Our regular meetings during the season are held the 2nd and 4th Wednesdays of the month from 7 to 9 p.m.
Look at http://www.scshca.com/Events_and_Activities/Calendar.htm to confirm.
Meeting announcements*, with suggested topics, can be found in the club's group archive (sign on req'd).
Showing posts with label Israel. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Israel. Show all posts

Friday, May 6, 2011

May 11, 2011

  1.  Should the photos and the true events which took place c/o Usama bin Laden be made public?  Ref: LA Times, 5/5/11, “Bin Laden Photo Withheld
  2.  Is this the time for the government to stop subsidizing the private market?  Ref: WSJ 5/4/11 Page A15, “Let the Market Pay for Renewable Energy
  3. Can the State of CA afford to continue to be held hostage by the State Prison Guard Unions?  Ref: WSJ 4/30/11 Page A13, “CA Prison Academy: Better Than a Harvard Degree”  Ref: Bloomberg Business 5/2-8/11 Page 25 thru Page 26, “Public Pay-Seriously You Would rather Work in CA”.
  4. Have you reviewed the 2011/2012 budget for Shadow Hills?  What are your thoughts on it?  Ref: SCSH Board Meeting of 4/25/11.

We only were able to get to item #1 and then broadened that to discussion of the 'Arab Spring'. See my blog entry..
Regarding the 'Arab Spring', see this MSNBC piece: Saudi Arabia scrambles to limit region’s upheaval
The Arab Spring began to unravel an alliance of so-called moderate Arab states, led by Saudi Arabia and Egypt, which were willing to work closely with the United States and promote peace with Israel. American support for the Arab uprisings also strained relations, prompting Saudi Arabia to split from Washington on some issues while questioning its longstanding reliance on the United States to protect its interests.
Whose interests exactly?  Is the President protecting American interests by encouraging dissent?


As regards Israel, a lot has been made about the recent meeting between Mr. Obama and Mr. Netanyahu and their respective speeches, I recommend the following article from The New Republic: Yes, We Can’t - What Obama got right, and wrong, in his Middle East speech:
I listened in disbelief as he stated that, while there are those who believe that the regional instability of recent months makes a solution impossible for now, he believes the opposite is true. On what basis, Mr. President? From where I’m sitting in Jerusalem—watching Turkey turn Islamist and pro-Iranian, Lebanon being devoured by Hezbollah, Hamas legitimized by Fatah, the Muslim Brotherhood rising in Egypt, and Iran’s nuclear program proceeding apace—I would say that this is just about the worst time to try to entice an ambivalent Israeli into empowering his dovish side. At a time when Egyptian-Israeli relations—our only successful land for peace agreement—could be unraveling, Israelis are hardly likely to risk another withdrawal, this time from our most sensitive border, and without even the pretense of a peace agreement. 
The author, Yossi Klein Halevi, visited the desert a couple of years back as guest speaker at a local AIPAC meeting.

Then is this counter-view in The Jewish Journal: Is Obama good or bad for Israel? in which the author, David Suissa, argues:
Despite my misgivings, I had to recognize that Obama had said plenty of supportive things about Israel. As Ari Shavit summarized in Haaretz: “He blocked the Palestinian initiative to unilaterally establish a Palestinian state. He condemned the Palestinian effort to delegitimize Israel. He came out against Hamas. He did not demand a total and immediate freeze on settlement construction. He did not embrace the Arab peace initiative. He showed that he has internalized Israel’s security problems and defense concerns. Above all, he adopted the two main principles of Israel’s peace doctrine: Israel as a Jewish state and Palestine as a demilitarized state.”
Love him or hate him, that’s not a bad list.
This Jewish Journal article has embedded video of 2 speeches and the press conference between the 2 leaders.  There's also the Netanyahu Speech at the Joint Session of Congress - May 24, 2011.

See also the recent article: Obama and the quest for Mideast peace It concludes:
Is it any wonder Netanyahu is steaming and this president has the lowest approval rating among Israelis of any sitting American president?  Now, if only American Jews would wake up … 

Saturday, August 21, 2010

concessions by Israel?

The following is by George Will of the Washington Post on 8/18:
In the intifada that began in 2000, Palestinian terrorism killed more than 1,000 Israelis. As a portion of U.S. population, that would be 42,000, approaching the toll of America's eight years in Vietnam. During the onslaught, which began 10 Septembers ago, Israeli parents sending two children to a school would put them on separate buses to decrease the chance that neither would return for dinner. Surely most Americans can imagine, even if their tone-deaf leaders cannot, how grating it is when those leaders lecture Israel on the need to take "risks for peace."

During Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu's July visit to Washington, Barack Obama praised him as "willing to take risks for peace." There was a time when that meant swapping "land for peace" -- Israel sacrificing something tangible and irrecoverable, strategic depth, in exchange for something intangible and perishable, promises of diplomatic normality.

Strategic depth matters in a nation where almost everyone is or has been a soldier, so society cannot function for long with the nation fully mobilized. Also, before the 1967 Six-Day War, Israel within the borders established by the 1949 armistice was in one place just nine miles wide, a fact that moved George W. Bush to say: In Texas we have driveways that long. Israel exchanged a lot of land to achieve a chilly peace with Egypt, yielding the Sinai, which is almost three times larger than Israel and was 89 percent of the land captured in the process of repelling the 1967 aggression.

The intifada was launched by the late Yasser Arafat -- terrorist and Nobel Peace Prize winner -- after the July 2000 Camp David meeting, during which then-Prime Minister Ehud Barak offered to cede control of all of Gaza and more than 90 percent of the West Bank, with small swaps of land to accommodate the growth of Jerusalem suburbs just across the 1949 armistice line.

Israelis are famously fractious, but the intifada produced among them a consensus that the most any government of theirs could offer without forfeiting domestic support is less than any Palestinian interlocutor would demand. Furthermore, the intifada was part of a pattern. As in 1936 and 1947, talk about partition prompted Arab violence.

In 1936, when the British administered Palestine, the Peel Commission concluded that there was "an irrepressible conflict" -- a phrase coined by an American historian to describe the U.S. Civil War -- "between two national communities within the narrow bounds of one small country." And: "Neither of the two national ideals permits" a combination "in the service of a single state." The commission recommended "a surgical operation" -- partition. What followed was the Arab Revolt of 1936 to 1939.

On Nov. 29, 1947, the United Nations recommended a partition plan. Israel accepted the recommendation. On Nov. 30, Israel was attacked.

Palestine has a seemingly limitless capacity for eliciting nonsense from afar, as it did recently when British Prime Minister David Cameron referred to Gaza as a "prison camp." In a sense it is, but not in the sense Cameron intended. His implication was that Israel is the cruel imprisoner. Gaza's actual misfortune is to be under the iron fist of Hamas, a terrorist organization.

In May, a flotilla launched from Turkey approached Gaza in order to provoke a confrontation with Israel, which, like Egypt, administers a blockade to prevent arms from reaching Hamas. The flotilla's pretense was humanitarian relief for Gaza -- where the infant mortality rate is lower and life expectancy is higher than in Turkey.

Israelis younger than 50 have no memory of their nation within the 1967 borders set by the 1949 armistice that ended the War of Independence. The rest of the world seems to have no memory at all concerning the intersecting histories of Palestine and the Jewish people.

The creation of Israel did not involve the destruction of a Palestinian state, there having been no such state since the Romans arrived. And if the Jewish percentage of the world's population were today what it was when the Romans ruled Palestine, there would be 200 million Jews. After a uniquely hazardous passage through two millennia without a homeland, there are 13 million Jews.

In the 62 years since this homeland was founded on one-sixth of 1 percent of the land of what is carelessly and inaccurately called "the Arab world," Israelis have never known an hour of real peace. Patronizing American lectures on the reality of risks and the desirableness of peace, which once were merely fatuous, are now obscene.
Then there's this NY Times op-ed about Jewish opinion, Oy Vey, Obama.