1,000 Jurists to EU: Settlements are Legal - Mammoth petition delivered to Catherine Ashton states: ’1967 lines’ don’t exist.

1,000 Jurists to EU: Settlements are Legal - Mammoth petition delivered to Catherine Ashton states: ’1967 lines’ don’t exist.HT: INN.By Gil Ronen.

A mammoth jurists’ petition delivered to European Union foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton states that the EU is wrong in holding that Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria are illegal, and that the term “1967 lines” does not exist in international law.

The letter is signed by over 1,000 jurists worldwide.

Among the signatories are former justice minister Prof. Yaakov Ne’eman; former UN Ambassaor Dr. Meir Rosen; Britain’s Baroness Prof. Ruth Deech, Prof. Eliav Shochetman and Prof. Talia Einhorn. They include legal scholars from the U.S., Australia, Belgium, Bolivia, Brazil, Canada, Switzerland, Chile, Czechoslovakia, Greece, India, Ireland, Italy, Mexico, Malta, Holland, Norway, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, Taiwan, South Africa, Sweden and, of course, Israel.

The man behind the initiative is Dr. Alan Baker, Israel’s former ambassador to Canada and legal adviser to the Foreign Ministry, who currently heads the International Action Division of the Legal Forum for Israel.

Baker was also a member of the three-person committee headed by former Supreme Court judge Edmond Levy, known as the Levy Committee, which pronounced that Judea and Samaria were not occupied territory.

Dr. Baker explained to Arutz Sheva that there is “no such thing” as the 1967 lines. “There never was such a thing. The matter of the borders is on the agenda of the negotiations, The EU cannot dictate a subject that is on the agenda of the negotiations. The pre-1967 lines are (1949) armistice lines. These are not recognized lines or security lines. In the Oslo process, it was agreed between us and the Palestinians that the matter of borders will be negotiated. The term ’1967 lines’ does not appear anywhere in our agreement with the Palestinians, therefore it is a legal and factual aberration to determine that these are our lines.”

“The second thing is the determination that the settlements are illegal according to international law. It is true that most of the world thinks so, but that does not make it true legally. Legally, the clause in the Geneva Convention that they use to say that settlements are illegal, was not intended to refer to cases like our settlements, but to prevent the forced transfer of populations by the Nazis. This is not relevant to the Israeli settlements.”Read the full story here.

Why is Pres Obama spending hours at the Israel Museum but not going near the Western Wall?

Why is Pres Obama spending hours at the Israel Museum but not going near the Western Wall? (TOI).By Raphael Ahren. Yad Vashem but not the Knesset, the Church of the Nativity but not the Western Wall, the Israel Museum but not Masada. In a visit as high-profile as US President Barack Obama’s Wednesday-to-Friday stay in Israel, every stop on the itinerary is laden with political significance. So, too, every location left out.

So why is Obama doing what he’s doing, going where he’s going, and avoiding what he’s avoiding? Here’s a chronological guide.

At around 12:15 p.m., Air Force One will land at Ben Gurion Airport and Barack Obama will step on Israeli soil for the first time since becoming president four years ago. He is traveling without his wife Michelle, because the first lady’s unofficial policy is not to go abroad while school is in session, so her daughters don’t stay home alone or miss class. Secretary of State John Kerry will be with Obama at every step of the way.

President Shimon Peres and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu will be on site to greet Obama with welcoming speeches. The two presidents will inspect an honor guard, and then Obama himself will make his first short speech.

He will go on to visit a battery of the Iron Dome missile defense system, brought to the airport for his convenience.(Read 'Protection').

But if Obama truly sought to highlight the Jewish connection to the land of Israel, why not visit the Western Wall?
One minor reason: On his last visit to Judaism’s holiest site, in 2008, after he placed a note in one of the cracks, nosy Israeli reporters took it out and published it, causing a small scandal. (For the extremely curious: the note reportedly stated: “Lord — protect my family and me. Forgive my sins, and help me guard against pride and despair. Give me the wisdom to do what is right and just. And make me an instrument of your will.”)

Then an Illinois senator and presidential candidate, Obama was heckled by locals that day, with one man shouting at him for minutes on end. “Obama, Jerusalem is our land! Obama, Jerusalem is not for sale!”

“I was expecting more reverence,” Obama told reporters later.

More substantively, Obama’s decision to skip the Wall this time has to do with the political implications of such a visit. The Old City lies beyond the pre-1967 lines, and Israel’s annexation of East Jerusalem has not been recognized by the international community. A US president visiting the site under the auspices of his Israeli hosts would trigger diplomatic headaches he evidently prefers to live without.

For the record, Bill Clinton and George W. Bush also avoided the Wall when they visited as presidents. Next up, Obama’s much-anticipated speech to the Israeli public — especially young Israelis — at the International Convention Center. Why didn’t he choose to speak in the Knesset? His last two predecessors did: Clinton in 1994 and Bush in 2008.

According to Rhodes, the Israeli government “did not express a strong preference in that regard.

A possible concern: the fear of being heckled by right-wing MKs. Freshman Likud lawmaker Moshe Feiglin, for example, had threatened to walk out if Obama dared to show up without Jonathan Pollard, the Israeli spy who is serving a life term in an American prison. It was not his way “to shout and make a scene,” Feiglin said, but “on the other hand, how could I sit quietly and honor the president of the nation that has imprisoned our brother Jonathan for 28 years?”Read the full story here.

Obama leaking US-Israel plans for Iran in bid to help his re-election campaign.

Obama leaking US-Israel plans for Iran in bid to help his re-election campaign.HT: IsraelMatzav.The Obama administration has once again leaked plans to attack Iran's nuclear weapons program, although this time they are telling the media that the United States will be part of the attack. The United States and Israel are considering a surgical strike on Iran's nuclear enrichment facilities, Foreign Policy magazine says. Based on a source reported to be close to discussions between the sides, the report published Monday maintains the strike may only take "a couple of hours" involving a "day or two," and would be conducted using "primarily bombers and drone support."
If such a strike is carried out it would set the Iranian nuclear program back many years, the report said and would do so without civilian casualties. Benefits of such a strike would be regional, Foreign Policy says. It quotes an unnamed advocate saying the outcome would be "transformative" -- "saving Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, reanimating the peace process, securing the (Persian) Gulf, sending an unequivocal message to Russia and China, and assuring American ascendancy in the region for a decade to come." Such a strike cannot be conducted by Israel alone and would require the involvement of the United States, "whether acting alone or in concert with Israel and others," the report says. The report maintains that taking into account the progress made between Israel and the U.S. administration in recent weeks, such a strike would be the easiest way for President Barack Obama to defuse Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney's critique on Iran. Emphasis added is mine. As you all know, I am in favor of attacking Iran, and would especially be pleased to see the US be a part of it. But this reeks of a political move to help Obama's reelection campaign, and its being leaked to the media (even if 'just' to a reporter at Foreign Policy) seems designed to gain a political advantage from the plans as soon as possible. What price will Israel to be expected to pay for this 'gift'?Hmmmmm.......How about " pre-1967 War armistice lines?"Read the full story here.

Obama's Israel “Auschwitz Borders” Policy.

Obama's Israel “Auschwitz Borders” Policy.(INN).By Mark Langfan.

A close analysis of President Obama’s May 19, 2011 Middle East Policy Speech shows where he may be heading if reelected - from a militarized Palestinian State to bringing in the "refugees". 

In 1967, it was Abba Eban, the left-leaning Israel Ambassador to the UN, that equated the Green Line or the pre-1967 War armistice lines to “Auschwitz Borders.” In 2012, President Obama has been touted by some as “no better friend of Israel.” However, President Obama’s current 2012 Israel policy on Israel is unchanged from his famous May 19, 2011 speech at the US State Department where Obama clearly defined his policy was one of pushing Israel back to the Auschwitz borders of the 1967 Green Line.
Obama’s Democratic defenders falsely claimed in 2011, and now, in 2012, that Obama’s “Israel Policy” is “nothing new” and merely a continuation of decades of American policy. America’s decade-old policy has been “defensible borders,” and the 1967 ceasefire lines are “a New Holocaust Borders.” Now that President Obama faces reelection, and a possible second-term unbridled by the politics of getting re-elected, Obama’s May 19, 2011 speech may very well become Obama’s blueprint for a second term 2013 “surprise.”

Therefore it is vital to carefully revisit President Obama’s policy of “Auschwitz Borders” for Israel as defined in his 2011 speech, so as to avoid Obama’s “dream” from becoming America’s and Israel’s “nightmare” in 2013. 

The following is an analysis of President Obama’s May 19, 2011 Middle East Policy Speech: Obama Text May 19, 2011: The borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps, so that secure and recognized borders are established for both states. The Palestinian people must have the right to govern themselves, and reach their potential in a sovereign and contiguous state. As for security, every state has the right to self-defense, and Israel must be able to defend itself- by itself- against any threat. . . . The full and phased withdrawal of Israeli military forces should be coordinated with the assumption of Palestinian security responsibility in a sovereign, non-militarized state. . .. (Bold added.) Obama clearly stated US policy was now that the new Palestinian West Bank/Gaza must have "secure" borders against Israel. But since, Obama also stated that "every state has the right to self-defense," by direct implication, and under any objective legal reading, Obama additionally asserted a new US policy that Palestine, as a sovereign “state,” has “the right to self-defense” against, who else, but, Israel. 
A “secure” West Bank Palestine State with a “right to self-defense” against Israel is not only a new US policy, but a prescription for a devastating war against Israel launched from the soon to be created Palestinian State. Also, if Palestine, as a “sovereign” state, has the inherent and unalienable “right to self-defense,” it most certainly has the inherent and unalienable "right" to arm itself for "self-defense." Obama's explicit “recognition” of the Palestinian State’s "right of self-defense" rendered meaningless Obama's later oxymoronic speech reference to the “assumption of Palestinian security responsibility in a sovereign, non-militarized state.” A “sovereign” state and a “non-militarized state” are mutually exclusive and contradictory terms. The very essence of “sovereign” means, as Obama defined earlier: the right to self-defense.
Therefore, Obama’s formulation of “non-militarization” is rendered a nullity by his dual assertions of the “right to self-defense” and “sovereignty.” Obama’s empowerment of Palestine of “right to self-defense” and hence arm, explicitly contradicted and derogated the UN Resolution 242.2(c) which specifically calls for the “establishment of demilitarized zones,” not “non-militarized” areas, and half a century of US Middle East peacemaking policy. As for Obama’s passing platitudes of “non-militarized” Palestinian areas, Hitler's "demilitarized" Rhineland was militarized in one day, a Vietnam’s “demilitarized” zone was violated practically before the ink was dry in Paris. 
But assuming arguendo that Obama’s “non-militarized” has some actual meaning, how is Obama exactly proposing to disarm and render “non-militarized” Iran’s Hamas state of Gaza? Is Obama suggesting that the same UNIFIL troops that utterly failed to “disarm” Hizbullah of its 40,000 Iranian rockets in South Lebanon should now be sent to Gaza to utterly fail to “disarm” Hamas of its 10,000 Iranian rockets? Or, is Obama suggesting NATO be charged to disarm Hamas of its 10,000 rockets, anti-air and Russian Kornet anti-tank weapons Gaza now possesses? 

Or what is most probable - that Obama is knowingly and purposively planning to leave Iran’s Hamas Gaza state full of tens of thousands of Katyusha and Kassam rockets, and then, nevertheless, force Israel to evacuate and surrender the West Bank to the “1967 lines”. 

For in the same 19 May speech, Obama explicitly stated the already highly militarized Iranian controlled Hamas Gaza State is going be territorially “contiguous” with the new "West Bank"state. So in effect, under Obama’s new US policy, the West Bank Palestinian state will be at least as militarized with the over 10,000 Iranian rockets as the militarized Gaza state is now, or even perhaps the 40,000 Iranian rockets that Hizbullah now possesses where Hizbullah isn’t even a “sovereign” state with the “right of self-defense.” Obama new US Israel Policy, again, is not a prescription for peace, but a guarantee of a Palestinian Islamic Jihadist war launched from the "West Bank" intending to annihilate the 6 million Jews of Israel. 

Further, Obama has infinitely empowered the Palestinians to unilaterally not to "mutually agree" to anything other than, or more than, the ceasefire “1967 lines.” Then, and only after Israel has ceded to the ceasefire “1967 lines,” and presumably evacuated to the “1967 lines,” does Obama say there can be a “foundation” upon which there will begin a second, “wrenching” discrete negotiations on the further division of Jerusalem, and the right of return of the 4.62 Million UNRWA 1948/49 War “Palestinian refugees”.
So by very definition, all Obama is actually requiring the Palestinians to “agree” to do to get the entire area of Judea and Samaria is that they merely agree to only to the ceasefire “1967 lines,” and not a simultaneous “[t]ermination of all claims or states of belligerency. . .” against Israel, as is explicitly required under Resolution 242, and 50 years of US policy. In short, no US President, no US official has ever bifurcated the "Peace Process" into a first "phase," where Israel must first cede the lheartlands of Judea and Samaria to the Palestinian Arabs, and then in a discrete second "phase" where Israel would have to additionally further negotiate about the rights of return of 4.62 Million "Palestinian refugees" into pre-1967 “Green Line” Israel, and to also additionally negotiate about the “[t]ermination of all claims. . .” of the 4.62 Million Palestinians against Israel. Obama’s new bi-furcated scheme is a total refutation of UN Resolution 242 itself, and a mockery of 50 years of US peacemaking.
Again, Obama's phased, “1967 ‘ceasefire’ lines first, 4.62 Million UNRWA ‘Palestinian refugees’ later” scheme is not an old US policy, but a new unimaginable Obama US policy which is a prelude to a New Holocaust. 
By Obama explicitly endorsing Israel’s return to the “1967 lines” first, while explicitly leaving open the “emotional issues” of the “right of return” of the unsatisfied 4.62 Million Palestinians, Obama is giving the Palestinians the very pretext to the “self-defense” of their rights of the “Palestinian refugees” they need to fire from the West Bank thousands of their missiles into the pre-1967 Israel which will unquestionably bring the annihilation of Israel of 6 Million Jews.

Obama is not seeking peace, but appears to be maliciously planning a future 2012 Presidential debate sound bite where he can falsely deflect the true cause of $4 a gallon gasoline US gas prices away from the unmitigated failures of his own “signature” foreign and energy “policies” onto the easy scapegoats of the our true ally Israel, and onto loyal American Jews who support Israel. Obama’s “larger cost” speech line is nothing but grotesque, base anti-Semitic baiting vitriol to mask Obama’s policy failures. 

In conclusion, a closer read of Obama's 19 May speech proves that is not only a betrayal of Israel, but also, if left unchecked, a betrayal of vital American national security interests and of American values.

No amount of Democratic Orwellian “doublespeak” can hide the plain anti-Israel, anti-Semitic text of Obama’s speech proves that Obama’s new Israel policy is a mortal danger to Israel, and to the United States.

Hmmm......Obama: "But I’m also mindful of the proverb, “A man is judged by his deeds, not his words.” So if you want to know where my heart lies, look no further than what I have done — to stand up for Israel."Read the full story here.