No Pain = All Gain

In a very astute blog post on the Times of Israel, Marc Goldberg analyzes the pros and cons of Israel having a right or left wing government, pointing out the significant fact that “When Likud is in power fewer Israelis die... [because] there is less chance of war when Likud is running the show.”

This may seem contrary to the left leaning MSM, who relish portraying Netanyahu as an extreme right wing hawkish warmonger – but the fact is there have been no wars under Netanyahu.

Goldberg explains:

“Likudniks aren’t interested in rocking the boat by changing anything. They will approve more settlements — more than the left would like to see and less than their own partners in government want. They will not try to make peace with anyone — they won’t even sit down with the Palestinians — and in the meantime, everyone, on both sides of the wall and in Gaza, will get on with their lives, firm in the knowledge that their daily routine won’t come under threat…It is when the left is in power and politicians attempt to actually make things better in the long run that the attacks begin.”

Goldberg is correct but he misses out one thing: in August 2010 (the same month Abbas made statements that he’d support a war on Israel if other Arab countries joined in, and eulogized one of the terrorists behind the Munich Olympics massacre), Netanyahu and Abbas agreed to begin direct peace talks together – however this resulted in Palestinian extremists responding with a campaign of terror attacks on Israeli citizens. It would have been understandable if Israel had pulled out of the talks then, but Netanyahu didn’t. The talks petered out when Abbas refused to recognize Israel as a Jewish state, in return for a settlement freeze. Attempted terror attacks also decreased.

So whilst under Likud the situation could remain relatively calm (as in not engaged in an actual war), according to Goldberg “In the long term, the left may offer the eventual possibility of normalization of relations with the rest of the Middle East, a state of Palestine alongside ours, and a corresponding improvement of our standing in the international community. But in the short term, that spells nothing but more hardship.”

Call me a cynic/psychic/crazy religious Jew, but Mashiach will come before that scenario plays out – and I don’t just mean that as a figure of speech! 

It doesn’t seem worth it to take the risks for an impossible solution, just to see if it will make people like us better. Elder of Ziyon has written a great piece explaining why the status quo is not actually as ‘unsustainable’ as people think:

“A genuine peace is one where Israel's neighbours do not even fantasize about attacking Israel. Not one where they are coerced into not attacking by an ephemeral government, not one where they do not attack because of the military consequences - but one where they simply have no desire to...”

Currently the Palestinians have not demonstrated why this would be possible, with no serious efforts made to end incitement to hatred and terrorism, and the brainwashing of children with this.

“The best we can ever hope for realistically is a detente where the weaker party has no desire to stir things up, even if it covets everything owned by the other” - because the repercussions outweigh the benefits. “This means that the best that Israel can hope for is a "Palestine" that keeps a short leash on its terrorists out of fear. Not love, not friendship, but fear. And this is exactly the status quo today... Anything that upsets this status quo will inevitably increase the danger to Israel's citizens.”

Obama's Speech And The 1967 Lines

The senior editor of MEMO (the pro-Hamas group who are tonight, hosted by Amnesty holding a debate called "Complicity in Oppression: Does the Media Aid Israel?"), Ibrahim Hewitt, wrote in to The Guardian complaining about Obama's speech; that negotiations on land would "reward Israel for its illegal settlement policy" (disputed, not illegal), that a non-militarised Palestinian state would be "at the mercy of the Israel Defence Forces" (not such a bad thing; it's an indisputable fact that if the Palestinians put down their weapons the conflict would end but if Israel put theirs down they would be destroyed); that Israel is a Jewish state and that the US is committed to Israel's security. How terrible. 

It's not surprising that the Israel-bashers are disturbed by Obama's professed support for Israel, but the speech wasn't all good. Hewitt says that since Israel accepted the two-state proposal in 1947, (which the Palestinians rejected, as Abbas forgot to mention in his NYT op-ed), Israel should have no case not to go back to what Hewitt calls the "1967 borders", which is similar to what Obama suggested: "We believe the borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps". 

Obama correctly called it lines, unlike Hewitt, because they were never borders. But if Israel did go back to the pre-'67 lines, Gaza would be part of Egypt, and the West Bank in Jordan. There never was a Palestinian state. The most obvious point to make, which Netanyahu did, brilliantly, is that those lines are indefensible, leaving Israel only nine miles wide - "these were not the boundaries of peace, they were the boundaries of repeated wars". They were unsustainable, and the only reason Israel is (bli ayin hara) more stable now than it was then is because it can defend itself, because it won that land when the Arabs started the '67 war. 

Just Journalism point out that the coverage of Obamas' speeches about Israel (in The White House, and at the AIPAC conference) focuses almost exclusively on his demands on Israel rather than his condemnation and demands of the Palestinians, such as that 

"the recent agreement between Fatah and Hamas poses an enormous obstacle to peace. No country can be expected to negotiate with a terrorist organization sworn to its destruction. We will continue to demand that Hamas accept the basic responsibilities of peace: recognizing Israel's right to exist, rejecting violence, and adhering to all existing agreements. And we once again call on Hamas to release Gilad Shalit, who has been kept from his family for five long years."

Meanwhile Honest Reporting observe that whilst Netanyahu's response to Obama was reported in the New York Times as "Netanyahu Responds Icily to Obama remarks", what didn't get that sort of coverage was Abbas' response, his complete rejection of Obama calling the Hamas-Fatah reconciliation an obstacle to peace, saying that after all, "Hamas is a part of Palestinian society".

It's quite frightening how since Abbas joined Hamas he's abandoning any pretence of wanting peace. He is just one step away from openly advocating terror attacks on Israeli civilians.

Peace-Yearning Palestinians Murder Four Israelis

Four Israeli civilians were shot dead - five including an unborn baby - this evening in a Palestinian terror attack, whilst driving near Hebron. The victims: Kokhava Even-Chaim leaves her husband and eight year old daughter; 24 year old newly-wed Avishai Shindler; and Yitzchak Imas and his nine-month pregnant wife Talya, leave six orphaned children.

A spokesman for the Palestinian group, Popular Resistance Committees, said this was the Palestinian reaction to the US-proposed peace talks:

"They should not have gone for this move without the support of the Palestinian people... Our people still abide by resistance and do no believe in the fictitious talks scheduled to commence tomorrow."

A Hamas spokesman said: "Hamas praises the attack and regards it as a natural response to the crimes of the occupation"; later Hamas claimed responsibility for the attack.

Israeli MKs say it shows that the Palestinians do not want peace (see statements above) and that we should halt the talks as security for Israeli civilians must be our first priority.

MK Eldad warned:

“Anyone who in recent months has helped build the myth that Abu Mazen [Abbas] is in charge of what is going on in PA controlled areas must open his eyes and put a halt to the continued strengthening of the Palestinian army that is being built with American support. This group could easily take over Hamas' job, and we should not be surprised if and when their weapons are directed against us”.

In the media coverage of the upcoming talks, there has been hardly any focus on Hamas and the Palestinians' opposition to it. Instead, the focus has been on Israel, Netanyahu, and the settlements as the "obstacle to peace." Yet if Israel were to pull out of the talks, you can bet the media would say the attack was just being used as an excuse.

It will be interesting to see what Abbas' reaction is. Unless he condemns the attack in strong terms, and finds a way to convince us that the majority of Palestinians are against the attack and do want peace, then by rights we should not engage in "peace" talks just to make Obama look like he's doing something useful.

I blame Obama, first for pressurising Israel into removing the very checkpoints that were built specifically to prevent this sort of attack, as well as hundreds of others, and then for pressurising Abbas into talks that he and the Palestinians obviously do not want. If Obama were a decent human being, he would apologise for that, and condemn the attack in a satisfactory manner whilst also acknowledging his own part in triggering it, ideally also apologising directly to the family members of the Israelis murdered in the attack.

Obama is either evil, or a fool, so I'm not expecting him to do the right thing.

UPDATE: In response to the attack, Yesha Council officials announced the end of the settlement freeze in the West Bank, stating that "every community in the area will locate an area within it and start construction in it by 6pm Wednesday... "They kill, we build."

That just about sums it up. Whatever people say about the Gaza "siege" and the "occupation", it does not compare to the ruthless and deliberate murder of innocent civilians. If Israel was the terror regime it's portrayed as, the IDF would bomb every last Palestinian in the West Bank to ensure nothing like this ever happens again. Instead there is a hunt underway for the terrorists responsible, whilst Palestinians celebrate in the streets.

The world tells us what to do and promises security in return, but only Israel can guarantee it's own security. So the only option is to build.

UPDATE: Just Journalism and Elder of Ziyon look at the media coverage of the attack, focusing on how the Guardian and New York Times waste no time in blaming the Israelis for existing, and how "settlers" are, as per the status quo, portrayed as the "obstacle to peace", rather than terrorists.

Palestinians celebrate the attack:

Orphaned Israeli girl cries at her parents' funeral

The Imas family, children now orphans:

Their crime? Jewish, Israeli, and living.

Holocaust, Antisemitism And Nuclear Weapons

Today is Yom Hashoah, the Jewish Holocaust Memorial Day where we commemorate the 6 million Jews who were murdered in the Holocaust. "Never again". But there are some people who don't give those reassurances. In his speech today Binyamin Netanyahu highlighted Iran's active pursuit of a nuclear bomb and anouncement of their desire to destroy the Jewish state - and the world's subsequent shoulder-shrug:

"The world accepts Iran's declarations of annihilation yet we still do not see the international determination required to prevent Iran from arming."

President Shimon Peres added,

"It is our right and duty to demand of the nations of the world not to repeat their indifference, which has cost millions of human lives, including theirs. The United Nations must be attentive to the threats of annihilation coming from one of its members, against another member state."

Mr All-Talk-No-Action President Obama echoed that we must confront antisemitism and prejudice and work to prevent genocide and instead build a world of peace and justice. Does Obama know what the word "justice" means?

Appropriately, as a reminder of the every-present problem of antisemitism, Tel Aviv University released a report today revealing that here has been more than a 100% increase in global antisemitism in 2009, the highest level recorded in 20 years. In a recent incident in Canada, two Jewish students were targetted in an aggressive attack that could have left them seriously injured. Turkey's contribution to these issues was for the prime minister to declare himself "disturbed" by the world turning a blind eye to Israel's alleged nuclear weapons programme. I don't think he's ever said he feels "disturbed" at Ahmadinejad's nuclear weapons pursuit or desire to "wipe Israel off the map".

The Hawk Defies Obama

James Hider of The Times reported yesterday that Netanyahu has defied Obama and said "screw you, I will kill all the Palestinians." Ok, that last part isn't true. But Hider did write the first part, even though Netanyahu has, for the first time, considered a Palestinian state. Netanyahu's speech has drawn criticism from the left and the right, but I can't see what other choice he had. He couldn't say there would be no Palestinian state ever, and of course he couldn't say the Palestinians could have their state and build up an army of terrorists to destroy Israel, either. Regarding the settlements, I guess Netanyahu means a Palestinian "state" would be built around the major ones. If the Palestinians want a state, they will have to compromise and negotiate. They have not shown, Gaza being a prime example, that they deserve to be given any land whatsoever, so Israel will dictate what they can have, and like Netanyahu said, those settlers are our brothers and sisters and they should not be forced out of their homes. Of course, though, there are those (the same ones that say Iran should have nukes and Israel shouldn't), that say of course the Palestinians should have an army, some even going so far as to say that Israel shouldn't. They obviously haven't read the Hamas or Fatah charters. Or they have and they want Israel destroyed. Much as I don't want a Palestinian state, it is now up to them to decide whether they will accept one on Israel's conditions.