web analytics
February 6, 2016 / 27 Shevat, 5776

Posts Tagged ‘Two States’

Abbas Tells Kerry No One Can Stop Violence – at Same Time PA Promotes It

Thursday, November 26th, 2015

U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry has ended his three-day trip to Israel by listening to a claim by Mahmoud Abbas that no one can stop “lone wolf” terrorists, while at the same time the Palestinian Authority continues to incite violence.

Kerry met with the Palestinian Authority chairman in Ramallah on Wednesday and restricted his comments in public to saying that he is doing what he can “to try to help contribute to calm and to restore people’s confidence in the ability of a two-state solution to still be viable.”

Arab media said that Abbas told Kerry that no one can stop terror attacks carried out by individuals acting on their own.

The same day, the official Palestinian Authority WAFA website again did its best to promote hate and violence instead of stopping it.

It reported:

Israeli settlers and rabbis Wednesday broke into the courtyards of al-Aqsa Mosque compound in Jerusalem, fueling tension at the site, according to WAFA correspondent.

He said Jewish hard-liners and rabbis stormed and toured al-Aqsa Mosque compound in the morning, provoking tension with Palestinian worshipers who chanted religious slogans in defiance of the Jewish entry.

Meanwhile, Israeli police continued to impose restriction on the entry of Palestinians into the site, especially women and youth, reserving their identity cards prior to their entry.

WAFA also promoted the blatant lie that “Israel was planning to enforce a temporal division of the mosque between Muslims and Jews.” It added, “Palestinians worry that if Jewish visitors were allowed to pray in the holy al-Aqsa Mosque, it would eventually lead to a permanent change which will result in full Israeli control and ban on Muslims’ prayer.”

Police spokesman Micky Rosenfeld told The JewishPress.com Thursday that no restrictions were placed on Arabs and that there were no clashes.

Israeli police routinely throw off the Temple Mount any Jew, or Christian, who even looks like he is praying, and Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu took the unprecedented step earlier this month to publicly announce that Jews may not pray there.

Kerry does not read WAFA. He reads only what his underlings feed him, which is what he wants to read so he can ignore incitement and can draw his own conclusions, such as he did yesterday:

We had a long and very constructive and serious conversation with President Abbas, and I want to say that I know that the situation for Palestinians in the West Bank, in Jerusalem, in Gaza is, at this moment, very dire, that there are extraordinary concerns, obviously, about the violence.

 

 

Saed Erekat: Dead Terrorists Are ‘Men Who Lost Hope’

Thursday, November 5th, 2015

What do you call an Arab who stabs Jews to death?

If you are PLO secretary general Saeb Erekat, who was the chief negotiator for the Palestinian Authority when it talked as if there were “negotiations,” the answer is: “They are dead men who have lost hope.”

That is what Erekat told BBC’s HARDtalk in an interview aired Wednesday. He also maintained that “violence is not the answer,” but when the interviewer asked him about the stabbings, some of them in the backs of children and elderly men and women, Erekat could not say a bad word.

Instead, Arabs murder Jews because they have lost hope, all because Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu has not “negotiated” non-negotiable demands presented by Palestinian Authority chairman Mahmoud Abbas.

Erekat insisted in the interview that there will be a Palestinian Authority country, sooner or later. He said:

For Palestinians and Israelis there is only one option, if not this year, next year, or 10 years’ time is to live and to let live, it’s a two state solution. It’s Palestine to live side by side with the State of Israel in peace and security on the 1967 lines. That’s the only option.

I couldn’t do it through the Security Council; I couldn’t do it through negotiations, not because I failed, because I was foiled by the likes of Benjamin Netanyahu.

However, he said he is thinking about leaving his post at the helm of the PLO.

 

 

Abbas Wipes Out ‘Two States’ and Laments ‘Occupation of 67 Years’ [video]

Monday, November 2nd, 2015

Palestinian Authority chairman exposed  the “two-state- policy at the U.N. Human Rights Commission in Geneva and said the “occupation” has continued for 67 years, since the re-establishment of the State of Israel.

The Palestinian Media Watch (PMW) reported his remarks as broadcast on official Palestinian Authority television last week.

Abbas said in Arabic:

Mr. President, ladies and gentlemen, haven’t you wondered: For how long will this protracted Israeli occupation of our land last? After 67 years (i.e., Israel’s creation), how long? Do you think it can last, and that it benefits the Palestinian people?

[The] holy sites which have been desecrated every other second again and again for seven decades now under an occupation that does not quit killing, torturing, looting and imprisoning…

PMW pointed out that the official Palestinian Authority WAFA website deleted his “67 years” phrase from its published a transcript of his remarks.

PA institutions provide plenty of evidence that the Abbas regime considers all of Israel as “occupied.”

Besides promoting maps of Israel as “Palestine,” the Palestinian Authority national Security Forces posted on Facebook  on different days last week text, as translated and reported by PMW:

Good morning, the beach of occupied Ashkelon.”

Good evening, occupied city of Haifa.

Good morning, occupied Acre (Akko).

 

Obama’s Chief of Staff at J St Conference, as with Benghazi, Pointing Right Instead of Left

Tuesday, March 24th, 2015

Denis McDonough, U.S. President Barack Obama’s chief of staff, gave the Keynote Address at J Street’s fifth annual conference.

J Street was created to be “Obama’s blocking back” as he and it seek to bludgeon Israel into creating a Palestinian State immediately if not sooner, claiming that unless that happens, Israel cannot remain both a Jewish and a democratic state.

McDONOUGH’S CONNECTIONS TO BENGHAZI COVER-UP AND SOROS THINK TANK

What has largely been ignored is the connection between this chief of staff and one of the greatest catastrophes of the first Obama administration.

During the fall of 2012, a mob later revealed to be al Qaeda-affiliated terrorists took over an American mission in Benghazi, Libya and murdered four Americans, including the American Ambassador Chris Stevens. Initial reports crafted by the administration blamed a low quality video critical of Muhammad for the “demonstration” that “got out of hand.”

At the time of the Benghazi debacle, the current chief of staff was the Deputy National Security Advisor. It was to him and the other three members of what is called the National Security Council Deputies Committee, that the House Intelligence Committee traced the changes in the infamous “talking points” to minimize the fact that terrorists and not simply an outraged crowd of Muslims responding to a low-budget video, “The Innocence of Muslims” was behind the attacks on the American outposts in Benghazi.

Of the four members of the Deputies Committee, McDonough was the one who most vociferously and publicly condemned the “truly abhorrent video.”

Other than being Obama’s chief of staff and a former deputy national security advisor, who is Denis McDonough? Prior to his positions in the executive branch, MdDonough did a stint at the George Soros-created Center for American Progress. Who else was integral to the creation of CAP? Morton Halperin, who was also a co-creator and is now the chair of J Street’s board of directors.

Back to this year’s J Street Conference.

McDonough spoke on Monday, March 23, about the accomplishments of Team Obama over the past six years. McDonough knew full well he was speaking to a crowd that fervently embraces many of those changes.

McDonough has long been extremely close with Obama. The chief of staff channeled his boss by chiding Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu over a statement  made just before last week’s election in Israel.

McDonough verbally glared at Netanyahu for audaciously suggesting that the present was not the right time to create a Palestinian State in the Middle East. Netanyahu had gone even one step further and said that the creation of such a state at any time in the near future would be not just unwise but calamitous, given the ever-expanding presence of radical Islamic organizations such as ISIS, which have been consolidating power and asserting control over weak governments in the region.

The nerve of Netanyahu to rely on his own assessments of what would be catastrophic for the Middle East rather than accept the U.S. administration’s view of how things should go down in the region, especially given this administration’s foreign policy track record over the past six years: Iran’s Green Party, Egypt’s Mubarak, then Egypt’s Morsi, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, the re-set with Russia, ISIS, Yemen and a host of others.

But McDonough knew he was in friendly territory at the J Street Conference and knew there would be a warm reception for an attack on Netanyahu for daring to say out loud that it was unwise to create a Palestinian State now.

“That is why the Prime Minister’s comments on the eve of the election – in which he first intimated and then made very clear in a response to a follow up question that a Palestinian state will not be established while he is prime minister – were so troubling,” McDonough said.

Bibi: ‘ISIS Would Devour Palestinian State, We Cannot Help Create That’

Monday, March 9th, 2015

Whether or not he was publicly forced into stating it, Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu has now said what most focused Israelis and Israel-watchers have realized for quite some time: the creation of any Palestinian State now, as weak as it is and has been since its leadership began attempting to resemble a functioning state, would be immediately subsumed (or, if you will, “gobbled up”) by ISIS or any of the other Islamic extremist groups in the region.

For that reason alone, if not for the myriad others – such as its own leadership’s inclination towards and support for its own version of terrorism – it is impossible for any responsible leader in the region to consider the creation of a Palestinian State any time soon.

In the words of the Israeli prime minister regarding the calamitous instability in the region and its impact on whether there should be a Palestinian state anytime soon: “Therefore, there will not be any withdrawals or concessions. The matter is simply irrelevant.”

Whether Netanyahu’s hand was forced because of the pressure placed on him by the Religious Zionist party Bayit Yehudi which consistently states it will not hand over any territory to the Arabs, or because a right-wing member of his own Likud party got the ball rolling, the end result is the same.

The cat is back in the bag, the Two State “Solution” is now clearly only a solution for ending Israel, and enslaving even the Palestinian Arabs themselves. For the safety of all those living in the land south of Lebanon, west of Syria and Jordan and north of Egypt, the only way to prevent ISIS and its fellow barbarous murderers is for Israel to remain in control of all the borders.

The Israeli prime minister began his most recent iteration in his leadership role with a earth-shattering speech at Bar Ilan University. Netanyahu invoked the “Two State” mantra as if it were within reach.

In that 2009 speech at Bar-Ilan, Netanyahu said he would recognize a Palestinian State “if we get a guarantee of demilitarization, and if the Palestinians recognize Israel as the Jewish state.” He said, if that were to happen, “we are ready to agree to a real peace agreement, a demilitarized Palestinian state side by side with the Jewish state.”

Even after the recent Gaza wars and bruising condemnations of Israeli self-defense by much of the international community, Netanyahu continued speaking, at least in public, of working with the Palestinian Arab leadership towards a result they claim (an idea that much of the international community was pushing very hard) they want: a Palestinian State.

Perhaps Netanyahu and his advisers believed that Israeli security is so strong it could even survive the birth of a tiny terror state of Palestine (Palistan?). But inviting ISIS into its own neural network? That would make the recent machete, hammer and automobile terrorism by local Palestinian Arab terrorists look like mere schoolyard spitting contests.

Netanyahu’s statement shutting the door on Palestinian statehood came on Sunday, March 8. It came in response to a question about a position taken by the Likud party’s answer to a small Israeli paper’s campaign question.

As Lahav Harkov reported in the Jerusalem Post on Sunday, “The article claimed that the Likud’s answer to a question as to its leader’s position on Palestinian statehood was: “The prime minister told the public that the Bar-Ilan speech [in which he advocated a demilitarized Palestinian state] is canceled.”

According to Harkov, a Likud spokesperson said party member MK Tzipi Hotovely provided the answer and it was her personal position. But regardless of whose language appeared in the campaign response, Netanyahu later made it clear he would not allow ISIS to fill the vacuum created by a weak Palestinian State.

EU Chief Says ‘Jerusalem Can And Should Be Capital of 2 States’

Monday, November 10th, 2014

The European Union’s new foreign policy chief, Federica Mogherini said this weekend that Jerusalem should be shared between Israel and the Palestinian Authority.

“I think Jerusalem can be and should be the capital of two states,” Mogherini told reporters.

She made the statement at a joint news conference with Palestinian Authority prime minister Rami Hamdallah in Ramallah on Saturday, according to AFP.

“Jerusalem is not just a beautiful city, the challenge is to show that Jerusalem can be shared in peace and respect,” Mogherini said.

“The message is not for the people who live here, the message is to the rest of the world. It is not a Palestinian-Israeli situation; it is a global issue.”

Some Love Lost: Dems Drop ‘Special Relationship’ Language from 2012 Platform

Wednesday, September 5th, 2012

The pro-Israel news wires have been abuzz over the excision of core pro Israel language from the 2012 Democratic Party Platform. But it is not only the changes in the Democrats’ planks that should be examined.

For those who missed it but who care about Israel, here’s a recap.

Statements in the Democratic party platform referring to Israel that were included in their 2008 document, such as America’s “strongest ally in the region,” and mentioning “our special relationship with Israel” are gone.

Not only that, but Jerusalem does not merit even a single mention in the Democrats’ 2012 document.  The 2008 commitment that “Jerusalem is and will remain the capital of Israel” which “should remain an undivided city accessible to people of all faiths” has evaporated.

State Department Spokewoman Victoria Nuland, Obama White House Press Secretary Jay Carney, and Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Shultz, the Chair of the Democratic National Committee, have all refused to allow the phrase “Jerusalem is the capital of Israel” to pass their lips.  Did they not know that those words were an essential component of the Democratic Party’s public pledge in 2008?

The 2012 Democratic Party Platform now simply refers to aid to Israel and the maintenance of Israel’s qualitative military edge as something for which this president was responsible, rather than, in truth, that congress is where those decisions were made.  What’s more, in this year’s version there is no explicit promise to maintain that edge going forward.  Support for Israel’s right to defend itself and the president’s “steadfast opposition to any attempt to delegitimize Israel on the world stage” similarly seem stuck in time, with no forward-looking commitment whatsoever.

Also missing is what had been a solid commitment to isolate Hamas.  Instead, the only pre-conditions imposed are the same for all Arabs in the area – “we will insist that any Palestinian partner must recognize Israel’s right to exist [not to exist as a Jewish State, just to exist], reject violence, and adhere to existing agreements.” That’s it.

But what about the Republican Party Platform?  Maybe US politicians are all beginning to turn away from the Middle East, where the conflicts never seem to end.  Maybe a decision to step away from an ally who some claim only brings its supporters down, while never seeming to gain traction for the ally, is happening across the board.

Nope.

But there have been changes regarding Israel between the 2008 Republican Party Platform and the one just passed in Tampa at last week’s Republican Party Convention.

So what are they? And how significant are they?

It’s hard to tell what the significance of the change in language regarding the peace process – just four years ago the Republican Platform included the following sentence:

We support the vision of two democratic states living in peace and security: Israel, with Jerusalem as its capital, and Palestine.

In the 2012 Platform:

We support Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state with secure, defensible borders; and we envision two democratic states – Israel with Jerusalem as its capital and Palestine – living in peace and security. (emphasis added)

In other words, one is an imperative with which the Republicans agree, and the other is simply what they are imagining, but it is not an essential outcome.  And in both Republican platforms, the creation of a future state of Palestine is conditional upon the people who are seeking its creation to “support leaders who reject terror, embrace the institutions and ethos of democracy, and respect the rule of law.”

Here’s a clear language change: the bold print introducing the Platform section having to do with Israel has expanded from the 2008 one word name of the state to 2012’s “Our Unequivocal Support of Israel.”

And here’s a huge difference between the visions of the two parties: the single essential goal for Israel and her neighbors sought by the Republican Platform “is a comprehensive and lasting peace in the Middle East.”  In the Democratic National Platform, an essential component for achieving this country’s commitment to Israel’s security is “two states for two people.”  In other words, the Democratic Platform will not allow for any conclusion to the Middle East peace process without the creation of a Palestinian State, whereas the Republicans’ sole end goal is peace, without attaching any collateral pre-conditions.

In addition to the central role of the creation of a Palestinian State and the rejection of Jerusalem as having plank-worthy stature, there are several other respects in which the language of the current Democratic Party Platform differs starkly from that of the Republicans’.  The need to isolate both Hamas and Hezbollah is in the Republicans’ but not the Democrats’ Platforms.  And finally, the pronouncement by the Republicans (in both 2008 and 2012) that Israel not be forced to negotiate with entities pledged to her destruction is not discussed by the Democrats.

On the other hand, there are two significant pro-Israel deletions from the Republicans’ 2012 Platform.  In 2008, there was both a pledge to move the US Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, and the avowed support for Jerusalem to remain undivided.  That language is not in the 2012 Republican Platform.

Is there anything both parties have abandoned this time around?  Yes.  There is no mention of the Arab Palestinian refugee issue in either current Platform.

So, what’s the score?  Deleting familiar terms of support and ignoring a central issue like Jerusalem has to be troublesome for pro-Israel voters who planned to vote for the President.  But even the Republican Party has decided that moving the US Embassy to Jerusalem and insisting that the Holy City not be divided is no longer considered a promise worth making.

In the end, reading any platform, like listening to any speech, is a way to try to figure out how a candidate will govern if he wins.  And at the end of the day, that’s about what’s in his heart, not what’s on his posters.  Changes of tone of voice, of emphasis, like the deletion of issues or the difference between a commitment and a vision, are straws in the wind.

The weather’s been rough in Charlotte for lots of people these last few days, but the changes to the Democratic Platform about Israel really do tell us important things about which way the wind is blowing down there – and it’s hard not to see a change in direction from the way it has blown, for the Democratic party, for a long time.  If Obama wins, these new planks suggest, Israel will have less support on such key issues as Jerusalem.

As for the Republicans, the changes they’ve made seem to have split the difference, with some additions strengthening their commitment to the Jewish state, and others seemingly weakening it.

What that means for Jewish voters, or for others concerned about Israel, and the Middle East, will only be known a long time after the first Tuesday of this November.

 

Printed from: http://www.jewishpress.com/news/breaking-news/some-love-lost-dems-drop-special-relationship-language-from-2012-platform/2012/09/05/

Scan this QR code to visit this page online: