From the New York Sun - Understanding Israel can't be pushed

Well, opening the editorial page of the New York Sun, brought this:
Hope for Talks in Middle East Lies in Recognition That Israel Can Not Be Pushed

Some highlights-

The recent exchange of Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit for a thousand Palestinian prisoners in Israeli hands is regarded as a cautiously hopeful sign even by Israeli hawks, as it appears the only possible de-escalation from the absolute collapse of the peace process that was almost implicit in the Palestinian bid for full membership as a state in the United Nations. The Israeli Right was fiercely opposed to Palestinian statehood from 1948 until relatively recently, when it realized that the Palestinians could not be induced to leave territory Israel occupied after the 1967 war; could not be physically expelled, because neither domestic nor international opinion would tolerate such an outrage; and could not be assimilated, both because of natural Arab resistance, and because of the danger of Israel’s ceasing to be a Jewish state and homeland, which has always been its only raison d’être. (There were Israeli bi-nationalists, jolly progressives who wanted to share; Canaanites, i.e. complete secularists; and territorialists who had wispy dreams of settling in Uganda or Ethiopia — but none of them ever had any grasp of reality.)

In 1917, in the desperate days of World War I, British foreign secretary Arthur Balfour promised “a Jewish homeland” in what was called, resurrecting Roman terminology, Palestine. In the same declaration, it was assured that this would not compromise the rights of the Muslim and Christian Arabs in the same and adjoining territory. As Britain was selling the same real estate to two different and hostile parties, before it was itself in possession of it, there was never going to be a solution that didn’t divide it in two. Nor has there been.

Apart from Anwar Sadat and the kings of Morocco and a few relatively enlightened people in the Persian Gulf, no Arab leader has really accepted the legitimacy of the Jewish state, despite promises at Oslo and elsewhere, and this was confirmed by Mahmoud Abbas in his address to the U.N. a few weeks ago. Every agreement except the Sinai-Suez Camp David agreement with Sadat (who was rewarded with assassination by the Muslim Brotherhood, now contending with the military for control in Egypt) has been designed to exploit Israel’s desire for peace with promises of what amounted to a truce, in exchange for concessions on the ground by Israel. And a vast swath of world opinion, partly thirsting for Arab oil, has cravenly accepted this protracted Arab confidence trick: land for a truce that is cancelable without notice.

Actually, this is a disservice.  Read the full article and learn something.

Well, that's what I have to say.

Stephen M. Flatow

Alisa kfar darom terrorism

News update from the DOJ National Security Division

We have come a long way since the Police Gazette. Did you know that the US Department of Justice's National Security Division maintains a site chock full of terrorism related news?

As just about every other business and government out there, the US NSD wants to have some bragging space.  Its virtual press room gives it to us.  Most recently published is accomplishments for the year 2011 ranging from the arrest of someone trying to export military equipment to the sentencing of the head of an Islamic charity for his efforts to send money to Chechnyan terrorists.

I think we need to know that our government is out there watching out for us and the virtual press room does it nicely.  You can go to the latest releases here. Well, that's what I think.

stephen flatow alisa terror

NY Sun - Clinton does a 180 on Jerusalem as capital of Israelven Symbolically Recognizing Jerusalem as Capital of Israel

The New York Sun reports today on Secretary of State Hilary Clinton's about-face on the issue of recognizing Jerusalem as the capital of Israel.

Secretary of State Clinton, in a sharp departure from her stance when she was a senator, is warning that any American action, even symbolically, toward recognizing Jerusalem as the capital of Israel must be avoided for the reason that it would jeopardize the peace process.

The issue has arisen in connection with a lawsuit now pending before the US Supreme Court about the rights of American citizens born in Jerusalem to have their passports indicate "Jerusalem, Israel."  After all, the thinking goes, that if you are born in London, it says London, England, so why not Jerusalem, Israel? Adding to the confusion is Clinton's own position when she was a senator in full support of a law requiring passports to indicate Jerusalem, Israel.  The answer,

"the law infringes on the president’s prerogatives in respect of foreign policy."

Welcome to the world of Mid-East politics.  Read the full story:

Clinton, in a Sharp Turnaround, Warns Against Even Symbolically Recognizing Jerusalem as Capital of Israel

A mess, don't you think?  I do.

stephen flatow alisa terror

It's now a terror attack

The Jerusalem Post is now reporting that the deaths of Asher and Yonatan Palmer were the results of a terror attack.  The IDF originally classified their deaths as a result of an automobile accident.

It seems that the IDF changed its position because of evidence within the car, namely a rock with blood on it.  This would be consistent with the theory that a rock was thrown from a passing car that went through the windshield of the Palmer car striking Asher and causing him to lose control.

While there have been rock throwing attacks before, this seems to be a new form of attack using the speed of the vehicles to create more damage and, in this case, resulting in murder.

And the world believes you can have peaceful relations with the people who took the lives of these two civilians?

Read the Jerusalem Post story.


stephen flatow alisa israel

In contrast to Holocaust denial, these Muslims learn

Samuel G. Freedman writing in the Religions column of the New York Times covers a man bites dog story.

One afternoon this week, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran addressed the United Nations General Assembly, once again casting doubt that the Holocaust had occurred. Almost exactly 24 hours earlier, an otherwise obscure college student in Morocco named Elmehdi Boudra was convening a conference devoted not to denying the Holocaust but to remembering it.  

Why Morocco?

Uncommonly among Arab and Muslim nations, Morocco has accepted the reality of the Holocaust, rather than either dismissing it outright or portraying it as a European crime for which those countries paid the price in the form of Israel’s creation. Partly, no doubt, because of Mohammed V’s stand against the Vichy regime, the current king, Mohammed VI, called in a 2009 proclamation for “an exhaustive and faithful reading of the history of this period” as part of “the duty of remembrance dictated by the Shoah.”

I didn't know about the Moroccan king's role in saving lives during the Holocaust, did you?  In any event, read the full column to get a flavor of what is also out there in the Muslim world.

stephen flatow alisa flatow israel