The Palestinian Obsession

From Caroline Glick, at Jerusalem Post:

If nothing else, the Palestinians’ UN statehood gambit goes a long way towards revealing the deep-seated European and US pathologies that enable and prolong the Palestinian conflict with Israel.

In a nutshell, the Palestinian Authority – or Fatah – or PLO initiative of asking the UN Security Council and the General Assembly to upgrade its status to that of a sovereign UN member state or a sovereign non-UN member state is an act of diplomatic aggression.

Eighteen years ago this week, on September 13, 1993, the PLO signed the Declaration of Principles with Israel on the White House lawn.

There, the terror group committed itself to a peace process in which all disputes between Israel and the PLO – including the issue of Palestinian statehood – would be settled in the framework of bilateral negotiations.

The PA was established on the basis of this accord. The territory, money, arms and international legitimacy it has been given was due entirely to the PLO pledge to resolve the Palestinian conflict with Israel through bilateral negotiations.

By abandoning negotiations with Israel two years ago, and opting instead to achieve its nationalist aims outside the framework of a peace treaty with Israel, the Palestinians are destroying the diplomatic edifice on which the entire concept of a peace process is based. They are announcing that they have no intention of living at peace with Israel. Rather they intend to move ahead at Israel’s expense...

After New York Race, G.O.P. Sees Ripple in Jewish Vote

Now get this, at New York Times:

WASHINGTON — Not since Jimmy Carter in 1980 has a Democrat running for president failed to win a lopsided majority of the Jewish vote. This has been true during times of peace or war, and even when there has been deep acrimony between the White House and the Israeli government.

Republicans see a chance to change that in 2012, with President Obama locked in a tense relationship with Israel’s leaders and criticized by many American Jews as being too tough on a close and favored ally. Tuesday’s Republican upset in New York’s Congressional election, they say, is a sign of bad things to come for Mr. Obama.

Sensing trouble, the Obama campaign and Democratic Party leaders have mobilized to solidify the president’s standing with Jewish voters. The Democratic National Committee has established a Jewish outreach program. The campaign is singling out Jewish groups, donors and other supporters with calls and e-mails to counter the Republican narrative that Mr. Obama is hostile to Israel.

More at the link.

And from the editors, who aren't please by developments, natch: "Israel and New York’s Ninth District."

Israel and Marriage Key Issues in New York Special Election

Two of my most important public policy issues.

From John McCormack, at Weekly Standard:

How did Republican Bob Turner pull off an 8-point win (54%-46%) in a district that gave Turner just 39% of the vote in 2010 and went 55% for Obama in 2008? Sure, it helped that the Democratic incumbent Anthony Weiner resigned in disgrace after he accidentally posted a lewd photo of himself, intended for a young woman, to his public Twitter account. But scandal alone wasn't enough to flip New York's 9th congressional district to Republicans. In early August a Siena poll showed Democrat David Weprin leading Turner 48% to 42%, but by late last week Siena showed Turner had pulled into the lead 50% to 44%.

o win in a Democratic district, Turner needed Democratic votes. The two issues that seem to have helped drive some of the district's traditionally Democratic voters to cast their ballots for Turner were Obama's Israel policy and Weprin's vote for same-sex marriage. Former Democratic New York City mayor Ed Koch endorsed Turner primarily to send a message to Obama on Israel. Democratic state senator Ruben Diaz backed Turner because of Weprin's vote on marriage. Democratic state assemblyman Dov Hikind says both issues, as well as dissatisfaction with Obama's failed economic policies, were "overriding" factors that led him to support Turner.

"This is an underlying issue that is extremely powerful issue," Hikind says of Weprin's vote for same-sex marriage. Weprin didn't merely vote for the bill. He got on the floor of the assembly and compared voting against same-sex marriage to "outlawing marriages between Jews and non-Jews or interracial marriages.”

"The fundamental message was 'I'm an orthodox Jew and gay marriage is perfectly fine,'" Hikind says of his Democratic colleague's speech. "To me, when he did that, he crossed every single line." Forty orthodox rabbis declared that orthodox Jews could not support Weprin.

Keep reading.

And yeah, he crossed every single line, ASFL.

Israel's Memorial to September 11

At Berman Post, "Israeli 9/11 Memorial":

If the measure of a true friend is how sincerely they mourn for your loss, Israel once again showed how close of an ally they are to the United States.

RELATED: At Jerusalem Post, "PM on 9/11: We are still susceptible to terror attacks."

Beyond Cairo Embassy Attack, Israel Senses Wider Siege

See New York Times, "Beyond Cairo, Israel Sensing a Wider Siege":

JERUSALEM — With its Cairo embassy ransacked, its ambassador to Turkey expelled and the Palestinians seeking statehood recognition at the United Nations, Israel found itself on Saturday increasingly isolated and grappling with a radically transformed Middle East where it believes its options are limited and poor.

The diplomatic crisis, in which winds unleashed by the Arab Spring are now casting a chill over the region, was crystallized by the scene of Israeli military jets sweeping into Cairo at dawn on Saturday to evacuate diplomats after the Israeli Embassy had been besieged by thousands of protesters.

It was an image that reminded some Israelis of Iran in 1979, when Israel evacuated its embassy in Tehran after the revolution there replaced an ally with an implacable foe.

“Seven months after the downfall of Hosni Mubarak’s regime, Egyptian protesters tore to shreds the Israeli flag, a symbol of peace between Egypt and its eastern neighbor, after 31 years,” Aluf Benn, the editor in chief of the left-leaning Israeli newspaper Haaretz, wrote Saturday. “It seems that the flag will not return to the flagstaff anytime soon.”

More at that link, and see also, Barry Rubin, "Ten Years After September 11: Who’s Really Winning the War On Terrorism." Rubin looks at the range of extremist terrorist groupings outside of al Qaeda --- Hamas, Hezbollah, Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt --- and suggests that terrorism is on the march. Israel is right smack-dab in the middle of it all. As a challenge for U.S. foreign policy, the war on terrorism is hardly won.

Protesters Attack Israel Embassy in Cairo

Well, if they're using Molotovs they're basically terrorists.

At NYT, "Israeli Ambassador Leaves Cairo After Protest Turns Violent":

CAIRO — Israel flew most of its diplomatic staff out of Egypt on Saturday after thousands of protesters the day before tore down a protective wall around the Israeli Embassy and broke into its offices the day before.

Prime Minister Essam Sharaf of Egypt called an emergency cabinet meeting to deal with the aftermath of the attack and the Egyptian government put its police on alert to guard against more violence.

The Egyptian Interior Ministry said Saturday that at least two people had died in the clashes, one from a bullet wound and the other from a heart attack, while as many as 1,200 had been injured in overnight clashes with the police, mostly around the Israeli Embassy. Protesters scaled the walls of the embassy to tear down its flag, broke into offices and tossed binders of documents into the streets.

The rioting began after large groups of protesters split off from what had been a peaceful protest in Tahrir Square. Thousands attacked the Israeli embassy while others converged on the Interior Ministry, defacing its headquarters. Dozens were also injured in clashes with the police there.

Israeli officials signaled Saturday that they considered the breach of their embassy’s security a significant blow to relations between the two allies. Israeli officials placed several calls to their American counterparts, including from Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to President Obama, and from Defense Minister Ehud Barak to Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, to try to apply pressure on Egypt to resolve the crisis, Israeli and American officials said.

A "significant blow to relations"?

You think?

Egyptian Protesters Tear Down Israeli Embassy Security Wall

This video c/o Ahram Online, "VIDEO: Protesters take down Israeli embassy flag."

And at Weasel Zippers, "Arab Spring: Hundreds of Rampaging Egyptians Tear Down Concrete Wall Protecting Israeli Embassy…"

RELATED: At Los Angeles Times, "EGYPT: Thousands in Tahrir Square angry at slow pace of reforms."

No doubt.

The Global Left's Anti-Israel Forum

See Anne Bayefsky, at Weekly Standard, "Durban III: An Anti-Israel Forum Takes Shape" (via Memeorandum).

United Nations Anti-Semitism

Another devastating video, via Anne Bayefsky, at Big Peace, "The UN’s Anti-Semitism Agenda on Display in ‘Durban III’":

PREVIOUSLY: "United Nations Bias Against Israel."

Michael Coren Loves Zionism!

Via Blazing Cat Fur:

Obama Administration Works to Stall Palestinian Statehood at the U.N.

Good luck with that.



At NYT, "U.S. Appeals to Palestinians to Stall U.N. Vote on Statehood":

WASHINGTON — The Obama administration has initiated a last-ditch diplomatic campaign to avert a confrontation this month over a plan by Palestinians to seek recognition as a state at the United Nations, but it may already be too late, according to senior American officials and foreign diplomats.



The administration has circulated a proposal for renewed peace talks with the Israelis in the hopes of persuading the Palestinian president, Mahmoud Abbas, to abandon the bid for recognition at the annual gathering of world leaders at the United Nations General Assembly beginning Sept. 20.



The administration has made it clear to Mr. Abbas that it will veto any request presented to the United Nations Security Council to make a Palestinian state a new member outright.



But the United States does not have enough support to block a vote by the General Assembly to elevate the status of the Palestinians’ nonvoting observer “entity” to that of a nonvoting observer state. The change would pave the way for the Palestinians to join dozens of United Nations bodies and conventions, and it could strengthen their ability to pursue cases against Israel at the International Criminal Court.

Right.



Meanwhile, enemies of Israel leave comments like this at YouTube:

Jews stole and are stealing land from the Palestinians. Jews are subhumans. And jewish girls are harier than apes. And their nose is bigger than their penises. Jews are ugly as fuck. Fuck Israel. Give Palestinians their land back you landstealing parazides.

Sixty Arrested as English Defence League Clashes With Police in East London

At BBC, "EDL protest in east London sees 60 arrested":

And Bare Naked Islam has a huge write-up, "Pro-Muslim (UAF) and Muslim Fascists clash with English Defence League (EDL) patriots at Tower Hamlets protest."



And a live blog at this leftist website, FWIW.

Libertarians and Democrats

I saw this Will Wilkinson piece earlier and read it all: "A Libertarian’s Lament: Why Ron Paul Is an Embarrassment to the Creed." I didn't bother commenting on it because Wilkinson's not worth it. He's a drug-addled leftist, IMHO, and a pretty much typical libertarian. So, what do you know, but American Glob has picked up the slack, "In Which I Respectfully Disagree With Will Wilkinson" (via Glenn Reynolds):

I don’t know Will Wilkinson personally but I know he’s a Libertarian writer who has worked for the highly regarded Cato Institute.



Wilkinson wrote an article for The New Republic today in which he calls Ron Paul an “embarrassment” to the creed of Libertarianism.



I like many of Ron Paul’s ideas and disagree with others, specifically his approach to foreign policy but my objection to Wilkinson’s article has nothing to do with Ron Paul.



It’s based on the first half of his second sentence…

In 2006, I tossed a few dollars at the Democrat running for Senate against the loathsome Rick Santorum. It could have been a three-headed goat, for all I cared, but Wikipedia says it was Bob Casey.

Before you jump to conclusions, let me state for the record that I am not now, nor have I ever been a supporter of Rick Santorum. I don’t believe he is a “loathsome” person as Wilkinson characterized him, I think he is probably a decent man despite our political differences.



My problem with Wilkinson’s article is simply this:



I don’t believe it’s possible to be a Libertarian and support Democrats. Ever.

Keep reading.



Actually, I doubt it would take long, but you could probably find lots of libertarians who supported Democrats in California last year, when Proposition 19 was on the ballot. Both Democrats and Libertarians endorsed the measure, which placed them in a de facto political alliance. Indeed, there's also a "progressive-libertarian coalition" that joined forces on the initiative. So, while in theory it may be impossible to be a libertarian and support Democrats, in fact those two ideologies generally have just as much in common as do libertarians and conservatives on support for free markets. Indeed, if you look at criminal justice and civil liberties you're more likely to see Democrats (progressives) allied with libertarians. Frankly, when it comes to a robust foreign policy and a defense of social conservatism, I make little distinction between leftists and libertarians. Throw in gay marriage (libertarians back it), and really, what's left for libertarians to be associated with that is generally referred to as right wing? Ron Paul is loathsome to me on foreign policy, but even more we learn over and over again that's he's anti-Semitic, and even Will Wilkinson attacks him as racist. I just can't stand people like that. A foreign policy that excoriates U.S. support for Israel turns quickly into a crude copy of neo-communist Jew-bashing eliminationism. So with all due respect, I'd think American Glob might want to rethink his partiality to Ron Paul in a hypothetical match up between Paul and Obama. They're both disasters, and a pox on both of their houses.

Germany Pulls Out of Durban III Anti-Racism Conference

At Jerusalem Post:

BERLIN - Germany's Foreign Ministry announced on Friday that it will not take part in the UN-sponsored Durban III anti-racism conference on September 22, because of the possibility that the event can be turned into a forum for anti-Semitic statements.



In a statement to The Jerusalem Post on Friday, German Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle said “Germany will not participate in the commemoration event for the 10th year anniversary of the Durban conference.”



He added that Germany “cannot rule out that the Durban commemoration event in New York will be misused for anti-Semitic statements, as was the case in previous conferences.”



Westerwelle continued that “therefore Germany will not participate. This is also an expression of our special responsibility toward Israel.”

You can say that again.

Israel — An Apartheid State?

From Dennis Prager, at Frontpage Magazine:

Next month, the UN-sponsored hate-Israel festival known as Durban III takes place. Under the heading “anti-racism,” the great bulk of the conference, like Durban I and Durban II, consists of condemning Israel for racism and equating it to an apartheid state.



Of the world’s many great lies, this is among the greatest.



How do we know it is a lie? Because when South Africa was an apartheid state, no one accused Israel of being one. Even the UN would have regarded the accusation as absurd.



Israel has nothing in common with an apartheid state, but few people know enough about Israel — or about apartheid South Africa — to refute the slander. So let’s respond.



First, what is an apartheid state? And does Israel fit that definition?



From 1948 to 1994, South Africa, the country that came up with this term, had an official policy that declared blacks second-class citizens in every aspect of that nation’s life. Among many other prohibitions on the country’s blacks, they could not vote; could not hold political office; were forced to reside in certain locations; could not marry whites; and couldn’t even use the same public restrooms as whites.



Not one of those restrictions applies to Arabs living in Israel.



One and a half million Arabs live in Israel, constituting about 20 percent of that country’s population. They have the same rights as all other Israeli citizens. They can vote, and they do. They can serve in the Israeli parliament, and they do. They can own property and businesses and work in professions alongside other Israelis, and they do. They can be judges, and they are. Here’s one telling example: it was an Arab judge on Israel’s Supreme Court who sentenced the former president of Israel — a Jew — to jail on a rape charge.



Some other examples of Arabs in Israeli life: Reda Mansour was the youngest ambassador in Israel’s history, and is now Consul General at Israel’s Atlanta Consulate; Walid Badir is an international soccer star on Israel’s national team and captain of one of Tel Aviv’s major teams; Rana Raslan is a former Miss Israel; Ishmael Khaldi was until recently the deputy consul of Israel in San Francisco; Khaled Abu Toameh is a major journalist with the Jerusalem Post; Ghaleb Majadele was until recently a Minister in the Israeli Government. They are all Israeli Arabs. Not one is a Jew.



Arabs in Israel live freer lives than Arabs living anywhere in the Arab world.



No Arab in any Arab country has the civil rights and personal liberty that Arabs in Israel enjoy.

Keep reading at that top link.



The "apartheid state" lie is just one more lie in a long train of progressive evils. What's especially sad is that the left gets away with this stuff. Kinda like the Nazis hiding the camps. It's all just one big lie.

United Nations Bias Against Israel

Via Theo Spark, "Video: Understanding UN Bias Against Israel -- Invite to Durban 3 Protest, NYC, Sept 21":

More on Larry Derfner

See the reaction from readers at Jerusalem Post, "Firing a ‘Post’ columnist – the pros and cons." The responses are compelling and surprisingly compassionate. No doubt folks crave a full airing of opinions, although I think the one line of criticism worthy of even deeper consideration is the idea that Derfner had stopped making reasoned arguments and had become basically an attack dog against everything he hated. If so, perhaps Jerusalem Post might have waited until the controversy died down and then quietly given Derfner notice that his brand of invective commentary was no longer in tune with the expectations of quality writing at the publication. As I noted on Monday, what's bothersome is not so much Derfner's views, but that they were so well accepted on the anti-Israel left. That is, progressive widely endorse the idea that Israeli civilians deserve to die. That thought seems alone to be beyond rational discourse, and perhaps to the realm of simply terrorist agitation. Even the New York Times offers a super sympathetic report on Derfner, "Israeli Columnist Is Fired for Writing That Palestinian Terrorism Is ‘Justified’." Checking the essay one finds a link to Dimi Reider despicable essay (cited at my entry on Monday) offering massive historical lies to justify Derfner's commentary. I know it's the Times, but some reporters are still doing a good job, and I normally enjoy Robert Mackey's blogging at The Lede. He fell short on this one though, omitting some of the more heated criticism of Derfner's perfidy.



And see Barry Rubin's comments, "Larry Derfner Should Be Debated, Not Fired." Rubin says it's not left or right but truth versus lies (to which I disagree, with reference, for example, to the comments at New York Times, where again we see how entrenched is leftist progressive anti-Semitic bloodlust). That said, Rubin's right: Derfner shouldn't have been fired over this.



BONUS: Check Camera's post, and follow the links for additional commentary, "Larry Derfner Will Not Be Rattling The Cage Anymore at the Jerusalem Post."

Larry Derfner Fired by Jerusalem Post

Well, let's go straight to the source: "I got fired by the Jerusalem Post today."

I got fired by The Jerusalem Post today. The paper got hundreds of notices of cancellations of subscription after my blog post (“The awful, necessary truth about Palestinian terror”) of Sunday last week; the reason being given for my firing, though, is the substance of the essay, despite the apology I published later. A page-one notice to this effect will be published in the Post tomorrow.

The pro-terror Mondoweiss has the full essay, "Read the post for which Derfner was fired: "‘The awful, necessary truth about Palestinian terror’."



Jawa Report applauds: "Jerusalem Post Writer Larry Derfner Fired for Justifying Palestinian Terror."



And here's this, from Isi Leibler, "Justifying Murder – An Abomination" (at Memeorandum):

Derfner is an Israeli Jew professionally employed by the only English-language newspaper in Israel. For him to justify the barbaric murder of his own brothers and sisters on a public website represents the ultimate abomination. It is unforgiveable.



Presumably in response to massive protests directed against him, Derfner “apologized” a week after his article appeared and deleted it from his website. However, he had the chutzpah to reiterate the justification for terrorism, merely stating that he does not endorse the murder of fellow Israelis. This is neither a retraction nor an apology.



His obscene and callously insensitive remarks are likely to haunt him for the rest of his life.

Some may question Derfner's dismissal (I'm not bothered by it, but I wouldn't have called for his firing). What bothers me is that Derfner's ideas are frankly mainstream among the Israel-hating left. That is, Derfner was only stating publically the exact thoughts of the progressive Israel-delegitimation industry. See, for example, Dimi Reider's obscene endorsement of Derfner, and his claim that it's Caroline Glick who should be fired: "Jerusalem Post fires Larry Derfner over blog post." And there's more than 50 comments at Mondoweiss as this post goes live, almost all in support of Derfner. I mean seriously, it's like bloodlust:

For wannabe international lawyers, I can’t overemphasize that at times, attacks on civilians are perfectly legal and legitimate. The proper language is “protected non-combatants.” Jewish Zionist settler-colonists in the Occupied Territories cannot be considered protected non-combatants by any stretch of the imagination.

And Phillip Weiss enters the comments to add:

Larry, are you out there, do you want to post any response to the many comments at this site? Let me emphasize, you have my great sympathy on this occasion, and I like to think that your best work will flow from this very painful and upsetting incident...

So, again, while I wouldn't have called for Derfner's termination, it's clear that his words were not only incitement to terrorism, but that his views are perfectly representative of the progressive, neo-communist left's eliminationist ideological agenda. And once again, this is what I point out repeatedly at this blog. It's not leftist opposition to Israeli policies. It's leftist opposition to Israel and the Jews. It's the dawn of the new Shoah. And I will stand up against these satanic progressive fuckers as long as I live.

Aqsa Parvez Memorial

Via Reliapundit:

And see Atlas Shrugs, "AQSA IN ISRAEL," and Jihad Watch, "Aqsa Parvez Memorial Grove dedication in Israel, August 24."

Progressives Go Nazi on Katy Perry After She Tweeted 'Pray for Israel' in Support of Jewish State

At Hot Air, "Twitterverse couldn’t take it when Katy Perry tweeted, “Pray for Israel”." And at The Blaze, "POP STAR KATY PERRY ATTACKED AFTER TWEETING AN APPEAL FOR HER FOLLOWERS TO ‘PRAY FOR ISRAEL’."



And see especially Michelle, "What happened when Katy Perry tweeted “Pray for Israel”."

Progressivism is an ideology of hate and death. Same satanism, different day.