Obsession about West Bank, low expectations of Obama visit and new Israeli “rightist” government, press mum on 100.00 dead in Syria

a couple of small snippets from todays press on Israel. Noting written on 100.000 dead in Syria, bread rationing in Egypt, of Egyptian flushing of Gaza smuggler tunnels. Go figure…



Aftenposten 2013 03 19 p 16, 17

Jørgen Lohne

(Also referred to in major headline of the newspaper’s front page, with this headline: “The letter condemned by all of the world”)

This is an article on settler couple Karni Eldad and Shlomo Bashan, who very recently has moved in the Teqoa settlement, south of Jerusalem, having received a permit to build a new house. None of those are happy over president Obama, and have fears PM Netanyahu may put an end to future settlements in response to US military action against Iran. The two settlers are very skeptical towards the Israeli political establishment and Israeli politicians, including PM Netanyahu.


Aftenposten 2013 03 19 p 17

Alf Ole Ask, Not Online


On the challenges facing President Obama ahead of his visit to Israel; Mr. Ask do not believe the President will sanction any military moves against Iran


Dagbladet 2013 03 16 p 28

Jan Erik Smilden, Not Online


This is on the challenges facing PM Netanyahu in his new coalition government, consisting of very disparate elements, with also very contradicting goals. Mr. Smilden predicts Shas to become a future problem for Netanyahu, over not being included in his government, and also since Yesh Atid wants to relieve the Haredim of privileges.



7 comments for “Obsession about West Bank, low expectations of Obama visit and new Israeli “rightist” government, press mum on 100.00 dead in Syria

  1. de Bacle
    March 20, 2013 at 12:19 am


    It’s on 75% of the front page ! Never mind Cyprus, Syria….

    The major Norwegian Daily Aftenposten, had the picture of the “genocide culprit” settler, the young mum, splashed over 75% of the FRONT PAGE !!!! (Not counting the LOGO or ad at the bottom).
    Yesterday I commented that the Norwegian Press seemed to have “calmed down” in the anti-Semitic Israel bashing. No way.

    Prof. This is almost unbelievable ! This is not news. This is an example of Norwegian media PROPAGANDA – selective use of information to create opinions in the readers minds that have no grounds in objective analysis.

    What bothers me here also is that the article itself is not aggressive in any way, has a sense of contemplation and neutrality, and is in a style typical of the judgemental reporter Jørgen Lohne.

    So using it for one-sided exaggerated Israel-bashing propaganda is obvioulsy a sheer Aftenposten editorial decision. The Chief editor, Hilde Haugsgjerd, is a “X”-Marxist (i.e. claims to be X), was married to a Marxist professor journalism and bothe were part of the core of the MArxist-Leninist movement in Norway.

  2. Martin
    March 20, 2013 at 8:04 am

    Prof, is there a single pro-Israel reporter at all in Norway, or are they all anti?

    I have yet to see anything resembling empathy with, or a real understanding of Israel. I seriuosly doubt any of the Norwegian reporters have a real clue as to what goes on in every day Israel.

    Not sure “The Scream” being a picture of Norwegian excellence. Perhaps a picture of a Nordic moron with a dishtowel over his/her head will suffice. I honestly don’t know whether to laugh or cry with all the crackpots operating in the Norwegian establishment.

  3. M S
    March 20, 2013 at 11:11 am

    De Backle: Hilde Haugsgjerd, Anne Sender’s chum who used Aftenpostens precious Editor space to charge at Rachel Suissa’s “closed-circle” letter.
    Are you really so taken “aback” ? This is pretty much Aftenposten standard procedures, no ?

  4. herbert deutsch
    March 20, 2013 at 11:38 am

    With Obama’s Israel Visit, an Opportunity
    Forming a ‘strategic triangle’ to ensure Middle East security.

    President Obama’s visit to Israel comes at a decisive juncture for the Middle East and offers the opportunity for new strategic thinking. Over the past two years, a geopolitical earthquake has shattered a generations-old regional order. What is replacing that order are unstable, transformational regimes or, even worse, failed states.

    These dramatic changes offer some important lessons. For instance: Be modest when it comes to predictions. Who predicted the revolutions in Egypt and elsewhere? Who could have predicted them?

    Another lesson: It is unwise to rely on “the world” to act when a man-made disaster is unfolding. Consider Syria. President Bashar Assad’s jet fighters, tanks and artillery have been slaughtering Syrian people for two years. More than 70,000 have been killed. Yet the international community has shown neither unity of purpose nor the political will to act.

    Many in the world would do well to learn the lesson that the root cause of the problems in the Middle East is not the oft-cited failure to solve the conflict with the Palestinians. Even if a peace agreement with the Palestinians had been signed and sealed a long time ago, the Muslim Brotherhood would still have come to power in Egypt, Syria would still be mired in a bloody civil war, and Iran would still be pursuing nuclear capabilities and hegemony in the Persian Gulf.

    The major challenges in the Middle East today are failed or failing states armed with thousands of rockets and missiles, the presence of global terror groups such as al Qaeda, and, of course, Iran’s nuclear-weapons program.

    In the face of these serious challenges, I see an opportunity for the United States, moderate Arab regimes and Israel to tackle these challenges together.

    First, these countries should build a Regional Security Framework that will focus on fighting terror, protecting border security and maintaining a missile defense.

    Second, Israel, backed by the U.S. and moderate Arab regimes, should launch a daring peace initiative vis-à-vis the Palestinians. A two-state arrangement is the only viable solution. While its absence is not the fountainhead of all regional troubles, its achievement would help secure Israel’s future as a Jewish and democratic state. The status quo offers only a slippery slope toward a binational state that would endanger Israel’s future.

    If a final-status agreement for a two-state solution is not feasible at this time—and I suspect it is not—Israel and the Palestinians should try to reach interim agreements. Start with security and borders, for example. But if interim agreements also prove impossible to achieve, unilateral steps that move both Israelis and Palestinians closer to their legitimate goals in a final peace agreement should be taken. Such steps might include an Israeli decision to build solely within the widely accepted settlement blocks, or programs that would reduce Palestinian dependence on the Israeli economy.

    Third, Iran’s nuclear-weapons program, which is the paramount challenge facing Israel, the region and the world today, must be eliminated. An Iranian regime with hegemonic ambitions and armed with nuclear weapons would spell the end of any conceivable nonproliferation regime.

    Saudi Arabia, Turkey and later Egypt would soon follow suit. The danger of a nuclear weapon falling into the hands of terror groups would increase exponentially. Iran’s Gulf neighbors would be intimidated and Iran’s terror proxies would be emboldened—operating under the umbrella of a nuclear Iran—to spread death and destruction throughout the world.

    Preventing Iran from developing nuclear weapons now is no simple task, and it is not without significant risks. But dealing with a nuclear Iran a few years down the road will be far more complicated, much more costly, and it could produce horrific consequences.

    Diplomats are still working to find a solution to the Iranian nuclear threat. Tough sanctions are hurting Iran’s economy. As a long-time observer of Iranian machinations, though, I do not believe that diplomacy and sanctions alone will lead to a moment of truth when the ayatollahs will decide to give up their nuclear program. Thus all options, including the military one, must remain squarely on the table. And when we say that all options are on the table, we must truly be prepared to use them.

    The strategic triangle of a Regional Security Framework, a reinvigorated peace process with the Palestinians, and an effective halt of the Iranian nuclear program is the most effective approach to deal with the dynamic challenges on our horizon.

    But this strategic triangle will not emerge on its own. It demands U.S. leadership, and it demands an even stronger U.S.-Israel alliance. President Obama’s visit to Israel could not be more timely because it offers an opportunity to kick-start an effort to accomplish just that.

    Mr. Barak was Israel’s minister of defense from 2007 until this week.

  5. Bonnie Fide
    March 20, 2013 at 2:28 pm

    de Bacle, I guess you meant that Jørgen Lohne shows “good judgement” ?
    Judgemental is something else.
    Lohne, indeed, is allright. Hope they keep him on.
    All in good faith.

  6. Martin
    March 21, 2013 at 6:02 am

    Henry, I am so pleased to see your posting again. you have been missed. shame upon, and no matza kleiss recipes for Pesakh? Naughty Henry, naughty. :)-

    Barak was a very brave soldier. However, my opinion of him as a politician, is like so many of his leftwing comrades negative. He offered almost the whole territory over the Green Line. There already is a two state solution, which Bibi conveniently forgets, or is he just using a term, knowing this?
    No wonder the arabs have no respect for us. After the 6 Day War, the Israeli vitors trreated them in a most humane way, as it the Jewish manner. They even offered the keys to the gates of Jerusalem’s Temple mount, which the one eyed Dayan refused. what utter stupidity. further stupidity, we hand over Jewish holy sites to the local Arabs, and any religious groups go to visit, they find grafitti and crap everywhere and require an asrmed escrot. all in the name of peaceful progress.

    The Arabs expected the worst from us, as they would have done to us if we had been their usual victims. Instead, the Jews honoured Rabbi Hillel’s doctrine “Do not do unto others, that which you find hateful.” Sadly, we all too aften pay a very high price for this, including the murder of our people, because our opponents ethics are at odds with ours.

  7. Martin
    March 21, 2013 at 6:33 am

    The PA response to Obama has been rockets fired at Sderot from Gaza and PA officals and demonstrations telling Obama what to do, and where to go. Never mind, I douby US policy will change at all. He is not a man to be trusted whatsoever and does not care one iota for Israel. He knows that Congress solidly supports Israel as the only real friend and democracy the USA has in the whole of the middle east.

Comments are closed.