In his first interview with Fox News, US President Barack Obama has denied there is a crisis in US-Israel relations.

Updates (Israel time; most recent at top)?

10:08PM: Yet more media bias?

A Palestinian Hamas militant carrying a fake rocket takes part in a rally in the streets of the Bureij refugee camp in central Gaza Strip, 2009. A foreign worker has been killed after a rocket fired from the Gaza Strip hit a kibbutz in southern Israel, the Israeli army said. (AFP/File/Mohammed Abed)

Which begs the question: how does the AFP stringer know that this is a fake rocket? After all, the guy carrying it is a real Hamas “militant” (i.e. terrorist). It would be easier for him to carry the real deal, instead of go to the effort of creating a fake one.

Furthermore, it sure looks real to me.

8:16PM: The Elder of Moron opens his pie hole.

Former President Jimmy Carter on Thursday called US plans to mediate the dispute between the Israelis and Palestinians by shuttling back and forth between the two parties a “feeble effort” toward bringing lasting peace to the Middle East.

He also encouraged President Barack Obama’s White House to take a more balanced position in its relations with Israel.

“There’s no doubt that in general the United States government has been much more attuned to the sensitivities of the Israelis and has yielded excessively to the circumstances in the Holy Land as Israel has confiscated several lands within Palestine,” Carter said at the opening of a two-day conference on US-Arab relations.

Jimmy, peace off.

7:45PM: More media bias: It’s as if the caption writer here thought “Screw it, I am not going to even pretend.”

Palestinian children watch a Mickey Mouse look-alike who urges children to support armed resistance against Israel, at Al-Aqsa TV in Gaza May 13, 2007. . REUTERS/Suhaib Salem

Armed resistance?

7:30PM: Those twits over at CNN have allowed antisemitic tweets to air to the public (hat tip: Marty Roberts).

5:44PM: Introducing Joe Biden: US Vice President and aspiring comedian.

“I just got back from five days in the Middle East,” Biden said. “I love to travel, but it’s great to be back to a place where a boom in housing construction is actually a good thing,” he said.

That’s really funny, especially to those who have lost their homes and may stand to lose their homes in future thanks to the US pressure on Israel.

You can see Biden’s entire “routine” here:

4:48PM: Ma’an News reports that sonic booms were heard over Gaza following today’s fatal rocket attack.

Sonic blasts over Gaza after projectile kills Thai worker

No strikes or injuries were reported after Gaza residents reported hearing what sounded like a dozen explosions across the Strip on Thursday, hours after the death of a Thai worker hit by projectile fire.

Notice the headline, which implies the projectile is responsible for the man’s death, instead of those who fired it.

Meanwhile, according to the same report, Fatah’s own Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades claimed responsibility for the attack, and not an Al Qaeda affiliated group as was reported by other media outlets.

4:38PM: Israel has promised a strong response after the rocket attack earlier today.

Smuggling tunnels, watch out.

1:18PM: BREAKING NEWS:Palestinian terrorists have killed a 30-year-old man after firing a Qassam rocket at Moshav Netiv Ha’asara in the Ashkelon Coast Regional Council.

The man was a Thai foreign worker, and this was the third rocket to be fired into Israel in the last 24 hours.

The al-Qaeda affiliated Ansar al-Suna Brigades claimed responsibility for the attack.

1:00PM: Media bias: It is clear from the plethora of “palestinian rage day” photos that the foreign press photographers are making a concerted effort to point out the young age of the protesters by referring to them as “youth” – such as here, here, and here (and even when their age may not be clear like here).

Here’s the latest example of this:

Young Palestinian stone-throwers run for cover as Israeli troops fire tear gas to disperse protesters in Hebron in the occupied West Bank. US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton arrived in Russia Thursday for crucial talks on clinching a new nuclear disarmament treaty between the Cold War foes and smoothing tensions in the Middle East. (AFP/Hazem Bader)

It seems clear to me they are mentioning this to reinforce the “David vs Goliath” narrative. After all, the Israeli troops could also be described as “young,” given they are usually 18-20 years of age. Besides, the foreign press has a history of doing this even when it’s a real stretch.

Another point: the caption writer describes them as “Young Palestinian stone-throwers,” even though the flames in the photo itself, as well as events shown in other photos, indicates their projectiles of choice extend beyond the earthen variety.

9:20AM: Jeffrey Goldberg argues that Obama is not trying to destroy the US-Israel relationship.

So what is the goal? The goal is force a rupture in the governing coalition that will make it necessary for Netanyahu to take into his government Livni’s centrist Kadima Party (he has already tried to do this, but too much on his terms) and form a broad, 68-seat majority in Knesset that does not have to rely on gangsters, messianists and medievalists for votes. It’s up to Livni, of course, to recognize that it is in Israel’s best interests to join a government with Netanyahu and Barak, and I, for one, hope she puts the interests of Israel ahead of her own ambitions.

Obama knows that this sort of stable, centrist coalition is the key to success. He would rather, I understand, not have to deal with Netanyahu at all — people near the President say that, for one thing, Obama doesn’t think that Netanyahu is very bright, and there is no chemistry at all between the two men — but he’d rather have a Netanyahu who is being pressured from his left than a Netanyahu who is being pressured from the right.

Now compare this to Obama’s approach to last year’s violence against Iranian protesters.

“It is not productive, given the history of US and Iranian relations to be seen as meddling in Iranian elections,” he said.

But when it comes to Israel, it’s meddle away!

By the way, Obama is dead wrong if he thinks Netanyahu is not bright.

6:05AM: Hamas has threatened a religious war.

Ismail Haniyeh, prime minister of the Gaza-based government, threatened Tuesday that a religious war will enflame Israel, calling for an Arab-Palestinian campaign to stand with Jerusalem.

Speaking at a conference organized by his government in Gaza City, Haniyeh said that “what is happening now exposes the reality of Jerusalem’s future and the Jews’ plans.”

Notice how once again, a Hamashole leader has referred to “Jews”, not “Zionists.”

Meanwhile, if you are surprised by any of this, read the Hamas Charter. It’s all there.

5:56AM: Any fears of a similar crisis in Israel-Australia relations following passportgate (doesn’t that seem like a lifetime ago given all the current focus on the new crisis?) can be put to rest. Or at least be put to the side for now.

Via the Australian Jewish News:

FEARS of a diplomatic fallout over the forged passport affair don’t seem to have hampered trade between Israel and Australia.

Israeli company Elbit Systems, which supplies the Israel Defence Forces, was this week granted the $349 million contract to supply command, control and communications systems to the Australian Army.

Australian Minister for Defence Personnel Greg Combet said the deal is a big step forward for the Australian Defence Forces (ADF).

“The introduction of this new capability will increase the ADF’s battle space awareness, automate combat messaging and assist in the successful conduct of operations,” Combet said.

Not only is the relationship a trade one, but some of the contract will be completed in Australia.

“Systems integration testing will be performed in Melbourne, while vehicle integration into over 1000 army vehicles will occur in Brisbane,” Combet said.

The new system will provide new technology in battle to more than 1500 Australian soldiers and it will also be rolled out in the Royal Australian Air Force.

Elbit CEO Joseph Ackerman said the order would be completed over the next three years.

“Australia is a very important market for Elbit Systems, and we are extremely proud to be selected by the Department of Defence for this major program,” Ackerman said.

5:50AM: Yossi Klein Halevi looks at the crisis. Or as President Obama prefers to call it, a “disagreement” between friends.

Excerpt:

Why, then, the outbreak of violence now? Why Hamas’s “day of rage” over Jerusalem and the Palestinian Authority’s call to gather on the Temple Mount to “save” the Dome of the Rock from non-existent plans to build the Third Temple? Why the sudden outrage over rebuilding a synagogue, destroyed by the Jordanians in 1948, in the Old City’s Jewish Quarter, when dozens of synagogues and yeshivas have been built in the quarter without incident?

The answer lies not in Jerusalem but in Washington. By placing the issue of building in Jewish neighborhoods in East Jerusalem at the center of the peace process, President Obama has inadvertently challenged the Palestinians to do no less.

Astonishingly, Obama is repeating the key tactical mistake of his failed efforts to restart Middle East peace talks over the last year. Though Obama’s insistence on a settlement freeze to help restart negotiations was legitimate, he went a step too far by including building in East Jerusalem. Every Israeli government over the last four decades has built in the Jewish neighborhoods of East Jerusalem; no government, let alone one headed by the Likud, could possibly agree to a freeze there. Obama made resumption of negotiations hostage to a demand that could not be met. The result was that Palestinian leaders were forced to adjust their demands accordingly.

Obama is directly responsible for one of the most absurd turns in the history of Middle East negotiations. Though Palestinian leaders negotiated with Israeli governments that built extensively in the West Bank, they now refused to sit down with the first Israeli government to actually agree to a suspension of building. Obama’s demand for a building freeze in Jerusalem led to a freeze in negotiations.

Finally, after intensive efforts, the administration produced the pathetic achievement of “proximity talks”—setting Palestinian-Israeli negotiations back a generation, to the time when Palestinian leaders refused to sit at the same table with Israelis.

******************************************************************************************

Want to learn how to shoot with top Israeli anti-terror experts? Click here for more details.

******************************************************************************************

100 thoughts on “The Day In Israel: Thursday Mar 18th, 2010”

  1. I’ve been in class for 10 hours and for twelve, so maybe I’m just missing the point, but…

    [Peace] initiatives, the so-called peaceful solutions, and the international conferences to resolve the Palestinian problem, are all contrary to the beliefs of the Islamic Resistance Movement… There is no solution to the Palestinian problem except by Jihad… (article thirteen)

    Has Obama read this?

    …Palestine is an Islamic land where the First Qibla and the third holiest site are located. (article 14)

    And the only truely holy site for Jews.  But we’ve still let you have it. 

    …Hamas is a humane movement, which cares for human rights and is committed to the tolerance (article 31)

    Yes, jihad is completely humane, as is neglect of negotiation, human shields and firing missiles from your childrens schools. Human rights? Yep. And tolerance, too. It’s cool to teach your sons and daughters to blow themselves up. Oh wait, a guy wrote this, it’s the mothers job to teach the kids that stuff – article 17. 

    …It will never set out against any Muslims or against the non-Muslims who make peace with it, here or anywhere else. (article 36)

    Make peace… By joining you in jihad?

  2. I don't see anything "absurd" about Obama insisting that Israel relinguish its "we can build if we want to!" mantra; after all, Israel has just shown that it can not be trusted to keep its finger off that trigger.

    Obama can have NO faith that in the middle of some delicate to-and-fro regarding territory *here* or settlements *there* that Israel won't pre-empt by announcing another 1,000 apartments *here* or another 2,000 apartments *there*.

    The threat of that happening is as unacceptable to Obama as it is to Abbas, and the fact that Israel keeps insisting that it *can* do this is a very strong indication that it *will* do this.

    Obama understands that.
    Abbas understands that.

    What's stopping you guys from wrapping your head around that concept?

    1. Michael Zvi Krumbein

      OK, let's try making this really simple.

      Jerusalem is our capital. The New City part, at least, is not up for negotiation. We WILL build there, negotiotions or not. Therefore, there is nothing to worry about. If you want a freeze somewhere else, then we will probably agree to one, but only for a reasonable period, so the residents don't continue to suffer the way they are now. We didn't break any freeze, because there never WAS a freeze in the new city, and never will be one. See, simple if you think about it!

      Will Abbas freeze HIS construction?

      1. OK, let me stop you right here….

        "Jerusalem is our capital."

        And America does not agree.

        Indeed, no other country agrees.

        Your statement is akin to Saadam seizing Kuwait City and then saying "Yeah, it's mine now".

        Having Saadam saying that does not make it true, and it would have been *no* *more* *true* if he had added "Yeah, and I think it'll make a smashing good capital city of Iraq".

        I'm sorry if that upsets your world-view, but that's how the world works.

        1. " "Jerusalem is our capital." And America does not agree. "

          Really? Then how do you explain the Congressional resolution, passed on April 24, 1990?

          “House Resolution Expressing Support for Jerusalem as Israel’s Capital

          Whereas the State of Israel has declared Jerusalem to be its capital;

          [,,,] Whereas ambiguous statements by the Government of the United States concerning the right of Jews to live in all parts of Jerusalem raise concerns in Israel that Jerusalem might one day be redivided and access to religious sites in Jerusalem denied to Israeli citizens; and the search for a lasting peace in the region: Now, therefore, be it Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That the Congress

          (1) acknowledges that Jerusalem is and should remain the capital of the State of Israel;

          (2) strongly believes that Jerusalem must remain an undivided city in which the rights of every ethnic religious group are protected; and

          (3) calls upon all parties involved in the search for peace to maintain
          their strong efforts to bring about negotiations between Israel and
          Palestinian representatives.”

          1. Michael Zvi Krumbein

            I could not have put it better myself.

            "The way it works" is we won a defensive war, and it is our capital even if no-one else agrees. Actually, it's been our capital since at least 1949, and it is still law in the U.S. that the embassy is supposed to move there.

            What this makes obvious is that (and this is for Jim too, with apologies) that the opinions of whoever occupies the white house for 4-8 years is not the same as the permanent opinion of the U.S. In fact, the U.S. often has several contradictory policies at the same time. The only way to get a permanant U.S. opinion is to sign a treaty, ratified by the Senate.

          2. "Really? Then how do you explain the Congressional resolution, passed on April 24, 1990? "

            The Congress does not make US foreign policy, which both the Congress and the POTUS well understand, even if you do not.

            1. Michael Zvi Krumbein

              "US Foreign policy", which often contradicts itself, is, at most, the reflection of whoever happens to be in the White House a given moment. The only way to get something both official (like POTUS) and permanent (like a resolution) is to sign a treaty. So Obama's personal opinion, at the moment, may be foreign policy, but it is not a permanent position of the U.S. So I am not quaking in my boots.

      1. I am actually rather struggling to pinpoint the exact moment when Obama, or Abbas or, indeed, Netanyahu actually stood up and said "Hey! Here's a good idea! Let's invite Hamas to the negotiations!"

        Until they *do* I rather suspect that pointing to the Hamas Charter as your "rebuttal" is something of a non-sequitur.

        Still, I guess you can't construct a straw man without putting up a non-sequitur first, so I shouldn't really be surprised.

        Disappointed, yeah, but not surprised…

        1. Actually, it is extremely relevant. The conflict is not about settlements or land captured in 1967. It is about Israel's very existence. You may call that an irrelevant fact, but it is more of an inconvenient truth for you.

          But if that's still too complicated for you, read about the charter of Abbas' Fatah instead.

    2. There are several simple things you are apparently unable to understand:

      1) There was a big kerfuffle some months before, when Obama and Israel agreed to have a temporary freeze in the West Bank, but not in Jerusalem. Now comes Obama, and decides to break his agreement (you might argue was a bad move for him to agree, but still he did agree) to allow building in Jerusalem (with a silly pretext to boot). If Israel can't trust its ally to keep agreements, how do you expect it to trust its enemies?

      2) It's silly to argue that settlements predispose negotiations, while at the same time both practically reserving the entire territory to the PA _and_ allowing Palestinian construction (which I do not oppose). Your "neutral" position is that only one side can build. In short, the alleged wish for fairness is a wish to help the other side.

      1. When did Obama actually "agree" that building in east Jerusalem was A-OK with him, Y.K.?

        I now he decided to stop fighting with Netanyahu over it, but that isn't actually the same thing as saying "Yeah, OK, I agree".

        1. Just look at the reports last year. The settlement compromise was widely reported all over the news. If you're ignorant that's your fault. e.g.

          http://www.haaretz.co.il/hasen/spages/1110507.htm

          "BERLIN – The Obama administration has agreed to Israel's request to remove East Jerusalem from negotiations on the impending settlement freeze."

          and so on. If Israel can't trust Obama, than not only it can't trust the PA, it means the Americans aren't the "honest brokers" they imagine themselves to be.

          1. Oh, please, which part of "The Obama administration has agreed to Israel's request to remove East Jerusalem…" is unclear? Do you think "Western Diplomats" in the report refers to representatives of Andorra, Lichtenstein and San Marino?

            Of course no-one can show any written agreement, since the entire agreement was either confidential or verbal, but there's no reason to deny all the press reports of its existence, which Obama did not (which is telling).

            And to call Nethanyahu's freeze "unilateral" is… amusing. I thought Nethanyahu wouldn't make any concessions unless prompted to. Next you'll make him a card carrying member of Meretz or Hadash…

            1. Y.K. "Oh, please, which part of "The Obama administration has agreed to Israel's request to remove East Jerusalem…" is unclear?"

              Oh, please, the part where those words are coming from a representative of the Obama Administration.

              Y.K. "Of course no-one can show any written agreement,"

              Then I am exceptionally curious as to how, exactly, you can demonstrate the accuracy of this comment:
              "Now comes Obama, and decides to break his agreement "
              other than by saying
              "trust me, he did, he did, he did.."

              Trust is rather a fragile commodity, Y.K., and not one I am willing to lend to you.

              Proof, please, of that "agreement".

              Not rumour sourced from Germany and routed through Israel.

              Proof, thanks.

              I'll wait…

              1. I guess in your world all the agreements (verbal or not) that Obama signs are announced by his spokesman, and respected news agencies like Haartez just make up stuff from thin air. If this was untrue, the WH would have denied it months ago.

                1. "If this was untrue, the WH would have denied it months ago"

                  Reporter: " Is this a new policy that the United States has adopted that you now talk about restraint of activities on settlements?"

                  Mitchell: "Well, first let me say that there is no change in American policy."

                  There can not be a "new agreement" without there being a "change in American policy" , because it is indisputable that American policy was (and therefore still is) that all Israeli construction in East Jerusalem must be frozen.

                  That the USA decided to back away from its fight with Bibi does not IN ITSELF "prove" that an agreement was reached between the two govts.

                  After all, a tactical retreat in the face of the enemy does not mean army (A) is now allied with army (B); it means merely that the former is unable to prevail over the latter, and is withdrawing to lick its wounds.

                  Obama has now decided to rejoin battle, and all power to him. But that decision does NOT entail a repudiation of an agreement, because no such agreement exists.

                  1. This questioning was in late September, regarding a slip by Obama when he talking about "restraining" settlements.

                    Gibbs is telling the reporter this slip didn't signal a policy change in September (if it had, it would have meant the U.S. may have not insisted that Nethanyahu will continue to honor the freeze in the West Bank), but it doesn't mean policy didn't change before that (say in August, where the original bargain was struck).

            2. "Of course no-one can show any written agreement,"

              Even that noted Netanyahu shill Barak Ravid had to state for the record: "The officials said the U.S. will not endorse new construction there, but would not demand Jerusalem publicly announce a freeze"

              Which means that Ravid (and his byline is synonymous with "the PMs office") is claiming in the one article that the USA has endorsed Jerusalem construction even as he is making it clear that the USA has NOT endorsed Jerusalem construction.

              "And to call Nethanyahu's freeze "unilateral" is… amusing."

              I am pleased you can chuckle nut, so sorry, an announcement from Netanyahu that is NOT endorsed by the USA is, by definition, a unilateral announcement.

              "I thought Nethanyahu wouldn't make any concessions unless prompted to"

              Bibi is beyond throwing a bone to an angry dog?

              Since when, Y.K.?????

              1. The US not endorsing something isn't equal to the US actively opposing something, so the sentence you quoted doesn't have the meaning you assigned to it. It just means the US doesn't like it.

                As it is, the US and Israel decided which steps Israel would take to invigorate the peace process, and it was decided to leave construction in East Jerusalem alone. Until Obama decided to change his mind.

                1. "The US not endorsing something isn't equal to the US actively opposing something, so the sentence you quoted doesn't have the meaning you assigned to it. It just means the US doesn't like it. "

                  Then I am at a loss to explain your original claim:
                  "Now comes Obama, and decides to break his agreement "

                  Obama withdrew to lick his wounds because he was taking a beating, which means that his decision to come back out of his corner to recommence the fight does NOT involve him "breaking his agreement".

                  "As it is, the US and Israel decided which steps Israel would take to invigorate the peace process,"

                  Look, I'm sorry, you simply have not demonstrated that, because you have not (and, I believe, you can not) point to any such "joint decision".

                  But I can – and I have – pointed you to Mitchell saying that the USA's policy is unchanged following Bibi's UNILATERAL announcement, and it is quite impossible for the USA's policies to be unchanged *IF* the USA and Israel have cooked up a new agreement.

      2. "It's silly to argue that settlements predispose negotiations"

        Settlement CONSTRUCTION, actually.

        Obama has not said that Israel has to evacuate the settlements, merely that the "facts on the ground" must stay as they are until the ultimate fate of that ground is determined.

        "and_ allowing Palestinian construction"

        This is "occupied territory", and the Palestinians are "protected persons".

        Israel is therefore OBLIGED by int'l humanitarian law to cater for their basic needs, and there are few needs MORE basic than "a roof over your head".

        "Your "neutral" position is that only one side can build."

        No, my "neutral" position is that an occupying power should take its legal obligation seriously, rather than indulge in a zionist verion of carpet-bagging.

          1. "You think anyone here honestly thinks you are "neutral"? "

            Let's all sing along with Dave!

            Ad-hom! Ad-hom!
            Ad-hominem we go!
            With a hi-ho-ho and a hi-ho-ho!
            Ad-hominem Dave goes!

            Which one are you, Dave?
            Sleepy, or Dopey?

            Just cut to the chase and call me an anti-semite, sunshine.

            Go on, you know you want to……

            1. Wow, that took a bit longer than expected, but I'd be lying if I said I DIDN'T expect the boilerplate "call me an anti-Semite" preemptive response.

              I have no idea what you are, but I wouldn't rule it out. Perhaps if you keep digging, we'll get closer to the truth.

              1. "Wow, that took a bit longer than expected, but I'd be lying if I said I DIDN'T expect the boilerplate "call me an anti-Semite" preemptive response. "

                Oh, spare me.

                Are you denying that you were the first person in this thread to resort to an ad-hominem?

                You did, and then you resort to sanctimony.

                Man, that's chutzpah for you…..

                "I have no idea what you are, but I wouldn't rule it out. Perhaps if you keep digging, we'll get closer to the truth."

                Honestly, Dave, I've now seen three responses from you in this page, and not a one of them is even an attempt at "debate".

            2. I'd like to express my support for Dave as a good and decent person, Johnboy. I really don't believe Dave recklessly labels people with whom he disagrees. To put it another way and to inject a little humor (possibly) into this discussion, I'd like to borrow a few lines (with some minor adjustments) from the musical "Chess" and the showstopping number "One Night In Bangkok": "(Dave) gets his kicks above the race-line, sunshine. So go back to your bars, your temples, your massage parlors. Chorus: One night in Bangkok makes a hard man humble…." I'm not how much of this applies directly to your disagreement with Dave, but the music is great don't you agree, Johnboy? I should point out as well that I am gay (if you haven't already figured that out).

              1. Dave may indeed be kind to cats and love his mom

                But Dave was also the first person in this thread to resort to an ad-hominem, and so I have to say that this comment of yours: "I really don't believe Dave recklessly labels people with whom he disagrees" suffers from a very serious evidentiary shortcoming.

                You can call him "good and decent" if you want, but I came here for a debate, not a group hug, and Dave is proving to be a very poor excuse for a debater.

                But, yeah, I'm willing to accept that he's a great hugger, if that makes you feel any better….

                1. Where's the ad hominem attack, John?

                  Also, can we stop feeding the troll please? His naivete is actually quite funny and I bet the closest he's come to Israel is in his 3rd grade geography class. But of course, his 3rd grade geography class probably had a map of the British Mandate of Palestine.

                  See, that's a real ad hominem attack, John.

                  Altogether now!

                  Ad-hom! Ad-hom!
                  Ad-hominem we go!
                  With a hi-ho-ho and a hi-ho-ho!
                  Ad-hominem Johnboy goes!

                  Which one are you, Johnboy?
                  Grumpy, or Sneezy?

                  Just cut to the chase and call us evil zionist overloads who control the media, the moon, and the stars, sunshine.

                  1. I like feeding the trolls because responding is a good way of informing readers as to the flaws in their arguments. Also in some cases, the trolls let their guard down and reveal their true colors.

                2. Who are you, and why do you make me feel like I’m being dribbled on? Go back to your homework, and brush your teeth… Your dribble stinks.

                  1. "Who are you,"

                    You can call me Johnboy, and I'll call you Usydgirl. OK?

                    "and why do you make me feel like I'm being dribbled on?"

                    I can't answer why you (indeed, anyone) feels the way that you feel, any more than I can do your homework assignments for you.

                    There are some things a Uni student just has to work through on their own……

                  1. Let's examine Dave's "logic", shall we?

                    Y.K. said this:
                    "Your "neutral" position is that only one side can build."

                    That is not an ad-hom; Y.K. is complaining about the claim, and not the character of the person making that claim.

                    I replied:
                    "No, my "neutral" position is that an occupying power should take its legal obligation seriously, rather than indulge in a zionist verion of carpet-bagging."

                    That is also not an ad-hom, because it deals strictly with Y.K's claim, and not with Y.K.'s character.

                    Dave then jumps in:
                    "You think anyone here honestly thinks you are "neutral"? "

                    That is an ad-hominem, because Dave did not even attempt to address the *subject* of the exchange between Y.K. and myself, but rather to make a point about my character.

                    1. You're still going at it, Johnboy? Well let me be the first to say it on this thread: "Goodnight, Johnboy." I'm going to bed, but tomorrow is another day.

                    2. "You're still going at it, Johnboy? Well let me be the first to say it on this thread: 'Goodnight, Johnboy' "

                      Fine by me, Jim.

                      I will point out that Y.K. is continuing to engage in debate WITHOUT resort to ad-hominem.

                      But Dave? Noooo, Dave, not so much…..

                      Dave throws out a casual ad-hom, then denies that it is an ad-hom, and when he is reminded what an ad-hominem is he then decides he wants to drop the subject like a hot rock.

                      I prefer Y.K.'s straightforward style myself, and am unimpressed both by Dave's lack of style and by his lack of grace.

                      He is supposed to be a commentator, and yet he comes across as an intellectual lightweight and a dull plodder.

                      Disappointing.
                      Very disappointing…

                    3. "You are attempting some logical acrobatics to score points against me,"

                      A tedious tactic, Dave, an very similar to that used by Netanyahu i.e. he insults Biden, and then claims that the outraged response *from* Biden is where the insult lies.

                      You make an ad-hom comment, and when I point out that it is an ad-hom comment you claim that I am attempting to score cheap points off you.

                      Well, I guess that's chutzpah for you…..

        1. "Obama has not said that Israel has to evacuate the settlements, merely that the "facts on the ground" must stay as they are until the ultimate fate of that ground is determined."

          No, nearly all construction in the settlements is supposed to be frozen. That's not preventing facts on the ground, it's making people's lives miserable in order to hope they'd leave.

          "Israel is therefore OBLIGED by int'l humanitarian law to cater for their basic needs, and there are few needs MORE basic than "a roof over your head"."

          Fair enough (to territories actually occupied by Israel). I never said I opposed Palestinian construction.

          "No, my "neutral" position is that an occupying power should take its legal obligation seriously, rather than indulge in a zionist verion of carpet-bagging."

          Maybe your position has some legal window dressing, but the result is that only one side can build, which is hardly balanced.

          1. “Maybe your position has some legal window dressing, but the result is that only one side can build, which is hardly balanced.”

            I agree: there ISN’T a balance between “Israelis can’t build but Palestinians can”.

            But that is precisely because the legal status of the two groups in different under international humanitarian law i.e. one side consists of “citizens of the occupying power” while the other side is comprised of a stateless collection of “protected persons under belligerent occupation”.

            They aren’t MEANT to be treated the same.

            1. Michael Zvi Krumbein

              Ramat Shlomo is not under "belligerant occuption", and there are no "protected persons" there. It was no-man's land, on but not over the green line. Israel is not occupying it, they (we) annexed it.

              But this brings up an interesting idea. The people there are haredim, originally represented by the Eida HaHareidit in the old city of Jerusalem, before they had to flee belligrant occupation by Jordan. The Eidah actually testified in the U.N. against the state. So what rights are they guranteed? Civil? National? Having lived near the Eidah, I can pretty much guarantee that would trust Medinat Yisrael to protect them over the PA, even if they would have preferred that the Turks were still there.

              1. "Ramat Shlomo is not under "belligerant occuption", and there are no "protected persons" there. It was no-man's land, on but not over the green line. Israel is not occupying it, they (we) annexed it. "

                Such nonsense, Michael.

                IF Ramat Shlomo sits on territory that was seized by the IDF by force of arms during the Six Day War THEN it is "Israeli-occupied territory".

                It falls within the remit of UNSC Resolution 242, and therefore it falls within the remit of ALL subsequent UNSC Resolutions that declare that ALL Israeli attempts to change the legal status of territory seized by the IDF in 1967 is "null and void", and that the Geneva Conventions apply to ALL such territory.

                1. Michael Zvi Krumbein

                  You just switched from the Geneva Conventions, which are rather significant, to Security Council resolutions, which are less so.

  3. "The conflict is not about settlements or land captured in 1967."

    Funny, but Abbas says it is, and so does Obama.

    Indeed, every single RECOGNIZED party to these negotiations has officially RECOGNIZED Israel's right to exist in peace and security within the 1967 borders.

    Ya' got yer' negotiating partners for peace, yet you insist that these negotiations are made impossible because of parties that *aren't* involved in those negotiations.

    How very odd: it's almost as if you don't understand the concept of "negotiation".

    But Dave, why stop at Hamas? Why not throw in, oh, I dunno, Gaddafi? After all, he's obviously as nutty as a fruitcake, so it's a given that his presence at those negotiations would make it impossible to clinch a deal.

    Only…. he won't be there.

    Same with Haniyeh, come to think of it.

    1. I did not stop at Hamas. I mentioned Fatah, which is Abbas' party. (Funny how you chose not to mention that in your "oh, so clever" response). This makes their platform more relevant than words Abbas or his Fatah buddies utter in front of a western audience.

      The PA has said to the international community it "recognizes" Israel in order to to make the PA "acceptable" to the international community, and allow it to continue to receive international aid. But don't take it from me.

      [youtube iTQ5CNYLoXE http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iTQ5CNYLoXE youtube]

      At the same time, PA television still runs the most vile form of incitement against Jews, and Fatah-affiliated terrorists still launch attacks against Israelis.

      Homework: Explain why the PLO was formed 3 years before the Six Day war of 1967.

      1. " I mentioned Fatah, "

        Gosh! You did too.

        Except…. I do believe you will find that the recognized representatives at these negotiations are the "Palestinian Liberation Organization" and the "Government of Israel", and not "Likud" and "Fatah".

        But if you want to navel-gaze at what the "Fatah Charter" says then it is, indeed, only fair that we likewise look at the "Likud Charter".

        And – Gosh! Who Would Have Thunk it!?!? – the Likud Charter CATEGORICALLY rejects the idea of any sovereign Arab state anywhere between the Jordan River and the sea.

        Noooooooooo! That can't be correct, can it, Dave?

        So sorry, but you need to look at the PNC Charter if you want to find rejection of the idea that the PLO has recognized the right of Israel to exist in peace and security within the 1967 borders.

        Look away, but it is only fair to warn you that I have an ace up my sleeve…..

        1. I am truly not interested in where on your body you stick cards, and more interested in your selectivity about which parts of my answers you choose to address.

          Even if I accepted the absurd notion that the PA and Fatah are completely separate (Fatah is the largest faction of the PLO), the video evidence I provided goes DIRECTLY to the point as to why the PA (not Fatah) publicly (i.e. to the West) says it recognizes Israel (not as a Jewish state, mind you). Yet you chose to ignore it.

          Furthermore, do you really want to get into PLO territory? You do realize the PLO charter has still not been amended to recognize Israel's right to exist, right?

          Regarding the Likud Charter, I have a number of comments:
          1 Your analogy between the Fatah and Likud is fundamentally flawed. Fatah is the main faction of the PA, who are Israel's so-called "peace partners". The Israeli government is whichever party is in power at the time. After all, it was not a Likudnik who entered the Oslo process with the PLO, although subsequent Likud governments have said they would abide by previous agreements.
          2. My point about the Fatah charter was as a rebuttal to your contention that "every single RECOGNIZED party to these negotiations has RECOGNIZED Israel's right to exist in peace and security within the 1967 borders." As such, Likud's charter is a strawman.
          3. If you do want to get into the details of Likud's charter, it should be noted that while they reject a sovereign Arab state west of the Jordan, they do support palestinians running their lives freely in the framework of self-rule.

          I am not sure what your point is about the PNC Charter, since the PNC is directly relevant to the PA, who you yourself referred to as "the recognized representatives at these negotiations."

        2. I am truly not interested in where on your body you stick cards, and more interested in your selectivity about which parts of my answers you choose to address.

          Even if I accepted the absurd notion that the PA and Fatah are completely separate (Fatah is the largest faction of the PLO), the video evidence I provided goes DIRECTLY to the point as to why the PA (not Fatah) publicly (i.e. to the West) says it recognizes Israel (not as a Jewish state, mind you). Yet you chose to ignore it.

          Furthermore, do you really want to get into PLO territory? You do realize the PLO charter has still not been amended to recognize Israel's right to exist, right?

          Regarding the Likud Charter, I have a number of comments:
          1 Your analogy between the Fatah and Likud is fundamentally flawed. Fatah is the main faction of the PA, who are Israel's so-called "peace partners". The Israeli government is whichever party is in power at the time. After all, it was not a Likudnik who entered the Oslo process with the PLO, although subsequent Likud governments have said they would abide by previous agreements.
          2. My point about the Fatah charter was as a rebuttal to your contention that "every single RECOGNIZED party to these negotiations has RECOGNIZED Israel's right to exist in peace and security within the 1967 borders." As such, Likud's charter is a strawman.
          3. If you do want to get into the details of Likud's charter, it should be noted that while they reject a sovereign Arab state west of the Jordan, they do support palestinians running their lives freely in the framework of self-rule.

          I am not sure what your point is about the PNC Charter, since the PNC is directly relevant to the PA, who you yourself referred to as "the recognized representatives at these negotiations."

          1. "Even if I accepted the absurd notion that the PA and Fatah are completely separate (Fatah is the largest faction of the PLO),"

            OK, it is time to stop you right there, because you clearly do not know the difference between the PLO and the PA.

            Nor (apparently) do you understand the difference between a political party, a government, and a national liberation movement.

            "Furthermore, do you really want to get into PLO territory? "

            Dave, Dave, Dave…. who is the "recognized representative of the Palestinian people"?
            (a) Fatah
            (b) The PLO
            (c) The PA
            (d) Likud

            "Your analogy between the Fatah and Likud is fundamentally flawed"

            Dave, Dave, Dave….
            Two of these are political parties, and two are not:
            (a) Likud
            (b) Fatah
            (c) The PLO
            (d) The Govt of Israel

            1. Enough of the semantics. Anyone who understands the Middle East's machinations knows you cannot divorce the PLO from the PA. Some of the PLO's institutions have been merely transferred to Gaza/West Bank and assumed PA functions. Plus leading members of the PLO have become leaders of the PA, such as Arafat, Abbas, and Qurei.

              Furthermore, you said:

              I do believe you will find that the recognized representatives at these negotiations are the "Palestinian Liberation Organization" and the "Government of Israel", and not "Likud" and "Fatah".

              Actually, it is the PA. Sure, the PLO was recognized as the legitimate representative of the palestinians at the in 1974 Arab summit, and negotiated the Oslo Accords. But over time, Israel began dealing with the PA and not the PLO. For all intents and purposes, it is the PA with whom Israel is negotiating.

              You are going to have to do a heck of a lot better than that. It is almost as if your entire arguments are coming from Wikipedia.

              1. "Enough of the semantics. Anyone who understands the Middle East's machinations knows you cannot divorce the PLO from the PA."

                Words matter, Dave. So does being consistent in your argument.

                The PLO is the national liberation movement, and the PA is a local autonomous authority.

                The PA can be folded up TOMORROW, and its dismantlement would not affect the position of the PLO as the "recognized representative of the Palestinian people".

                "Actually, it is the PA"

                Actually, it is not.

                Abbas wears many hats, but the hat entitled "President of the PA" is a titular one. He does not wear it when he negotiations on behalf of the Palestinian people.

              2. "But over time, Israel began dealing with the PA and not the PLO."

                Well, whoop-de-doooo. The PA is the local administrative authority in the occupied territories, and so of course the occupying power has to have "dealings" with it.

                But Israel does NOT negotiate on final status issues with the PA, only with the PLO.

                BTW, you appear to be twisted in a knot:
                a) Fatah is a "party to negotiations" because
                b) Israel negotiates with the PA, but
                c) the PA is a "govt" of technocrats, and so
                d) Fatah holds no ministerial appointments in that govt.

                How odd. Care to extricate yourself?

              3. "For all intents and purposes, it is the PA with whom Israel is negotiating."

                The final status negotiations are headed up by Saeb Erekat and Ahmed Qurei.

                Care to explain to me the ministerial positions they hold within this current PA government of Salam Fayyad?

                Or, indeed, to explain to me what official position Fayyad occupies in final status negotiations?

                " It is almost as if your entire arguments are coming from Wikipedia."

                You haven't demonstrated any grasp of detail, Dave, so goodness knows where you are plucking your ideas from.

                From a dark and dreary place indeed, I suspect…

                1. Following the signing of the Oslo accords in September 2003, the PA (a body that was given temporary civil responsibilities until the final status negotiations take place) with limited jurisdiction – if any- was established at the expense of the PLO (the body representing all Palestinians around the globe and recognized by the UN and Arab League as such).

                  The latter's authority, international import and political relevance, dissipated over time to the point that it became a symbolic institution for its members, or at best one specific faction, Fatah. The PLO would resurface once in a while to serve as a rubber stamp for PA policies, but had long ceased to represent all Palestinians or play any important role in shaping political realities in occupied Palestine or anywhere else.

                  – Ramzy Baroud, author and editor of PalestineChronicle.com (I am purposefully using a palestinian source so you don't try to weasel out by claiming my source is biased and "Zionist"

                  1. I'm sorry Dave, but care to answer my questions?

                    Q1: Saeb Erekat is a senior negotiator. What position does he hold in the current PA govt?

                    Q2: Ahmed Qurei is a senior negotiator. What position does he hold in the current PA govt?

                    Q3: Salam Fayyad is the PM of the PA. What position will he hold in the final status negotiations?

                    If your "Palestinian source" is correct then the answer to (1) and (2) will be very senior positions in the PA govt.

                    So what are they?

                    And if he is correct then the answer to (3) will be "Fayyad will hold a very senior position at the negotiating table"

                    So what position will that be?

                    1. Kindly refute the palestinian source I provided, instead of answering with further questions. Because it gives the impression you have no answer.

                      BYW, here's another showing the blurred disctinction b/w the PA and PLO.

                      Oh my, seems you are really out of step with reality.

                      What is also interesting is you are arguing the PLO is the official rep in negotiations, and not the PA. Yet Hamas deputies are members of the PLO, which means your attempts to render my mention of the Hamas charter irrelevant are, well, not so good.

                    2. "Kindly refute the palestinian source I provided, instead of answering with further questions."

                      I'm sorry, Dave, you actually posed a question in your cut'n'paste post?

                      Where, exactly?

                      I see you putting up a cardboard cutout, sure, I can see that.

                      But I find it to be beyond chutzpah that you now demand that I argue with your cardboard cutout, rather than with you.

                      However, I have definitely posed my questions to you.

                      I have done so twice now, and I'll note that both times you have declined.

                      Do you even know what a "debate" is, Dave?

                      Oh, sorry, that's another question, isn't it….

                    3. "(Cut n' paste post? Heh. When quoting a source, I kind of have to "cut and paste" the text, don't I?) "

                      Dave, Dave, Dave, your post was nothing BUT cut'n'paste.

                      Which rather makes this statement:
                      "Refute my point backed up by sources"
                      nonsensical, because IN THAT POST you made no point at all.

                      You merely cut out your cardboard figure and propped him up against a wall.

                      Now, I admit that a cardboard cutout is a step up from your efforts, Dave, but I didn't come here to debate a billboard.

                      You are proving to be exceptionally lightweight, and a major disappointment.

                    4. I've given you a big opportunity and all the time in the world to refute me. U still haven't, and every time I push you into the corner you rehash the same insults.

                      I have allowed your comments through b/c you have served a useful purpose: for all of your bluster, you have been unable to rebut my points in any meaningful way, and demonstrated a level of understanding I could frankly attain from Wikipedia. Except Wikipedia isn't a pain in the butt like you are.

                      Oh, I'm sorry. Was that an ad hominem? My bad. But if you don't like it, bugger off.

                    5. Strike 1.
                      Nowhere IN THAT POST did Dave pose a question, posit an claim, or reach any conclusion.

                      He did exactly what I have pointed out he did i.e. he cutout a cardboard figure, propped it up against a wall, and then waited for me to comment on it.

                    6. Given that the quote was directly on the point I had been making in my previous comments, I didn't know I had to spell it out for you yet another time. My mistake.

                    7. Dave, you really don't know what "debate" is, do you?

                      If you want to quote Baroud you can't just cut out the words that you like and then dump it onto the carpet like a dead, smelly cat, and THEN expect me to pick it up.

                      Doing so is excepting me to debate your cardboard cutout.

                      Dave, matey, HE AIN'T HERE.

                      You are, so if you are going to quote him then explain IN THAT POST the point of that quote.
                      *sheesh*

                    8. Dave, matey, you simply do not understand the meaning of "debate".

                      You can't simply cut'n'paste words and then dump them on the carpet like a dead cat, and you *certainly* can't then sit back and smugly expect me to pick it up.

                    9. Strike 2

                      Dave is unaware of the difference between "opinion" and "fact", otherwise he would be aware that the quoted text is Baroud's OPINION, and contains nowhere within it a single FACT.

                    10. *Yawn*

                      Said the guy who has not backed up one thing he has said with even a source.

                      Thank you kindly for providing my readers with a good demonstration on how NOT to argue.

                      Feel free to try and get the last word in. I encourage it – you'll just dig yourself a deeper hole.

                    11. I will point out right here and now that Dave did NOT dispute that the quote from Baroud is OPINION.

                      He merely did as he always does: respond with an ad-hom

                    12. Strike 3.
                      Dave appears to be claiming that Baroud's OPINION is authoritative because: He's a Pally, Pal!!!!

                      Dave, if the ethnicity of the opinion-giver makes their opinion "authoritative" then I see your Baroud with my Uri Avnery, and I raise you a Gideon Levy.

                    13. Oh, look, I can not let this pass: "you have been unable to rebut my points in any meaningful way"

                      Dave, when you quoted from Baroud YOU DIDN'T ACTUALLY MAKE ANY POINT EXCEPT: And he's a Pally, pal!!!

                      That you can't see that is odd indeed, because you can look up and see your post, and you'll see that I am perfectly correct.

                    14. I
                      Am
                      Not
                      Responsible
                      For
                      The
                      Shortcomings
                      Of
                      Dave's
                      Pathetic
                      Apology
                      For
                      A
                      Web
                      Site.

                      Therefore
                      I
                      Fail
                      to
                      See
                      What
                      Your
                      Point
                      Actually
                      Is.

                      Care
                      To
                      Enlighten
                      Me?????

                    15. "What is also interesting is you are arguing the PLO is the official rep in negotiations, and not the PA."

                      I'll point out that Salam Fayyad argues exactly the same thing, and he should know…

                      "Yet Hamas deputies are members of the PLO,"

                      When, exactly, did Hamas first join the PLO, Dave?

                      Year, please….

                    16. "your attempts to render my mention of the Hamas charter irrelevant are, well, not so good"

                      Dave insists that when Bibi sits down with the Pals he'll be facing off against a monster called "PAPLOFATAHHAMAS".

                      I don't agree, but what really disappoints me is that Dave denies the corollary i.e. it must be equally true that Abbas faces off again the horrid "likudshasyisraelbeiteinu"

                      What is true for one must be true for the other, Dave, which means that if the Hamas Charter and the Fatah Charter are fair game then so is the Likud Charter, the Shas Charter and the Ysrael Beiteinu Charter.

                      Do you really want to go there?

                    17. No, I did not say that. My original point is the charter of Hamas and the PNC is extremely relevant when garnering their intentions and trying to understand what the causes of the conflict are. It is not like the PLO is some purely independent body representing a different world view.
                      And guess what? Some "settlement" over the Green Line is not the real issue.

                    18. I began by explaining why it is perfectly reasonable for OBAMA to want to remove BIBI's finger from the construction trigger, and in YOUR reply to ME you insisted on talking about the Hamas charter.

                      Non-sequitur city, Dave, and from that point on you have continued to insist that your non-sequitur is what the debate is all about.

                      I understand that this is Hasbarah standard operating procedure, sure, I do, but it hardly qualifies as "debate".

                    19. "My original point is the charter of Hamas and the PNC is extremely relevant "

                      Err, Dave, at no point have you made any mention of the PNC Charter, unless you (surely not!) believe that the "PNC Charter" is the same thing as the "Fatah Charter".

          2. "My point about the Fatah charter was as a rebuttal to your contention that "every single RECOGNIZED party to these negotiations"

            Dave, Dave, Dave… When Rabin recognized a sole representative of the Palestinian people did he finger:
            (1) Fatah
            (2) The PLO
            (3) The Govt. of Israel
            (4) Likud

            Looks like there is plenty of homework for you, Dave, so you better stop you clastetics and get to work…

              1. Dave: " I am fully aware of official differences between them."

                Dave: "Even if I accepted the absurd notion that the PA and Fatah are completely separate (Fatah is the largest faction of the PLO),"

                Read that sentence again, and then mull the internal logic, which appears to be: the PA and Fatah are linked because Fatah is in the PLO.

                I can only conclude that you can not tell one player from another….. that's explains why your calling of the game is so muddled, Dave.

                BTW, care to name the Fatah ministers who are serving in Fayyad's PA government?

                Dave: " But that interests me less than the reality. "
                or…
                Dave: I reject reality and substitute my own!!!

  4. It looks like some adviser told Obama to deny there is a crisis and zip his mouth because the press would be only too happy to exploit such an event and the president would not look good if it continued. However, he has damaged himself permanently with the American public. When the Rev. Wright flings the dreck around for 20 years, some of it is bound to stick to Obama, which is why I didn't vote for him.

  5. I'm not sure it's unlikely that the rocket in the picture is fake – I recall there was an accident once during a parade, some live explosive decided to go boom and a girl died (naturally, Israel was blamed). Using a fake is obviously safer. Also, I suspect a fake tube is lighter to carry than a real one.

  6. I just have to apologize for the current administration. We knew that the Democrats would screw up foreign policy (just as the Republicans screw up domestically) but we really, really did not think that it would be this bad.

  7. " For all intents and purposes, it is the PA with whom Israel is negotiating. "

    The Prime Minister of the PA was presented with that argument, here..
    http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1107587.html

    His answer was:
    Fayyad: "Your partner to the final-status agreement is the PLO,"
    Fayyad: "There is no other partner."

    He. Should. Know.

    You therefore appear to be placed in a rather indefensible position i.e. you claim that the PA is Israel's negotiating partner, yet the PRIME MINISTER OF THE PA is telling you that you are talking ignorant nonsense.

    Because, of course, you are talking ignorant nonsense.

    1. I am glad it took you over a day to find a quote to support anything you have said. Problem is, it makes no difference whatsoever. PA and PLO are the same in terms of views and objectives. PLO says they recognize Israel for international support (evidence provided before). But they still really aim for Israel's destruction.

      And guess what JB? You don't get to insult me on my blog. It is one of those rules about showing courtesy to your host. So consider yourself banned.

      I'm just glad I got you to prove my point about those who share your views- your arguments don't hold up, no matter how much sophistry you try to engage in.

      I am also glad I got you to spend so much time trying to prove your point against such an "intellectual lightweight" like me.

      1. " PA and PLO are the same in terms of views and objectives."

        No,actually.

        Tthe PLO is a national liberation movement, and so its world-view and its obectives are very distinct from the PA, which is a local AUTHORITY designed for one specific purpose i.e. to act as training wheels for the Palestinians to exercise some degree of local autonomy while they build up the infrastructure of a sovereign state.

        "You don't get to insult me on my blog"

        !!!!!! It is NOT an insult to you to say that your ARGUMENT that the PA is Israel's negotiating partner is "ignorant nonsense" when I have, demonstrably, shown it to be ignorant nonsense.

        "So consider yourself banned."

        I will point out right here and now that Dave's one and only means of having "the last word" is to blurt them out and then immediately muzzle me.

        You must feel very proud of yourself, Dave…

  8. " PA and PLO are the same in terms of views and objectives."

    No,actually.

    Tthe PLO is a national liberation movement, and so its world-view and its obectives are very distinct from the PA, which is a local AUTHORITY designed for one specific purpose i.e. to act as training wheels for the Palestinians to exercise some degree of local autonomy while they build up the infrastructure of a sovereign state.

    "You don't get to insult me on my blog"

    !!!!!! It is NOT an insult to you to say that your ARGUMENT that the PA is Israel's negotiating partner is "ignorant nonsense" when I have, demonstrably, shown it to be ignorant nonsense.

    "So consider yourself banned."

    I will point out right here and now that Dave's one and only means of having "the last word" is to blurt them out and then immediately muzzle me.

    You must feel very proud of yourself, Dave…

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Scroll to Top