that Socialism is a cancer that needs eradication, not implementation?
The greener grass on the other side browns quicker
On a national basis, there is no doubt we're heading for Detroit-like ruin. Some want to make this a racial issue.
Maybe it is.
In the case of Detroit the black population has dropped 25%, caused by the economy and a 36% abortion rate VS a black US population of just 12%.
The policies of Dem politicians in Michigan mirror those in Washington. Despite Obama's railing against Wall Street, the empowering of the anti-business EPA, a war against oil and coal companies sending gas prices through the roof, blacks and other poor minorities have suffered the most. While unemployment is nine percent for the rest of America, the rate is almost double for blacks. What kind of equal justice is that? Further, when will blacks realize that when they elect Dems they're choosing against their own best interests?
But there is some positive news for environmentalists. Detroit has lost so many people that wildlife is moving back in. One man makes a few bucks hunting raccoons and selling the meat to his neighbors. Plus, the first beaver was spotted in a vacated Detroit Polish neighborhood in over 75 years. The EPA SHOULD BE PROUD!
Socialism isn't a system of fairness. It's a Ponzi scheme that destroys everyone in the end.
America, don't be fooled by Obama's posturing as a middle-of-the-road guy. Look at what he's done, not what he's said.
I heard Detroit took the death-prediction test. Results were they'd expire in a year -- but they couldn't pay for the exam. The test administrator said, "Alright already! I'll give you another year!"
Hmmm, just in time for the 2012 elections!
Vote Dallas and you may just save Detroit .
Dave Weinbaum hosts DaveWeinbaum.com. He is a businessman, writer and part-time stand-up comic and resides in a Midwest red state.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1f) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1gw8up1te0Y&feature=player_embedded
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1g) Shiller: Economy in ‘Worst Shape Since Great Depression’
By Greg Brown
Shiller sees stocks gaining between 2 percent and 3 percent during the coming decade. He sees no reason to believe in a resurgence of consumer spending, considering that the real unemployment rate, by his calculation, is 15.9 percent, and housing is headed south again.
“Even at this point, with the recession technically over, we are in the worst financial shape we've been in since the Great Depression,” he told an audience in Las Vegas, reported InvestmentNews.com.
Shiller’s unemployment figure counts unemployed, underemployed, and people forced into early retirement by the economy.
On top of all that, consumer confidence is weak and the foreclosure crisis continues to spread, Shiller notes.
“It worries me because if people don't have confidence, they don't spend money,” said the professor, who is best known for the widely cited S&P/Case-Shiller Home Price indexes.
The foreclosure rate fell slightly in the first quarter from a record high, according to the Mortgage Bankers Association, to 4.52 percent from 4.64 percent in the previous quarter. New foreclosure also slipped, to 1.08 percent of all loans from 1.26 percent. Delinquent loans also fell a half a percentage point, to 8.1 percent.
Roughly 6.4 million home loans are delinquent or in foreclosure, reports Bloomberg News, while the median home sale price has fallen by 5 percent in a year, to $163,700.
Of course, the idea that stocks might stay weak for years doesn’t mean that equities will return anything near an even, if low, percentage gain, nor does it take into account the effects of inflation, which could easily supersede such low gains and result in a negative return.
In fact, a study by Fidelity Investments found that stocks can put on double-digit increases over the months before a short, sharp correction.
Looking at stocks from 1928 through 2010, the median correction was negative 12 percent over a median time period of 54 days, but that correction came after a median gain of 57 percent in mini bull markets that lasted 1.5 years in length.
In the maximum case, stocks put on 233 percent before correcting and in the minimum case still gained 21 percent, compared to a maximum loss of negative 19 percent in a correction.
Investors got a similar warning from fund manager John Hussman earlier this week, who called stocks “strenuously overvalued” and warned of similarly low returns over the coming 10 years — just 3.5 percent for the S&P 500.
“A series of market fluctuations -40%, +85%, -36% and +100% within a 10-year period would produce a 10-year return about 3.5% annually, so a poor long-term expectation doesn't rule out the likelihood of significant investment opportunities in the interim,” Hussman wrote to investors.
“The real difficulty at present is that at already elevated valuations, it's less likely that those opportunities will be front-loaded.”
© Moneynews. All rights reserved.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1h) Geithner: Another Meltdown is 'Certain' — Raising Taxes on the Wealthy Will Come
By Martin Gould
Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner threw a bomb at America’s financial future last night, saying he is “certain” another financial catastrophe is on the way and that there is no way of reaching agreement on the debt ceiling without increasing taxes on the wealthy.
And he blamed a combination of timid politicians and credit card-debt-ridden Americans, rather than Wall Street and the big banks, for the financial woes that have beset the country over the past three years.
Geithner was speaking at a New York screening of the HBO adaptation of Andrew Ross Sorkin’s book “Too Big to Fail.” It came on the day that Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., pulled out of the “Gang of Six” trying to find a bi-partisan solution to the debt ceiling crisis.
Geithner said, “I’m certain we will” experience another crisis but not when or what kind.
The Treasury Department did not immediately respond to Newsmax’s request for comment on the Secretary’s remarks.
Geithner made his comment on taxes after The Daily Beast’s Lloyd Grove asked him if there was any solution to the debt ceiling crisis that did not involve raising taxes on the wealthy, despite Republicans’ fervent opposition.
“No,” he said, adding, “It might take them some time to come to that realization.”
Geithner said he does not know when the next meltdown will happen, nor what kind it will be, during a question-and-answer session with Sorkin and Pulitzer Prize-winning financial writer Liaquat Ahamed. But he warned it is on its way.
“It will come again. There will be another storm. But it’s not going to come for a while.” When Sorkin tried to press him for details, he added, “You will not know. It’s not going to be possible for people to capture risk with perfect foresight and knowledge.”
Geithner defended the massive TARP program that rescued Wall Street’s financial institutions, comparing its final cost, which he put at “well under $100 billion,” to the savings and loan crisis of the 1980s which ate up “3 percent of GDP.”
But Geithner said TARP was nearly sabotaged by politicians, worried about the reaction of voters. “They thought ‘I can’t do that. They’re going to kill me if I do that, so I’m gonna sit here and wait.’ ”
He said Americans were shocked that it seemed that TARP was rewarding banks for the behavior that nearly brought them down, but, in reality, the average man in the street had to carry much of the blame.
“Americans as a group borrowed a huge amount of debt,” he said. ”There was indiscriminate pushing of credit into the fringes of the spectrum.”
When Sorkin asked him why no banker had gone to jail for their role in the meltdown, Geithner said it’s not over yet.
“That chapter’s not written. Don’t reach premature judgments on that,” but he added, “Taking too much risk and making stupid mistakes may not be a crime.”
Geithner said the crisis over the debt ceiling was bound to be resolved.
“Ultimately people know they can’t put in doubt the creditworthiness of the United States.”
That view was today backed by Richard Haass, president of the Council on Foreign Relations. On MSNBC’s “Morning Joe,” he said Coburn’s withdrawal from the Gang of Six was bad news for the American economy.
“We don’t even begin to have the pieces in place for a formula to get us through this July or August,” said Haass.
“If this game of chicken continues to be played out before the federal debt ceiling gets lifted, this could be a major shock to the American economy.”
And Florida GOP Congressman Allen West weighed in too. During an exclusive interview with NewsmaxTV he said the two parties have to find common ground. “The future of this nation is at stake,” he said.
© Newsmax. All rights reserved
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1i)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1j)This Is Why There Are No Jobs in America
By Porter Stansberry
I'd like to make you a business offer.
Seriously. This is a real offer. In fact, you really can't turn me down, as you'll come to understand in a moment…
Here's the deal. You're going to start a business or expand the one you've got now. It doesn't really matter what you do or what you're going to do. I'll partner with you no matter what business you're in – as long as it's legal.
But I can't give you any capital – you have to come up with that on your own. I won't give you any labor – that's definitely up to you. What I will do, however, is demand you follow all sorts of rules about what products and services you can offer, how much (and how often) you pay your employees, and where and when you're allowed to operate your business. That's my role in the affair – to tell you what to do.
Now in return for my rules, I'm going to take roughly half of whatever you make in the business each year. Half seems fair, doesn't it? I think so. Of course, that's half of your profits.
You're also going to have to pay me about 12% of whatever you decide to pay your employees because you've got to cover my expenses for promulgating all the rules about who you can employ, when, where, and how. Come on, you're my partner. It's only "fair."
Now… after you've put your hard-earned savings at risk to start this business, and after you've worked hard at it for a few decades (paying me my 50% or a bit more along the way each year), you might decide you'd like to cash out – to finally live the good life.
Whether or not this is "fair" – some people never can afford to retire – is a different argument. As your partner, I'm happy for you to sell whenever you'd like… because our agreement says if you sell, you have to pay me an additional 20% of whatever the capitalized value of the business is at that time.
I know… I know… you put up all the original capital. You took all the risks. You put in all the labor. That's all true. But I've done my part, too. I've collected 50% of the profits each year. And I've always come up with more rules for you to follow each year. Therefore, I deserve another, final 20% slice of the business.
Oh… and one more thing…
Even after you've sold the business and paid all my fees… I'd recommend buying lots of life insurance. You see, even after you've been retired for years, when you die, you'll have to pay me 50% of whatever your estate is worth.
After all, I've got lots of partners and not all of them are as successful as you and your family. We don't think it's "fair" for your kids to have such a big advantage. But if you buy enough life insurance, you can finance this expense for your children.
All in all, if you're a very successful entrepreneur… if you're one of the rare, lucky, and hard-working people who can create a new company, employ lots of people, and satisfy the public… you'll end up paying me more than 75% of your income over your life. Thanks so much.
I'm sure you'll think my offer is reasonable and happily partner with me… But it doesn't really matter how you feel about it because if you ever try to stiff me – or cheat me on any of my fees or rules – I'll break down your door in the middle of the night, threaten you and your family with heavy, automatic weapons, and throw you in jail.
That's how civil society is supposed to work, right? This is Amerika, isn't it?
That's the offer Amerika gives its entrepreneurs. And the idiots in Washington wonder why there are no new jobs…
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2a)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2b) Zogby: Jews Will Vote for Obama Despite Israel Stance
By David A. Patten and Ashley Martella
Despite the uproar over President Barack Obama’s support for Palestinian demands that Israel return to its 1967 borders, pollster John Zogby predicts Obama won’t suffer significant defections from Jewish voters at the polls in 2012.
In an exclusive Newsmax.TV interview, Zogby noted Democrats traditionally enjoy a 75 percent to 25 percent advantage in the Jewish vote. The lone exception was Ronald Reagan’s re-election bid in 1984.
It will take more than a little friction with the current leadership of Israel to change that dynamic, he says. “Israel is extremely important to American Jews. But so are traditional liberal stances, particularly on social issues."
Zogby predicts the rightward shift of GOP candidates during their primary battles for the nomination will limit their appeal to Jewish Americans in the general election.
“I think [the Israel issue] will be raised by Republican candidates, but I think the lines are drawn fairly well, and I think it’s hard for it to not be a 75 to 25 split for Obama and the Democrats,” he says.
Zogby also predicts that the primary impact of Obama’s Middle East speech will be to generate “a bit more enthusiasm among liberal voters,” especially Muslim-Americans.
Zogby notes that Muslim-American sympathies shifted markedly during the presidency of George W. Bush. They broke 10-to-1 for the Democratic candidate, Sen. John Kerry. The Iraq war and the Patriot Act offended Muslim voters, according to Zogby. An estimated 2-3 million Muslims reside in the United States.
Obama enjoyed a 10-point bounce in popularity after the successful mission against Osama bin Laden, Zogby says.
The latest Zogby poll, however, shows that only 41 percent of voters believe the president deserves to be re-elected, and another 10 percent of voters say they’re not sure.
Those numbers suggest Obama still has plenty of work to do if he hopes to secure his re-election, Zogby says.
“Now what he has to do is sustain that 48 points” of approval, Zogby says. “It’s not safe, but it takes him out of the danger zone.”
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2c)Obama's Muslim Outreach 2.0:Doing Business with the Muslim Brotherhood
By FRANK GAFFNEY
President Obama's latest paean to what he calls "the Muslim world," delivered at the State Department today, was an exercise in whistling past the graveyard of real and growing dangers and a litany of misleading statements that borders on official malpractice. Its most important upshot is this: The United States is now prepared to do business with the Muslim Brotherhood.
While Mr. Obama did not use those exact words in his Muslim Outreach 2.0 speech, that was surely the practical effect of his effusively depicting the so-called "Arab Spring" as a welcome expression of democratic sentiment throughout the region. By so doing, he studiously ignored the reality on the ground in virtually every country in the Middle East and North Africa now undergoing political turmoil: Islamists associated with or akin to the totalitarian, salafist Muslim Brotherhood are poised to be the principal beneficiaries of any balloting that ultimately occurs in Egypt and Tunisia - and, perhaps in due course in, Syria, Yemen, Tunisia, Libya, Bahrain and beyond.
Mr. Obama seeks to provide the putative, newly minted "democracies" with tangible evidence of his commitment to their future success. He declared that the United States would give up to a billion dollars in debt relief to Egypt and economic, trade and technical aid to the Egyptians and Tunisians. Other nations stand to get similar treatment if only they replace their present autocrats with new ones - provided the latter are prepared to come to power via elections.
With such a policy, the United States stands to compound the mistake now being made in Libya - where al Qaeda operatives, former Guantanamo Bay detainees and other Islamists are already being given "non-lethal" and "humanitarian assistance" and U.S. political support. Without knowing precisely who are likely to be the beneficiaries of such assistance, we run the very considerable risk that we will effectively be arming, as well as legitimating, our enemies.
In his wishful thinking about the region and its future, the President glossed over the extent to which the Muslim Brotherhood is not the "moderate" and "modernizing" movement - let alone, as his Director of National Intelligence James Clapper once put it, "a largely secular organization" that "eschews violence." In fact, the Brotherhood is a virulently fascistic group that is explicitly committed to waging jihad to achieve the triumph of the supremacist Islamic politico-military-legal doctrine known as shariah, and the establishment of a global caliphate to rule in accordance with it.
Neither did Mr. Obama mention the threat posed by the Muslim Brotherhood's operations inside the United States - a vast array of front groups that have as their common mission "destroying Western civilization from within" and that are executing a phased plan for achieving that objective. Such organizations would also be legitimated by the President's embrace of their comrades elsewhere - and certain to gain still greater access and influence inside his administration.
Particularly worrying is the President's contribution to the growing peril facing our friends in Israel.
His earlier, vociferous denunciations of Israeli housing-construction activities, combined with his highly public, contemptuous mistreatment of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, contributed to the widespread perception in the region that what he rhetorically insists is the "inseverable bond" between the United States and Israel has, in fact, been greatly weakened. If the sense takes hold that there is daylight between Washington and Jerusalem, the problem will not be confined to the train-wreck in the making of yet-another Palestinian unilateral declaration of independence. It will translate into war.
The President sought to finesse what should properly be understood as an insuperable impediment to peace negotiations between the Israelis and a Palestinian government that includes the Brotherhood's local franchise, the designated terrorist organization Hamas. He said what he depicted as "that question" needs to be sorted out in coming months, but immediately declared that the United States and its "Quartet partners" were going to press on to get negotiations going and concluded as soon as possible.
Add in his view that Israel must withdraw fully to the 1967 borders (albeit with some "swaps" of territory) - what amounts, implicitly, if not explicitly to a call for the re-partitioning of Jerusalem - and the expectations can only be fanned among Israel's many enemies that the moment is arriving at last, to drive the Jews into the sea. Lip service paid to Israel having secure and defensible borders will founder on the reality that the 1967 borders are wholly incompatible with either security or the defense of Israel, and the growing readiness and ability of her foes to exploit that reality.
The President's ongoing efforts to align the United States with Muslims, irrespective of whether they seek to impose shariah or otherwise seek our destruction, is a prescription for furthering what has emerged as the Obama Doctine: Emboldening our enemies, undermining our friends and diminishing our country. It is also a formula for disaster. It should be challenged at every turn, in favor of a policy that makes clear we differentiate between Muslims who do not seek to impose shariah upon the rest of us and those who do. The former are our natural allies; the latter our unalterable foes. We had better start making that distinction, and act accordingly.
THE CENTER FOR SECURITY POLICY is a non-profit, non-partisan national security organization that specializes in identifying policies, actions, and resource needs that are vital to American security and then ensures that such issues are the subject of both focused, principled examination and effective action by recognized policy experts, appropriate officials, opinion leaders, and the general public.
Mark Hass, Director, EducateUSA
© Newsmax. All rights reserved.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2d)Dershowitz: Obama Torpedoed Peace Process
By Henry J. Reske and Kathleen Walter
Barack Obama’s call for a negotiated peace between Israel and the Palestinians based on the 1967 Israeli border dealt a serious blow to the peace process and damaged the global image of the United States, Israeli advocate and Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz told Newsmax.TV.
Dershowitz was commenting on Obama’s Thursday address at the State Department in which he pressed Israel to reach a peace agreement with the Palestinians and set the 1967 border as it existed before the Six-Day War as a starting point. Obama’s position “hurt the peace process gravely,” he said, adding that the president’s declaring such a marker repeated a negotiating error that led to an earlier breakdown in talks when he insisted on a freeze of Israeli settlements in occupied territories.
“He made the same mistake again in this speech,” Dershowitz said. “He put himself ahead of the Palestinians. That is he insisted Israel go back to ’67 borders with land swaps, but he did not demand that the Palestinians give up the right of return.”
The former Supreme Court law clerk and noted defense lawyer believes the speech will have a “terrible impact” on U.S. Israeli relations and increased the level of distrust dramatically, although “polite discourse” will continue.
“The tragedy is during the Obama administration the prospect of peace has gone further away than it’s ever been in recent years since Israel offered to give the Palestinians a state . . . He’s been ham-handed in how he has dealt with the issue of negotiations and the result is we’re further away than ever before from negotiated peace and that’s in large part the fault of President Obama and I think that’s the terrible tragedy of how he’s handled this process.”
Dershowitz also maintained the speech will damage the country’s image.
“I think also the speech was not particularly good for the United States,” he said. “It set us out in a way that showed naiveté and created a situation where neither side will be encouraged to move toward peace by what the president said. So I think on balance it was a net loss rather than a net gain. And I am disappointed because I favor a two-state solution, I voted for Obama and I was hoping he would have a more sophisticated and realistic approach to negotiations which he doesn’t seem to have. He has twice now set back the prospects for negations and a two state solution.”
Dershowitz also criticized how little time Obama spent on the question of Iran and its nuclear weapons program. Obama devoted few words to the issue in his speech, noting at one point that the United States’ “opposition to Iran’s intolerance and Iran’s repressive measures, as well as its illicit nuclear program and its support of terror, is well known.”
“The thousand-pound elephant in the room that threatens Israel’s security more than the Palestinians, or the Syrians or the Egyptians is the prospect that Iran will develop nuclear weapons,” Dershowitz said. “Although he threw a little bone against Iranian development of nuclear weapons he did not guarantee Israel that Iran would not be permitted to develop nuclear weapons. In fact he had a big statement saying Israel will have to be prepared to defend itself alone.”
Such language increases the “distress most Israeli’s have in Obama,” Dershowitz said.
“It would have been far better had he not make that speech than that he included the few paragraphs he did about Israel which were ill conceived and I think not helpful to the peace process,” he said.
---
Koch: Israel Facing 'Most Dangerous and Critical Period' Ever
By Martin Gould
Democratic senior statesman Ed Koch says Israel is facing its “most dangerous and critical period” and he is ready to break with his party in the next presidential election over President Obama’s policies on the Middle East.
In an exclusive interview with Newsmax.TV, the former New York City mayor said, “Mitt Romney correctly summed it up when he said that President Obama has once again thrown Israel under the bus.
“I believe this is the most dangerous and critical period that Israel has ever faced and regrettably it does not have the support of the President of the United States, which in past difficult situations it could count on.”
Koch, who crossed party lines to support President George W. Bush against John Kerry in 2004 due to his foreign policy stance, said he would do it again. All it would take is the right candidate.
“I’m a Democrat. I support the Democratic domestic philosophy and policies and will always be supportive of them,” said Koch, mayor of America’s largest city from 1978-89. “But I have no hesitation in crossing party lines when I think America’s interests demand that I cross party lines.
“I supported President Obama, believing he would be good on foreign policy, particularly with respect to the support of Israel. It turned out badly.”
But 86-year-old Koch said that no “decent” Republican candidate has yet come forward – “their efforts to privatize social security and Medicare and Medicaid absolutely turn me off,” he said.
“Now if a Republican candidate were to appear who was good on Medicare and Social Security and Medicaid and support of Israel, I wouldn’t hesitate to cross party lines.”
Koch was speaking in the light of Obama’s Thursday speech on the Middle East in which the President called for a two-state solution to the Israel/Palestine gridlock with borders that were in place before 1967.
Koch said he believes the president took the position because “he thinks it’s more important that America have the support of the Arab nations as opposed to the support of what we heretofore have said was our ally in the Mideast – the only democratic state there.”
But he said he has doubts that the speech will affect the support that Jewish voters have traditionally given Democratic presidential candidates.
“Regrettably the Jewish vote has been tied to the Democratic Party since FDR. No matter who’s running for president, many Jews think it’s still FDR.
“That’s been harmful to the Jewish community supporting the State of Israel.”
© Newsmax. All rights reserved.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2d)President misguided on Israel
U.S. should reaffirm commitment to Middle East ally
By Rep. Jack Kingston
This week, President Obama gave a speech in which he called on Israel to return to its 1967 borders as a condition for moving forward with peace negotiations with Palestine. The call comes just weeks after the Palestinian Authority announced a power-sharing agreement with the terrorist organization Hamas.
I was surprised and disappointed that the President would preempt Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s visit by laying out such an unrealistic requirement. These decisions should be made in Tel Aviv by Israelis not in Washington by U.S. politicians. While I am encouraged that the President is engaging on this important issue, I urge him to abandon this misguided precondition to peace talks.
Having recently returned from a bipartisan delegation to the Middle East, I have seen firsthand efforts undertaken by Israel to ensure the safety of its people. While there, I met with Prime Minister Netanyahu who is slated to address a joint session of Congress next week as well as Palestinian Prime Minister Salam Fayyad.
I intend to use my role as a member of the Defense Appropriations Committee to reaffirm the United States’ commitment to Israel.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2e)Netanyahu is one of 12 Mid East leaders saying no to Obama
By rejecting US President Barack Obama's proposal for Israel and its troops to pull back from the West Bank to behind the indefensible 1967 lines, Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu lands in the company of eleven Middle East and North African rulers who spurned Washington's Middle East policy in the six months of the unfolding Arab uprising. Egypt's Hosni Mubarak was the only one to keep faith with Obama and he was pushed out for his pains.
Barack Obama's presentation of his Middle East vision Thursday, May 19 had three immediate results:
1. Every surviving regional leader was confirmed in his determination to keep his distance from US administration policies;
2. Another nail was driven in the coffin of the stalled Israeli-Palestinian peace process;
3. The fuel that was poured on regional tensions increased the prospects of an Israel-Palestinian or an Israeli-Arab war this year.
No Israeli politician can afford to back away from the demand that Israel retain a security presence and defensible borders along its eastern boundary and, even more so, on the West Bank in any future peace accord. This fundamental principle was not denied by opposition leaders Tzipi Livni and Shaul Mofaz even as they poured boiling oil on the prime minister's head for getting into an argument with the US president.
But this repudiation is exactly what Obama wants.
The notion that Israel can achieve security through peace talks is a pipe dream because no Palestinian negotiator will think of seeking fewer concessions from Israel than the ones laid down by the US president. He will simply use the speech as a starting-point for the biggest squeeze Israel has ever faced.
Obama saw this maxim played out in his first two years in office: First, he said Netanyahu must freeze West Bank settlement construction. The Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas, when he first heard about it, found the demand absurd – it had never been put to any former prime minister either by Washington or the Palestinians. But after Obama led the way, Abbas could demand no less. So he shrugged and turned this demand into a useful pretext in his maneuvers for wriggling out of talking to Israel.
The Israeli Prime Minister after practically begging the Palestinians to sit down and talk for two years has now put his foot down against the new Obama proposals. If he stands by this refusal, he leaves the vast region stretching across the Middle East, the Persian Gulf and North Africa without a single political, military or royal ruler willing to accept Obama's new policy principles. The only possible exception may be Turkish Prime Minster Tayyip Erdogan.
The regional anti-Obama opposition falls into two camps:
The largest consists of eight former American allies, some of them ex-strategic partners, which is headed by the Saudi royal family.
A leading Saudi spokesman Nawaf Obaid brought the Riyadh-Washington rupture out in the open for the first time on May 16 in the form of a Washington Post op-ed.
"In some issues, such as counterterrorism and efforts to fight money laundering, the Saudis will continue to be a strong US partner," he wrote. "In areas in which Saudi national security or strategic interests are at stake, the kingdom will pursue its own agenda. The oil for security formula is history… The special relationship may never be the same…”
Saudi King Abdullah has already swept the half a dozen GCC (Cooperation Council of the Arab States of the Gulf) behind the separate security and strategic policies he is pursuing independently of the US and often diametrically opposed to Obama's course. He has invited Jordan, Morocco and Yemen to join the group.
The suggestion put by Jordanian monarch Abdullah II to Obama this week that the US transfer its sponsorship of the Israel-Palestinian issue to the GCC underscored the rising power of the new Gulf grouping and was firmly rejected.
The second camp consists of four anti-US Arab rulers, Syria's Bashar Assad, the Libyan Muammar Qaddaf, President Ali Abdullah Saleh of Yemen and King Hamad bin Isa al Khalifa of Bahrain, who have resorted to armed violence to suppress the pro-democracy movements sponsored by President Obama.
Saudi Arabia is propping the Bahraini and Yemen regimes up with cash, arms, military assistance and intelligence. All four are determined to do whatever it takes to avoid the fate that befell Hosni Mubarak.
The only leaders who until Thursday, May 19, stood out against joining both those camps were the military council ruling Egypt and the Palestinian Authority leader Mahmoud Abbas.
The generals in Cairo nod obediently when faced with demands from Washington and do nothing.
The Palestinian leader called the Obama speech "disappointing" in that no timeline or diplomatic mechanisms were offered. The US President poured scorn on Abbas' plan to seek unilateral UN recognition of Palestinian statehood in September, hoping to shut the door on yet another ploy for avoiding peace talks with Israel. The Palestinian leader may well defy him.
Abbas, even after losing his key patron Mubarak, is still juggling several balls in the hope of pushing Israel into a corner. Netanyahu, for his part, having stayed passive in the face of the new currents blowing in from Washington and the Arab revolt, has reached crunch time with the US president without strong cards.
A falling-out between the White House and the Israeli prime minister will also box Abbas into a choice of which anti-Obama Arab camp to jump into – the group led by Saudi Arabia or the Syrian group which also includes Hamas with whom he has just signed a unity pact.
In the long run, that pact may have saddled him with undesirable options.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2f)Obama's Farewell to Israel Speech
By Arnold Ahlert
Yesterday President Obama, in what only be characterized as a flight from reality, suggested that "borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps, so that secure and recognized borders are established for both states." But it gets better. "The full and phased withdrawal of Israeli military forces should be coordinated with the assumption of Palestinian security responsibility in a sovereign, non-militarized state." Would that be the "Palestinian security responsibility" that has long countenanced the firing of several thousand missiles into Israel? Would those be the same Israeli forces confronted on three sides by Arab protesters attempting to cross the border from Syria, Lebanon and Gaza as recently as a week ago, when they were "celebrating" Nabka, aka the "day of catastrophe," as it relates to the creation of the Jewish state in 1948?
How is this possible? A big hint came from White House Press Secretary Jay Carney after the following events which, like the one above, occurred within the last eight days: 350 people were injured in a protest outside Israel's embassy in Cairo; thousands of Egyptians poured into the streets of that city, Alexandria and El-Arish last Friday, carrying Palestinian flags chanting for their government to help Palestinians; their fellow countrymen attacked Christians who were protesting earlier clashes that left 15 dead and a church burned to the ground; and Hamas Prime Minister Ismael Haniyah urged his Muslim worshippers to pray for the end of Israel last Sunday.
Jay Carney's reaction? "We encourage maximum restraint on all sides," he said, echoing the sentiment of the Obama administration.
Surprising? Only if one is totally clueless regarding the foundation of modern-day progressivism. For progressives, there are no "sides" because there is no good and evil. Everything is relative. Only a man as thoroughly steeped in such relativity as Mr. Obama could say the following: "Thus far, Syria has followed its Iranian ally, seeking assistance from Tehran in the tactics of suppression. This speaks to the hypocrisy of the Iranian regime, which says it stand for the rights of protesters abroad, yet suppresses its people at home."
If it's hypocrisy you're criticizing, take a good look in the mirror, Mr. President. Only a hypocrite of the first order could chastise the same Iranians he refused to "meddle" with when they were murdering their own, via the tactics of suppression that followed the rigged election of 2009. And only an utter naif would actually believe Iranian interests are served by the toppling of puppet Bashar Assad.
If one wants to add shameless to the list, try this: "In Iraq, we see the promise of a multi-ethnic, multi-sectarian democracy. There, the Iraqi people have rejected the perils of political violence for a democratic process, even as they have taken full responsibility for their own security."
That's fine. Only if it were up to Mr. Obama, Saddam Hussien would still be running the show in Iraq. From 2006: "Month after month, and then year after year, I've watched with a heavy heart as my deepest suspicions about this war's conception have been confirmed and exacerbated in its disastrous implementation."
If Americans wish to add infuriating to the list, it's hard to go wrong with this part of the president's speech: "Prosperity also requires tearing down walls that stand in the way of progress--the corruption of elites who steal from their people; the red tape that stops an idea from becoming a business; the patronage that distributes wealth based on tribe or sect."
Prosperity in the Middle East? How about prosperity in America, Mr. President? "Tearing down the walls that stand in the way of progress?" You mean like the Keynesian economic theory that's killing our chances for a decent economic recovery? "The corruption of elites?" You mean people like George Soros and Job Czar Jeffry Immelt? "Red tape that stops an idea from becoming a business?" You mean like Obamacare, an out-of-control EPA bypassing Congress, or the NLRB telling Boeing where it can build airliners? "Patronage that distributes wealth based on tribe or sect?" You mean like waivers for ObamaCare for favored constituencies, a trillion dollar stimulus package aimed primarily at government unions, or bailouts for Wall Street banks?
As for the economic components of the speech involving U.S. "investment" in the region, who does the president think he's kidding?
With a 2011 deficit approaching one and one-half trillion dollars, any investment can be reduced to this: we're borrowing money from the Chinese to lend to the Arabs--80 percent of whom "detest America," according to a Pew Global poll.
As for the Jews, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has already rejected the president's plan, calling the pre-1967 borders "indefensible." So is the president's speech, best expressed by freshman House representative Allen West's (R-FL) rebuttal. Some excerpts:
"Resorting to the pre-1967 borders would mean a full withdrawal by the Israelis from the West Bank and the Jewish neighborhoods of East Jerusalem. Make no mistake, there has always been a Nation of Israel and Jerusalem has been and must always be recognized as its rightful capital…In short, the Hamas-run Palestinian state envisioned by President Obama would be devastating to Israel and the world's 13.3 million Jews. It would be a Pavlovian style reward to a declared Islamic terrorist organization, and an unacceptable policy initiative…Palestine is a region, not a people or a modern state. Based upon Roman Emperor Hadrian's declaration in the year 73, the original Palestinian people are the Jewish people…It's time for the American people to stand by our strongest ally, the Jewish State of Israel, and reject this foreign policy blunder of epic proportions."
This is one American who believes the Obama administration itself has been a blunder of epic proportions. It embraces a moral relativism which is so bankrupt, the president can move seamlessly from his rejection of American exceptionalism two years ago, to the current idea that Arabic aggression and Israeli self-defense are two sides of the same coin.
Today is a sad day for Israeli-American relations. Perhaps the only thing sadder is knowing that Jewish American liberals will continue to support this administration for reasons beyond this writer's comprehension.
Whatever happened to "Never again?"
---
Obama's great gift to the Palestinians
By Wesley Pruden
Barack Obama to Israel: Drop dead.
He announced Thursday that a Palestinian state, soon to be decreed by the United Nations General Assembly, must be drawn to 1967 borders. This tells the Palestinians and their Arab allies and enablers that events do not have to have consequences.
We're not supposed to remember that the Arab states attacked Israel in 1967 (and again in 1973), betting they could crush the Jews and take the looted land. Instead they were themselves squashed like bugs. Their airmen were shot out of the skies and their soldiers, routed, threw away their shoes in the desert and ran in panic looking for somewhere to hide, like Mr. Lincoln's army fleeing Manassas. The losers have been demanding a mulligan ever since, and now Barack Obama has offered them one.
Insult was added to injury when the president, in what the White House called"a major speech," announced his betrayal of Israel on the eve of the arrival in Washington of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Until now Washington had insisted that Israel and the Palestinians should negotiate their borders. Mr. Obama has changed the rules, moved the goalpost and for good measure tilted the playing field against the Jews. Agreement first, then the negotiations.
Mr. Obama chose the State Department to announce what he called "a new chapter in American diplomacy," that"it will be the policy of the United States to promote reform, and support transitions to democracy." America's future, he said, will be bound to the Middle East by forces of economics, security, history and fate. He could have said, but didn't because he dared not, that this could be a Middle East without Israel.
In the months ahead, he said, he would use American resources to encourage reform, beginning with forgiving a billion-dollar Egyptian debt; urge President Bashar al-Assad to lead Syrian transition to democracy "or get out of the way," insist that the Iranian people deserve their universal rights and a government that does not smother their aspirations. He stopped short of promising to cure athlete's foot.
"What America and the international community can do is state frankly what everyone knows," the president said, "that a lasting peace will involve two states for two peoples." What some of the rest of us can do is state frankly what everyone also knows, that "the international community" is now joined openly -- for the first time -- by an American president who will try to force Israel to accept surrender on Palestinian terms. The Arabs would get what they want, a better stage to launch rockets and invasions, and give up only cheap promises that no one would expect them to keep.
Mr. Obama described the State Department as "a fitting venue" to announce this gift to the Palestinians, and he's right about that. The State Department has been the locus of anti-Israel -- and anti-Jewish -- sentiment since long before Secretary of State George C. Marshall sulked and pouted through the Cabinet sessions leading up to the recognition of the Jewish state in 1948. Mr. Marshall threatened to resign if President Harry S Truman accorded recognition, finally agreeing, reluctantly, to stay in his job only as a courtesy to the president. The Foggy Bottom establishment has never quit sulking since, patiently waiting for the opportunity to exact revenge. Finally the Foggy Bottom wise men have a friendly president at their back.
Mr. Obama, reminding everyone of his bravery and efficiency at Abbottabad (with assistance from the Navy Seals), said that "by the time we found Bin Laden, al-Qaeda's agenda had come to be seen by the vast majority of the region as a dead end, and the people of the Middle East and North Africa had taken their future in their own hands." Of course that's not true, either. If it were, there would be scant need for vast new outlays of American aid to secure an Islamic "future."
Mr. Obama's speech, promoted by the White House as something like James Monroe declaring his doctrine, or FDR declaring freedom from fear, will be remembered, if remembered at all, for Barack Obama's finally laying bare his contempt for democracy's only true friend in the Middle East. With confidence in his ability to mollify abandoned friends with the sound of his voice, he has scheduled a weekend of inexpensive rhetoric. After he meets for tea and talk with Mr. Netanyahu, he will address the American Israeli Public Affairs Committee on Sunday. But the deed,'tis done.
Wesley Pruden is editor emeritus of The Washington Times.
---
Facebook Groups Call for Mass Invasion of Israel on Friday
By Phyllis Chesler
My nightmares—what I knew could happen—is apparently happening.
The Third Palestinian Intifada on Facebook seems to have at least twenty different groups or pages, each with hundreds or thousands of fans. One group has 365,000 fans. According to Yedioth Ahronoth (YNet), these sites are now urging all Arabs to “rush the Israeli borders” after Friday prayers on May 20.
Look: This could be the work of one nerdy Palestinian in a basement in Ramallah. The fans could also be people who exist only in cyberspace.
But, these Third Palestinian Intifada websites could also be the work of the Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas, Hizbullah, Syria, and the Palestinian Authority, all of which have problems of their own and for whom a diversion would be mighty fine. In fact, I think they are. Thus, this promised new aggression must be taken seriously and stopped in its tracks.
In any event, these Third Intifada facebook websites are suggesting that armed and unarmed hordes, masses, mobs of incited and hate-filled Arabs invade–“surge”–into sovereign Israel (as they have done for years to India.) The Indian press and police are too afraid to report it or to stop them. Israelis have no choice but to do so.
If and when they re-create their failed Nakba Day aggression, public opinion, the Arab “street,” the Arab League, the world’s intellectuals, journalists and progressives, the human rights organizations and the jihadist friendly United Nations, will probably view such an invasion as an act of “righteous resistance” and Israeli self-defense as an act of “unprovoked aggression.”
Facebook, to its credit, has removed one Third Palestinian Intifada site in the past. Clearly, others quickly sprang up, and Facebook has its work cut out for it. Just as the Civil Rights movement in America was initially and brilliantly non-violent, perhaps all the earth’s peace-loving people might now congregate peacefully on all of Israel’s borders to be the human wall that finally says no to jihadic barbarism.
For all those pacifists who genuinely believe in the non-violent teachings of both Gandhi and Martin Luther King, let them congregate and bear witness with their bodies at all of Israel’s borders that human courage and goodness is ready to stand against barbarism and evil.
For all those who believe that barbarism must be met with Navy SEALs, let them, too, gather at Israel’s borders to defend innocent Israeli civilians.
For all those who believe that a nation has the right to defend its people, let them now volunteer to join the IDF or raise money for it.
On the other hand, all those who invade sovereign Israel with malevolent and lethal and genocidal intentions should know in advance that they will be met with force. Israel should immediately begin announcing this, both day and night.
Of course, jihad is always seeking martyrs. This time, the Western media should not fall for the tricks of “Pallywood” (the al-Dura hoax, the “massacre” in Jenin, the “starving” masses in Gaza, etc.). The Western media should report the truth.
I am such a dreamer.
Of course, Israel can always start building walls up to the very sky in order to keep the barbarians out.
Look: This could be the work of one nerdy Palestinian in a basement in Ramallah. The fans could also be people who exist only in cyberspace.
But, these Third Palestinian Intifada websites could also be the work of the Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas, Hizbullah, Syria, and the Palestinian Authority, all of which have problems of their own and for whom a diversion would be mighty fine. In fact, I think they are. Thus, this promised new aggression must be taken seriously and stopped in its tracks.
In any event, these Third Intifada facebook websites are suggesting that armed and unarmed hordes, masses, mobs of incited and hate-filled Arabs invade–“surge”–into sovereign Israel (as they have done for years to India.) The Indian press and police are too afraid to report it or to stop them. Israelis have no choice but to do so.
If and when they re-create their failed Nakba Day aggression, public opinion, the Arab “street,” the Arab League, the world’s intellectuals, journalists and progressives, the human rights organizations and the jihadist friendly United Nations, will probably view such an invasion as an act of “righteous resistance” and Israeli self-defense as an act of “unprovoked aggression.”
Facebook, to its credit, has removed one Third Palestinian Intifada site in the past. Clearly, others quickly sprang up, and Facebook has its work cut out for it. Just as the Civil Rights movement in America was initially and brilliantly non-violent, perhaps all the earth’s peace-loving people might now congregate peacefully on all of Israel’s borders to be the human wall that finally says no to jihadic barbarism.
For all those pacifists who genuinely believe in the non-violent teachings of both Gandhi and Martin Luther King, let them congregate and bear witness with their bodies at all of Israel’s borders that human courage and goodness is ready to stand against barbarism and evil.
For all those who believe that barbarism must be met with Navy SEALs, let them, too, gather at Israel’s borders to defend innocent Israeli civilians.
For all those who believe that a nation has the right to defend its people, let them now volunteer to join the IDF or raise money for it.
On the other hand, all those who invade sovereign Israel with malevolent and lethal and genocidal intentions should know in advance that they will be met with force. Israel should immediately begin announcing this, both day and night.
Of course, jihad is always seeking martyrs. This time, the Western media should not fall for the tricks of “Pallywood” (the al-Dura hoax, the “massacre” in Jenin, the “starving” masses in Gaza, etc.). The Western media should report the truth.
I am such a dreamer.
Of course, Israel can always start building walls up to the very sky in order to keep the barbarians out.
Phyllis Chesler is an Emerita Professor of Psychology and Women's Studies at City University of New York. For extended biography visit The Phyllis Chesler Organization.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2g)Obama granted Netanyahu a major diplomatic victory
After Obama accepted Netanyahu's demands, the PM now cannot be apathetic to the U.S. president's proposal for 1967 borders.
By Aluf Benn
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu can feel satisfied while flying to Washington Thursday night. U.S. President Barack Obama has granted Netanyahu a major diplomatic victory.
In return for his call for the establishment of a Palestinian state based on 1967 borders with agreed land swaps, without defining the size of these lands, Obama accepted Netanyahu's demands for strict security arrangements and a gradual, continuous withdrawal from the West Bank.
He suggested beginning negotiations on borders and security arrangements, and delaying discussions on the core issues such as Jerusalem and refugees.
More importantly, Obama scornfully rejected the Palestinian initiative to attain recognition at the United Nations and to isolate Israel, demanded the Palestinians return to negotiations, and called on Hamas to recognize Israel's right to exist. These points came straight out of the policy pages of the Prime Minister's Bureau in Jerusalem. Netanyahu could not have asked for more: Obama outright rejects Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas' recognition campaign, as well as the Palestinian reconciliation agreement.
It seems that the new Fatah-Hamas unity has saved Netanyahu from a much more aggressive and binding speech on the part of Obama.
Obama could have also delivered his Mideast speech during the impending AIPAC conference, which he will attend this coming Sunday.
His approach to Israel was empathetic, not only with his reassurance of the U.S. commitment to Israel's security but also with his attempt "to save Israel from itself." Obama warned us that if we perpetuated the occupation, we shall crash due to our demographic inferiority, new military technology, and most importantly, due to the anger of the masses who are slowly gaining power in the surrounding countries. In order to retain the vision of a Jewish and democratic state, Israel must end the occupation and withdraw from the West Bank.
The points of the speech were surely pleasing to Netanyahu's ears. Obama promised he won't force a deal on Israel and the Palestinians and demanded both sides to return to negotiations. He did not condemn, as he did before, the Israeli settlements in the territories as "illegitimate" and did not demand a settlement freeze. He only reminded, in a critical tone, that Israel continues building settlements, as an explanation for the deadlock in peace talks.
Netanyahu will have to reply to Obama by accepting the principle of "1967 borders with agreed land swaps." He made a step toward that direction in his speech in the Knesset this week, when he talked about preserving settlement blocs, which is the same thing in Israeli wording. On the eve of his U.S. trip, Netanyahu's advisers hinted that he will accept this principle on Friday during his close-room meeting with Obama, while presenting a less binding policy during his U.S. Congress speech on Tuesday in fear of causing the breakup of the coalition.
Netanyahu essentially has no choice: after Obama accepted his procedural and security demands, he cannot remain apathetic to the U.S. president's suggestion regarding borders. But Netanyahu has nothing to worry about – there is no chance the Palestinian leadership will agree to return to negotiations under these principles.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 2h)Statistial and historical facts - two links:
http://www.conceptwizard.com/conen/conflict_2.html
http://www.conceptwizard.com/nutoo/nutshell3.html
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2i)WHO'S FRIEND IS HE???????????????
Obama to aides: Netanyahu will never do what it takes to achieve Mideast peace
Comment reported in New York Times comes amid growing tensions between Washington and Jerusalem over the U.S. President's backing of a Palestinian state within 1967 borders.
By Haaretz
U.S. President Barack Obama does not think Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu will ever make the concessions necessary to achieve a Middle East peace deal, the New York Times cited Obama aides as saying on Friday.
The comments attributed to associates of the U.S. president comes amid what is turning become into a veritable war of words between Israel and the U.S., following Obama's Mideast strategy speech on Thursday in which the American leader voiced his support for a Palestinian state based on 1967 borders.
Following Obama's speech, Netanyahu, said Thursday srael would object to any withdrawal to "indefensible" borders, adding he expected Washington to allow it to keep major settlement blocs in any peace deal.
"Israel appreciates President's Obama commitment to peace," Netanyahu said, but stressed that he expects Obama to refrain from demanding that Israel withdraw to "indefensible" 1967 borders "which will leave a large population of Israelis in Judea and Samaria and outside Israel's borders."
In what seems to be a response to Netanyahu's comments, Obama aides told the New York Times that the U.S. president did not believe Netanyahu will ever be willing to make the kind of concessions that would lead to a peace deal.
Those comments, which seem to heat an already intense atmosphere between Netanyahu and Obama, comes just hours before a fateful meeting between the two leaders in the White House on Friday.
Republican House Majority Leader Eric Cantor expressed disappointment Thursday in regards to Obama's Mideast policy speech, saying he failed to propose a serious plan for achieving Mideast peace.
"Today, the president outlined his hopes for Mideast peace – a goal that we all share – but failed to articulate a serious plan for achieving this goal," Cantor said in a statement. "This approach undermines our special relationship with Israel and weakens our ally’s ability to defend itself."
"The President’s habit of drawing a moral equivalence between the actions of the Palestinians and the Israelis while assessing blame for the conflict is, in and of itself, harmful to the prospect for peace. In reality, Israel - since its creation - has always proven willing to make the sacrifices necessary for peace, while the Palestinians on numerous occasions have rejected those offers."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2j)Dear Family & Friends:
As you know, President Obama gave a speech earlier today that focused on issues surrounding the Middle East, from the so-called "Arab Spring" to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Amongst the many concerns, the most glaring was the President's statement that any settlement between Israel and the Arabs should be based on the "1967 lines" with agreed-upon land swaps. Despite the semantics of choosing the term "lines" as opposed to "borders", the assertion essentially robs Israel of much of its negotiation power and, again, rewards intransigent behavior by the Palestinians, most recently epitomized by a new "unity agreement" with Hamas, while requiring virtually no concessions on their part. In addition, the declaration by the President ignores historical precedent and reality. For example, as aptly noted by Lord Caradon, the British representative to the UN in 1967 and author of Resolution 242 (which followed the Six-Day War), the agreement calling for territorial concessions by the victor of the defensive war (Israel) was not intended to be a return to the "borders" that preceded the outbreak of the war. In fact, he stated:
"It would have been wrong to demand that Israel return to its positions of 4 June 1967 because those positions were undesirable and artificial. After all, they were just the places the soldiers of each side happened to be the day the fighting stopped in 1948. They were just armistice lines. That's why we didn't demand that the Israelis return to them and I think we were right not to ..."
Moreover, the President's speech, for the second time that I am aware of since he took office, completely ignored the 2004 letter that then-President George W. Bush, with the endorsement of Congress, sent to then-Prime Minister Ariel Sharon stating:
"As part of a final peace settlement, Israel must have secure and recognized borders, which should emerge from negotiations between the parties in accordance with UNSC Resolutions 242 and 338. In light of new realities on the ground, including already existing major Israeli populations centers, it is unrealistic to expect that the outcome of final status negotiations will be a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949, and all previous efforts to negotiate a two-state solution have reached the same conclusion."
This letter is particularly instructive as it states that the borders should be determined by the parties, and therefore not dictated by a third party, as President Obama did this afternoon, and that such borders will not be a return to the 1949 armistice lines, previously deemed the "Auschwitz Borders" by Abba Eban.
Clearly, Israel finds itself in a perilous position that is unrivaled in my lifetime and, despite its diminutive size and collateral costs, is continuously called upon to make repeated concessions that put her citizens in jeopardy, whereas no such requirements are made of the Palestinians. This absence of accountability extends beyond the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, as clearly depicted in the status quo in Syria (where less than a month ago, President Assad was hailed as a "reformer" by Secretary of State Clinton) and the absence of any action with regards to Iran in the nearly thirty months since the Obama Administration took office. Iran, a country led by religious zealots that regularly call for Israel to be destroyed and murders its citizens in the streets, moves closer to acquiring nuclear weapons by the day in a world that has become increasingly indifferent to increased anti-Semitism and the murder of Jews anywhere around the globe. The latter fact was made abundantly clear following the recent slaughter of the Fogel family, which included the stabbing deaths of two parents along with three of their children: 11 year-old Yoav, 4 year-old Elad and a 3 month-old infant named Hadas who had her throat slit. And the world, for the most part, remained silent.
One person, however, who has (to my surprise) become a vocal defender of Israel, is Glen Beck. Like many of you, I had never watched his show, but, instead, had dismissed him as a "right-wing lunatic" who could only be employed at Fox news. Over the last several months, thanks to clips sent to me by others, I have become an occasional viewer and, earlier this afternoon, he delivered yet another impassioned argument in support of Israel. I highly encourage you all to DVR tonight's replay (since it's at 2am) and watch it at your earliest convenience as nearly the entire show was devoted to Israel and the dangers on its horizon.
I apologize for my rant; however, I often forward the messages of others in lieu of writing something myself. Yet today, with last week's border incursions, last month’s killing of a child coming home from school, the slaughter of the Fogels and today's speech by the President monopolizing my thoughts, I found it necessary to speak up. I hope you all do the same and become involved.
My warmest wishes to you all,
David
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
k)THE OBAMA SPEECH:
FORGETTING HISTORY
By Richard Friedman
President Obama seems to have forgotten history when it comes to what is commonly called the "Israeli-Palestinian" conflict but what should more accurately be described as "the Palestinian refusal to accept a Jewish state on any part of the ancient biblical homeland of the Jewish people."
In a much-heralded speech on the Middle East Thursday covering a range of issues, the President made a series of statements which departed from past agreements and understandings Israel has had with the US and glossed over Israel's continued peace concessions and attempts at compromise.
Regretfully, the President once again focused disproportionately on Jewish communities, often referred to as "settlements," which Israel has built in Judea and Samaria, commonly referred to as the West Bank. This area is part of the biblical homeland of the Jewish people and territory that was regained after Israel defended itself from an attack by Jordan in 1967. Development of these communities has been driven by security concerns, historical ties and religious beliefs.
Some in the international community, including President Obama, have preordained that the West Bank will be part of a future Palestinian state and that Israel building and expanding Jewish communities in this area will harm prospects for peace and creation of a Palestinian state.
INSPIRING, UNSETTLING
His generalities about US support for Israel were inspiring but the substance of his comments was unsettling. The speech, as Jewish Telegraphic Agency noted, "marked the first time a US president formally declared that the pre-Six Day War borders should form the basis of negotiations."
Israel's Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, was quick to react to the President's speech. Netanyahu issued a "quick response...that was noticeably negative in tone," reporter Herb Keinon wrote in the Jerusalem Post. "While thanking Obama for his commitment to peace, the statement...said that the establishment of a Palestinian state cannot come at Israel's expense," added Keinon.
Netanyahu, Keinon continued, said he expected "to hear from Obama a re-affirmation of the 2004 letter from President George W. Bush to Ariel Sharon that did not call for a return to the 1967 lines, and recognized that any agreement would take into account the changed realities on the ground -- a line interpreted by Israel to mean a recognition that Israel would hold on to the large settlement blocs."
NON-STARTER
The Obama administration, unfortunately, continues to cling to an approach that has proven over and over to be a non-starter. It is premised on the idea that "if Israel would just give more, the Palestinians would be more forthcoming."
This line of thinking was reflected when the President said, "My administration has worked with the parties and the international community for over two years to end this conflict, yet expectations have gone unmet. Israeli settlement activity continues. Palestinians have walked away from talks."
The President's comment failed to note that Israel instituted a 10-month moratorium on settlement building in 2010 hoping to induce the Palestinians to negotiate without preconditions.
The Palestinians failed to do so, the building freeze expired and then Israel was pressured, most prominently and publicly by President Obama, to extend it. Netanyahu offered to do so if the Palestinians recognized the right of the Jews to a homeland in the Middle East which the Palestinians refused to do.
Additionally, by harping on the settlement issue and continuing to do so, the President further diminished the prospect of successful negotiations without preconditions and encouraged the Palestinians to sit back and let him do their negotiating for them.
The President, at times, has deserved commendation for his actions on behalf of Israel. Recently, Update encouraged readers to write and thank the President for US support for Israel's Iron Dome missile defense system and, more recently, for the US defending Israel's actions in response to the recent infiltrations on Israel's borders by hostile Arab demonstrators.
Now, however, is a time to express our displeasure. Please go to the below link and read the speech. If you agree with the sentiments written above, please email your thoughts to President Obama.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2l) Abbas - Rewriting Middle East History
Response to Abbas editorial at The NY Times, May 17, 2011
By Eli E. Hertz
"Repeat a lie often enough and people will begin to believe it."
Nazi propaganda master Joseph Goebbels
ABBAS: In November 1947, the General Assembly made its recommendation and answered in the affirmative.
FACT: SIXTY-FOUR years ago, just before Israel's War of Independence in 1948, Palestinian Arabs launched a series of riots, pillaging, and bloodletting. This was followed by the invasion into Jewish Palestine of seven Arab armies from neighboring states attempting to prevent by force the establishment of a Jewish state in accordance with UN Resolution 181, known also as the 1947 Partition Plan. The Arab nations denounced the plan on the General Assembly floor and voted as a bloc against Resolution 181 promising to defy its implementation by force.
The Jews accepted the UN Partition Plan.
There were 6,000 Israeli dead as a result of that war, in a population of 600,000. One percent of the Jewish population was gone. In American terms, the equivalent is 3 million American civilians and soldiers killed over an 18-month period.
To resuscitate Resolution 181 more than six decades after Palestinian Arabs rejected it "as if nothing had happened" are a baseless ploy designed to use Resolution 181 as leverage to bring about a greater Israeli withdrawal from parts of western Palestine and to gain a broader base from which to continue to attack Israel with even less defendable borders.
Ironically, in Article 19 of the PLO CHARTER, Mahmoud Abbas, chairman of the Palestine Liberation Organization [PLO] contradict himself when he makes it clear - that the UN Partition Plan is "illegal."
"Article 19: The Partition of Palestine in 1947 and the establishment of the state of Israel are entirely illegal, regardless of the passage of time ..."
"Article 20: The Balfour Declaration, the Mandate for Palestine, and everything that has been based upon them, are deemed null and void. Claims of historical or religious ties of Jews with Palestine are incompatible with the facts of history and the true conception of what constitutes statehood. Judaism, being a religion, is not an independent nationality. Nor do Jews constitute a single nation with an identity of its own; they are citizens of the states to which they belong."
ABBAS: key focus of negotiations will be reaching a just solution for Palestinian refugees based on Resolution 194, which the General Assembly passed in 1948.
FACT: Resolution 194, adopted by the UN General Assembly on December 11, 1948, addressed a host of issues, but only one paragraph out of 15 dealt with refugees created by the conflict. Resolution 194 attempted to create the tools required to reach a truce in the region. It established a conciliation commission with representatives from the United States, France and Turkey to replace the UN mediator. The commission was charged with achieving "a final settlement of all questions between ... governments and authorities concerned." The Resolution's "refugee clause" is not a standalone item, as the Arabs would have us think, nor does it pertain specifically to Palestinian Arab refugees.
Of the 15 paragraphs, the first six sections addressed ways to achieve a truce; the next four paragraphs addressed the ways that Jerusalem and surrounding villages and towns should be demilitarized, and how an international zone or jurisdiction would be created in and around Jerusalem. The resolution also called on all parties to protect and allow free access to holy places, including religious buildings.
One paragraph has drawn the most attention: Paragraph 11, which alone addressed the issue of refugees and compensation for those whose property was lost or damaged. Contrary to Arab claims, it did not guarantee a Right of Return and certainly did not guarantee an unconditional Right of Return - that is the right of Palestinian Arab refugees to return to Israel. Nor did it specifically mention Arab refugees, thereby indicating that the resolution was aimed at all refugees, both Jewish and Arab. Instead, Resolution 194 recommended that refugees be allowed to return to their homeland if they met two important conditions:
1. That they be willing to live in peace with their neighbors
2. That the return takes place "at the earliest practicable date"
The resolution also recommended that for those who did not wish to return, "Compensation should be paid for the property ... and for loss of or damage to property" by the "governments or authorities responsible."
Although Arab leaders point to Resolution 194 as proof that Arab refugees have a right to returnor be compensated, it is important to note that the Arab States: Egypt, Iraq, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Syria, and Yemen voted against Resolution 194. Israel is not even mentioned in the resolution. The fact that plural wording also is used - "governments or authorities" - suggests that, contrary to Arab claims, the burden of compensation does not fall solely upon one side of the conflict. Because seven Arab armies invaded Israel, Israel was not responsible for creating the refugee problem. When hundreds of thousands of Arab Jews, under threat of death, attack and other forms of persecution, were forced to flee Arab communities, the State of Israel absorbed the overwhelming majority of them into the then-fledgling nation.
ABBAS: Palestine "our historic homeland"
FACT: What Abbas wants the world to forget is the content of the "Mandate for Palestine," an historical League of Nations document that laid down the Jewish legal right to settle anywhere in western Palestine, the area between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea, an entitlement unaltered in international law.
The "Mandate for Palestine" was not a naive vision briefly embraced by the international community. Fifty-one member countries-the entire League of Nations-unanimously declared on July 24, 1922:
"Whereas recognition has been given to the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country."
It is important to point out that political rights to self-determination as a polity for Arabs were guaranteed by the same League of Nations in four other mandates-in Lebanon and Syria [The French Mandate], Iraq, and later Trans- Jordan [The British Mandate].
Any attempt to negate the Jewish people's right to Palestine-Eretz-Israel, and to deny them access and control in the area designated for the Jewish people by the League of Nations is a serious infringement of international law.
ABBAS: Zionist forces expelled Palestinian Arabs
FACT: The Arab League's April 10, 1948 decision to invade Jewish Palestine on May 14 to "save Palestine," as the British Mandate ended, marked a watershed event, for it changed the rules of the conflict. Accordingly, Israel bears no moral responsibility for deliberately banishing Palestinian Arabs in order to "consolidate defense arrangements" in strategic areas, as the Jewish people organized to battle seven well-equipped and well-trained aggressor armies. With the pending invasion following Israel's declaration of independence, it is no exaggeration to say the new Jewish state's very existence hung in the balance.
The Palestinians were responsible for escalating the war - a move that cost the Jews thousands of lives and Palestinians their homes. By their own behavior, Palestinians assumed the role of belligerents in the conflict, invalidating any claim to be hapless victims. Explains scholar Benny Morris:
"One of the characteristics of the Palestinian national movement has been the Palestinians' view of themselves as perpetual victims of others: Ottoman Turks, British officials, Zionists, Americans - and never to appreciate that they are, at least in large part, victims of their own mistakes and iniquities."
ABBAS: Our territory is recognized as the lands framed by the 1967 border, though it is occupied by Israel.
FACT: Political figures and international jurists have discussed the existence of "permissible" or "legal occupations." In a seminal article on this question, entitled What Weight to Conquest Professor, Judge Schwebel, a former president of the International Court of Justice, wrote:
"A state [Israel] acting in lawful exercise of its right of self-defense may seize and occupy foreign territory as long as such seizure and occupation are necessary to its self-defense. ... Where the prior holder of territory had seized that territory unlawfully [Jordan], the state which subsequently takes that territory in the lawful exercise of self-defense has, against that prior holder, a better title.
AC
"As between Israel, acting defensively in 1948 and 1967, on the one hand, and her Arab neighbors, acting aggressively, in 1948 and 1967, on the other, Israel has the better title in the territory of what was Palestine, including the whole of Jerusalem, than do Jordan and Egypt." (emphasis added)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No comments:
Post a Comment