Peace In Our Weekend

Haven't you always wanted to send your money directly to imprisoned terrorists? Well now you can thanks to cooperation between the Obama Administration and the Palestinian Authority which will now be paying salaries to imprisoned terrorists. The PA doesn't have much of a tax base, except the Americans, Israelis and Europeans who serve as their tax base.

A law published in the official Palestinian Authority Registry last month grants all Palestinians and Israeli Arabs imprisoned in Israel for terror crimes a monthly salary from the PA.

The latest US contribution to the PA budget\Adopt a Terrorist is a quarter of a billion.

---

Is all that money worth it? Well let's do the math. Obama is trying to win over the Muslim world. His approval rating is down across the Muslim world. But in the Palestinian Authority, he's actually up by 3 points. What's some 250 million to pay the salaries of terrorists in order to get a three point approval hike from... terrorists. Obama shouldn't pop the Halal champagne just yet. Al Qaeda is still 10 points ahead of him. But with enough money, he could get to within 5 points of Osama bin Laden. In other good news, Osama Obama helped take down Egypt's somewhat moderate government and only ended up with a three point approval hike in Egypt. What does the man have to do to get some Muslim respect? Put on a turban and make videos denouncing America? How about 1 out of 2.

SPEECH, SPEECH

Obama hit up the Latinos and then will head off to hit up the Jews at AIPAC. But Latinos weren't too thrilled despite Obama's endorsement of the DREAM Act. They read it for what it is, a politically motivated campaign stop. And the Israel section of the speech was just an elaboration of the musical version of it recorded a while back His Arab Spring section was equally hollow. A collection of platitudes aspiring to historicity. Swollen with the cliches of the Arab Spring. The Israel section has gotten the most attention, which is not what Obama and his speechwriters intended. This was supposed to boost his foreign policy credentials and reach out to Muslims. Again. But the speech was more revealing in what it didn't say.

The United States supports a set of universal rights. And these rights include free speech, the freedom of peaceful assembly, the freedom of religion, equality for men and women under the rule of law, and the right to choose your own leaders -– whether you live in Baghdad or Damascus, Sanaa or Tehran.

That last bit endorsed democracy in Syria, Yemen and Iran. But avoided mentioning Bahrain, where a Sunni minority allied to Saudi Arabia rules. Instead Obama called for the Bahraini government to work together with the opposition and stop arresting and suppressing protests. It's a basic difference that shows a double standard. His new justification for continuing the Libyan war, without congressional authorization, was even more hollow

Had we not acted along with our NATO allies and regional coalition partners, thousands would have been killed. The message would have been clear: Keep power by killing as many people as it takes

Thousands? Seriously. Hypothetical thousands. That would have been a slow day in the park for Saddam. And yet Obama opposed a war to remove Saddam from power. Obama did give a shout out to the Copts

Such tolerance is particularly important when it comes to religion. In Tahrir Square, we heard Egyptians from all walks of life chant, “Muslims, Christians, we are one.” America will work to see that this spirit prevails -– that all faiths are respected, and that bridges are built among them. In a region that was the birthplace of three world religions, intolerance can lead only to suffering and stagnation. And for this season of change to succeed, Coptic Christians must have the right to worship freely in Cairo, just as Shia must never have their mosques destroyed in Bahrain.

But clearly he doesn't understand what the word Must means. Not when he's giving Egypt a blank check on aid and backing up his call for Coptic freedom with nothing except some hollow chatter about bridge building. Taken together the speech reminds me of a New York Times article on the region. Full of glowing sentiment, humanitarian impulses and nothing on tap but talk of pumping money into a dry well. The signals on Israel were more mixed and often subtle. Obama defined Israel as a core interest and then went on to say that America had to move beyond core interests and commitments to friends and partners, and engage the broader aspirations of Muslims. He once again blamed the conflict for larger problems in the Middle East, though he did it in more understated terms, but the same slander that the last year's turmoil has disproved was still there. The phrasing also dispensed blame in a particular pattern. "Israeli settlement activity continues. Palestinians have walked away from talks." The implication being that the former caused the latter. There is no mention of continuing terrorism. Obama goes on to push for more progress, despite events in the region. Plays the "Tough Love" card by saying, "But precisely because of our friendship, it’s important that we tell the truth: The status quo is unsustainable, and Israel too must act boldly to advance a lasting peace." The 'too' is a farcical touch, as it implies that he has laid out something bold that the other side must do. When all he's done is mention that they should stop the violence and recognize Israel. Existing obligations that they never met. Of course the status quo is unsustainable. But the status quo is the peace process and the splinter terrorist state stabbed into Israel's heart. And all Obama is doing is calling for a perpetuation of it. The next section ramped up the hostility

The international community is tired of an endless process that never produces an outcome. The dream of a Jewish and democratic state cannot be fulfilled with permanent occupation.

The 'international community', the royal diplomatic we, is tired. And it's Israel fault. Of course. The dream has actually been fulfilled already. But not according to Obama, which tells us more about his view of Israel, than he meant us to know.

Now, ultimately, it is up to the Israelis and Palestinians to take action. No peace can be imposed upon them -- not by the United States; not by anybody else... The United States believes that negotiations should result in two states, with permanent Palestinian borders with Israel, Jordan, and Egypt, and permanent Israeli borders with Palestine. We believe 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 full potential, in a sovereign and contiguous state.

The contradiction isn't too hard to spot. We won't impose it, but we believe this is what has to be done. Of course it's not possible for both Israel and Terroristine to be contiguous states at the same time.

Now, let me say this: Recognizing that negotiations need to begin with the issues of territory and security does not mean that it will be easy to come back to the table. In particular, the recent announcement of an agreement between Fatah and Hamas raises profound and legitimate questions for Israel: How can one negotiate with a party that has shown itself unwilling to recognize your right to exist? And in the weeks and months to come, Palestinian leaders will have to provide a credible answer to that question.

Ah a question. There's no statement that the Palestinian Authority cannot maintain such an agreement with Hamas, rather their representatives need to have a credible answer for why they should be able to maintain such an agreement. This is the closest to a pointed demand that gets made of Terroristine. Most of the responsibility gets placed on Israel. Again. The speech could have been worse, but it's generally on par with what Obama has been saying all along. Which is, "We're ignoring the Bush era oral agreement. We demand that Israel solve the situation with more concessions. Israel is to blame for 70 percent of the problem, but maybe the other side gets 30 percent of the blame." The only saving grace is that O didn't explicitly call for dividing Jerusalem, and that was only because it's an election season. But since his policies compel it anyway, it's less of a saving grace and more of a calculated dishonesty. Caroline Glick gets to the heart of the matter

Quite simply, Obama's speech represents the effective renunciation of the US's right to have and to pursue national interests. Consequently, his speech imperils the real interests that the US has in the region - first and foremost, the US's interest in securing its national security.

Obama pays lip service to US interests, but then quickly dismisses them by saying that winning over Muslims has to be the larger goal.

So US short term interests, like for instance preventing terrorist attacks against itself or its interests, will have to be sacrificed for the greater good of bringing the Muslim Brotherhood to power in democratic elections.

By equating US long term interests, with Muslim short term interests, our interests are now those of Islam. From Mark Steyn

If you have the Western faculty lounge attitude, which is the sewer that Obama has been marinated in, in his entire adult life, then 1967 matters far more than 1973 or 1948, or 1922, because 1967 is, as the faculty lounge left see it, the moment when the Israeli occupation began. Why, by the way, did it begin? It began because Israel’s neighbors launched another disastrous war on them. The enemy, Israel’s enemies are incompetent at fighting conventional war. And they discovered that actually instead of sending your troops into battle and keep losing their wars, why not instead play Western public opinion like a fiddle,

They're incompetent at fighting us too, but they freed more terrorists using the ACLU and Hollywood, than they did with bombs.

I would say the history of modern Western, liberal Jews is that they vote against their own, not only Israel’s best interests, but their own best interests. So you see that with the increasing number of self-loathing Jews in Britain, for example, who write to the Guardian on Israel’s birthday every year saying how they now regard the foundation of the state of Israel as a grotesque error.

This however is where a common mistake gets made. They are not voting against their interests, no more than any other group of liberals are. Their identity is liberal, not Jewish. They loathe Israel as good progressives are supposed to do. With an extra dose of loathing because they happened to be born into a culture and DNA set despised by good progressives. Which means they have to work harder to prove their bona fides to the Party. Andrew Bostom cites Alan West and further analysis from Tevi Troy at National Review Online

Second is that Obama did not demand an end to Palestinian misbehavior so much as predict, in a removed way, that such behavior will not serve them well:

Obama is big on the passive voice. From Jennifer Rubin at the Washington Post

No mention made of the liberation of 40 million Iraqis or that the Freedom Agenda began under his predecessor. As always, the world begins anew with Obama, and specifically with his Cairo speech. As for the Arab Spring, Obama’sspinners engaged in some false advertising. In a conference call yesterday, they suggested aid would be linked to reform and pro-Western behavior... But the cash will flow immediately:

Reforms... we don't need no stinking reforms.

Obama stated it was U.S. policy that the final agreement would be 1967 borders with land swaps. In the past the parties were already negotiating and Israel had offered this. Now it is a precondition to further talks.

This is a key point. Obama sets preconditions on Israel which force a new set of concessions beyond those preconditions. By recognizing the 67 borders, Obama again violates the Bush era oral agreement and makes any Israel presence beyond 67 contingent on yet more concessions and Terroristine agreement.

The president rewards bad behavior by serving up a border plan just after the Hamas-Fatah unity government and in the same week that Mahmoud Abbas essentially declared perpetual war against Israel. On the positive side he did talk about a demilitarized Palestinian state.

Of course we've been talking about that forever. And the state has only gotten more militarized. US governments provide weapons and training to over a 100,000 terrorists and then talk about demilitarization.

Obama issued a fine rebuke to unilateral recognition of a Palestinian state. Absent, however, was what he is going to do about it.

Same thing he's going to do if Copts are persecuted. Send the Muslims more money. Finally Pamela Geller cuts to the chase

Obama called for the tiny Jewish state to cut itself up into tiny pieces and retreat to indefensible 1967 borders. Since the re-establishment of the state of Israel, she has fought off Muslim invasions and war. Never at any time did the Muslim world of over 56 countries recognize Israel's right to exist. Obama called for "contiguous" borders between Gaza, the West Bank and the Golan Heights -- cutting Israel in half again to give the Jew-hating Muslims one large and connected chunk of Israel ... What other nation has ever had to give land away? What other nation has had its "legitimacy" questioned by the world? What other nation has done more with less? What other nation has to justify its existence? Basta! The '67 borders are indefensible.

These days even the post Camp David borders don't look all that defensible. Not without a preemptive strike. There's a more extensive roundup of articles at Ruthfully Yours But good news. Obama is sending Penny Pritzker, that nice lady whose hotel hosted Ahmadinejad, to talk to Jews. Talk about not getting it. Maybe he should send her to raise money from Ahmadinejad. Since his advisers may be wizards, maybe they can magic up some gold for him.