Israpundit

What was agreed to at Annapolis will destroy Israel.

By Ted Belman

Let me count the ways;
1. Israel consented to being castrated. [That says it all but I’ll continue anyway.]
2. The Bush administration agreed to physically separate the Jews from the Arabs at the Annapolis conference in a manner that aligns with the apartheid policies of the Arab world which prohibit Israelis from setting foot on Arab soil.
3. In accordance with Saudi demands, the Americans prohibited Israeli representatives from entering the hall through the same door as the Arabs.
4. Israel gave up all protection afforded by the Roadmap including
a) agreed to discuss final status issues (core issues) before Arab compliance with
Stage I of Roadmap
b) agreed to accept US rulings as to performance by Israel and the PA
5. Olmert retreated from his promise that he would never agree to any document that would not recognize Israel, first and foremost, as a Jewish state.
6. Israel agreed to negotiate even though Arabs insisted on “right of return”
(more…)

Saudi Lawyer also may be punished for representing her
by Bill Levinson

See how civilized these fundamentalist Muslims are!

In the name of God: the Saudi rape victim’s tale

A young woman has been sentenced to 200 lashes after being gang-raped. The Western world has expressed outrage – which has, in turn, provoked anger among the Saudi establishment. Now, for the first time, the woman tells her story. By Daniel Howden

It is no surprise that the Saudis, including the Saudi Royal Pigsty, is angry about being exposed as the Stone Age savages and barbarians that they are.

By David Bedein
FrontPageMagazine.com | Friday, November 30, 2007

The Annapolis peace summit is just days old, but already it is having an adverse impact on Israel’s security.

In agreeing to move toward a permanent status agreement with the Palestinians, Israeli negotiators have left the Jewish state between a rock and hard place. On the one hand, they must attempt to build momentum in the peace process. At the same time, they must brace for a series of terror attacks and attempts to sabotage the peace process.

In keeping with commitments made at the summit, Israel is aborting a military operation in the Gaza Strip. [..]

One thing all the security officials agree on is that, in Annapolis, Israel closed a deal with a Palestinian partner that cannot deliver. [..]
(more…)

Column One: Apartheid, not peace
Caroline Glick

[..] Although Olmert, Lieberman and Yishai dismiss this Israeli acceptance of moral equivalence with Palestinian jihadists as a meaningless rhetorical concession, the government’s move is rife with political and legal implications. US Ambassador Richard Jones’s unprecedented meeting this week with Supreme Court President Dorit Beinisch made clear that the US demands that Israeli courts interpret Israeli law in a prejudicial manner in order to demonize Israeli opponents of Palestinian statehood and the ethnic cleansing of the Jews from Judea and Samaria.

Their meeting also signaled that the US expects Israel to treat lawful building activities by Jews in Judea and Samaria and even in sections of Jerusalem as criminal acts. Since the Olmert government accepts that Israel is morally indistinguishable from the Palestinian Authority, it is hard to foresee it preventing the criminalization of its political opponents. From now on, Israelis who oppose the diplomatic moves of the Olmert government can expect to be treated as the moral equivalents of Palestinian terrorists.

At Annapolis the Americans accepted the role of sole arbiter of Israeli and Palestinian compliance with their commitments to the so-called ‘Roadmap’ and the peace process. They also committed themselves to reaching a comprehensive peace treaty by the end of 2008. But as former US Middle East mediator during the Clinton administration Dennis Ross has admitted, these goals are contradictory. It is impossible to both ensure Palestinian compliance and the achievement of a peace treaty in that timetable. [..]

Israel Left in Dark on U.N. Middle East Plan
In an unusual move, America’s U.N. mission yesterday circulated a proposal to the Security Council supporting agreements reached at Annapolis between Israelis and Palestinian Arabs — before the text had been examined closely by Jerusalem, America’s closest Middle Eastern ally

Mr. Bush Hangs Back
A closer reading of Mr. Bush’s remarks this week, as well as at the joint declaration, suggests that the 43rd president is not going to throw himself heart and soul into racing the clock to achieve an Israeli-Palestinian deal before the end of his term, thirteen months from now.

Sharansky: Annapolis May Be Catastrophe For Israel
..the peace talks kicked off this week at Annapolis “has nothing to do with promoting democracy,” and he warned that Israel will be lucky if it does not end in catastrophe for the Jewish state.

‘Fatah, Hamas may join ranks’
Fatah will fight alongside Hamas if and when the IDF launches a military operation in the Gaza Strip, a senior Fatah official in Gaza City said Thursday.

Washington: There is no place yet for Syria in peace process
There is a new spirit in the Middle East, a real chance for peace. Will Syria be left on the sidelines or give up its support for terror, leave Lebanon alone, support the Iraqi government and make a decision in favor of peace?”

Saeb Erekat sharply repudiates Bush’s words at Annapolis
In an interview from Washington, senior Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat said Wednesday, Nov. 28, the US president does not negotiate in the Palestinians’ name, does not represent them and his words are not relevant to the Palestinian cause. On such issues as recognizing Israel, said the Palestinian negotiator, Bush is not competent to determine how we act. If the US president seeks an exchange of territory, he can do this with Mexico.