Time to call Obama's bluff on Israel

(Israel Matzav) This past week, the Obama administration was forced to cut off funding to UNESCO because of a clear US statute, which was passed during the administration of George H.W. Bush (not exactly a friend of Israel) and amended during the Clinton administration, which requires the United States to cut off funding to any United Nations agency that recognizes a state of 'Palestine' except as a result of negotiations. Obama wanted to get out of it. He wanted to continue funding UNESCO. But under American law, he can't, and with the Republicans in control of the House, there is no way he can get that law changed. The UN law has no out for 'national security.'
On the other hand, every six months, Obama uses the national security excuse to avoid moving the US embassy to Jerusalem. Clinton and George W. Bush both did the same thing, but Obama removed from the statement issued every six months the phrase that says that the administration remains committed to moving the embassy to Jerusalem.
Yet, Obama, as he stands for reelection, tries to convince us all that he is committed to Israel. It is time to call him on his 'commitment.'
It is time to introduce a bill in Congress to move the US embassy to Jerusalem. Simple and straightforward. NO NATIONAL SECURITY OUT. You have one year to move the embassy to Jerusalem. Period. The House, which is dominated by Republicans, will vote in favor. The Senate, which has a whole bunch of Democrats who are up for reelection, will fear for its political life and vote in favor. Will Obama veto the bill? In 2012 when he is up for reelection?

it is also important to get all candidates committed to moving the embassy... and also get their opinion on television so that the public can know where they stand on the issue and the issue becomes accepted common knowledge. moving the embassy is symbolic and part of the symbolism is to create as much publicity to the issue as possible. So far we have to my knowledge Newt and Cain... and if I am mistaken then the other candidates can correct me... which is something I would like them to do.

Sarina Butcher: Teen soldier mom killed by Taliban bomb in Afghanistan

yes she had a child when she was 16 and she was well adjusted. Age of consent in OK is 16. Ms. Butcher had a 2 yo daughter, and was 19 when she died. With 9 mo gestation, and pre-existing relationship, that would make her under 16 when impregnated. Age of Consent laws are such a travesty! our disgust with young moms in the US of A is backwards. many women become more stable after giving birth to children. our feminist arrogance is wearing thin. this girl is a hero. I mean that proportionately. no one is saying to rape 12 year old girls either. I'm just saying that we really don't understand women when we criticize young girls for childbirth. This girl was responsible and motivated... and we should honor her!

(dailymail.co.uk) Tragic loss: 19-year-old mother Sarina Butcher is the first female Oklahoma National Guard soldier to be killed during wartime and the youngest Oklahoma citizen-soldier to die in combat in Iraq or Afghanistan A 19-year-old mother serving with the National Guard has been killed in Afghanistan after the vehicle she was traveling in was hit by a Taliban roadside bomb.

Private First Class Sarina Butcher of the Oklahoma National Guard was off supporting her three-year-old daughter and career dreams when killed on Tuesday during a resupply mission in the country's Paktia province.
A second soldier, Specialist Sergeant Christopher Gailey, 26, a father to a three-year-old girl, was also killed in the explosion.
The bodies of the two soldiers were flown back to Dover Air Force base, Delaware yesterday.
An aspiring nurse, Ms Butcher joined the national guard to help finance and pursue her career dreams while also helping to support her young daughter Zoey.
Her grandmother, Martha Wills, described her as a much-loved daughter, sister, granddaughter and mother.
'My husband is so proud of her, actually we all are,' Mrs Wills told Tulsa World of her husband who was also in the military.
'My son, he’s so torn right now,' she described the 19-year-old's father.
In her mere 18 months of service with the Guard, Ms Butcher stood decorated with several ribbons and awards.

Family left behind: Sarina Butcher is seen holding her daughter Zoey, now two, and former-husband Timmy Butcher

Posthumously honored: Ms Butcher (left) will be promoted to the rank of specialist after serving as an automated logistical specialist since 2010 Posthumously she will be promoted to the rank of specialist.
'She was very proud to be in the military,' family friend Patty Brown told Tulsa World of Ms Butcher's service as an automated logistical specialist after joining the Guard in April of 2010.
'She joined the military to follow in her grandfather's and brother's footsteps,' Ms Brown said.

Close to Ms Butcher, Ms Brown said she took care of Zoey when her mother was away from home.
She says the last time she spoke with her daughter was on Sunday, asking her how she was doing after hearing news that her grandfather had died recently.
'She was very thoughtful, someone you could always count on,' Brown said.

Self portrait: Private Butcher takes a photograph of herself in the mirror during her tour in Afghanistan

Private First Class Sarina Butcher, 19, of Checotah was assigned to the 700th Brigade Support Battalion, 45th Infantry Brigade Combat Team based in Tulsa but was tragically killed in November Entering Jami Butcher's life after marrying her brother Timmy after a first date where she pushed him in a wheelchair through a local mall, she said, 'she always said she didn't want to be forgotten,' to the Tulsa World, before reminiscing on her strong Southern accent she'll miss.
'It wasn't forgotten, it was forgot ten. Her little accent,' she recalled of her former sister-in-law.
'I just loved it. Grew on you real hard,' her former father-in-law added.
Her daughter has since gone to Arkansas to be with her grandmother which is where Ms Butcher will be buried.
Fourth District U.S. Representative Mike Ross, D-Ar., on hearing Ms Butcher's death remarked, 'Another American hero was tragically taken from us in the line of duty.
'Private First Class Sarina Butcher was a mother, daughter, and a brave and dedicated soldier who put her life on the line in service to her country.
'We will be forever grateful for her selfless sacrifice,' he said.
Ms Butcher is the first female Oklahoma National Guard soldier to be killed during wartime and is also the youngest Oklahoma citizen-soldier to die in combat in Iraq or Afghanistan, according to a release.
'My thoughts and prayers are with her mother, father, daughter and the rest of her family and friends during this very difficult time,' Mr Ross adds.

Hero's return: The body of the young National Guard Private who was killed by a roadside bomb while serving in Afghanistan, arrives at Dover Air Force Base, Delaware

Solemn duty: Chaplain Col. Scott Jensen, left, leads a prayer over the cases containing the bodies of private Butcher and her colleague Specialist Christopher Gailey. The pair were killed in the attack in Afghanistan's Paktia province

Salute: A senior officer shows his respect for the young private, a mother of a two-year-old daughter, as her body is carried from the plane at the start of its final journey to her hometown of Checotah, Oklahoma

Desmond Tutu vs. Israel: an old story

(jhvonline.com By EDWARD ALEXANDER • Thu, Dec 02, 2010) An old saying has it that “liberalism is always being surprised.” That is the only possible explanation of Jewish expressions of “surprise” and “shock” that Anglican Archbishop Desmond Tutu, in late October, urged the South African Opera troupe to cancel its engagement to perform “Porgy and Bess” in Israel. Turning a blind eye to Tutu’s hatred of Israel and, indeed, of Jews generally is, to be sure, not exclusively a Jewish failing. Just a few months ago, on the occasion of the Anglican clergyman’s 79th birthday, U.S. President Barack Obama lauded him as “a moral titan – a voice of principle, an unrelenting champion of justice and a dedicated peacemaker.”

In this year alone, Tutu has demonstrated his dedication to peace, justice and principle in the Middle East, in particular, by speaking up for Hamas and supporting the “Freedom Flotilla” of Islamist jihadists and “internationalist” do-gooders (people who confuse doing good with feeling good about what they are doing), who in spring, tried to break the Israeli blockade of Gaza. He also repeatedly has endorsed the activities of the boycott, divestment and sanctions movement. This reincarnation of the Nazis’ “Kauf nicht beim Juden” campaign of the 1930s constantly invokes Tutu’s “authoritative” condemnation of Israel (where Arabs and Jews use the same buses, beaches, clinics, cafés and soccer fields, and attend the same universities) as an “apartheid” state.

But his fulminations against Jews have a long history, so well-documented that one wonders how the “surprised” Jewish leaders or President Obama can possibly be ignorant of it, especially now that the latter has a “director of the Office to Monitor and Combat Anti-Semitism” named Hannah Rosenthal, who has shown herself adept even at spotting that evanescent phenomenon called “Islamophobia” at a distance of 10 miles. Here are just a few examples of Tutu’s “moral titanism” on the Jewish question:

On the day after Christmas, 1989, in Jerusalem, Tutu, standing before the memorial at Yad Vashem to the millions of Jews murdered by the Nazis, prayed for the murderers and scolded the descendants of their victims: “We pray for those who made it happen, help us to forgive them and help us so that we, in our turn, will not make others suffer.” This, he said, was his “message” to the Israeli children and grandchildren of the dead.

Moral obtuseness, mean spite and monstrous arrogance do not make for sound ethics and theology. Neither Tutu nor the Israelis he lectured can “forgive” the Nazi murderers. Representatives of an injured group are not licensed (even by the most sanctimonious of preachers) to forgive on behalf of the whole group; in fact, forgiveness issues from G-d alone. The forgiveness offered to the Nazis is truly pitiless because it forgets the victims, blurs over suffering and obliterates the past.

Tutu always is far less moved by the actuality of what the Nazis did. “The gas chambers,” he once said, “made for a neater death” than apartheid resettlement policies, than by the hypothetical potentiality of what, in his jaundiced view, Israelis might do.

His speeches against apartheid returned obsessively to gross, licentious equations between the former South African system and Jewish practices, biblical and modern. “The Jews,” Tutu declared in 1984, “thought they had a monopoly on G-d” and “Jesus was angry that they could shut out other human beings.”

Tutu has been an avid supporter of the Goebbels-like equation of Zionism with racism. He has alleged that “Jews ... think they have cornered the market on suffering” and that Jews are “quick to yell ‘anti-Semitism,’ ” because of “an arrogance of power – because Jews have such a strong lobby in the United States.”

Jewish power in America is, in fact, a favorite Tutu theme. In late April 2002, he praised his own courage in resisting it. “People are scared in [America] to say wrong is wrong, because the Jewish lobby is powerful, very powerful. Well, so what? Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin were all powerful, but, in the end, they bit the dust.”

Tutu repeatedly has declared that (as he once told a Jewish Theological Seminary audience) “whether Jews like it or not, they are a peculiar people. They can’t ever hope to be judged by the same standards which are used for other people.”

Certainly, Tutu has never judged Jews by the standards he uses for other people. Although South African and American Jews were more, not less, critical of apartheid than the majority of their countrymen, Tutu, in 1987, threatened that “in the future, South African Jews will be punished if Israel continues dealing with South Africa.” Israel’s trade with South Africa was about 7 percent of America’s, less than a 10th of Japan’s, Germany’s or England’s. But, Tutu never threatened South African or American citizens of Japanese, German or English extraction with punishment.

Citizens of Arab nations supplied 99 percent of the one resource without which apartheid South Africa could not have existed: oil. Tutu made countless inflammatory remarks about Israel’s weapons sales to South Africa (mainly of naval patrol boats), but said almost nothing about South Africa’s main Western arms supplier, France, which built two of South Africa’s three nuclear reactors – the third being American. He also was silent about Jordan’s sale of tanks and missiles to the apartheid regime.

Tutu’s insistence on applying a double standard to Jews may explain an otherwise mysterious feature of his anti-Israel rhetoric. He once asked Israel’s ambassador to South Africa, Eliahu Lankin, “how it was possible that the Jews, who had suffered so much persecution, could oppress other people.”

On another occasion, he expressed dismay “that Israel, with the kind of history ... her people have experienced, should make refugees [actually, she didn’t] of others.”

In other words, Jews, according to Tutu, have a duty to behave particularly well, because Jews have suffered so much persecution. The mad corollary of this proposition is that the descendants of those who have not been persecuted do not have a special duty to behave well, and the descendants of the persecutors can be excused altogether for behavior it would be hard to excuse in other people. This may explain not only Tutu’s decision to pray for the Nazis while berating the descendants of their victims, but also his long and ardent devotion to the PLO, whose leader, Yassir Arafat, was both the biological relative and spiritual descendant of Haj Amin el-Husseini, the mufti of Jerusalem who actively collaborated with Hitler in the destruction of European Jewry.

Rabbinical tradition, however, provides a simpler explanation of Tutu’s eagerness to “forgive” the Nazis while excoriating the descendants of their victims: “Whoever is merciful to the cruel,” the rabbis warn, “will end by being indifferent to the innocent.”

Edward Alexander is professor emeritus of English at the University of Washington. His most recent book is “The Jewish Wars” (Transaction Publishers, 2010).

[WORKING VIDEO]: Liberal Protester Uses Child As Human Shield

a leftist protester gets inspiration from Hamas and uses a child as a human shield. Is there anything more vile than exploiting children and putting them in danger for a subversive agenda? Is anyone making Popcorn? ...shit, Youtube pulled the video. well of course they would. I will keep you updated if I can get another copy. ...ok... let's try that again. If you are on facebook I have a working copy here for you to share.

Female Reporter Says She Was Harassed by 'Occupy DC' Protesters

(spectator.org) Members of the "Occupy DC" movement harassed a young female reporter during a protest Friday in Washington, D.C., shouting obscenities and preventing her from conducting interviews.Michelle Fields, a video reporter for the Daily Caller, said she was stalked for three hours Friday while attempting to cover protests outside the Americans for Prosperity "Defending the American Dream Summit" at the Washington Convention Center.Fields said she "did not feel comfortable, because at one point there were a whole group of men surrounding me saying, ‘F-Michelle Fields.' And I went to a police officer and I told him that I felt these people were harassing me. And the police officer said he'd take care of it, but it never ended. These people were harassing me for the entire evening."
One of the anti-capitalist "Occupy DC" protesters was evidently assigned to monitor Fields and her video camerawoman, following the Daily Caller crew to harass and heckle them. Fields said the protesters shouted "You're worse than Fox" and "right-wing extremists," called her "ugly" and made remarks about her clothing. When she attempted to conduct interviews, Fields said, "an individual would jump in front of the camera and stop the interview, or block it with a piece of paper or cardboard. . . . they talked to people who were part of Occupy DC and told them not to talk to us."
Fields said she had talked to Daily Caller editors and asked not to be assigned to cover "Occupy DC" protests in the future. "I actually don't feel safe going back to those protests, because they singled me out, they singled out the Daily Caller," she said. "I just don't think it's safe for me to be back around those people.

Michelle Fields ...don't tell me there isn't a sexual element to all of this. .... Tahrir Square comes to mind. Somehow I doubt this has to do with their slant on economics... or maybe it does. In fact I'm sure this is actually the real source of unemployment in America... but let's just say I can't talk about it without pissing off the ladies... which is sad... but the truth. Just looking at this photo makes me aggressive. narf... you hate me... don't you? yeah... oh those bad OWS protesters... but come on... what did the reporter expect? Did she think the smelly hippies were into peace and love and all that kind of stuff?

Israel has forgotten the scripture: Tutu

It's a kangaroo court. It's run by the usual suspects. And the whole affair would be unremarkable to the point of being boring if it wasn't for that one tiny, yet depressing, little detail -- its location, Cape Town. The Russell Tribunal on Palestine dishonours victims of apartheid (mg.co.za)

(timeslive.co.za) The suffering inflicted by Israel on the Palestinian people shows that it has forgotten the Jewish scriptures, Archbishop Emeritus Desmond Tutu said on Saturday. "They have forgotten their own history. They have forgotten what their own prophets have said about our God," Tutu said in his opening address to the International Russell Tribunal on Palestine.
"We worship a God that is naturally biased in favour of the suffering, the underdog, those who are suffering underfoot... God is always on the side of the oppressed. In the Holy Land, the Palestinian people are the ones suffering."
Tutu said it pained him that a people who went through great suffering could in turn cause others to suffer.
"There is a great deal of preventable suffering being caused by people who themselves suffered so deeply... who have gone through a crucible of suffering.
"Those of us who are Christian have been influenced very greatly by what one might call the Jewish scriptures. The biased God of the past is the biased God of the present... and if God is to be God, watch out," he added.
"This is the anguish that I bear."
The tribunal is an international forum aimed at promoting peace and justice in the Middle East and is meeting until Monday at the District Six Museum.
It met in London and Barcelona last year and a fourth and final meeting will take place in New York later this year. The current session is widely expected to see speakers draw links between the policies of Israel and those of apartheid South Africa.
Panel members include Holocaust survivor Stephane Hessel, author and poet, Alice Walker, Irish Nobel peace laureate Mairead Maguire and former South African Cabinet minister Ronnie Kasrils.
Several Jewish bodies, including the SA Jewish Board of Deputees, have dismissed the tribunal as a kangaroo court.

Obviously Tutu has never read Judges:
God told Moses:

But of the cities of these peoples which the Lord your God gives you as an inheritance, you shall let nothing that breathes remain alive, but you shall utterly destroy them — the Hittite, Amorite, Canaanite, Perizzite, Hivite, and Jebusite — just as the Lord your God has commanded you, lest they teach you to do according to all their abominations which they have done for their gods, and you sin against the Lord your God. So Joshua [Moses' successor] conquered all the land: the mountain country and the South and the lowland and the wilderness slopes, and all their kings; he left none remaining, but utterly destroyed all that breathed, as the Lord, God of Israel had commanded.

Granted the context of the bible is within the context of the presence of G-d, but for Tutu to act as if the Jews had forgotten it's Torah because they don't get along with people who want to kill them proves how much bias and bigotry Tutu has. This invidious comparison is Desmond Tutu's, not mine, so don't act like as if I thought the old testament should have any relevance to the context of today in dealing with the Palestinians. Obviously we really do not know the answers. Certainly the Canaanites of the day did not have a systematic hate creed like what is written about Jews in Mohammad's recorded words.  There are so many denied correlatives that one can't even scratch the surface in trying to articulate the fraudulent claims that are used by Tutu. This might be conjecture to some, but obviously G-d wanted us to use our own judgment, but this is proof that Tutu is simplifying on the side of blaming Jews.

Saint Thomas

(h/t Doc's Talk)(Dror Eydar) The screams of those who executed deposed Libyan ruler Moammar Gadhafi were worse than the execution itself. They were barbaric cries from another world, an ancient world where bloody revenge still takes place and the only loyalty is to one's tribe. The tribe that Gadhafi shunned for years during his rule and deprived of funding and development, turned on him with a vicious vengeance. We can expect a sequel.
Western liberalism has been trying for years to decipher the code of Middle Eastern behavior. Years of colonialism resulted in pangs of conscience that led to an absolutely Westernized perception of the Orient. Criticism on Orientalism, i.e., the science of Middle Eastern studies, from Edward Said and his cohorts rendered the West's methods of studying the East ineffective, to the point that the mythical and tribal dimensions were almost totally neglected - the same ancient dimensions that from deep within motivate nations and groups more than any apparent economic or national interest.

Now that the dust has settled on Gadhafi's regime and Sharia was chosen over any other form of law in Libya, Islamic forces have prevailed in the relatively advanced country of Tunisia, and Egypt is currently ruled by a military regime, it may be worthwhile to study the views of the journalist dubbed in Israeli media as "the most important journalist in the world," Thomas Friedman. The truth is that the subject of study should not be Friedman himself, but rather the intelligence of his cohorts, who take pride in his intellect and worship his analyses.
Get the Israel Hayom newsletter sent to your mailbox!
2 - As riots raged across the Arab world, I called the great Middle Eastern studies master, Bernard Lewis, and asked him what he thinks Israel should do. "Nothing," he said. "Anything Israel does will be considered by others as favoring one side." But Friedman chided Israel for not favoring the side of the protesters, and "siding with Pharaoh," who at that time was Hosni Mubarak. In his view, "At a time of great change in this region, Israel has the most out-of-touch, in-bred, unimaginative and cliche-driven cabinet it has ever had." Actually, this sounds to me like a feasible description of Friedman's writings.
Last June, Friedman proposed that China learn a lesson from the revolution in Tunisia. "If you want to know what brings about revolutions, it is not G.D.P., it is the quest for dignity. 'Dignity before bread' was the slogan of the Tunisian revolution." Yes, and with that slogan on their lips, Tunisians went to the ballot boxes and voted for an Islamic party to run their government.
3 - Last February, Friedman visited Tahrir Square, and, drunk with happiness, sang out, "What we have witnessed in Egypt today is the real de-colonization of this country. That is, after the British left Egypt, the country was ruled by an incompetent king and then, since 1952, by a stifling, top-down military dictatorship. For the first time in modern history, 'Egypt is truly in the hands of its own people.'" Correct me if I am wrong but isn't Egypt ruled at the moment by a military regime?
With excitement in his heart, Friedman spoke about two emotional focal points that will exist from now on in the Arab world: There will always be Mecca in Saudi Arabia, to which Muslims will make the pilgrimage to be closer to God, and there will be Tahrir Square, to which people will "come to touch freedom." It's important to note Friedman's deliberate dichotomy between religion and civilian revolution. In his view, the Egyptian revolution had nothing to do with the Muslim Brotherhood. "What makes the uprising here so impressive - and in that sense so dangerous to other autocracies in the region - is precisely the fact that it is not owned by, and was not inspired by, the Muslim Brotherhood." That is what the most prominent journalist in the world has determined on the basis of his personal visits to Tahrir Square and discussions with two and a half people there.
A week after Friedman published his thoughts, at the same square, in front of more than one million people, the exiled preacher behind the inspiration of the Muslim Brotherhood, Sheik Yusuf Al Kardawi, delivered a speech. Kardawi has often supported suicide attacks against Israel and against American soldiers in Iraq. At the same time, Iraqi columnist Jabar Habib Jabar wrote a piece that was based on a bit more knowledge: "In the case of the Muslim Brotherhood, I believe that their back-seat approach was a choice based on an in-depth study, rather than the result of the movement's weakness or hesitation. The brotherhood used a form of sophisticated "Takia" (deception) to refute claims that the regime tried to play up their influence so that it could secure Western support against the revolution. The regime declared that the Islamists are pressuring them, and that it would eventually turn into a movement similar to that of the Iranian revolution."
Half a year later, the "million-man demonstration" took place in Tahrir Square, during which the crowds, backed by the Muslim Brotherhood, called for the "annulment of the peace treaty with Israel, military action against Israel, and preparation of the armed forces for the liberation of Palestine." Incidentally, the "Takia" that Jabar spoke of refers to the "obligation of caution," which permits a Muslim to disguise his identity to survive in a hostile regime. That's how, for example, the Muslim Brotherhood obtained religious permission to shave their beards so that they would not be identified by Mubarak's henchmen. Perhaps that is why Friedman was not aware of them even though they were all around him in the square ...
4 - After he compared Mubarak to Pharaoh, Friedman conjured up another amazingly brazen comparison: "As for Bibi [Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu], his Tahrir lesson is obvious: Sir, you are well on your way to becoming the Hosni Mubarak of the peace process." He wondered: "Does Bibi have any surprise in him or do the Palestinians have him right: a big faker, hiding a nationalist-religious agenda under a cloak of security?"
In literary studies they call it an "implied author," meaning that a writer places his world-view in the mouth of one of his fictional characters. That's what Friedman thinks about Israel's prime minister. Gideon Levy wouldn't have put it any other way. Apparently, the pathological hatred for Benjamin Netanyahu did not end at the border of the Israeli Left. It seems to have crossed the Atlantic Ocean and reached the offices of The New York Times. But what Friedman calls the "national-religious agenda," is actually an alternative phrase for a "discourse of the rights" of the Jewish people to their land, a principle that is no less important than a dialogue on matters of security. Netanyahu never ignored that point; that is the foundation of Zionism and Israel's right to exist.
5 - Two basic assumptions - which, not surprisingly, are often identified with the more extreme views of the Israeli Left - are repeated throughout most of Friedman's articles:
a) That the Arab world is heading toward democracy, which will eventually render Israel's democracy less unique in the region and
b) An Israeli Jewish minority is destined to rule over an Israeli Arab majority, which will force Israel into a situation similar to that of the South African apartheid in the past.
In that case,
a) It would be worthwhile to resend Friedman to the Middle East for an update and
b) The case of Israeli apartheid and minority rule for the most part ignores the many demographic and social surveys that negate that claim, and paint a different picture of Israel in the future than the one Friedman is waving before us.
There is no apartheid here, except the one imagined by professional leftists. We should note that, as of today, Israel does not govern an absolute majority of Palestinians. They are responsible for their own economy, foreign policy, education, industry, transportation, police, and more. They run everything except for security-related matters, which not only Israel demands, but the Palestinians demand as well behind closed doors (as documents released by Al-Jazeera revealed), to prevent hostile Hamas cells from taking over the Palestinian Authority.
6 - Another basic assumption is that in order to be perceived as serious-minded (but by whom?), Netanyahu must disclose his map of withdrawals now, so the world can see what "painful territorial compromises" he is talking about. As Friedman puts it, "Put a map on the table. Let’s see what you’re talking about. Or how about removing the illegal West Bank settlements built by renegade settler groups against the will of Israel’s government. Either move would force Israel’s adversaries to take Bibi seriously and would pressure the Palestinians to be equally serious."
It is hard to imagine how Friedman can peddle this nonsense after 17 years of Israeli withdrawals, without a single positive response from the Palestinian side, except for blood, fire, and brimstone. And we have not even mentioned the greatest experiment of all - one that Friedman and his cohorts categorically supported in the Israeli media - the disengagement from Gush Katif. Ten thousand productive settlers who made sand dunes bloom in the south, were uprooted from their homes together with the graves of their loved ones. The government risked alienating part of Israeli society, without heeding the warnings of those who opposed the move. And, wonder of wonders, Friedman's formula failed! It is hard to understand how the minister of history and the gods of Middle East politics do not heed Friedman's insights, which delve as deep as oceans. But it's a fact that where Israeli agriculture once blossomed and magnificent educational institutions once stood, there are now only ruins and rubble in those areas, which are used by terrorists to launch thousands of rockets against Israeli cities.
The Palestinian Authority was banished from those areas by radical Islamists, a branch of the Muslim Brotherhood. (How much more radical can you get than Fatah itself? Hamas is proof of how far one can stretch the absurd definitions of the Middle East.) Gaza became "Hamastan," an Iranian outpost on Israel's border. Israel went to war twice due to that disengagement. But Friedman sticks to his guns, in honor of American journalism, and the disdain of reality.
7 - This is how Friedman describes the second Intifada that was responsible for hundreds of Israeli deaths and thousands of wounded: "Yasser Arafat's foolhardy decision, rather than embrace President Bill Clinton's two-state peace plan." So, it was a "foolhardy decision." That is how Friedman understands history. The politicians and leaders are suspected of being foolish as opposed to the wise journalist, who is the only one who can unveil the truth for them.
But the clear evidence teaches us that the war that Arafat started in October 2000 was pre-planned. Arafat did not want to end the conflict on the Camp David lawn, because the faction that belonged to the collective group that Arafat headed - and whose heritage continues to guide current Palestinian leaders - was never dependent on the realization of Palestinian independence, as Friedman imagines. If that was the case, then the Arabs would have accepted one of the many partition plans that were proposed since the Peel Commission in 1936. The positive faction among the Palestinians of today, however, works to destroy the Jewish state. This is not paranoia, but an enlightened call by their leaders, in their school text books, in their media, and in their surveys.
8 - In many articles, Friedman makes it a point to paint Israel and the Palestinians as two equally rejectionist sides. This is so naive that it is funny. Israel has retreated and retreated for 17 years. The government - yes, this one - spoke about two states for two peoples, froze construction in Judea and Samaria, offered to negotiate with the Palestinians, and absolutely nothing happened. The most basic condition, which until now has been rejected by irresponsible politicians, was the demand that the Palestinians recognize Israel as the Jewish people's national homeland. Nothing is of value without that, since only recognition of Israel as a Jewish state will indicate that our neighbors truly want peace, without any further demands. Recognition of such will confirm that there are Muslims in the region who accept the Jewish people's right to their land. It will ensure that no Arab party will come along later and claim that the Jews stole their land (even though we should tell Friedman that, historically speaking, the opposite occurred). It will eliminate the Palestinian "right of return," which would inevitably bring about the destruction of Israel.
Up until now, every Arab leader, anywhere in the world, has declared that he would never accept Israel as a Jewish state. This can only mean one thing: Any Israeli withdrawal from Judea and Samaria would be irresponsible and would endanger Israel's existence, because it would perpetuate the conflict. In short, in the absence of a recognition of Jewish rights to any part of the land, any retreat that is not anchored in a final agreement would lead to an imbecilic return to the mistakes made at Oslo and the uprooting of Gush Katif, within this foolish historical framework.
9 - Another of Friedman's basic assumptions, which he drew from the never-ending fantasy wellsprings of the Israeli Left (and I would like to recommend to Friedman to stop reading Ha'aretz, and to try other, more sober newspapers instead), is that there is a silent majority in Israel that is prepared to make far-reaching concessions. Really? What a deep observation. The concessions were already made, and the current Israeli government has already announced that it would be willing to make such concessions. So what is so unique in Friedman's proposal? Oh, I see! According to Friedman, a majority of Israelis would be willing to commit suicide - excuse me, I mean give up their few remaining assets, and place their security in the hands of Mohammed Dahlan's law-abiding, Zionist-loving thugs.
From his high perch and the abyss of his conceit, Friedman proposes that the Palestinians "announce that every Friday from today forward will be 'Peace Day,' and have thousands of West Bank Palestinians march nonviolently to Jerusalem, carrying two things - an olive branch in one hand and a sign in Hebrew and Arabic in the other. The sign should say: 'Two states for two peoples. We, the Palestinian people, offer the Jewish people a two-state solution based on the 1967 borders - with mutually agreed adjustments - including Jerusalem, where the Arabs will control their neighborhoods and the Jews theirs.'"
There has never been a more naive and fabricated text since John Lennon's famous song "Imagine." The disengagement did not end in 2005; it is alive and well in Friedman's writings, which do not reflect actual events in the region. Come to think of it, I read some similar views last year in Ha'aretz ...

In any case, Friedman does not write even a single word about the most crucial indication of a change on the road to peace: the educational system.

Placing Israel on their maps, recognizing the Jewish people's religious and historical rights to their land, or at least part of it, and ending their incitement against Israel in the media and in their leaders' never-ending campaigns to de-legitimize Israel, are issues that have simply been ignored. So what "march for peace" is Friedman talking about?
10 - Friedman's final basic assumption is repetitive to the point of an obsessive compulsion: It is Netanyahu who is mainly responsible for the absence of a peace process. "He wasted time in his attempt to avoid an agreement with the Palestinians. Everyone knows that. No one is dumb."

"Everyone knows that" is a claim reserved for those who do not have a winning ticket, other than their own word.

The truth is that Thomas Friedman has no idea about the political, security, religious, historical, and cultural affairs of this region, despite the fact that The New York Times allows him to pull the wool over the eyes of his readers. Everyone knows that. No one is dumb ...

Gilad Shalit: Not Bibi's Fault

This is the first commenter I've seen who actually is glad for the Gilad Shalit deal. It is also the first time a writer clarified that Bibi is not responsible for a lack of death penalty in Israel or other strategic losses that makes a hostage situation more likely, for example a poor land concession deal that gives Israel no security from people that are still dedicated to kill Jews

(Simply Jews) The message that the Shalit's return home sent to soldiers is a shot in the arm for people who protect Israel. Saying this, however, I cannot deny the problems created by exchange deals of this kind (without going into much bandied details). Only it will be unfair to blame the current government - after all, it inherited the Shalit issue and most of its solution's parameters from the previous one, and the fact that Israel abandoned its own policy of never talking to terrorists many years ago couldn't be in all fairness placed at Bibi's doorstep. Whatever issues Shalit deal reopened, it is far from being the first (or last) one of the kind.