Gaza War Diary 9 Fri-Sun. Dec. 30, 2016-Jan.1, 2017 Day 1212-1214 9 2am | Emanuel Winston Archives

December 30th, 2016 by Gail Winston | Archived in: Gaza War 2014


Gaza War Diary 9 Fri-Sun. Dec. 30, 2016-Jan.1, 2017 Day 1212-1214 9 2am

Dear Family & Friends,

Here is a wonderful, heartfelt YouTube with Mark Zell, Head of Republicans in Israel who voted absentee. Marc is at the Gush Katif Memorial Museum, speaking about why we have hope for our Sovereignty, Security & Peace with the election of President Elect Donald Trump & Mike Pence as VP. Here is the URL.

Give it a look & listen. After Mark Zell, You Tube gives you a list of current You-Tubes reacting to the 2334 UN Security Council Resolution that Obama did not veto as he could have & should have.

If you care about the real issues, you can enjoy learning about the real truths herein.

A cold but sunny day today, very gorgeous! All the very best, Gail/Geula/Savta/Savta Raba x 2/Mom

Our Website has a treasure trove of great info:

1.Defamation in Ari Shavit’s My Promised Land by Richard Shulman

2.This is how they can now try to strangle Israel By Giulio Meotti

3.Britain & Australia more supportive of Israel than Obama & Kerry by Alan M. Dershowitz
4.Secretary Kerry’s suspension of disbelief by Amb. Yoram Ettinger
5.Martin Indyk is an antisemite By Rafael Medoff

6.Jewish American leaders urge France to cancel peace conference

7.No US Carrier Now In The Mideast By: Christopher P. Cavas

8.Red Russia, Red Jihad & Israel under siege

9.The NYTimes does it again! By Prof Phyllis Chesler, INN


For Zion’s sake I will not hold my peace & for Jerusalem’s sake I will not rest.” Isaiah 62.

FREEMAN CENTER FOR STRATEGIC STUDIES, P.O. Box 35661 * Houston, Texas 77235-5661
* E-mail: OUR WEB SITE < >


Ignorance Is Weakness – Know The Truth: Self-Inflicted Ignorance Is Suicide
The Freeman Center Is A Defense Against Ignorance



“Patriotism is supporting your country all of the time &

your government when it deserves it.” (Mark Twain)

1. Defamation in Ari Shavit’s My Promised Land by Richard Shulman

PART I. SUMMARY (3 pages. Part II has more details, 12 pages)

Ari Shavit’s best-seller, My Promised Land is inciting anti-Zionism among Jews who haven’t studied the Arab-Israel conflict & its motive of Islamic imperialism. They end up erroneously believing Zionism expelled Israel’s Arabs & now occupies Judea & Samaria, where they mistreat the Arabs. The damage this book does to Israel’s reputation requires a Jewish communal effort to thwart & undo.

Readers assume the author is pro-Israel, because he claims to love Israel; is fair, because he relates two sides; & is honest, because he criticizes his own country. False assumptions.

Mr. Shavit’s Background: (1) In the “peace movement,” whose theories backfired; Peace Now’s appeasement of the Arabs would deprive Israel of secure borders, thereby hastening war; (2) Co-founded a “civil rights” NGO that supports false Arab claims against Jewish property rights & civil rights; & (3) Haaretz Journalist, which publicizes Arab accusations before investigation & encourages some terrorism.

Book’s Invalid Methods:

·Mostly ideological judgments contradicted by facts, experience & Mr. Shavit.

·Name-calling: “Colonialists,” “conquistadors,” cancer, like Nazis, “occupiers,” “racist”, “inhumane,” murderers, expellers, “undemocratic,” “messianic,” anti-peace, “extremist,” & “humiliating”. Muses that Jews build on hilltops because they think height makes right.

·Praises own, fringe views as “enlightened” & thinks most Israelis share them.

·Constantly condemns Israel unjustifiably & omits justifiable condemnation of the Arabs, thereby muddying Israel’s reputation; thinks the world is idealistic.

·Presents mostly & emotionally the false or misleading Arab case against Israel & Leftist Jewish case against Israel. Fails to expose Arab slander & his praises for Israel is unrelated to the conflict.

·Defeatist in tone, lays “Jewish guilt” on Israel, not on Arab aggressors.

·Misrepresents history and international law, which favors Zionism.

·Distorts current events. Obama snubbed Netanyahu & encouraged Palestinian Authority (P.A.) obstinacy. Book accuses Netanyahu of picking the quarrel.

·Ignores Israeli decency to Arabs & Arab indecency to Jews (& Arabs).

·Omits facts of Jewish entitlement to the Land, including that the Jews are the indigenous aboriginals, having absorbed the Canaanites & Philistines.

·Has double standard against Israel.

·Makes factual errors such as that the Western Wall, rather than the Mount containing the Temple & the holy of holies, is Judaism’s holiest site.

Israel’s Main Issues: Iran’s nuclear weapons, Arab Jihad, collapse of regional societies, water shortages &, in Israel, welfare & draft exemptions. The P.A. is a minor irritant that Shavit puts at the head of the list, as if obsessed.

Claims Israel Wasn’t “Empty”: Shavit uses the technical meaning of “empty” to obscure what Zionism & foreign travelers meant when they called the land “empty.”

They meant a run-down, swamp-ridden, jungle-infested, desert-like area in which only 150,000 people lived, mostly miserably, the Muslims dying out. In the 1890s, the area was relatively barren. Contrast that with the nearly 100 times as many people living here now & in good health & prosperity! Zionism achieved that.

Accuses Early Zionists of Uprooting Arabs Tenant Farmers: Hardly mentioned is that Arab bankers & landlords had wrested most privately owned land from Arab farmers, forcing them into tenancy & day laboring.

Actually, Zionists bought land & also paid Arab tenants enough to buy their own land or businesses. Zionism extended Arab longevity. Its prosperity drew Arabs into the area. Zionism was idealistic & benign, hoping to share progress with the Arabs.

Accuses Israel of Causing Arab Refugee Problem: No. Israel offered the local Arabs a state & residency. The Arabs chose war. They tried vainly to expel the Jews. Most of the Arabs fled at the orders of invading Arab generals, frightened by Arab propaganda demonizing Israel & that Israel would punish their attempted genocide. Their flight was kicked off by the pre-war exit of the upper class, 20,000 of them fleeing Arab terrorists. Only a small proportion of Arabs were expelled, usually for military necessity. The Arabs caused their own refugee problem (& a Jewish refugee problem).

The book alleges a Zionist policy of expulsion, contrary to historians’ documentation. It ignores the fact that Israel did not expel the Arabs from Jaffa, Haifa & Jerusalem.

Lists three examples: Safed, Deir Yassin & Lydda. From Safed, the Arab aggressors fled overnight under no compulsion. Deir Yassin was a battle that, years later, Arabs & the Israeli Labor Party propagandists fabricated into a massacre.

Like Deir Yassin, Lydda was helping blockade & starve Jerusalem, but surrendered. The deal was, Lydda would disarm & residents could stay. But the Arabs kept their arms and fought. They were justifiably expelled.

Calls the Disputed Territories “Occupied” “Arab Land”: International law defines “occupied” as one country taking over land from another. But the Territories were not part of another country; two Arab countries occupied them militarily. Legally they were a part of the Palestine Mandate not yet made sovereign like Israel and Jordan.

The Mandate, incorporated into the UN Charter as part of international law, had set the area aside for eventual Jewish statehood, in recognition of the Jewish people’s historical rights there. (The Arabs had the remaining 99.5% of the Mideast.) The Mandate recognized Jews’ political rights there, but only religious & civil rights of Arabs. The Mandate called for “close Jewish settlement of the land.” Settlements are proper.

Only long after the local Arabs started trying to drive the Jews out, did they call themselves “Palestinian” to boost their territorial claim. There never was a Palestinian country; Palestinian Arabs have the same culture as surrounding peoples. Most of their families had followed the Zionist wave into the area. Their attempted genocide against the Jews forfeits their claim morally.

Nor are the Territories distinct from Israel, as tourists can see. The line separating them from Israel is an armistice line, drawn with agreement that it is not a border. In fact, Judea & Samaria are where Jewish civilization originated. Islamic scripture & scholarly works acknowledge that Jerusalem & the Land of Israel belong to the Jews.

Disproved Demography: Mr. Shavit contends that the trend is against the Jews. Shavit & Sec. Kerry try to panic Israel into withdrawing, lest the Arabs make the Jews a minority. Demographers disproved that assertion a few years ago. In Israel & the Territories, Arab fertility has fallen; Jewish fertility has risen & is passing the Arabs’.

Advocates “Land For Peace”: This proposition was tried with Lebanon, Hebron & Gaza. It brought war, allowing Hezb’Allah & Hamas to arm near Israel. It also is illogical. The conflict occurs because Islam seeks conquest. Peace must wait until Islam mellows. Ignoring that cause of the conflict, Mr. Shavit predicts that some day there will be a “peaceful [second Arab state in] Palestine” (p.228). Yet he also admits that the Arabs won’t make peace (another of his self-contradictions).

Meanwhile, Israel’s ceding land means losing secure borders & Jewish patrimony to an undeserving population taught every week a duty to kill. Mr. Shavit pities convicted Arabs who fulfilled that Islamic duty. Muslims also kill & expel helpless Christians in many countries. Therefore, Jewish “settlement” is not the problem; it certainly wasn’t a problem when they didn’t exist in 1948 & 1967 but the Arabs made wars on Israel.

Conclusion: Quite the anti-Zionist book of false propaganda! The book is a fraud.


Debate Shows Book’s Malign Influence:

Friend: “I just read Shavit’s book, that everyone is talking about.”

I: “I find it demagogic.”

Friend: “No, he doesn’t make conclusions; he lets readers draw their own.”

I: “False & misleading insinuations let readers draw false & libelous conclusions.”

Friend, denying Shavit’s libel: “He’s a fifth generation Israeli & loves Israel.”

I: “That doesn’t mean he is correct.”

Better reply: Many anti-Zionists disguise themselves as pro-Israel. Shavit leaves people resentful of Israel. Some love!”

Friend: “He explains the problem with Israeli occupation of the West Bank.”

I: “There is no occupation.”

Friend: “Come on!”

I: “I’ve studied international laws & scholarly commentary. There is no Israeli occupation. Occupation’ means seizure of land belonging to another country, but those Arabs had no country here.”

Friend, not waiting to digest this: “Arabs were driven out of Israel into the W. Bank.”

I: “Few were driven out.”

Friend: “That’s what you say.”

I: “I studied the subject. Why shouldn’t they have been driven out, since their object was genocide?”

Friend: “Says who?”

I: “Say the Arabs. They vowed repeatedly to ‘drive the Jews into the sea.” (They tried.)

Historical Roots:

“Jews had no legal, historical, or religious right to the land” (quoting an Arab, p.314). Mr. Shavit fails to counter that propaganda. How can he be considered a Zionist, when he lets Arabs misrepresent Zionism without rebuttal?

Islamic scripture & scholarly works acknowledge the Jews’ legal & historical rights to Jerusalem & the country. The Palestine Mandate recognized the Jews’ political rights to the area & the Arabs’ civil (personal) & religious rights only.

An Arab asserts that no one can uproot his people. Really? Hundreds of thousands of Arabs have left the P.A. voluntarily.

Arab Nationalism: P.59 & p.73 claim that Arabs proposed a “Palestinian” nationalist revolt. Actually, the appeal was just against Jews. How could there have been Palestinian nationalism years before Arabs there called themselves Palestinian? He also calls the movement one of “Arab liberation.” So which is it, Arab or Palestinian? Arab societies need liberation from their own rulers?

Israel a Foreign Construct?: The West “erected” Israel (p.185). That is vague and misleading. The West recognized the Jewish people’s historical & religious rights there. Britain did help drain the swamps, but Zionists rebuilt the country. Britain kept most Jews out of the Mandate chartered to let Jews in. That let the Nazis murder them. The Holocaust made it almost impossible to build a strong Jewish state. Britain aided Arab pogroms; expelled the Jews from Hebron & equipped Arab invaders.

The book calls Zionists colonialists for speaking European languages & wanting a European power to impose Zionism on what he calls an “Arab land” so that a “European problem would be solved.” The area was not Arab land but part of the Turkish Empire. The problem was not just European, but also that Arabs had prompted many Jews to leave their homeland in the Land of Israel & Turkey barred most.

Millions of Muslims now emigrate to Europe, many illegally, to solve an Arab problem. They boast they will impose Islam on Europe. Mr. Shavit doesn’t call them colonialists.

He writes that the Zionists don’t want to oppress or exploit, but do so (in ways his polemic doesn’t explain). Putting it that way sets up a prejudice – psychologically.

Jewish Terrorism?: P.73 claims, without specifics, that: (1) After Orde Wingate organized Jewish self-defense against terrorists, he took to looting villages & (2) He developed a policy of retaliation against villages that supported terrorism. An idealistic man of the Book & a great military innovator, he was not likely to allow looting.

How Many Arab Refugees?: 700,000 (p.161). For sympathy & welfare benefits, the number of Arab refugees has been inflated wildly. The UN defined Arab refugees much more loosely than all other refugees. The P.A. has continued swelling its population figures, by counting Arab residents of Jerusalem twice & counting émigrés as residents. This lends the P.A. importance & seeks to panic Israel into dangerous concessions for a promise of peace. Here is a different, controversial estimate that I think makes sense.

Do the math! Shmuel Katz (Battle-Ground p.23) approximates the total number of Arabs in 1948 in Palestine west of the Jordan R. as 1,000,000. The British estimated more, independent sources estimated fewer. The British estimated 561,000 lived in part that became Israel. At war’s end, 140,000 Arabs remained. Therefore, the number who fled couldn’t have exceeded the difference, 421,000.

About 900,000 Jews became refugees from Arab States, double that of the Arab refugees. Unlike genocidal Arab refugees, the Jewish refugees had been good citizens.

Oslo Accords: Yossi Beilin is the “responsible adult of peace” (p.246). Beilin foisted Oslo on Israel & Oslo foisted Arafat on Arabs in the Territories. Beilin thus bypassed Israel’s democratic process & subjected Arabs to dictatorship. The Arabs violated the Oslo Accords & killed thousands of Israelis. But Mr. Shavit calls Oslo an example of Israeli decency & Arab realism (p.236). I think it typifies State Dept. indecency, Israeli foolishness, Arab cynicism & Beilin’s irresponsibility.

[Gail sez: Personal note: My husband, Manny, Z’l, & I founded the Winston Institute for the Study of Prejudice at Bar Ilan University & held 2 stellar International Conferences in 1992 & 1994. At the 1994 closing dinner – against our very vociferous disapproval, our Institute Head arranged for Yossi Beilin, Oslo’s chief architect, to be our keynote speaker….which became a very serendipitous speech because I taped it. When asked by me: Why didn’t you bring Oslo to the promised Referendum?” Yossi Beilin honestly answered (bragged): “Well, if the Israelis had voted in such a Referendum, we would have lost our Oslo.” Boy, was he Right! (for such a twisted Leftist). This is Israeli Democracy? Really?!!]

The Oslo Accords, signed by the PLO, Israel & the U.S., acknowledged that Israel may build communities in the Territories. Now the U.S. claims those communities are illegal!

Smearing Settlers: In 1974, Israelis “realized that settling occupied territory was immoral & irrational…” (p.205). No, most Israelis didn’t. They were under the illusion, however, that they might trade the “Territories for Peace”. This was illogical, because wars preceded Israel’s acquisition of the Territories. Leaving Territories that didn’t cause past wars won’t prevent new wars, not when bigoted Jihad motives remain.

The settlements are a “cancer” (p.218) & settlers should be reined in (p.361). Again, condemnation without explanation. Isn’t bigoted Islamic terrorism a “cancer?” Why are Jewish settlements bad & Arab settlements not objectionable? Why does p.203 call Zionism “colonialist” but not call Arab expansionism “colonialist”?

To impugn Jewish “settlements”, he attributes them to some unexplained “messianic impulse”. But the Palestine Mandate requires “close settlement of the Jews on the Land.”

Construction by Jews in the Territories challenged “democratic Israel” (p.205). Mr. Shavit claims it resulted from political pressure. Actually, political factionalism is democratic. His side stifles patriotic dissent & invites foreign powers to dictate policy Israeli voters reject. That’s not democratic.

A leader of Jews in Samaria “seeks to prevent an Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement” by building more houses” (p.214). A linkage between housing & peace is constantly asserted but never proven. One can more justifiably find the settlement movement seeks to prevent an illusory agreement that would encourage further Jihad. Settlements provide cover for a military presence, so rather than settlements being a drain on the Israeli Army, they act as a breakwater blunting Arab terrorism.

Settlements don’t have roots, p.220 states, because they are a minority, writes Mr. Shavit. Then the Arabs of Israel don’t have roots, because they are a minority. By Mr. Shavit’s logic, annex Jewish towns in Judea-Samaria that adjoin Israel & they become part of the Jewish majority in the State of Israel & they get roots.

Because the world is anti-colonialist, it opposes Israel (p.220). Is the world so idealistic? No motives of anti-Semitism, interest in oil & Islamic Jihad? The book hardly mentions Jihad, though it preceded Zionism & is the basis for the wars.

Hilltops: Jews reside on hills, because they believe that makes them loftier characters (p.319). Jews think height makes right? Absurd! Actually, in Judea-Samaria, Arabs seized many hills. Look through your car windows here.

Ofra: The way Ofra was founded in the territories makes Mr. Shavit feel ashamed. Settlement movement leaders moved into an abandoned military base & then got a sympathetic government minister to approve. Yes, but Arabs squat on land for many thousands of houses, without Mr. Shavit finding that shameful.

Zionism started by purchasing property. But often authorities, British & Israeli, blocked them, sometimes illegally. Now, the P.A. executes Arabs who sell land to Jews. Mr. Shavit doesn’t admit that.

Suppose Jews didn’t take that former base. Suppose they wouldn’t place housing on vacant hilltops (usually within municipal bounds of land they own). Arabs would put their own houses on the hilltops. Mr. Shavit neither takes that into account when rendering judgment nor does he demand equal law enforcement.

“Occupation Takes Its Moral Toll”: (p.404). Evidence? None given. Why should Israelis feel guilty for self-defense from Arab attempts to exterminate them? (Arab aggression drew defending Israeli troops into the Territories. International law gives Israel a right to keep the area for security from renewed attack.) Let leftists lay a moral toll on genocidal Arabs!

Compassion: Israelis lacked compassion for Arab refugees, Mr. Shavit complains. No evidence cited. Should Israelis care about refugees who consider Jews racially inferior, not entitled to self-rule, and deserving of death? Feel sorry for Arabs whose aggression made them refugees? What compassion did Arabs have for the 900,000 Jews expelled from Arab countries? Where is balanced humaneness, in Mr. Shavit’s moral compass?

Oppression in Israel: In 1957, Mr. Shavit met with Prof. Ze’ev Sternhell (P.137), “…distinguished scholar of European fascism & a lauded political activist against Israeli fascism.” Actually, Sternhell was a notorious anti-Zionist, who favored the Arabs & advocated repressing his ideological opponents. His proposal was fascistic.

To Ha’aretz, freedom of speech means that Muslims & Leftists have the right to call for sedition & mutiny, but nationalists have no right to criticize such calls. Prof. Steven Plaut of Haifa U. has been documenting examples of this every month.

The Arab minority lacked equality, writes Mr. Shavit. How so? No inequality identified. After Israel thwarted the Arab attempt to destroy it, but Israel remained surrounded by enemies of the same culture as Israeli Arabs, Israel naturally placed its Arab areas under military rule. When military rule was lifted, Israeli Arabs had the same rights as Jews.

Civil Rights: Mr. Shavit was co-chair of the Association of Civil Rights In Israel (ACRI, p.315). I have written articles about ACRI refusing to defend Jews’ rights in Israel, helping Arabs to usurp Jews’ property & advancing an Arab takeover, under cover of the language of civil rights.

The Arab lawyer & former co-chair of ACRI claims that he has no rights in Israel (p.319). That’s amusing, since he represents Arab clients in court. Sweeping & non-specific statements like his make exciting emotional reading, but why believe them?

Mr. Shavit calls the arrest of violent Arabs “tyranny.” He accuses Israel of denying Arabs rights, but doesn’t define which. The right to commit violence?

Pities Convicted Murderers: (p.228). In prison, Arabs get good meals, visitors & free education. Some decline release until they get diplomas. These prisoners have been convicted of terrorism. He thinks their incarceration is wrongful (p.232). Wrongful even for people who murdered babies? Does Mr. Shavit pity thousands of maimed Israelis?

Smears Israelis as Inhumane: Calling Israelis inhumane for non-specified reasons, Mr. Shavit omits such facts as Israeli medical treatment of Arabs, water infusion, offers to help, even “affirmative action.” Some Arabs exploit their entry for medical attention to attack innocent Israeli civilians. Aren’t those attacks treacherous & inhumane?

Zionists Are Conquistadors?: (Accusation on p.391). The Spanish conquistadors conquered, murdered, robbed & enslaved native peoples. By contrast: (1) Zionists bought property in their own homeland & raised the Arabs’ standard of living; & (2) Medieval Arab raiders murdered, raped & enslaved black Africans, like conquistadors.

Likening Israel to Nazis: Israeli watchtowers in Gaza were like Nazis’ watchtowers (p.228). The comparison is hysterical. The Nazis incarcerated racial outcasts in concentration camps that exterminated them. Israeli had no concentration camps. Gaza watchtowers helped authorities protect against Islamic terrorists imbued with similar racial theories as the Nazis, of whom the Arabs approve. Gaza Arabs erected tall buildings from which snipers shot down at Jews.

[Gail sez: Look carefully at the buildings in Arab towns around Israel. Many of them have upper floor openings, i.e., windows without window glass. Looks to me like sniper nests in waiting!?!]

Accuses Israelis of Racism: Do Israelis fear an Arab majority & therefore become racist? Mr. Shavit concludes that they do. Evidence not cited. As for actual racism, the Koran describes Jews as inherently evil. Muslims conclude that it applies to contemporary Jews. Evil must be in the Jews’ blood. Isn’t that a racist epithet? Leftists who fail to object to Arab racism probably falsely accuse Zionists of racism just to intimidate them.

Israel “Humiliates” Arab Parents: The book does not explain. Mr. Shavit does not allege that Israeli troops make fun of Arabs or grope Israeli women, the way Arabs have assaulted Jewish girls in Hebron and taunted Israeli troops at border control.

Islam inculcates a sense of superiority in Muslims. Israel’s conquest of the area demonstrates, as has Western history, the falsity of the Islamic superiority complex. Muslim Arabs feel humiliated that, contrary to the norm set by Islam, they cannot humiliate Israelis. (See the Code of Omar.) Disregard Arab claims of humiliation.

Arab Conspiracy Theorizing: Arabs claim that the “peace process was to preserve occupation” (p.316). Shouldn’t an Israeli rebuttal be included? Had the Arabs accepted Israeli offers of up to 97% of the Territories, Israel would have withdrawn. [Gail sez: See Gaza. Israel withdrew 100% – including Jews from their graves – & got 3 Wars plus thousands of rockets.] Shavit fails to protest Arab rejection.

The P.A. proposes letting millions of Arabs into Israel. That means an Arab majority. What does Shavit think an Arab majority would do to democracy & Jews in Israel? Has he no idea that Arab governments oppress minorities? At this & many critical junctions, the book leaves the Israeli side undefended & false theories standing. In this life-and-death controversy, that omission is almost criminal negligence

Also left unchallenged are Arab claims that a Jewish movement, not just a tiny fringe, threatens the Temple Mount mosque.

Mr. Shavit finds both sides terrified about what they did during the First Intifada. He projects his own, unpopular views upon the majority. He contradicts himself by quoting an Arab’s pride over what his side did.

Israel’s defense against the First Intifada involved “systematic & detrimental use of oppressive force” (p.227). Mr. Shavit gave no examples. How can a reader judge for himself? The Intifadas involved murder of Jews by Arabs. How come Mr. Shavit doesn’t call that dertrimental? Since he doesn’t criticize Arabs when they deserve it, maybe his unfairness extends to criticizing Israelis when they do not deserve it.

The Peace Now organization that Mr. Shavit supports criticizes most Israeli means of defense against what he & it don’t criticize, i.e., attacks against Israeli civilians & unoffending Israeli troops, whom the P.A. pledged not to attack.

Mr. Shavit & an Arab former co-Chair of ACRI interviewed Sheikh Salah, head of the Northern Islamists, an “extremist” organization & the co-Chair’s client. Unstated is extremism is sedition. Many countries would not allow this on their soil. The Sheikh contends that “Zionism is allying itself with the imperial interests of the U.S.” (p.317). The purpose of such Arab propaganda is to throw mud, not truth. Mr. Shavit lets that old Communist-like, anti-U.S. claptrap slander both our countries.

The Sheikh also claims that pro-Israel U.S. Protestants want Armageddon now. No, Ahmadinejad of Iran does. The Sheikh is engaging in Islamic psychological transference, whereby he accuses enemies of wanting to do what Muslims want to do. [Gail sez: Manny Winston called that “Jungian”.]

Arab MKs: MK Bishara claims he may be barred from the Knesset for refusing to recognize Israel. (He’d sit in a legislature whose authority he doesn’t recognize.) Actually, he would be barred for spying, as Shavit admits on p.322. Shavit omits the spying was to direct enemy rocket fire into Israel. He fled the country to avoid trial.

Defense Against Rockets: Yes, as Mr. Shavit writes, Israel has no real strategy for defending the people from terrorists’ rockets. Israel lets terrorists build up their rocket forces & strikes only a few of the known targets when terrorists fire some.

When Israel acts strongly to remove the threat, Leftists and the U.S. howl. Those same howlers nursed their vocal cords when Hamas fired 8,000 rockets at Israel.

Self-Praise: “Enlightened Jews in America and Europe are ashamed of Israel” (p.220). Most Americans favor Israel. Leftists often praise themselves as “enlightened,” etc., to gain standing, but are centuries behind reality in dealing with Islamic aggression.

Claims Israel “Erased Palestine”: Mr. Shavit declares that Israel’s almost miraculous survival & development “erased Palestine” (p.160). No explanation, just hyperbole. A million Arabs live in Israel. Millions more live in the Palestinian Authority & Jordan.

But the Arabs are erasing Jewish historical artifacts on the Temple Mount & destroying Jewish tombs elsewhere. They try to replace the history of Jewish millennia in the area with a false narrative of ancient Palestinian history preceding the 8th century arrival of Arab invaders.

Why does Mr. Shavit present a fabricated Arab narrative?

Defamation in Ari Shavit’s My Promised Land by Richard H. Shulman

2.This is how they can now try to strangle Israel By Giulio Meotti

Shameful US abstention can lead to much harm for Israel, with next steps under review by European Commission. Arutz Sheva 1/1/17 22:21

BDS graffiti sign Photo: Miriam Alster / Flash 90

Giulio Meotti is an Italian journalist with Il Foglio & author of the book “A New Shoah”, that researched personal stories of Israel’s terror victims & of “J’Accuse: the Vatican Against Israel.” His latest book, not yet translated from the Italian, is “The End of Europe: New Mosques & Abandoned Churches.”

UN Resolution number 2334, which condemned as “illegal” all Jewish life in Judea & Samaria thanks to the shameful abstention of the US, can have serious consequences for the Jewish State.

It begins at the Hague Court: any Israeli, civilian or military, involved in the “settlements”, will be liable to judgment for violating the Geneva Convention. The Israeli army, which administers areas B & C, may be indicted if demolishes the homes of terrorists, if it expropriates the land for reasons of “security”, if it plans new Israeli homes. The decision is now in the hands of the Hague prosecutor, Fatou Bensouda, who has already opened an investigation about the “Israeli settlements” believing they constitute a “war crime.” Israeli military personnel & politicians could be subject to warrants if they land in London, as occurred with Tzipi Livni.

The UN resolution is a spectacular victory for the BDS, the boycott of Israel, which already has garnered successes in Europe & is now galvanized by the vote at the UN. Companies involved in the construction of the anti-terrorism fence may be subject to lawsuits in many European countries, such as the Netherlands & England.

The resolution asks the UN Secretary General to report every three months with respect to the resolution, meaning Israel is under special surveillance. The resolution separates Israel from the land occupied by Jordan from 1948 to 1967 (including the Old City of Jerusalem), paving the way for sanctions against Israel, on the mendacious model of apartheid, treating Israel as if it is like the once racist South Africa.

A year ago the European Union approved the labeling of Israeli products beyond the Green Line, & now Israel fears a new wave of measures from Brussels. Banks, oil companies, shopping centers, high tech companies & telephone providers that operate in the so-called Territories can be subject to sanctions.

Next steps are already under review by the European Commission: Israeli banks offering mortgages to homeowners in Judea & Samaria will be exposed to repercussions; retail chains that have stores in Jewish communities in Judea & Samaria may be excluded from the European market; manufacturers using parts made in Israeli factories will be subject to special markings; Israelis living in those communities may lose the privilege that allows today to Israeli citizens to travel to Europe without a visa; Israeli universities in the territories, such as Ariel, can be deprived of recognition Brussels.

The European Council on Foreign Relations, whose proposals come on the table of European legislators, has suggested to put sanctions on some Israeli banks. It is already happening: Deutsche Bank included the Israeli Bank Hapoalim in a list of companies about which investments raise “ethical issues”. So did the largest Danish bank, Danske Bank, while the Swedish Nordea has put under scrutiny Israeli Leumi & Mizrahi-Tefahot. The largest Dutch pension fund, PGGM, withdrew investments from five Israeli institutions. The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Zeid Ra’ad Zeid Al Hussein, is already working on a “black list” of companies.

It is the grand finale of 2016. The West removed the sanctions on Iran to place them on the only open society from Marrakech to Islamabad: the beautiful State of Israel.

This is how they can now try to strangle Israel By Giulio Meotti

3.Britain & Australia more supportive of Israel than Obama & Kerry by Alan M. Dershowitz 12/31/16

When the British Prime minster and the Australians foreign minister both criticize the Obama administration for being unfair to Israel, you can be sure that something is very wrong with what President Obama and Secretary Kerry have been doing. This is what Theresa May said: “We do not believe that it is appropriate to attack the composition of the democratically elected government of an ally. [W]e are also clear that the settlements are far from the only problem in this conflict. In particular, the people of Israel deserve to live free from the threat of terrorism, with which they have had to cope for too long.”2

This is what Julie Bishop, the foreign minister of Australia, said in explaining why Australia would not have voted for the U.N. Security Council resolution: “In voting at the UN, the [Australian] Coalition government has consistently not supported one-­sided resolutions targeting Israel.”

These are only the public criticisms. In private several other countries have expressed dismay at the problems caused by the last minute moves of the lame duck Obama administration.

Initially, the New York Times failed to report these important international developments, presumably because they disagree with them. Only after other media featured the British & Australian criticism did they decide to cover it. They did immediately report that the Jewish community – both in the United States & Israel – is divided between right-­wing Jews who oppose the Obama administration’s moves & liberal Jews who support them.3

This is simply fake news: Israel is not divided over the Security Council’s resolution & the Kerry speech. All Israeli leaders & the vast majority of its citizens opposed these developments. This is true even of the Israeli leftists & centrists who are critical of Israel’s settlement policies. The same is true with regard to American Jews, despite the New York Times reporting to the contrary. Many liberal Jews & non-Jews, including Senators Schumer, Blumenthal, Gillibrand & Wyden have been vocally critical. So have numerous liberal congressmen and pundits.4 I certainly count myself as a liberal Democrat, who opposes Israel’s settlement policies, but who is strongly critical of the Obama/Kerry moves.

Only J Street -­-­ which carries Obama’s water -­-­ has expressed support, along with a few handfuls of hard-­left reform rabbis and professional Israel bashers, who the Times reporter quoted as if they were representative of the larger Jewish community.

In contrast to the relative uniformity of the Israel’s leaders and citizens in opposition to the Obama/Kerry initiatives, the Obama administration itself and the Democratic Party are divided. Most who have expressed views have been critical, but we have not yet heard from several leading Democrats, especially Keith Ellison who is seeking the chairmanship of the DNC. This is an issue on which silence is not a virtue. It is important for all Democrats to stand up and be counted.

There is actually some good news growing out of the Kerry speech. Arab leaders have expressed support for his proposal, which would require the Palestinian Authority to recognize Israel as a Jewish state (or as I prefer to put it “the nation state of the Jewish people.”) Despite this implicit support for such recognition from Arab leaders, the Palestinian Authority adamantly persists in refusing to recognize Israel’s Jewish character.

This is the phony excuse Hanan Ashwari, the official spokesperson for the Palestinian Authority, gave for why it would be “against our principles” to recognize Israel as the nation state of the Jewish people: “If you want to give religion to states, then this is against our principles. I don’t recognize Islamic states. I don’t recognize Christian states. I don’t recognize Jewish states. A state is a state for all its citizens. It has to be Democratic, inclusive, tolerant & has to be genuinely representative of all its people. You cannot give added value to any people because of their religion or ethnicity.”5

This statement may win the award for Ashwari as hypocrite of the year. The Palestinian Authority, which she officially represents, has the following in its Constitution: “Islam is the official religion in Palestine…. The principles of Islamic Shari’a shall be the main source of legislation.”6

Moreover, the Palestinian Authority recognizes Iran, Saudi Arabia, Egypt & Jordan, which are all countries that define Islam as their state religion & discriminate against non-­believers in their particular brand of Islam.

Is Ashwari really saying that the principles of the Palestinian Authority require it to renounce their own Constitution and to withdraw recognition from all their Muslim allies? What about from Great Britain, which has an official state religion? If so, I challenge her to say that explicitly!

Israel is the only state in the Middle East that grants religious equality to all its citizens as a matter of law.7

Israeli Arabs enjoy more rights than do Arabs (let alone Jews) of any Arab state. They serve in all branches of government, including the Knesset and the Supreme Court. They have their own religious authorities recognized by the state.

Contrast this to the Palestinian leadership that has vowed that “not a single” Israeli Jew will be able to reside in the future Palestinian state.8

Furthermore Israeli Jews are banned from Palestinian universities and other institutions.9

So let’s have three cheers for Great Britain & Australia, a cheer & a half for Arab leaders & a big raspberry for the hypocrisy of Hanan Ashwari & her Palestinian Authority.


1Alan M. Dershowitz, Felix Frankfurter Professor of Law, Emeritus & author of Taking the Stand: My Life in the Law

2 Michael Birnbaum, British Leader Theresa May Breaks with John Kerry’s Condemnation of Israel, Washington

3 Adam Nagourney & Sharon Otterman, American Jews Divided Over Strain in U.S.-­Israel Relations, New York Times, Dec. 29, 2016. See also Peter Baker, In ‘Red’ and ‘Blue’ Israel, Separate Lives and Divergent Narratives, New York Times, Dec. 29, 2016

4 Rebecca Kheel, Obama Faces Widespread Backlash After Abstaining from UN Israel Vote, The Hill, 12/23/16. See e.g. Eli Lake, Obama Fulfills His Prophecy on Israeli Settlements, Bloomberg 12/27/16

5 CNN New Day with Don Lemon, Dec. 27, 2016.

6. 2002 Basic Laws, Art. 4, available at­law/2002-­basic-­law

7 Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel, May 14, 1948

8 Abbas: ‘Not a single Israeli’ in future Palestinian state,’ Jerusalem Post, July 30, 2013, available at­East/Abbas-­wants-­not-­a-­single-­Israeli-­in-­future-­Palestinian-­state-­321470

9Amira Hass, When A Ha’aretz Journalist Was Asked To Leave A Palestinian University, 9/28/14

Britain & Australia more supportive of Israel than Obama & Kerry by Alan M. Dershowitz

Yoram will be in the US in 2017, available for speaking engagements.

4.Secretary Kerry’s suspension of disbelief by Amb. Yoram Ettinger

by Ambassador (ret.) Yoram Ettinger, “Second Thought: a US-Israel Initiative”
“Israel Hayom,” December 20, 2016,

The term “suspension of disbelief” refers to well-intentioned subordination of documented-facts and common sense to one’s zeal and wishful-thinking: sacrificing long-term realism on the altar of oversimplification and short-term gratification and convenience.
Secretary Kerry’s December 28, 2016 speech was replete with suspension of disbelief, totally inconsistent with Middle East reality, but consistent with the Secretary’s 31-year foreign policy track record.
Secretary John Kerry’s Middle East track record: Kerry was the top frequent-flying Senator to Damascus, allowing his own idyllic vision of the globe & his hosts’ duplicitous rhetoric to cloud reality. He contended that Hafez & Bashar Assad –2 of the most ferocious, cold-blooded dictators in the world – were constructive leaders, referring to Bashar Assad as a generous reformer & man of his word, while Bashar terrorized his people & facilitated the infiltration into Iraq of Islamic terrorists, whose aim was to murder Americans.

In March 2011, Kerry stated: “My judgment is that Syria will move, Syria will change as it embraces a legitimate relationship with the US & the West….” Indeed, Syria has changed, but contrary to Kerry’s assessment, with 400,000 deaths and 10MN refugees out of 18 million Syrians.
In his 1997 book, The New War (sold by Amazon for $0.01), Kerry demonstrated inclination to dismiss the writing on the wall when in conflict with wishful-thinking: “Terrorist organizations with specific political agendas may be encouraged & emboldened by Yasser Arafat’s transformation from outlaw to statesman.”
In 2012,
Kerry contended the Arab Street was transitioning toward democracy, “the most important geo-strategic shift since the fall of the Berlin Wall.” He referred to the Arab Tsunami as an Arab Spring & to the regime change in Tunisia, Libya, Egypt & Yemen as youth & Facebook revolutions. Kerry supported regime-change in Libya, which has transformed Libya into a leading global platform of Islamic terrorism.
Critical pitfalls of Secretary Kerry’s roadmap to peace:
1. In his December 28, 2016 speech, Secretary Kerry maintained that the crux of the failure to conclude a peace agreement is lack of trust: “Negotiations [between Israel and the Palestinian Authority] did not fail because gaps were too wide, but because the level of trust was too low….”
2. Apparently, Kerry takes lightly the failure of the Palestinian leadership to pass any of the crucial test of its commitment to peaceful coexistence – in 1993 (Oslo Accords), 2000 (Prime Minister Ehud Barak’s unprecedented proposals) & 2005 (the uprooting of all Jewish settlements from Gaza) – by responding to unparalleled Israeli territorial & diplomatic concessions with a dramatic escalation of hate education & terrorism. Such a Palestinian track record should be expected due to the notorious hate-education & incitement, which has been a most effective production-line of terrorists & is the most authentic reflection of the Palestinian strategic goal.
3. Contrary to the Secretary’s observation, the crux of the failure has been the inherent nature of the Palestinian leadership, highlighted by its long-term track record: from waves of anti-Jewish terrorism, through the collaboration with Nazi Germany, the USSR & the East European rogue Communist regimes, the Ayatollah Khomeini, Saddam Hussein, North Korea, Cuba, Venezuela & Islamic, Asian, African, European Latin American terror organizations.
4. While Palestinian leaders are welcome by the US State Department with a “red carpet” Arab leaders welcome them with “shabby rugs” in response to Palestinian violent back-stabbing of Arab hosts – Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Lebanon & most painfully, Kuwait – 1990.
Kerry stated that “the 2-state solution is the only way to achieve a just and lasting peace between Israelis and Palestinians…. The vote in the UN was about preserving the 2-state solution…. The US did vote in accordance with our values….” However, the aforementioned Palestinian leadership track record certifies that a Palestinian state would be another rogue, violent regime, undermining US values & national security, adding fuel to the regional fire, constituting a lethal threat to the vulnerable pro-US Hashemite regime – with potential spillover into Saudi Arabia and the pro-US Gulf states – undermining stability in Egypt, upgrading the potential of a pro-Ayatollah bloc from Teheran to Ramallah, west of the Jordan River, providing port facilities to the Russian (& possibly Chinese & Iranian) Navy in the Eastern Mediterranean & adding another anti-US vote at the already anti-US UN.
6. Once again, Secretary Kerry attempts to scare the Jewish State into reckless concessions, implying that the only way to preserve Jewish demography (majority) is by conceding Jewish geography (the over-towering mountain ridges of Judea and Samaria). Once again, he reverberates inauthentic, manipulated Palestinian statistics & therefore ignores the demographic reality in the combined area of Judea, Samaria & pre-1967 Israel: an
up-trending 66% Jewish majority, featuring an unprecedented Westernization of Arab demography & a robust Jewish demographic (fertility & net-migration).
7. Kerry misled the public when claiming that UN Security Council Resolution 242 “called for the withdrawal of Israel from territory it occupied in 1967 in return for peace and secure borders….”
Kerry failed to indicate that 242 did not stipulate “all the territories” that Israel has already complied with 242 by conceded 90% of the territory by evacuating the entire Sinai Peninsula; & that Israel fought a defensive/pre-emptive war in 1967. He failed to mention that in 1988 Jordan waived its claim to sovereignty over Judea & Samaria (which was recognized only by Britain & Pakistan); & that Israel possesses the best legal title over the area based on Articles 77 & 80 of the UN Charter, which upholds the 1922 League of Nations Mandate for Palestine, aimed to establish a Jewish national home.
8. While Kerry attempts to coax Israel into reliance on security arrangements & guarantees, he fails to indicate that such tools are characterized by non-specificity, non-automaticity & ample escape routes, which may doom Israel on a rainy day. For example, the NATO treaty does not commit the US beyond considering steps on behalf of an attacked NATO member “as it deems necessary”. Furthermore, in 1954, President Eisenhower concluded a defense treaty with Taiwan, to be annulled by President Carter with the support of Congress & the US Supreme Court.
The US’ & Israel’s national security & pursuit of peace, require long-term, tenacious commitment to realism, defiance of oversimplification, short-term convenience & suspension of disbelief; avoiding not repeating critical past errors, which doomed well-meaning peace initiatives.

Secretary Kerry’s suspension of disbelief by Amb. Yoram Ettinger

Yoram Ettinger, Jerusalem, Israel, “Second Thought: US-Israel Initiative,”

5.Martin Indyk is an antisemite By Rafael Medoff/

WASHINGTON—Several Jewish organizations & leaders are expressing alarm over former U.S. diplomat Martin Indyk’s role in the Obama administration’s recent Israel policy moves.

Indyk served as U.S. ambassador to Israel & then assistant secretary of state, 1995-2001, followed by a stint as President Barack Obama’s envoy for Israeli-Palestinian negotiations, 2013-2014.

Reliable Washington sources report that the maps & proposals Indyk and his aides formulated in recent years are still central to the Obama administration’s strategy for the Palestinian issue. Indyk also is said to have remained in contact with key U.S. policymakers even though he left the Obama administration & now serves as executive vice president of the Brookings Institution.
In media interviews & on Twitter in recent days, Indyk has emerged as one of the most vociferous defenders of the Obama administration’s Dec. 23 vote against Israeli settlements at the United Nations. He is also one of the most vocal opponents of President-elect Donald Trump’s nomination of attorney David Friedman as U.S. ambassador to Israel.

Indyk’s credibility is now being called into question, however, as several Jewish organizations are urging him to clarify whether or not he made a series of unusually harsh remarks about Israel & Jews in a tape-recorded private conversation when he was executive director of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, a prominent think tank.

In that conversation, in 1989, Indyk reportedly said Israelis are “paranoid,” “arrogant,” & think that “the rules of society do not apply [to them]” because “they are the goy’s rules.” Connecting Israeli attitudes to what he characterized as Jewish attitudes in general, Indyk reportedly said that “Jews would do whatever they can to avoid paying taxes,” and that Jews believe it is justified to “find a way to ignore the law or get around it.” He added, “In my own family, my grandfather used to stay up nights to figure out how to avoid paying taxes.”

The reported remarks “echo three of the most infamous centuries-old tropes of anti-Semites,” Prof. Eunice G. Pollack, a historian of anti-Semitism and co-editor of the Encyclopedia of American Jewish History, told

“You have an updated version of the classic ‘Jewish swindler,’ combined with the ‘disloyal Jew’ who evades his patriotic duty to pay taxes, and the millennia-old ‘arrogant Jew’ who, in a more religious era, was accused of deriving his arrogance from his partner, Satan,” said Pollack.

Jewish groups want answers.

Indyk has not responded to multiple inquiries from about the statements. The quotations were first raised by the organization AMCHA – the Coalition for Jewish Concerns, headed by Rabbi Avi Weiss, when Indyk was nominated as ambassador to Israel in 1995. But they were not picked up by the news media at the time & were not raised by senators at his confirmation hearing.

Farley Weiss, president of National Council of Young Israel, told, “I hope he didn’t say such things & if he did, I hope he will disavow them. Either way, he needs to address the controversy.”

Sarah Stern, president of the Endowment for Middle East Truth (EMET), a pro-Israel think tank in Washington, said in a statement to that her organization is “calling on Ambassador Indyk to immediately clarify whether or not he made these horrific statements.” Stern said it would be “very ironic” for Indyk to oppose the David Friedman nomination over past statements that Friedman made, “if Indyk made the repulsive remarks he is alleged to have made prior to his own nomination.”

In a tweet that was quoted in The New York Times and elsewhere, Indyk sarcastically asserted that Friedman would be “a great ambassador for the deep settler state. But David Friedman needs to be U.S. envoy to all Israelis. Is he up for that?” In an interview with CNN anchor Chris Cuomo, Indyk said Friedman’s call for moving the U.S. embassy from Tel Aviv to western Jerusalem is “incendiary” because it “would imply that the United States was recognizing Israeli sovereignty over all of Jerusalem, including the Arab part…which has the third-holiest mosque in Islam.”

Rabbi Abraham Cooper, associate dean of the Simon Wiesenthal Center, told that Indyk “forgot to mention that what he calls ‘the Arab part’ of Jerusalem includes a large Jewish community, the Western Wall, the Temple Mount, and the Mount of Olives, which contains the oldest Jewish cemetery in the world. That mosque is the third-holiest site to Islam, but Har Habayit (the Temple Mount) is Judaism’s holiest site.” Cooper said “the current status quo, in which the U.S. does not recognize any part of Jerusalem as sovereign Israeli territory, is patently unfair.”

The Wiesenthal Center, World Jewish Congress, National Council of Young Israel & other Jewish groups have endorsed the Friedman nomination. J Street, Americans for Peace Now & Ameinu oppose it.

EMET’s Stern, for her part, said that Indyk’s “judgment & objectivity” were “severely undermined” 2 years ago, when it was revealed that he had accepted a $14.8-million contribution from the government of Qatar for the Brookings Institution. Qatar is the largest financer of the terrorist organization Hamas.

Adam Kredo, a senior foreign policy writer for the Washington Free Beacon, told that Indyk “is known among reporters for anonymously criticizing Israel in the press, for planting stories meant to pressure the Jewish state into making concessions, [and for] leading the Obama administration’s efforts over the years to discredit Israel & blame it for the failure in peace talks.”

Indyk’s Twitter war:

Indyk took to Twitter this week to accuse Kredo of spreading “fake news” when Kredo reported that Vice President Joe Biden was involved in lobbying on behalf of the U.N. resolution against settlements. Israeli government officials subsequently publicly charged that Biden personally lobbied the government of Ukraine to back the resolution. Biden has denied the accusation.

At the same time, Indyk has been engaged in a Twitter mini-war this week with both an Israeli embassy official & a former colleague. It began with Indyk tweeting that the U.N. resolution was not an attack on Israel but was aimed only at “settlers, who undermine peace negotiations [&] are hurting Israel.” Reuven Azar, deputy chief of mission at the Embassy of Israel in Washington, replied, “Please don’t lie to your followers. This pro-BDS resolution is unprecedented.”

Indyk shot back, “Diplomats are sent abroad to lie for their country. But that doesn’t include accusing people of lying. Leave that to your political bosses.” Azar responded, “We’ll keep fighting for our country & you’ll keep lecturing us.” Indyk sarcastically replied, “Happy Hanukkah to you too.”

Robert Satloff, who serves in Indyk’s former post as executive director of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, weighed in on Azar’s side, tweeting, “I disagree w/my friend @martin_indyk. We’ve tried & failed using chainsaw on settlement issue; it needs a scalpel.”

2 Comments toMartin Indyk is an anti-Semite”

1. SHmuel HaLevi says: December 31, 2016 at 6:55 pm: One of the infamous James Baker “Jewboys”. A truly ghastly maggot & of course an unJew anti-Semite.

2. Sebastien Zorn says: December 31, 2016 at 7:41 pm: Third holiest site my eye. They built that monstrosity on top of our holiest site as a deliberate slight to a conquered people. It should be demolished. They never called it their “third holiest site” before the advent of the Zionist movement & the return. Is he an anti-Semite? Yes, well it would seem to be strongly indykated.

Martin Indyk is an antisemite By Rafael Medoff

6.Jewish American leaders urge France to cancel peace conference

Conference of Presidents call on France to cancel or postpone “ill-conceived” international meeting on Mid-East peace. Arutz Sheva BY Ben Ariel, Canada, 30/12/16 22:26 French Flag by iStockn Leaders of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations on Friday called on French President Francois Hollande to cancel or, at least, postpone the international meeting on Middle East peace his country has scheduled for January 15, 2017 in Paris.

In a statement, Stephen M. Greenberg, Chairman & Malcolm Hoenlein, Executive Vice Chairman & CEO of the Conference of Presidents, called the planned conference “ill-conceived, poorly timed & damaging to prospects for peace.”

“In the aftermath of adoption of UN Security Council Resolution 2334, which was a significant step backward in achieving direct negotiations between Israel & the Palestinians & Secretary Kerry’s speech on Middle East Peace earlier this week, the international community should not plunge forward with the ill-conceived & poorly timed Paris conference,” they said.

“Now is a time for serious reflection on how peace can best be achieved, not for another sham forum in which the usual one-sided outcomes against Israel are the likeliest result. Given significant issues that were raised in the past week which have long term implications for the prospects for peace, proper preparation after serious consultation is essential,” added Greenberg & Hoenlein.

“There are a number of compelling reasons to postpone the conference, including the impending transition to a new U.S. administration on January 20,” the pointed out. “It makes no sense that the next administration is precluded from participating in a discussion of an essential component of U.S. foreign policy with which it will be engaged. Possible outcomes would add further uncertainty that will harm future prospects while unnecessarily inserting a new element of instability to the region.

“While we have received a written assurance that the U.S. will veto any further Security Council resolutions regarding Middle East peace, it may not be able to prevent a damaging outcome of the Paris conference. We urge the U.S. to announce that it will not participate at this time, in light of all the above considerations,” said Greenberg and Hoenlein.

“We call on leaders of all the invited countries, as well as members of the administration and Congress to work to cancel the Paris meeting and refocus on the parties coming together for direct negotiations without pre-conditions. Israel has long sought direct talks, it is time for the Palestinian leaders to stop evading their responsibility and seeking to use international fora to avoid the only true path to a lasting peace,” they concluded.

France has been making ongoing efforts to resume Israel-Palestinian Authority (PA) peace talks which have been at a standstill for more than two years.

Israel has long opposed the French initiative, explaining that the only way to reach a peace agreement is through direct talks with the PA, which the PA refuses, choosing instead to impose preconditions on talks.

Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu told French President Francois Hollande that he was willing to meet PA chairman Mahmoud Abbas “directly, without preconditions”.

Instead of accepting Netanyahu’s invitation for direct talks, Abbas this week yet again imposed preconditions on talks.

In a statement published shortly after Kerry’s speech on the Middle East, Abbas said he was ready to resume peace efforts with Israel “the minute the Israeli government agrees to cease all settlement activities.”

(Arutz Sheva’s North American desk is keeping you updated until the start of Shabbat in New York) Jewish American leaders urge France to cancel peace conference


For Zion’s sake I will not hold my peace & for Jerusalem’s sake I will not rest.” Isaiah 62.

P.O. Box 35661 * Houston, Texas 77235-5661 * E-mail: OUR WEB SITE < >


7.No US Carrier Now In The Mideast By: Christopher P. Cavas, 12/28/16
WASHINGTON – The Dwight D. Eisenhower carrier strike group chopped out of the European theater of operations Dec. 26, headed home to Norfolk after months of operating in the Persian Gulf and the Mediterranean, where the strike jets of Carrier Air Wing 3 flew hundreds of missions against ISIS targets in Syria and Iraq. The homecoming is set for Dec. 30 – two days shy of the Navy’s stated goal of bringing the group home in seven months.
US carrier groups regularly relieve each other in theater, often handing off duties within sight of the other in the Persian Gulf or Arabian Sea. But this time, no carrier is in the Eisenhower’s wake.
The relief ship, the carrier George H. W. Bush, has yet to leave Norfolk – & is unlikely to do so before the Jan. 20 inauguration of the Trump administration, according to a Navy source. The gap could last as long as two months, sources said, between the time the Eisenhower left the combat theater and the Bush arrives.
That gap comes at a particularly inopportune time. Numerous media reports indicate intelligence organizations and analysts are on the lookout for provocative actions by potential antagonists – in particular Russia, China, North Korea, Iran or ISIS. Terror alerts, according to media reports, are high in many regions, including Europe, the Mideast and North America, due to a confluence of factors – the new year, ISIS’ diminishing power in the face of counterattacks in Iraq and Syria, and a natural tendency to test a new administration.
Other Central Command carrier gaps have taken place in the past, usually when a strike group is needed elsewhere or maintenance issues at home have forced ships to deploy late. The Pentagon plans for such events, dispatching expeditionary US Air Force units to the region to pick up the slack, something that seems to have taken place now.
The newest gap is not a surprise, and actually has been months in the making – arguably well over a year. The Bush entered Norfolk Naval Shipyard in Virginia in mid-June 2015 for what started out as a planned six-month repair period, extended just before it began to 8 months. Facing a scheduled early-December 2016 departure date to relieve the Eisenhower group, the initial delay seemed manageable, giving the group nearly 9 months to work through the pre-deployment training cycle.
But the overhaul dragged on well past the March completion date. Navy officials have been sparing at best & sometimes contradictory in explaining why the overhaul took so long – the explanations complicated by multiple oversight commands, including Naval Nuclear Reactors, Naval Sea Systems Command, Naval Air Forces & US Fleet Forces Command. The reasons given ranged from poor planning to emergent work – often unspecified – to the lack of enough trained personnel at Norfolk Naval Shipyard due to previous layoffs & funding interruptions.
In the event, the Bush finally left the shipyard July 23 after more than 13 months in overhaul, facing a drastically compressed training period if the early December date could be met. But the command responsible for training the Bush & her strike group, US Fleet Forces Command, apparently did not have a plan in hand to deal with the short training cycle, although something called the Optimized Fleet Response Plan is supposed to deal with such eventualities. According to several sources, Fleet Forces didn’t hold a major meeting of all parties to determine a way ahead until late August.
Fleet Forces Command has declined numerous requests for comment on the Bush’s situation. The command has not issued a direct statement on its plans for the Bush.
Among the obstacles in getting the training going, several sources, said, were defects on the carrier not addressed during the overhaul.
The Bush is not alone in experiencing delays. The Eisenhower herself missed a deployment due to shipyard & maintenance issues, and had to be spelled in 2015 by the carrier Harry S. Truman. Chronic problems in the Navy’s 4 shipyards, which perform the majority of heavy maintenance work on the carriers, has meant most recent carrier overhauls are running long. Naval Sea Systems Command has acknowledged these problems & is working to restore & improve the work forces in the yards.
But it is not clear why Fleet Forces did not have a training plan in hand even before the Bush returned to the fleet. The ship and its strike group completed their last major pre-deployment exercise Dec. 21, but Navy officials expect another month to go by before the Bush deploys.
The Navy did not respond to a request for comment before this story was posted.
IMRA – Independent Media Review and Analysis

No US Carrier Now In The Mideast

IsraPundit by Ted Belman December 31, 2016

8.Red Russia, Red Jihad & Israel under siege By Cliff Kincaid, RENEW AMERICA

Patrick Buchanan’s provocative column, “Is Europe’s future Merkel or Le Pen?” reflects a limited and bad choice for America and Europe. Both of these leaders serve Russian interests. German Chancellor Angela Merkel’s pro-immigration policies have destabilized Europe, leading to the rise of pro-Putin right-wing political parties. Marine Le Pen of France’s National Front party, one of those pro-Putin political parties, wants to destroy NATO, a long-time Russian goal.

The terrible choices facing the United States mean that we are in the biggest crisis the West has faced since World War II. The dilemma outlined by Patrick Buchanan means that the incoming Trump administration has to recognize that Germany, the most important country in Europe, is in the hands of a Russian agent of influence. Despite running as the candidate of the conservative-leaning Christian Democratic Union, Merkel has destabilized her country and much of Europe by facilitating a Muslim invasion. Her involvement in the Communist Party of East Germany, when it was a major base of Soviet espionage operations, goes a long way toward explaining her curious behavior.
In a column titled,
The Suicide of Germany,” Guy Millière writes, “The attack in Berlin on December 19, 2016 was predictable. German Chancellor Angela Merkel created the conditions that made it possible. She bears an overwhelming responsibility.” He notes, “When she decided to open the doors of Germany to hundreds of thousands of Muslims from the Middle East and more distant countries, she must have known that Jihadists were hidden among the people flooding in. She also must have known the German police had no way to control the mass that entered and would be quickly overwhelmed by the number of people it would have to control. She did it anyway.” (emphasis added)

The “she must have known” formulation is more evidence of a deliberate policy to destabilize Europe. She intends to run for re-election in 2017.

Labeled a “populist” by Buchanan, Marine Le Pen, the leading candidate for the presidency of France in 2017, talks a lot about French sovereignty but acts like a tool of Moscow. Russia Today (RT) propaganda channel highlights her call for “closer ties with Russia” & opposition to U.S.-led NATO.

In events that have shocked the liberal media, Trump and/or his advisers have been reported to be meeting with representatives of European right-wing political parties, some of them pro-Putin. However, Trump’s national security adviser, Lt. Gen. Michael T. Flynn, has written in his own book that there is a Russia connection to Islamic terror networks and “many of the KGB’s safe houses, station headquarters, and secure communications networks were put at the disposal of terror groups.” This implicates Vladimir Putin, former Head of the KGB, in conflicts spilling over into Europe & Israel.

Meanwhile, as commentators in the U.S. criticize the Obama administration for abstaining on the anti-Israel United Nations resolution, it is no surprise that Russia and China both voted for it. Former Republican House Speaker Newt Gingrich did not miss the significance of this anti-Israel vote, commenting, “So Russia having illegally occupied Crimea & eastern Ukraine votes to condemn Israel for ‘occupied lands.’ We are supposed to be impressed.” He might have mentioned China’s own illegal seizures of territory.

“Russia has never ruled Israel,” notes one Israeli commentator, Adam Eliyahu Berkowitz, “but the Russian Army has never stood as close to Jerusalem as it does today.” Professor Efraim Inbar of the Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies tells the publication, “It should be remembered that Russia sides with Iran, supports Hezb’Allah & even has relations with Hamas.”

Turkey, a member of NATO, has since joined with Russia & Iran, the new powers in the region, for talks. It has been forced into the arms of Russia because of the Obama administration’s failure to save Syria from Russian aggression that propped up an unpopular & repressive dictatorship. In truth, Obama helped accelerate the conflict when he ordered his CIA to support “rebels” against the Syrian regime that were linked to Jihadist groups. They were no match for the superior Russian & Iranian forces which intervened on the side of the Syrian regime. Up to 500,000 were killed.

Trump’s decision to move the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem will have symbolic value. But it does nothing to protect Israel from an attack by its regional enemies bearing Russian arms.

One way to turn the tide is to order the CIA out of the terror-supporting business & start shining the light on Russia’s historical links to Islamic terrorism, known as the Red Jihad. These connections, which still exist, are not only a threat to Israel but demonstrate that “Red Russia” is behind the immigration crisis & the Muslim invasion of Europe.

Obama is leaving the White House. His ability to damage Israel & other U.S. allies will soon end. But Putin has only just begun to fight. What’s at stake is the control of Europe & the entire Middle East.

If President Trump falls for Putin’s offers of a truce, he will demonstrate to his political enemies & even his supporters that he was in fact a dupe of the Russians.

Red Russia, the Red Jihad & Israel under siege By Cliff Kincaid

IsraPundit by Ted Belman December 30, 2016

The NYTimes does it again! By Prof Phyllis Chesler, INN

[Gail sez: Oops! I thought I got away from reading the NYT at breakfast in Chicago when I made Aliyah. I had read it as a self-directed “Media Monitor” to see what to write & speak against! Now the NYT is buried in my Jerusalem Post. When will we ever learn not to aid our enemies?]

The NYTimes buried the Holocaust on its back pages during WWII. Today, its front section criticizes Israel in article after article.

The New York Times has done it again! Just when I think they couldn’t possibly be any worse—they have the power to surprise & disgust me anew. 6 days ago, 14 nations on UN Security Council (with America’s abstention), voted in Resolution 2334. We know Obama was behind this resolution. Stay tuned for “iron clad” evidence.

Yesterday, Obama’s Secretary of State, John Kerry, delivered his shameless lecture in which, as Israel’s “friend” he demanded that it commit suicide by appeasing terrorism even further in the pointless, fruitless process known as the “two state solution.”
NYT devotes 5 separate articles, to further buttress & defend Kerry’s vision.

Under a bold headline: Kerry Says Israel Keeps Sabotaging Peace Prospects, we find two articles; both are front page right hand “lead” articles. David E. Sanger (Kerry Rebukes Israel, Calling Settlements a Threat to Peace) spends 1,612 words “voicing frustration at Netanyahu.”

Right next to him, Peter Baker (In John Kerry’s Mideast Speech, a Clash of Policies and Personalities), spends 1,320 words claiming that the “2-state solution nears the end of its shelf life.” Both articles continue on page A10 & take up the entire page. The pull quotes read: “A bluntness rarely heard from U.S. diplomat about a close ally,” & “Kerry plays for history, while Netanyahu & Trump play for time.”

This is not straight news reporting. This is an editorial. Really, it is rank propaganda.

On page A11, opposite, there is another article by Jonathan Martin (Kerry’s Blunt Words for Israel Denounced by Lawmakers in Both Parties). The pull quote here reads: “A speech is greeted warmly in Europe but with a shrug in the Arab world.” This article is 872 words in length.

Not to be Trumped by their own journalists, the NYT editors spend their entire editorial on: “Is Israel Abandoning a Two-State Solution?” The word count here is 1,228 words.

Of course, LYF (Little Tommy Friedman), whose column appears opposite the editorial, spends 901 words in an article titled: Bibi Netanyahu Makes Trump His Chump.

This coverage, which is entirely one-sided & based on falsehoods, distortions & false moral equivalencies, amounts to almost 6,000 words (5,933 words to be exact).

So in Thursday’s Paper of Record we have thousands of words highly critical of Israel & only of Israel. The consistent Palestinian refusal to recognize the Jewish state, to cease their terrorism against it, their refusal of offers of more than 95% of disputed territories—that is both underplayed & never viewed as the main reason that the “peace process” has failed.

Most people don’t read or study entire articles. They’re guided by the headlines, pull quotes & perhaps opening paragraphs. If a presumably distinguished newspaper spends that many words on the same day featuring a single country, this must be major breaking news. Yes?

The first & only mention of Islamic terrorism in today’s paper appears on pg A 12 (Tunisian Detained as Possible Accomplice in Berlin Attack) & concerns a possible accomplice in the Tunisian truck attack in Berlin. We learn nothing about Syria, Iraq, Sudan or Iran. We are not kept apprised of the region’s continual melt-down into barbaric chaos, the vast flood of refugees—especially the horrifyingly under-valued Christian refugees in the region.

I have said this before & I’ll say it again: The New York Times is guilty of the filthiest propaganda when it comes to Israel, Judaism & Islam. It alone has indoctrinated & brainwashed all those who read it, day after day & who swear it is their “Bible.”

May I strongly suggest everyone read Daniel Pipes in the current issue of Commentary? He has written a clear and concise analysis of how Israel itself will be able to make peace. It is titled: “A New Strategy for Israeli Victory.”

Op-ed: The NYTimes does it again! By Prof Phyllis Chesler, INN

Print all


For Zion’s sake I will not hold my peace and for Jerusalem’s sake I will not rest.” Isaiah 62.

FREEMAN CENTER FOR STRATEGIC STUDIES P.O. Box 35661 * Houston, Texas 77235-5661
* E-mail: * OUR WEB SITE < >




MEMRI December 29, 2016 No.
10.Egyptian Daily Close To Egyptian Intelligence Reveals Minutes Of Secret Palestinian Authority Meeting With John Kerry, Susan Rice; U.S.-Palestinian Coordination On UNSC 2334; Rice Says Trump Administration’s Policy Will Be ‘Dangerous’
In mid-December 2016, a Palestinian Authority (PA) delegation met in Washington with officials from the outgoing Obama administration for secret talks. On December 27, the Egyptian daily Al-Youm Al-Sabi’, which is close to Egyptian intelligence services, published an exposé of the minutes of the secret talks. According to the report, by Ahmed Gomaa, the Palestinian delegation included PLO Executive Committee secretary & negotiating team leader Saeb Erekat; Palestinian general intelligence chief Majid Faraj; Husam Zomlot, strategic affairs advisor to Palestinian Authority president Mahmoud ‘Abbas; Palestinian Foreign Ministry official Dr. Majed Bamya;
Palestinian negotiations department official Azem Bishara; Palestinian intelligence international relations department chief Nasser ‘Adwa; & head of PLO delegation to Washington Ma’an Erekat.
The report gave the details of the Palestinian delegation’s schedule during the visit, noting that “the Palestinian side began its meetings on December 12, when Saeb Erekat and Majid Faraj met with U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry. The next day, the two met with National Security Advisor Susan Rice. The entire delegation met with an American team that included four representatives of the Secretaries of State & Homeland Security, for a six-hour political-strategic meeting. Majid Faraj concluded his visit with a lengthy meeting with the CIA chief.”
According to the report, the minutes of the “top secret” meeting of Kerry, Rice, Erekat & Faraj reveals U.S.-Palestinian coordination leading up to the UN Security Council vote on Resolution 2334 regarding Israel’s settlements, which was adopted December 23. It states that the sides “agreed to cooperate in drafting a resolution on the settlements” and that the U.S. representative in the Security Council was “empowered” to coordinate with the Palestinian UN representative on the resolution.
The meeting also, according to the report, was aimed at coordinating Kerry’s attendance at the upcoming international Paris Conference set for January 15, 2017, in order to promote a further international move regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Kerry, it said, offered to propose his ideas for a permanent arrangement “provided that they are supported by the Palestinian side.”
At the meeting, Rice pointed out the “danger” of the incoming Trump administration’s policies, the report stated, adding that both she and Kerry had advised President ‘Abbas to make no preliminary moves that might provoke the new administration. Rice even offered to help arrange a meeting between the Palestinian delegation & a representative from the Trump team, by
enlisting the help of World Jewish Congress president Ronald Lauder.

Also at the meeting, Erekat warned that if the U.S. Embassy was moved to Jerusalem, the Palestinians would call to expel U.S. Embassies from Arab & Muslim capitals, the report said.
The report added that Kerry & Rice had fulsomely praised ‘Abbas’s policies & how he handled matters & harshly criticized Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu, saying that he “aims to destroy the two-state solution.”
It should be mentioned that both Kerry & Erekat have denied there was any U.S.-Palestinian coordination in drafting the Security Council resolution.[1]
Following are excerpts from the Al-Youm Al-Sabi’ report:[2]
The report in Al-Yawm Al-Sabi’
U.S. Representative To The Security Council Coordinated With Palestinian UN Representative On The Issue Of The Resolution Condemning The Settlements
According to the Al-Youm Al-Sabi’ report, “the minutes of the meeting – which was attended by U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry & National Security Advisor Susan Rice & on the Palestinian side by PLO Executive Committee Secretary & negotiations team leader Saeb Erekat & head of
Palestinian general intelligence Maj,-Gen. Majid Faraj – reveals that the sides agreed to collaborate regarding a resolution on the settlements.”

According to the report, “during the meeting, the American side focused on coordination of positions between Washington and Ramallah regarding the resolution on the settlements, which was brought to a vote in the Security Council and adopted several days ago…”
The report stated that “the minutes of the meeting reveal American-Palestinian coordination regarding the resolution on the settlements” and that Kerry and Rice stressed that “they were willing to cooperate with a balanced resolution, and that Washington’s UN mission was authorized to discuss this matter with the Palestinian representative to the UN, Ambassador Riyad Mansour.” It continued: “The U.S.’s representative to the Security Council coordinated with the Palestinian ambassador on the issue of the resolution condemning the settlements.”

Coordinating Kerry’s Attendance At International Conference In France
The delegation also attempted to coordinate Kerry’s attendance at the Paris Conference, which will take place January 15, 2017, to promote a further international move for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, according to the report. “As for the French initiative, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry
said that he could not attend [the conference if it were to be held] December 21-22, but stressed that he could [attend it if it were to be held] after January 9. The Palestinian delegation stressed that ‘Abbas had contacted the French side, and that it had expressed its willingness to postpone the international conference [in Paris] so that the American secretary of state could attend.”

Possibility Of Kerry Presenting His Ideas For Permanent Solution
According to the report, “Kerry raised the possibility of presenting ideas for a permanent solution, provided that they are supported by the Palestinian side… and this refers to principles that have already been raised as part of the Framework Agreement.[3] He also proposed that the
Palestinian delegation travel to Saudi Arabia to discuss these points, but according to the minutes, he did not contact the Saudis on this matter. [Additionally,] according to the minutes of the meeting, National Security Advisor Susan Rice rejected & ridiculed, the offer to propose ideas, arguing that the [incoming] administration of Republican President Donald Trump will completely oppose them.”

Rice “Stressed The Danger Posed By The Trump Administration”
Rice, the report stated, “stressed the danger posed by the Trump administration, which could take a position different from that of all American administrations since 1967 on the issue of Palestine and Israel. She emphasized that she took seriously statements about moving the U.S.
Embassy to Jerusalem and the Trump administration’s view of the settlements.”
Kerry & Rice “advised PA President Mahmoud ‘Abbas to not take any preliminary steps that could provoke the Trump administration, such as, or ending security coordination with Israel,” said the report, adding: “They [also] stressed the need to avoid military action or martyrdom [attacks], as these would greatly jeopardize the Palestinian position.”
“They praised substantial efforts of the PA security apparatuses, specifically Palestinian [general] intelligence, led by Majid Faraj, part of what they called ‘the struggle against terrorism.’ [The two] maintained that Palestinian-American collaboration in this area is among the closest of all coordination between American apparatuses & security forces in the region.”

Rice Offered To Organize Meeting Between Ronald Lauder & Palestinian Delegation
“According to the minutes of the meeting, Susan Rice asked whether the Palestinian delegation could meet with a representative from Donald Trump’s team. She clarified that she could request intervention & could organize this by means of World Jewish Congress President Ronald Lauder. Saeb Erekat responded that he had already asked but that Lauder could not. He added: ‘We were told that they were still organizing the new administration & that once they were done, they would officially meet with the Palestinian side.'”
Erekat: If U.S. Embassy Is Moved To Jerusalem, We Will Call To Expel U.S. Embassies From Arab & Muslim Countries

“When Susan Rice asked what the Palestinian response would be if the U.S. Embassy was moved to Jerusalem, or if a new settlement bloc was annexed.” Erekat responded: ‘We will directly and immediately join 16 international organizations, withdraw the PLO’s recognition of Israel & cut back our security, political & economic ties with the Israeli occupation regime, & we
hold it fully responsible for the PA’s collapse. Furthermore, we will [call] on the Arab & Islamic peoples to expel U.S. Embassies from their capitals.’

Rice answered Erekat by saying: ‘It seems that future matters could be very complicated, and we are all apprehensive about sitting down with Erekat because of his absolute knowledge of these matters & because of his memory & his sincerity.’ She expressed the American side’s
respect & friendship for Erekat & apologized for yelling at him in March 2014.”

“The Palestinian Delegation Officially Demanded That The Law…

Designating The PLO A Terrorist Organization Be Rescinded”
According to the report, “the Palestinian side officially demanded that the 1987 U.S. law designating the PLO a terrorist organization be rescinded.[4] Furthermore, both sides agreed to establish a bilateral commission to examine visa requests from Palestinians & entry & movement visas for Palestinian leadership in the U.S.”
Part of the minutes published in the report
Kerry, Rice Congratulate ‘Abbas

“For His Stunning Success At Fatah’s Seventh General Conference”
“The Palestinian delegation thanked Kerry and Rice, and expressed Palestinian President Mahmoud ‘Abbas’s esteem for the views of U.S. President Barack Obama, Advisor Rice & Secretary Kerry & particularly for Kerry’s speech at the Saban Forum in early December,” the report stated & added that the two U.S. officials had congratulated ‘Abbas “for his stunning success at Fatah’s Seventh General Conference and for his long & courageous speech (like those given by the late Cuban ruler Fidel Castro), during which he reiterated his positions & founding principles regarding his adherence to the peace process & his opposition to violence & terrorism in all forms.”
Also according to the report, Erekat and Faraj asked Kerry and Rice “to stress in the reports of the transition to the new administration that Palestinian President Mahmoud ‘Abbas, the PLO & the PA are partners in the peace process & that the Palestinian president & security apparatuses are strategic partners in the struggle against terrorism on the regional & international [levels].
“[They asked] that it be emphasized that there would be bilateral Palestinian-American committees in all areas (healthcare, education, agriculture, tourism, sports, trade, security, women, youth & more) & that the new administration would oversee them together with Palestinian Prime Minister Dr. Rami Hamdallah.” Additionally, the possibility of “establishing a joint database together with the Palestinian ambassador to Washington & a representative from Palestinian general intelligence” was raised.
Kerry & Rice said, according to the report, that “all the above matters will head the transitional report now being prepared by the team of the outgoing president, Barack Obama, for the new American administration.” They also “praised ‘Abbas’s courage, positions, leadership & adherence to the culture of peace & to peace as a strategic option, in addition to his opposition to violence & terrorism, to the ongoing security coordination & to his being considered a uniquely strategic & courageous leader in the Middle East. The success of [Fatah’s] Seventh General Conference. They [said], had effectively ended attempts by Muhammad Dahlan & others
to weaken President ‘Abbas, who must now act to tighten his relationship

with Saudi Arabia, Jordan, & Egypt.”[5]
It continued: “Rice asked the Palestinian delegation to convey U.S. President Barack Obama’s gratitude to Palestinian President Mahmoud ‘Abbas for honoring all his commitments to him, and added:
‘Abbas was open & honest regarding all his commitments, especially regarding [Palestine] refraining from joining the 16 international organizations [as a member state].'”
Kerry & Rice also said that it was necessary “to continue American-Palestinian, Israeli-Palestinian & American-Israeli-Palestinian security cooperation in all fields.” In this context, said the report, Faraj stressed that “the cooperation between Palestinian security apparatuses [and
Israel] is carried out according to the clear & direct order of PA President Mahmoud ‘Abbas.”

Kerry & Rice: “Netanyahu Aims To Destroy The Two-State Solution”
Kerry and Rice stressed that “Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu aims to destroy the two-state solution & Dr. Saeb Erekat foresaw Netanyahu’s plan to create one state with two systems four years ago. The two said that Erekat’s prediction was highly accurate & that all Netanyahu has to offer is maintaining the status quo, in addition to guarantees to improve
[Palestinian] living conditions,”
the report stated.
“John Kerry & Susan Rice Asked That The Meetings Be Classified ‘Top Secret'”
Finally, the report stated: “John Kerry and Susan Rice asked that the meetings be classified ‘Top Secret’ and that what went on in them not be leaked, in light of the sensitivity of the transition between the two U.S. administrations.”
“The Palestinian delegation,” it said, “asked Kerry & Rice to reexamine the financial aid to the PA & not to reduce it, as they did when they cut it from $150 million in 2011 to $100 million in 2012, with the current aid proposal being only $39 million. According to the meeting’s minutes, the
Palestinian side revealed that [U.S.] financial aid to the PA was $400-$500 million between 2008 and 2013 & was cut to $370 million in 2014 and 2015, & then cut again to $290 million in 2016.[6]
“The Palestinian side praised the American administration’s aid to UNRWA, which averaged $277 million per year between 2009 & 2016 & asked for it to be increased in order to cover UNRWA’s $101 million deficit in 2016.”
[1], December 28, 2016. [2] Al-Yawm Al-Sabi’ (Egypt), December 27, 2016.
[3] The Framework Agreement was proposed by Kerry in February 2014. According to Thomas Friedman of the New York Times, this agreement included: Gradual Israeli withdrawal from the West Bank; Israel retaining some West Bank settlements in return for Israeli land given over to Palestinian control; security arrangements in the Jordan Valley for Israel’s defense; Palestinian recognition of Israel as a Jewish state within the 1948 borders; a right of return to the 1967, rather than the 1948, borders & a Palestinian capital in East Jerusalem.
[4] 22 USC Ch. 61 designates the PLO as a terrorist organization, banning it from operating in the U.S. See
[5] See MEMRI Inquiry & Analysis No. 1283, Fatah’s Seventh General Conference Will Convene Under The Shadow Of The ‘Abbas-Dahlan Struggle, November 28, 2016; Inquiry & Analysis No. 1282, The ‘Abbas-Dahlan Power Struggle Over The Palestinian Presidential Succession, Nov. 28, 2016; Special Dispatch No. 6684, Reports In Arab Press: ‘Abbas Resisted Arab League Pressure To Appoint Successor – Despite Threats Of Sanctions Against Him, Nov. 18, 2016; Inquiry & Analysis No. 1270, Tension Between Mahmoud ‘Abbas, Arab Quartet Over Initiative For Internal Reconciliation In Fatah, Sept. 27, 2016; & Inquiry & Analysis No. 1290, Fatah’s Seventh General Conference Bolsters ‘Abbas’s Standing; Contradictory Messages In ‘Abbas
Statements On Terror, Negotiations With Israel, December 21, 2016.
[6] All conflicting numbers mentioned above appear as is in the report.
© 1998-2016,
The Middle East Media Research Institute

All Rights Reserved. Materials may only be cited with proper attribution.
IMRA – Independent Media Review and Analysis

About the Author

Gail Winston is co-founder of the Winston International Institute for the Study of Prejudice.

Leave a Reply