The Israeli Heart
YouTube video - 3:26 minutes

1. Giving up Jerusalem would mean end of Zionism, Haaretz, Ronen Shoval
2. Two states, 'secure borders' and the tooth fairy , The Jerusalem Post, Martin Sherman
3. Arab racism prevents peace, Ynet News, Giulio Meotti
4. Arabs Uniting Again Against Israel, FrontPage Magazine, David Meir-Levi
5. Just Say 'No', Israel Hayom, Ambassador (ret.) Yoram Ettinger, "Second Thought"

Former prime minister Ehud Olmert said a few days ago: "It breaks my heart to initiate relinquishing sovereignty over the Temple Mount but there is no other choice." However, conceding the Temple Mount means opting for a one-way road that leads straight to the annihilation of Zionism. And the heart that will be broken will not be that of Olmert but rather that of the Jewish people. There is only one meaning to giving up the Temple Mount: the end of the State of Israel. [The late defense minister] Moshe Dayan was mistaken when he declared that Sharm el-Sheikh without peace was preferable to peace without Sharm el-Sheikh. But the Temple Mount is not Sharm el-Sheikh.

No one gives up their heart in return for peace. If the aim was peace at all costs, the safest and most immediate way to achieve it would be simply to convert to Islam. Just as, for the sake of peace, even the most ardent left-wing activists would not be prepared to convert to Islam, not even in a symbolic way, so it is impossible to concede the symbols that express identity. Peace is merely a means for the Jewish people to exist and thrive.

Many Zionists support the establishment of a Palestinian state and with that end in mind, they are prepared to make far-reaching concessions. The argument within the Zionist movement is between those who believe that it is possible to forgo [the outpost of] Migron and perhaps even Ariel, and those who believe we must build in Judea and Samaria. The argument is between the issue of reducing the scale of the demographic problem versus the benefits of remaining in territories that are vital from the national-historic and security points of view....

Click here for the complete article, or copy and paste this link into your web browser:
http://www.unitycoalitionforisrael.org/news/article.php?id=7946

If a Palestinian state is established, it will be armed to the teeth. Within it there will be bases of the most extreme terrorist forces, who will be equipped with anti-tank and anti-aircraft shoulder-launched rockets, which will endanger not only random passers-by, but also every airplane and helicopter taking off in the skies of Israel and every vehicle traveling along the major traffic routes in the coastal plain.

Even if the Palestinians agree that their state have no army or weapons, who can guarantee that a Palestinian army would not be mustered later to encamp at the gates of Jerusalem and the approaches to the [coastal] lowlands.
– Shimon Peres

My column last week was largely a historical account of the monumental failure of the endeavor to implement a two-state approach following the 1993 Oslo Agreements. This column will focus more on some of the conceptual defects and inconsistencies that made past failure – and will make future failure –inevitable.

Two kinds of ‘two-staters’

In principle there are two categories of “two-staters:” (a) Those who insist that in their version of a two-state solution, “secure/defensible” borders for Israel are an indispensable imperative; and (b) Those for whom “secure/defensible” borders appear to be consideration of minor–if any–significance in their vision of the two-state arrangement....

Click here for the complete article, or copy and paste this link into your web browser:
http://www.unitycoalitionforisrael.org/news/article.php?id=7947

The invisible headlines go beyond the settlers who bought a house near Hebron's Cave of the Patriarchs. The real story is not about home ownership; rather, it's at the very core of the Mideastern conflict.

While Israel is not “Arabrein” (Jewish citizens live with their fellow Arab citizens and neither they nor anyone else suggests they are “an obstacle to peace”), a Nazi-like ideology sees the entire State of Israel as an alien presence among Islamic nations, an undesirable island in an Arab sea that must ultimately be submerged.

This is the real apartheid, which is supported by the West and which emerges from President Barack Obama’s de-legitimization of Jerusalem’s post-1967 neighborhoods.

The concept of removing a religious or ethnic community from a certain region brings back the worst memories of World War II, yet has become mainstream when it is applied to a part of the land of Israel. The scandal is epitomized by the fate of the Arabs who sold houses and land to the Jews. By now, dozens of Arabs have been murdered for selling their homes to Jews....

Click here for the complete article, or copy and paste this link into your web browser:
http://www.unitycoalitionforisrael.org/news/article.php?id=7948

Last month the present writer reported briefly on the Qatar Conference that took place in Doha, capital of Qatar, at the end of February, discussing one aspect of the conference as an anti-Israel and anti-Jewish hate-fest.  In light of the March 30^th “Global March to Jerusalem,” it is time to re-visit the Qatar Conference and examine its probable long-term impact.

The participants and agenda of the “International Conference for the Defense of occupied Jerusalem” displayed an unprecedented broad spectrum of the Arab and Muslim nations and organizations, uniting in Qatar for the sole purpose of strategizing new ways to destroy Israel. Unusual, but not surprising, was the official presence of representatives from the UN and Iran, the American and UK Muslim Brotherhood organizations, an Israeli Hamas leader, and Neturei Karta rabbis, who, despite their much ballyhooed sympathies for the Palestinian cause, were brutally beaten by Arab marchers. Unofficial attendees included EU leaders and U.S. and European academics.

One of Israel’s greatest advantages in its fight for survival against the 64-year long Arab war to destroy the Jewish state has been Arab disunity.  For that reason alone, the Doha Conference deserves special notice by virtue of the event’s successfully hosting Sunni and Shi’ite, Arab and Iranian, participants for whom the old Arab proverb, “my enemy’s enemy is my friend,” took on new meaning....

Click here for the complete article, or copy and paste this link into your web browser:
http://www.unitycoalitionforisrael.org/news/article.php?id=7949

Israeli leaders are able to repel President Obama's relentless pressure to refrain from pre-empting Iran, Hizballah and Hamas; to freeze Jewish construction in eastern Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria; to retreat to the 1949 cease fire lines, including the repartitioning of Jerusalem; and to placate Mahmoud Abbas, while ignoring the PA hate-education, non-compliance and terrorism.

In contrast to the ironclad US public and Congressional support of Israel, presidential pressure has always been part of US-Israel relations.

Therefore, contemporary Israeli leaders should emulate Israeli Prime Ministers who served from1948 (Ben Gurion) to 1992 (Shamir). While they rejected – in most cases - presidential prescriptions for Israel's national security, bilateral strategic cooperation surged unprecedentedly in spite off, and probably due to, their steadfastness.

The 1948-1992 Israeli leaders realized that presidential pressure came with the job; that saying "No” was critical to Israel's posture of deterrence; that rebuffing pressure would upgrade bilateral relations. In most cases, they defied pressure. They were not concerned with popularity and convenience, but with respect and conviction-driven vision. They did not alter strategy in order to elude pressure....

Click here for the complete article, or copy and paste this link into your web browser:
http://www.unitycoalitionforisrael.org/news/article.php?id=7950

 UCI's website and emails are written to current web standards according to the W3C. If your browser or email client is not standards-compliant, you can go here for one that is.