Submitted Comments RSS Feed Comments by david singer
Posted in: Jews in Palestine
Would the PA be able to guarantee the safety and security of its Jewish population? How many Gilad Shalits would be taken hostage to meet the demands of some rag tag group of die hard terrorists demanding for example the right of return to Israel of 500000 Arabs or the release of captured terrorists held by Israel or the PA? Could the Arab population put behind generations of incitement and hatred against Jews promoted by the PLO and Hamas? The offer to stay as Jewish Palestinians sounds good for PR purposes but is not a practical solution to the division of sovereignty in the West Bank. The only solution is for : 1 the PA to be disbanded. It has been given 16 years to negotiate a settlement and has failed to grasp the opportunities offered by Israel by insisting on demands that Israel cannot possibly accept and 2. Jordan and Israel divide sovereignty of the West Bank and determine the future of Jerusalem between their respective nations in direct negotiations - possibly under UN chairmanship.
Posted in: Netanyahu's UN speech: The video and transcript
Brilliant speech. A clarion call to the UN to restore its moral compass and not reward those who are evil and preach anti-Jewish hatred. Can any state still begrudge the Jews one tiny sliver of land to call their own after listening to Netanyahu's call?
Posted in: In Jewish critiques, Goldstone disappears from his own report
You can read critiques of the appointment of all four members of the Goldstein Commission at: http://www.bloggersbase.com/articles/partnerships/jpost/gaza-goldstone-and-gallstones/ http://www.bloggersbase.com/articles/partnerships/jpost/goldstone-commissioners-partial-or-impartial/ The bias of the Commissioners has tainted and fatally flawed their Report.
Posted in: Pope urges two states
Stuart The West Bank is disputed territory with both Jews and Arabs seeking to allocate sovereignty where none presently exists. Israel has not signed any peace agreement that recognizes the West Bank as a separate entity. You should also be aware that there are no 1967 or 1948 boundaries separating Israel and the West Bank. They are armistice lines only. The Pope clearly breached the Agreement. What Israel should do is for it to decide. Certainly in my opinion it should be publicly voicing its displeasure at the Pope's breach of the Agreement whilst visiting Israel. This would ensure everyone would at least be made aware of the Agreement. It should not be allowed to remain unread in the bottom drawer of the Foreign Office. The one certainty this sorry incident shows is that in dealing with the future sovereignty of the West Bank Israel needs to be especially careful as to the binding nature of the agreements it may sign. If you can't trust the Pope to honor an agreement - who can you?
Posted in: Pope urges two states
Pope Abandons Morality For Politics Pope Benedict’s political comments during his visit to the Holyland have given Jews and Catholics all over the world every reason to believe that if you can’t trust the Pope to keep an agreement then who can you trust? The Pope’s political remarks were a cardinal breach of Clause 11(2) of the Agreement signed between Israel and the Holy See in 1993 which states: “The Holy See while maintaining in every case the right to exercise its moral and spiritual teaching-office, deems it opportune to recall that owing to its own character, it is solemnly committed to remaining a stranger to all merely temporal conflicts, which principle applies specifically to disputed territories and unsettled borders.” There is no ambiguity in these clear and precise words. The inexcusable breach of these terms by the Pope in both of his addresses signifies the ease with which agreements can be abandoned - even by one recognised as occupying a position among the most moral held by any human being. The Pope had properly told both his Arab and Jewish hosts that his visit was intended as a pilgrimage. He may well have been able to inspire them had he stuck firmly to that agenda and not plunged headlong into a minefield that continues to claim as victims the most powerful politicians on this planet. His attempt to play the base political game and emulate the long line of politicians who have traced the same path in the Middle East speaking with forked tongues was a disaster. Papal intrusion into politics is most unwise especially where the Pope in this case has made a specific commitment to remain detached from the current conflict. In breaching rather than observing that commitment the Pope has failed the most basic of tests that human beings are asked to respect and observe - sticking to an agreement. His failure to do so is a matter of great regret.
Posted in: Obama reiterates backing for two states, Annapolis
President Obama needs to show a little more backbone than the spineless diplomats who have spent thousands of fruitless hours and involved their countries in pledging billions of dollars in progressing Annapolis to a disastrous conclusion, President Obama needs to focus on what Israel’s then Prime Minister Ehud Olmert told the gathering of world leaders assembled in Annapolis on 27 November 2007 “The negotiations will be based on previous agreements between us, UN Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338, the Roadmap and the April 14th 2004 letter from President Bush to the Prime Minister of Israel.” Letters from Presidents to Prime Ministers are important documents and none was more important than the one President Bush wrote to Ariel Sharon on 14 April 2004 to procure Israel to unilaterally withdraw from Gaza. That letter made it clear - amongst many other commitments - that the Arabs could not expect to regain 100% of the West Bank and Gaza in the Annapolis negotiations. The Arabs however refused to play ball and insisted on 100% - not the 93% offered by Israel - plus an additional area from Israel’s sovereign territory to make up the remaining 7% that would be retained by Israel. Instead of pressuring the Arabs to accept this proposal the Quartet - America, Russia, ,the European Union and the United Nations - sought to pressure Israel into more concessions that would have seen the West Bank ethnically cleansed of Jews who had returned to live in their biblical heartland since 1967 - after having been kicked out of there in 1948 by six invading Arab armies. In going for Israel’s jugular the Quartet cut its own collective wrists and - with assured predictably - failed to get an agreed outcome by the Annapolis expiry date - 1 January 2009. Crocodile tears are now the order of the day. Like the Annapolis Conference they are a total waste of time. Remarkably President Obama appears to have learned nothing from the Annapolis journey to nowhere as he continues to endorse a process whose objective is to make the West Bank a “No Jews “ zone - which is both racist and offensive in the extreme. Israel sought nothing more than to have the parameters of the Annapolis negotiations honoured and observed. Those who now seek to pillory it for maintaining such a standard only demonstrate their inability and ignorance to comprehend and understand those parameters. Perhaps President Obama might now turn his attention to two critical international agreements that are binding on the rest of the world - the League of Nations Mandate for Palestine and article 80 of the United Nations Charter. It is these two documents that lay the foundations for ending the conflict between Israel and its Arab neighbours - dividing sovereignty in the West Bank between Israel and Jordan by redrawing the boundary between these two successor states in the territory once called Palestine. The sooner these two forgotten documents are acted on, the sooner those crocodile tears might end.
Posted in: 'Jordan option' no option, king says
Abdullah can't forever keep fending off calls for Jordan to resume the role it held in the West Bank from 1948-1967. The day is fast approaching when there will be no other solution
Posted in: Official: Lieberman question 'hypothetical'
Palestine - The Lieberman Factor Why shouldn't America be able to work with Lieberman? 1. He supports the two state solution - so does Barack Obama. 2. He is against Israel withdrawing to the 1967 armistice lines - so is Security Council Resolution 242 3. He favours separating the Jewish and Arab populations - so does every proposal for partition proposed since 1920. This can be simply achieved by redrawing the boundary between Israel and the West Bank without one single Arab or Jew having to move from his present home. Who is racist - Abbas who wants to kick out 500000 Jews from the West Bank or Lieberman who doesn't want to move one single Jew or Arab?
Posted in: Op-Ed: Mitchell is the honest broker the Mideast needs
George Mitchell munches on Middle East lunches whilst Mr Rosenberg indulges in yet another of his incorrect hunches. Mr Rosenberg needs to listen to what President Obama told Arab television station Al-Arabiya on 27 January. Firstly on the issue of a new Arab state being created between Israel and Jordan President Obama stated his commitment to that eventuating but issued this note of warning: “ QUESTION: Will it still be possible to see a Palestinian state -- and you know the contours of it -- within the first Obama administration? THE PRESIDENT: I think it is possible for us to see a Palestinian state -- I'm not going to put a time frame on it -- that is contiguous, that allows freedom of movement for its people, that allows for trade with other countries, that allows the creation of businesses and commerce so that people have a better life…" …But it is not going to be easy, and that's why we've got George Mitchell going there. This is somebody with extraordinary patience as well as extraordinary skill, and that's what's going to be necessary.” The notion that any such new state should be democratic - as President Bush’s Roadmap stipulated - - has now apparently disappeared from the new President’s vocabulary. The idea that such a State was just around the corner - as the previous administration had been trumpeting for the last twelve months - was now not even being able to be predicted with confidence by President Obama to occur within the next four years. Secondly President Obama declared that any such new state would have to be part of an overall resolution of other problems in the Middle East and neighbouring regions: “I do think that it is impossible for us to think only in terms of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict and not think in terms of what's happening with Syria or Iran or Lebanon or Afghanistan and Pakistan.These things are interrelated.” Thirdly President Obama negated the idea that the Saudi Peace Plan proposed in 2002 - and offered to Israel on a “take it or leave it “ basis - would be the sought for regional solution that would be supported in its entirety by President Obama: “QUESTION : Now there is an Arab peace plan, there is a regional aspect to it. And you've indicated that. Would there be any shift, a paradigm shift? THE PRESIDENT: Well, here's what I think is important. Look at the proposal that was put forth by King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia. I might not agree with every aspect of the proposal, but it took great courage to put forward something that is as significant as that. I think that there are ideas across the region of how we might pursue peace.” Given that the Saudi proposal contains the same intransigent demands that have characterised the Arabs negotiating stance for the last 42 years, the likelihood of any substantive changes to that proposal to meet President Obama’s declared reservation seems most unlikely to occur. President Obama did not spell out what other ideas there are across the region in his compelling interview. Clearly trilateral negotiations between Jordan, Israel and Egypt to divide sovereignty of the West Bank and Gaza between their respective States is one such idea that needs to be vigorously pursued by Mr Mitchell. It alone seems to offer the best chance of improving the lives of the West Bank’s Arab residents by offering them citizenship in an Arab State without requiring them to move from their present homes whilst allowing them once more to return to the Arab fold finally freed from Israel’s occupation or control - the position they last enjoyed between 1948-1967. The PLO had already signalled its intentions on 22 January to abandon the Roadmap - and focus on the Saudi Peace Plan as the only game in town. The current Palestinian leadership - itself the issue of much conjecture following the schism between Hamas and the Palestinian Authority - will not get to first base with President Obama if it insists on maintaining this stance. There are three predictions that one can confidently make in this current uncertain climate whilst George Mitchell’s patience and skill is brought into play: 1. The existing Jewish residents of the West Bank - and the current Arab residents - will continue to copulate and populate. Any call for a “freeze” on natural increases in their respective populations - and the provision of housing and infrastructure to cope with such natural increases - is meaningless. 2. The creation of a 22nd Arab State between Egypt, Israel and Jordan will never eventuate unless the current Arab negotiating position is drastically revised by dropping their demands for sovereignty in all of the West Bank and Gaza and for millions of Arabs to be allowed to emigrate to Israel. 3. George Mitchell will be having lots of appointments, ongoing disappointments and very many more lunches in the region.
RSS Feed Breaking News
Updated 11/22/09 @ 05:02PM EDT
- Hundreds of Jewish and non-Jewish Brazileans protested in Rio de Janeiro on the eve of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's visit.
- "Real progress" has been made in negotiations to release a captured Israeli soldier, President Shimon Peres confirmed.
- The online auction Web site eBay said it took down an ad offering biological samples from Benito Mussolini before anyone could bid on them.
- Turkey has given Israeli defense contractors 50 days to deliver 10 promised drone aircraft.
- Iran began an air defense drill designed to protect its nuclear program, Iranian state television reported.
- Brazileans protest Ahmadinejad visit
- Peres: ‘Real progress’ in Shalit talks
- The Mofaz plan—state now, ask questions later
- eBay removes Mussolini brain, blood samples
- Turkey demands delivery of Israeli drones
- Iran begins air defense drill
- More Israeli recruits seeking to join combat units
- Haredim return to protest Jerusalem Intel factory
- Female Orthodox scholars helping women talk about sex
- Obama half-brother has Jewish roots
- Lieberman: Fort Hood could be terror attack
- J Street confab shows generational divide on Israel
- What really happened at the Reform biennial in Toronto
- Rubashkin convicted on 86 charges
- Pro-Israel fliers confiscated at campus speech
- Obama shifts to Israel’s corner, but tries not to show it
Posted in: The Gilo announcement -- more than just an announcement
11/19/09 06:09 PM
Lara Could you please tell us how you would plan the removal of 40000 Gilo residents from their homes to create the new Palestinian State. Do you also believe everyone will be kicked out of Ramot and Maale Adumim with Israel's approval to create this Palestinian State? To me it is obvious that these areas will be retained by Israel so why should the latest plans really be such an issue? If the PA can't reach an agreement with Israel by the time these planning approvals are finalised and building actually starts then they will never reach agreement. Sixteen years of trying since 1993 have not reached first base. The Arabs had a chance to have their State 60 years ago and blew it. They then had another chance for 19 years between 1948-1967 and blew it again. The Arabs keep blowing it with their refusal to concede Israeli sovereignty in any part of the West Bank. When will they begin to understand that the longer they demand all Jews living in Gilo and Ramot and Maale Adumim will be kicked out - the lesser the area of the West Bank that becomes available to them. This is not rocket science - just pragmatic commonsense. Keep chasing 100% and you only end up reducing what you are going to get. A return to the armistice lines of 1967 simply cannot and will not happen. Time waits for no man. The world has moved on and so should you.