Welcome!
My most recent postings are below. Access others at Current Postings. Check out informational resources: Background Info, The Other Face of Israel , Useful Websites, and more.
Key Postings brings you previous postings on themes that merit on-going consideration.
If you have questions, or wish to be on my list, contact me, Arlene Kushner: akushner@netvision.net.il. Bookmark this site!
_______________________________________________________________
See Caroline Glick on "Obama and International Law."
Israel functioned solidly within international law in Gaza. Read an explanation of what the law permits.
__________________________________________________________
July 2, 2009
"Disgusting"
This is not a time for niceties. And "disgusting" is simply a very fitting word to describe what Congressman Robert Wexler (D-FL) -- a senior member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee -- is saying. Wexler, who is (was?) here, met with Netanyahu yesterday and then gave an interview to Herb Keinon of The Jerusalem Post -- which appeared today.
I was immediately struck by the oxymoronic tone of Keinon's description of Wexler: "a close political ally of US President Barack Obama and a stalwart Israel supporter." Nah, I doubt that there is any such animal today. I'm sure Wexler describes himself in these terms. But anyone who is close to Obama, and not challenging his stance on Israel, is suspect in terms of alleged support for Israel. I spoke the other day about how even J Street describes itself as pro-Israel. I'm not saying Wexler is necessarily where J Street is, but terms must be defined. Wexler, it happens, served as a Mid-East advisor to Obama during the presidential campaign.
~~~~~~~~~~
At any rate, Wexler says:
"A request for a moratorium or freeze in settlement activity that can be mutually agreed upon by the US and Israel in the next several weeks is a tiny, tiny gesture and down payment to make when you look at potentially what is on the other side of the equation."
A "tiny, tiny gesture," huh?
How kind of him to diminish the importance to us of what's going on here. Freezing settlement construction means relinquishing, up front, our right to be in Judea and Samaria. It means negating both our heritage and our legal rights, because this is what a lying Obama -- who denies we had an agreement with the Bush administration -- wants of us.
So maybe an even better word to describe what Wexler is saying is "enraging." Methinks that Wexler, a Jew, posing as a "friend," came here at Obama's behest to soften us up.
~~~~~~~~~~
What is it that is on the other side of the equation, according to Wexler?
"...22 Arab countries being urged by the US to take significant steps now towards normalization with Israel."
Gasp! Can it be? Is he really suggesting that "significant steps toward normalization" would be made by the Arabs if we froze settlement construction?
Yes, he actually says that an Israeli moratorium on settlements would go a long way toward moving the "normalization" process ahead. Either he's a fool, or he thinks we are fools. And I strongly suspect it's the latter.
Apparently Wexler missed the article by David Ignatius in the Washington Post that I referred to two days ago. Ignatius (according to the Jerusalem Post) said that an Arab diplomat told him that the Arab demand is not a settlement freeze, but an imposed settlement.
~~~~~~~~~~
There's so much to critique in Wexler's words that it's difficult to know how to continue.
The "normalization" process he refers to includes such things as fly-over rights and cultural exchanges. That's all very nice -- but these are no more than peripheral perks. What I observe is that there is no mention of the fundamentals such as recognizing our right to exist as a Jewish nation and declaring an end to hostilities (Saudi Arabia, for example, having never signed an armistice agreement with us is technically still at war with us). Or how about a cessation of official government anti-Semitism?
We relinquish our right to natural growth in Judea and Samaria and get the chance to do a cultural exchange with some Arab countries in return. Sounds like a great deal. We can send them some of our singers and maybe they'll send some dance troops.
~~~~~~~~~~
Keinon writes that:
"Wexler bewailed that while the US demands on Israel were highlighted in the Israeli press, Washington's demands on the Arab world were not gaining similar attention.
"According to Wexler, the Obama administration was making 'equal, if not greater, demands on the Arab world in the context of starting the process and negotiations.'"
This man is shameless. Only a moron would believe this after Obama's Cairo speech, in which he came down on Israel, and ONLY Israel, with regard to the settlements, while kissing up to the Muslims.
~~~~~~~~~~
But it gets even worse, for Wexler says:
"The president of the US does not have a view, or an opinion, or either a tactical or strategic posture on the government of Israel. The idea that the president, or anyone in any position of responsibility in Washington, is designing a process to undermine the policy or position or standing of the government of Israel is absurd."
When you pick yourself up from the floor, where you've undoubtedly collapsed with laughter, you can continue to read...
~~~~~~~~~~
When Keinon asked why the Arab states don't make some gesture of normalization before we agree to a settlement moratorium, Wexler said this was "childish."
"I want to call their bluff," he said. "I want to see, if Israel makes substantial movement toward a credible peace process, whether they are willing to do it. And if they are not, better that we should find out five or six months into the process, before Israel is actually asked to compromise any significant position."
Please note that the onus is entirely on us in his scenario. He is asking for "substantial movement" on our part without any balanced reciprocity -- just as a "test."
Then, too, he contradicts himself, because he speaks at one and the same time about "substantial movement" and says this would be before we are asked to "compromise any significant position." Now what does he have in mind? Maybe the "substantial movement" would be dismantling some major settlements, but we wouldn't be asked to "compromise any significant position," such as giving the Arabs half of Jerusalem, until later?
~~~~~~~~~~
Wexler declares himself to be confident that our government will agree to this moratorium on building in the settlements:
"I don't see an equation where it is in Israel's interest to say no, so I believe Israel will say yes, under a certain set of qualifications that Israel will agree to. This is one hundred percent in Israel's national security interest."
My friends, I can hear the voice of Barack Hussein, saying "Bob, old buddy, we go back a long way. Now, take yourself to Israel and do what you can for the cause."
Since Wexler is one hundred percent wrong about what's in our security interest, let us hope and pray (pray, please!) that he's also wrong about Israel saying yes.
But, better, let's help make certain that he's wrong. Presumably at this point you're as furious as I am.
I suggested yesterday that Prime Minister Netanyahu needs to be contacted on this issue. Now I implore everyone to do this. He needs to receive a barrage of calls and faxes (faxes are good!) and e-mails on the subject.
Please, act while you remember to do this, or post a reminder! And then share this with others and urge them to contact Netanyahu as well.
Fax: 02-670-5369 (From the US: 011-972-2-670-5369)
Phone: 03-610-9898 (From the US: 011-972-3-610-9898)
E-mail: pm_eng2@it.pmo.gov.il (underscore after pm)
Urge him not to cave on this issue!
Communication to our prime minister from outside the country cannot hurt. But most significant are messages from Israeli citizens. If you are an Israeli citizen, please identify yourself as such when sending your message, and pass this to other citizens.
~~~~~~~~~~
I will not make this posting unwieldy by providing the contact information for other members of the government.
Instead, I advise you to go here:
http://www.knesset.gov.il/mk/eng/MKIndex_Current_eng.asp?view=1
and cull that contact information yourself. All MKs are listed with phone numbers and e-mails. Most also have fax numbers.
Be in touch with those who have clout or reputation in Likud: Yaalon, Begin, Danon, Edelstein, Hotovely Sa'ar, Steinitz, Y. Katz. Contact, as well, Yishai (Shas), Hershkovitz (Habayit Hayehudi). And Foreign Minister Lieberman (Yisrael Beitenu).
~~~~~~~~~~
A light-hearted break here (because smiling keeps us sane):
I had seen the cartoon below from Yaakov Kirschen, who does the delightfully on-the-mark Dry Bones cartoons, several times. Finally, today, I decided that I would share it with everyone. It is so in line with what I've been writing about. (Thanks, Roberta)
With respect to this particular cartoon, Kirschen writes:
"During the Hillary Clinton / Barack Obama primary battle, Hillary famously asked whether we'd feel safe with a President Obama answering a crisis phone call at 3AM.
"What she was questioning was his sense of judgment. Well, it seems to me that it's 3AM, the phone is ringing, and I'm afraid that for a lot of us it's a wake-up call."
http://drybonesblog.blogspot.com/2009/06/obamas-3am-phone-call.html
~~~~~~~~~~
And then a couple of links also relevant to the topic at hand:
See an article by David Wilder, spokesman for the Hevron Jewish community, "In the footsteps of the Mufti" -- a painful but important look at the vilification of "settlers."
It's perhaps the height of irony that Jews living in the ancient Jewish city of Hevron, the second holiest of cities for Jews, which connects to the time of our father Avraham, are today called "settlers," as if they are usurpers.
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1246443695553&pagename=JPArticle%2FShowFull
~~~~~~~~~~
Then an informative posting by one Rachel Abrams on the Weekly Standard blog, "Among the settlers," written about Kfar Adumim in Judea. (Thanks, Micki L.)
A couple of sentences in particular struck me:
"Across the wadi is Mitzpeh Hagit, an 'illegal outpost' named for a daughter of Kfar Adumim murdered by a Bedouin terrorist as she hiked in the crevice ten years ago. 'This is a response of settlers to terror murders,' says our host, one of the original 18 settlers of Kfar Adumim. 'We don’t rush out to seek revenge by murdering in return. We respond to it and honor the murdered by establishing outposts in their names.'"
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Weblogs/TWSFP/TWSFPView_more.asp
Many is the time that I have written about an "unauthorized outpost" (such as Maoz Esther outside of Kochav Hashachar) and explained, it was named for such and such, who was killed in a terrorist attack. But never have I made the point this clearly -- that we honor the murdered by building, rather than seeking revenge. Something greatly to be proud of.
The flip side: More than once I have felt heart-sick that the Israeli government has deemed it necessary to take down a tent, or a few houses, erected to honor the memory of a murdered Israeli. That these memorials are immediately rebuilt is also something to be proud of. Blessed are the builders.
~~~~~~~~~~
Let me turn for a few moments here to the concept of "reciprocity" in our dealings with the PA -- a concept to which Netanyahu at least gives lip service. Whether it's more than lip service will soon be tested. The failure to truly honor such a concept is part of what infuriates me so very much about Wexler's (and Obama's) approach.
One of the commitments that the PA has -- via Oslo and the Road Map -- is the elimination of all official incitement. Obama has spoken about this, but it isn't real and there is no intention of holding Palestinian feet to the fire on this subject.
Easy to say, "And the Palestinians must eliminate official incitement." But what does this mean in real terms? Let's talk tachlis here (i.e., get down to serious stuff). The PA-produced textbooks lack maps of the area that have "Israel" delineated -- it's all "Palestine." The message that is being delivered to school kids via these maps is not exactly what we might expect if there were sincerity about "peace," with two states for two people living side by side...
How about if new maps had to be introduced in all grades that did denote the existence of Israel? In truth the books should be re-printed, as there's a great deal more wrong with them than the maps. But we can deal with that later. Issuing maps now would be easier, cheaper, and achieved far more quickly. It could be a start -- a concrete act that would show good faith. The PA version, in Wexler's words, of a "tiny, tiny gesture."
Americans -- how about raising this issue with your government in very concrete terms? How about insisting that your government start demanding real signs of commitment to peace from the PA?
The place to go with this is to Congress. So I repeat here the sites for locating your representatives. Please, contact them, and share this with others who will do the same. (If your representative is Wexler, let him know what you think.)
For your Congresspersons:
http://www.house.gov/house/MemberWWW_by_State.shtml
For your Senators:
http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm
In fact, while you are at it, how about writing letters to the editor proposing this demand of the PA.
~~~~~~~~~~
Before I leave the subject of incitement, I want to touch about one other issue -- courtesy of the Palestinian Media Watch, As Itamar Marcus and Barbara Crook have written:
"US law prohibits the funding of Palestinian structures that use any portion of their budget to promote terror or honor terrorists. But $200 million of the US's proposed $900m. aid package is earmarked to go directly to the Abbas government, which regularly uses its budget to honor terrorists."
In fact...
"The PA chose to name its latest computer center 'after the martyr Dalal Mughrabi,' who led the most deadly terror attack in the country's history. Her 1978 bus hijacking killed 37 civilians, 12 of them children, including American photographer Gail Rubin. The new center is funded by Abbas's office, which is bolstered by Western aid money. (Al-Ayyam, May 5, 2009)
"Last summer the PA sponsored 'the Dalal Mughrabi football championship' for kids, and a 'summer camp named for martyr Dalal Mughrabi... out of honor and admiration for the martyr.' It also held a party to honor exemplary students, also named 'for the martyr Dalal Mughrabi,' under the auspices of Abbas and at which Abbas's representative 'reviewed the heroic life of the martyr [Mughrabi].' (Al-Hayat al-Jadida, July 23, 24 and August 8, 2008). All these PA-funded activities were to teach kids that a killer of women and children is a role model."
http://www.pmw.org.il/Bulletins_May2009.htm#b270509
Don't close your eyes the way the government does, my friends. Scream long and loud about this, and demand accountability.
~~~~~~~~~~
A bad sign: As of tomorrow, the checkpoint at Hawara, near Shechem in Samaria, will no longer check Arabs who are passing through on foot, only cars will be checked. But over the years Hawara has caught many an intended-terrorist who was on foot, carrying a long knife, or wearing an explosive belt. I myself over time have noted that when I reported a terrorist caught, very often it was at this one site.
This, of course, is one more "good faith gesture" /concession. Are they crazy?
~~~~~~~~~~
This link, which ends this posting on an upbeat note, is a highly unusual version of Hatikva ("The Hope") -- our national anthem. I would not have thought that I would like it, but I really did. Maybe you will too.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Czcqw0gUma4
~~~~~~~~~~
June 30, 2009
"Afloat in Lunacy"
It's hardly a new refrain in these postings: the sense that the world is upside-down and crazy. Unfortunately, that sense is only growing stronger.
Several people forwarded to me in recent days a quote from columnist Burt Prelutzky, that says, in essence, when Obama receives his physical, he should have a brain scan, because there has got to be something terribly wrong "with a man who seems to be far more concerned with a Jew building a house in Israel than with Muslims building a nuclear bomb in Iran."
Not funny at all, really, because it cuts too close to the bone of truth.
~~~~~~~~~~
From a purely informal source in the US (and I readily acknowledge that this is not confirmed) comes information that a Democratic Congressperson in a key position is saying that even Obama's people are finding themselves unable to convince the president to cool it a bit on the issue of settlements.
It seems that when it comes to a complete settlement freeze Barack Hussein Obama is mushuga al ha-devar. On this issue he's crazy -- obsessed. Obsession is a good word, for it has been pointed out that if his goal is promotion of a genuine peace negotiation, what he's doing -- which hardens Israeli hearts against him -- is counterproductive.
Jackson Diehl, deputy editor of the Washington Post, described the situation accurately when he recently wrote that "Obama began with a broad strategy of simultaneously pressing Israel, the Palestinians and Arab states to take concrete steps toward peace", but that this has "narrowed to a single point: a standoff with the Israeli government of Binyamin Netanyahu over whether 'natural growth' would be allowed in Jewish settlements."
MK Otniel Schneller, of Kadima, please understand, has now lambasted Obama administration officials, charging that they hold beliefs influenced by "far-Left opinions outside of the Israeli consensus" (about which more below). Schneller, who is interested in promoting a "peace deal" with the Palestinians, says that "the most dangerous thing to the peace process is to push the Israeli public into a corner." He calls the current Obama demand "extortion."
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull&cid=1246296531821
~~~~~~~~~~
The other side of the coin, in terms of what Obama's position does, is to make the Arabs, who think they have a free ride, more intransigent. The Jerusalem Post editorial today alludes to a recent article by David Ignatius in the Washington Post that quotes an Arab diplomat as telling him that what Arabs demand is not a settlement freeze but rather an imposed settlement.
The editorial carries this one step further, indicating that Obama has also been hearing this from "some in the ostensibly pro-Israel community in Washington, led by J Street." J Street, funded by George Soros, is at the heart of what Schneller was referring to in terms of "far-left opinions." J Street may proclaim itself pro-Israel in its own fashion, but in my book it is solidly anti-Israel. And dangerous.
The painful fact is that Soros, having done funding for his campaign, has the ear of Obama. Any American, Jew or non-Jew, who genuinely cares about Israel, and is not yet aware of this, needs to (in the words of the late, great advice columnist Anne Landers) "wake up and smell the coffee."
~~~~~~~~~~
The heat is on our government from all sides with regard to freezing of the settlements. From the Quartet, and from various European nations, including those just visited by PM Netanyahu.
Additionally, Sweden, which is no friend to Israel, is poised to assume the EU presidency. NGO-Monitor has just released information detailing "Swedish government funding for radical [anti-Israel] NGOs under the guise of human rights and humanitarian aid." See http://imra.org.il/story.php3?id=44191.
~~~~~~~~~~
The question then is how well Netanyahu and company will continue to hold in the face of all of this. There are mixed messages, and concern grows.
We're hearing talk about a "compromise" on the subject, some way to reach a meeting of the minds between Jerusalem and Washington. That has to be bad news. In some quarters it's said we may ultimately agree to a "temporary" freeze, for three or six months. That would be very bad news indeed.
Right now DM Barak is in New York, and today held a four hour meeting with George Mitchell.
Immediately before he left, the Defense Ministry revealed that it had approved the construction of 50 homes in the Samaria community of Adam -- part of a master plan for 1,500 homes for the Binyamin region. This may or may not have been timed to deliver a message. (In due course I'll have more to say about these plans.)
~~~~~~~~~~
Emerging from the meeting, half of which was held privately between the two parties, Barak told reporters that he and Mitchell were "not stuck on the issue" of settlements, and that he had indicated to Mitchell that Israel will consider "any positive contribution to the peace efforts." He said there were still gaps between the sides (the US stance has not softened), but that efforts would continue to reach understandings.
What understandings? Vague diplomatic talk. We will have to see what emerges, or ensues in follow-up talks. But the reference to gaps, and efforts to downplay the settlements as focus of the talks is encouraging. It would certainly seem that Barak did not acquiesce today to a freeze, even a temporary one, on the building in settlement blocs.
This broadly comports with what YNet had reported: that a forum, which included Barak, PM Netanyahu, Foreign Minister Lieberman, and Ministers Benny Begin and Moshe Ya'alon, met yesterday in preparation for Barak's meetings with Mitchell. It was decided that settlement construction would not be frozen now, and that there would be an attempt to convince the US that discussion on this could be delayed until talks with the Palestinians were under way.
Talks with the Palestinians? Let us hope they continue to balk. We may have a deliberately devised catch 22 here: with the PA saying they won't talk because we haven't frozen settlements.
~~~~~~~~~~
And so, my friends, it's time to let our voices be heard again.
Here in Israel, Prime Minister Netanyahu has to be thanked for not caving, and urged as strongly as possible not to cave to Obama in the future.
Fax: 02-670-5369 (From the US: 011-972-2-670-5369)
Phone: 03-610-9898 (From the US: 011-972-3-610-9898)
E-mail: pm_eng2@it.pmo.gov.il (underscore after pm)
In the US, forget the obsessed Obama. Contact your own Senators and Congresspersons. Tell them you are adamantly opposed to pushing Israel on a settlement freeze. Ask them for a greater focus on what the PA will do to stop incitement.
For your Congresspersons:
http://www.house.gov/house/MemberWWW_by_State.shtml
For your Senators:
http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm
Remember, folks, numbers count. Circulate this request, please!
~~~~~~~~~~
An unsettling sign of caving to Obama, however, has come with agreement on another front: some withdrawal of IDF forces from major PA cities, to allow day-to-day takeover by PA security forces being trained by General Dayton -- forces, it should be noted again, that, according to reliable reports, Dayton himself indicated might turn on Israel within two years if they don't get what they want.
The PA is looking for a situation in which the IDF would be prevented from returning to these cities. The IDF maintains the right to return if necessary.
If this has a deju vu feeling it is because we've been on this merry-go-round before. Ultimately, it is the IDF that controls terrorism in those cities, and ultimately, we always have to return.
The concern -- the deep concern -- is with regard to the security risk in the interim.
~~~~~~~~~~
French President Sarkozy was way out of line in recently urging Netanyahu, according to a Channel Two report yesterday, to "get rid of Lieberman" and (are you ready for this?) replace him with Livni.
Our Foreign Ministry responded that this represented "intolerable intervention in internal Israeli affairs." And Netanyahu has in turn responded appropriately, indicating that Lieberman was an important part of the government team. Today he told more than 20 ambassadors from EU nations that he has complete confidence in Lieberman.
~~~~~~~~~~
All is not grim, however, in spite of the above.
According to Reuters, the US has given assurances that it will continue to support Israel at the UN. Additionally, US loan guarantees have been re-approved.
~~~~~~~~~~
President Peres left Sunday for a four-day visit to Azerbaijan and Kazakhstan -- the first visit by an Israeli president since the establishment of diplomatic relations between Israel and the two Muslim states. He is being accompanied by a delegation of 60 senior officials of leading Israeli companies in the fields of water technology, agriculture, communications, medical technology, and defense.
Azerbaijan stood its ground against an irate Iran, even though Iran re-called its ambassador and expelled Azerbaijan's ambassador in protest. In fact, according to Yediot Ahronot, an Iranian official went to Azerbaijan a month ago to persuade Azerbaijan to cancel its visit from Peres. Baku's response: "We don’t tell you whom to meet when you meet with Armenians, and you won’t tell us whom to meet either. Azerbaijan is a sovereign country, and no one will tell it whom to receive.”
So, we have friends, and in this case a Muslim friend, to boot.
~~~~~~~~~~
According to Arutz Sheva, the "Religious Zionist Budget" will not be cut in the coming year. This budget provides funds for strengthening Jewish identity, supporting hesder yeshivas (which combine Torah study and IDF service), and bolstering youth groups associated with the religious Zionist movement.
Sounding good from here.
~~~~~~~~~~
Also sounding good: The IDF Spokesperson's Office has confirmed that the Navy has seized a "Free Gaza Movement" boat, "Arion," that was headed for Gaza in violation of the Israeli blockade on the Strip. The boat was taken to Ashdod, and the crew detained by the IDF.
This is something the Olmert government never had the guts to do.
~~~~~~~~~~
And one last, important, piece of good news for today:
Drawing on the principle of "universal jurisdiction," which is -- as I recently wrote -- being abused for political purposes, a Spanish court had been proceeding with the investigation of the IAF bombing in Gaza on July 22, 2002 that killed Hamas terrorist Sheikh Salah Shehadeh and 14 others. The original complaint was lodged by the Palestinian Center for Human Rights (PCHR) and involved war crimes allegations against seven senior Israeli officials, including former IDF chiefs of staff Dan Halutz and Moshe Ya'alon, and former defense minister Binyamin Ben-Eliezer.
Today, Spain's National Court, in a 14 to 4 vote, decided not to proceed with the case. The legal reasoning that was applied has not yet been announced.
~~~~~~~~~~
June 25, 2009
"Shalit"
It is now three years since Gilad Shalit was grabbed by terrorists who had tunneled under the fence at the border of Gaza.
He is presumed alive, but Hamas, which is holding him, has not permitted visits by the International Red Cross, as prescribed by international law -- and a Hamas spokesman is now saying nothing is assured but Israel has to do an exchange in any event. A letter from his parents was sent to him via Jimmy Carter, who met with Hamas officials very recently; a return letter is awaited.
PM Netanyahu and DM Barak have both pledged to devote themselves to the effort to secure the release of Shalit. At the beginning of June, Netanyahu appointed former senior Mossad operative Haggai Hadas as the new envoy to take over indirect Shalit negotiations with Hamas.
In the vast few days there have been rumors flying regarding an imminent deal; the original source for this was the Palestinian Maan news agency -- which said Shalit was about to be turned over to the Egyptians, as a first step in a negotiated release. Our government is denying this.
I confess a bewilderment as to what, precisely, the Netanyahu government could (or would) do, that would satisfy Hamas, when Olmert's readiness to release even some Hamas prisoners with blood on their hands (not all) was not enough. But I am not privy to inner negotiations and have no guess as to what other factors might be involved.
The Jerusalem Post is calling for an investigation of why, in the last three years, we have not mounted a serious effort to rescue him.
~~~~~~~~~~
We are continuing to see a tremendously schizoid situation with regard to the relationship between Hamas and Fatah (the PA).
There is still talk, however diminishing, of working towards a unity government. Khaled Abu Toameh has reported that the PA said this week that they would release hundreds of Hamas detainees as a gesture towards reconciliation with Hamas.
But it was only two weeks ago that PA police arrested 36 members of Hamas in what was seen as an action that further deteriorated Hamas-Fatah relations.
And it was just yesterday that Palestinians from the area of Kalkilyia in Samaria told the US radio network NPR that there was PA fear of a Hamas coup in Judea and Samaria similar to the one that had taken place in Gaza two years ago. Said Fatah representative Ahmed Shreen:
“The Hamas leadership wants to take over [Judea and Samaria] and the proof is that they [PA police] have discovered large weapons cache right here in Kalkilyia in Hamas areas. What I am worried about is that while we are talking in Cairo, Hamas will be planning the coup."
~~~~~~~~~~
On Tuesday, Israel released Abdel Aziz Dweik, the speaker of the Palestinian Legislative Council, from prison -- where he had been since Hamas's abduction of Shalit. Dweik is affiliated with Hamas, which was victorious in the last legislative elections in the PA. There was speculation that this was evidence of a coming deal with Hamas on Shalit, but authorities claimed, no, that it's just that his term was almost up. (Why release him even a day early?)
At any rate, Hamas is now saying that Dweik should be acting president of the PA. I've been wondering what took so long here. If you remember, Hamas claimed that Abbas, who had completed a four-year term as president in January -- four years being the term specified by the PA constitution-- no longer legally held the office. Abbas claimed that the president and legislature -- also according to the PA constitution-- are supposed to be elected together, and as he began a year early because of Arafat's death, he had a year to go. Now, with Dweik -- who as speaker of the parliament is next in line -- out of jail, Hamas is doing a more direct challenge.
This is a further indication that "reconciliation" is not on the way.
~~~~~~~~~~
A statement today by Hamas politburo head in Damascus, Khaled Mashaal, sheds further light on the current Hamas-Fatah dynamics and the role being played by the US. He praises Obama's "new language" towards Hamas: "It is the first step in the right direction toward a dialogue without conditions, and we welcome this."
In any event this shouldn't surprise us, but especially now that we know Carter met with State Department personnel before meeting with Hamas is this not unexpected.
However, said Mashaal, this is not enough. What the US must do is pull out General Dayton, who is in charge of training PA forces in Judea and Samaria -- presumably to take out Hamas terrorists. This, explained Mashaal, is counterproductive to reconciliation efforts. One would think so.
~~~~~~~~~~
We heard from Dov Weissglas -- who was chief of the prime minister's office for Ariel Sharon -- recently, with regard to the fact that there was an understanding between the US and Israel that permitted development for natural growth inside existing settlements.
Now Elliot Abrams, who was in charge of Mid-Eastern Affairs for the US National Security Council during the period in question, and was involved directly in meetings with Weissglas, has written a piece in the Wall Street Journal, "Hillary is Wrong About the Settlements."
Says Abrams, in return for his pulling out of Gaza completely, as well as from four communities in northern Samaria, the US worked out an understanding on the issue of settlements with Sharon that:
"There will be no construction beyond the existing construction line (of any given existing settlement), no expropriation of land for construction, no special economic incentives and no construction of new settlements.
"...those four principles...emerged from discussions with American officials and were discussed by Messrs. Sharon and Bush at their Aqaba meeting in June 2003.
"They were not secret, either...
"In recent weeks, American officials have denied that any agreement on settlements existed. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton stated on June 17 that 'in looking at the history of the Bush administration, there were no informal or oral enforceable agreements. That has been verified by the official record of the administration and by the personnel in the positions of responsibility.'
"These statements are incorrect. Not only were there agreements, but the prime minister of Israel relied on them in undertaking a wrenching political reorientation...
"Mrs. Clinton also said there were no 'enforceable' agreements. This is a strange phrase. How exactly would Israel enforce any agreement against an American decision to renege on it? Take it to the International Court in The Hague?
"Regardless of what Mrs. Clinton has said, there was a bargained-for exchange...
"For reasons that remain unclear, the Obama administration has decided to abandon the understandings about settlements reached by the previous administration with the Israeli government. We may be abandoning the deal now, but we cannot rewrite history and make believe it did not exist."
http://online.wsj.com:80/article/SB124588743827950599.html
(Thanks Gordon P.)
~~~~~~~~~~
PM Netanyahu, in Paris, was subjected to a good deal of pressure by French President Sarkozy with regard to the settlements. I just love the way the Europeans (as did Obama) make declarations about how they are solidly supportive of our right to security, and then proceed to push a situation that threatens our security.
Netanyahu was supposed to meet with US envoy Mitchell in Paris, to discuss the settlement issue, but the meeting was called off, apparently mutually. They are not ready to talk yet.
~~~~~~~~~~
Herb Keinon, in the Post, has offered a cogent analysis of what Obama is achieving, or failing to achieve, by his adamant insistence on a total freeze on building in settlements.
On the one hand, quite simply, Obama may be doing this to garner credibility with the Arab world. This may not be palatable to us (in fact, seems enormously inequitable), but it makes sense as a strategy.
However, if Obama's goal is to foster movement in "peace negotiations," what he is doing is severely counterproductive. By making negotiations dependent upon something Netanyahu cannot and will not deliver, he has effectively forestalled the possibility of negotiations.
Keinon points out that Abbas doesn't really want to negotiate with Netanyahu anyway. What Obama has done is given him the excuse to not do so.
~~~~~~~~~~
From my perspective, of course, while there is no reason or justice in making us and not the PA the stumbling block, a situation of no negotiations sits just fine indeed. And so Obama may, very inadvertently, be doing us a favor.
~~~~~~~~~~
Interestingly, Shaul Behr, in his blog, has expressed a similar thought. Better not a friend in Washington, he reasons. For then there are no illusions, "and no need to pander."
"Obama has truly surpassed all my expectations for alienating Israelis. It really is amazing how he has swung Israeli public opinion since his inauguration: when he started out he had 31% of Israelis thinking he was pro-Israel, versus 14% who felt he was pro-Arab, and 40% felt he was neutral. The latest opinion polls have only 6% still thinking he's pro-Israel, 36% neutral, and fully 50% now feel he's pro-Arab. You gotta hand it to the guy - that is really amazing work. Not only has he debased himself by groveling in front of the Muslim world with his cringing apologetics in Cairo, but he has succeeded in completely alienating Israelis to the extent that only 6% of us feel that he's on our side!
"To me, this is very good news. He now has absolutely no leverage to extract any more stupid unilateral concessions out of us."
~~~~~~~~~~
I recommend "A call for American boldness in Iran," by Daniel Pipes, director of the Middle East Forum:
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1245184910769&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
~~~~~~~~~~
"The Good News Corner"
This is a special piece of good news for me as it involves a personal connection.
Three of my granddaughters in Beit Shemesh attend Orot Banot -- a religious nationalist school for girls that runs through sixth grade. Yesterday, I attended the graduation of the eldest, Rachel, which was held right here in Jerusalem.
School graduations in Israel tend to be elaborate programs, with dramatic and musical elements -- and this was no exception.
Part of what was offered for guests was a dance sequence by the girls. As it happens, one of the girls in the class, Chen, is in a wheelchair. She was brought out on stage and placed in the very center. In her hands was a hoop that had streamers attached, and as the girls danced around her she waved the hoop high -- essentially the star of the routine.
My daughter than told me about the annual class trip. Tiyulim (trips of various sorts -- including some extended, in outdoor areas) are routine for Israeli schools, and it is traditional to do one at the end of the year. Chen was brought along in her wheelchair. But there was some hiking done in terrain where the wheelchair could not be managed. And so the school had hired two men to carry Chen on a stretcher, so that she would not be left out.
Lastly, this: Various girls were given solo speaking parts to introduce segments of the program, and so forth. Rachel had such a part. So did Chen, brought to sit next to the podium with a teacher at her side. She struggled a bit in speaking her part and when it was over and she was being wheeled off the stage, she burst into tears. Then I saw girls from the sidelines rush to be with her, embrace her, and comfort her.
Does it get better than this? A source of great pride.
~~~~~~~~~~
June 23, 2009
"Turmoil & Confusion"
You may have your own take on how things will turn out in Iran, and right now it seems to me that whatever you would project has no more or less validity than what the "experts" have to say. For very few agree on the prognosis for the rebellion that has been taking place, whether it will fizzle or is the beginning of the end for the current regime, etc.
Certain things are clear, however: Even if Mousavi were to become victorious (a possibility that is fairly moot at this point), this in no way would mean the world was home free. Nuclear development would continue, as he was part of the original plans for such development, and the mullahs would still be in charge.
As it is, the Iranian regime has come out against compromise. Today the electoral authority in Iran, the Guardian Council, announced that "no major fraud or breach in the election" had been discovered, and that "therefore, there is no possibility of an annulment taking place." Never mind that the Guardian Council had previously acknowledged "irregularities" in the election.
There would need to be a genuine popular rebellion (some signs of which we are indeed seeing now -- whether the rebellion succeeds currently or not) for there to be a change in policy. But what started with a protest over electoral fraud has become more.
There are conflicting forecasts: either that even if the rebellion fizzles now the seeds have been sown and things will never be the same there again, or that the regime will come down more repressively than ever, squelching all rebellious efforts.
~~~~~~~~~~
In passing I note this, which is fairly obvious, but merits recognition: What a different world we live in today, when those rebelling on the street can send Internet messages appealing for help and updating the world with text and pictures. When there is Facebook and Twitter, and all the rest. Seems to me a rebellion can no longer be contained in quite the same way, no matter the repressive forces.
~~~~~~~~~~
President Obama has pretty much fallen on his face with regard to Iran. It is not my wont to quote Shmuley Boteach, but he is right on the mark here:
"Of all the sins which a leader can be guilty, few are as egregious as the simple refusal to lead. Watching President Barack Obama's at first deafening silence and then weak and hyper-cautious words on Iran has been disappointing and painful.
Our president must decide if he will serve as leader, or spectator, of the free world. This time no one is asking an American president to send in troops; no one is suggesting the deployment of laser-guided bombs. All it takes is a forthright statement from the leader of the free world: 'The people of the United States support the people of Iran in their legitimate quest for democracy and freedom and will hold accountable any and all parties responsible for the bloodshed of nonviolent demonstrators.'
"Pretty easy, right? Our president doesn't think so...
"...Forty-six years ago another young charismatic president went to the very symbol of Soviet oppression in Berlin and directly inserted himself into Soviet affairs by identifying himself with the people who were risking their lives for liberty. 'All free men, wherever they may live, are citizens of Berlin, and, therefore, as a free man, I take pride in the words Ich bin ein Berliner.'
With every passing day I grow more concerned about what might be termed the Obama doctrine. What is it? As best as I can discern, it is a preservation of the status quo. As Obama himself put it, 'America does not presume to know what is best for everyone.'
"Rarely before has an American president spoken out so forcefully in favor of moral relativism." (emphasis added)
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1245184900453&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
~~~~~~~~~~
The supreme irony is that while Obama stands on his head to avoid what he calls "meddling" in Iran, the regime is accusing him of meddling.
~~~~~~~~~~
It pleases me that our leaders have now decided to speak considerably more forcefully on Iran.
Yesterday Foreign Minister Lieberman called for involvement of the UN Security Council in the course of a statement that was clear and direct. In Ottawa to meet with Canadian Foreign Minister Lawrence Cannon, he expressed his position to the press:
...that what has been going on in Iran was the result "of a crazy regime (this man does not mince words) shooting at its citizen in the streets. Everyone needs to be clear about the danger of that type of regime holding nuclear weapons.
"...the events in Iran over the last few days obligate a clear response from the international community, first of all to convene an emergency session of the UN Security Council."
~~~~~~~~~~
PM Netanyahu, for his part, focused more on the positive. In an interview with the German newspaper, Bild, he said:
"What would be good news for Israel is a regime that stops crushing dissent, stops supporting terror, and stops trying to build nuclear weapons.
"It would mean a regime that stops denying the Holocaust and stops threatening Israel with destruction. There is no conflict between the Iranian people and the people of Israel and under a different regime the friendly relations that prevailed in the past could be restored."
He further said that what the regime had done had "unmasked" them. "What we have seen in Iran is a powerful desire on the part of the people to be free..."
~~~~~~~~~~
Tom Gross, writing on the National Review Online Blog, asks, "So were the Neo-Cons right all along?"
"President Bush said liberating Iraq would have a regional domino effect and give people a taste for freedom and democracy. Is this what we’re seeing now in Iran?"
~~~~~~~~~~
Today Netanyahu started a three day visit -- to Rome, first, and then Paris.
In his meeting with Italian Premier Silvio Berlusconi, Iran was discussed at considerable length. Italy is one of the EU nations most kindly disposed to Israel, and interaction is warm and cordial.
What is startling is that Italy is also the number one European trade partner with Iran, accounting for 26% of the import-export trade between EU countries and Iran. Berlusconi said this would continue as long as the US approved.
~~~~~~~~~~
On another score: Just days ago, PM Netanyahu, in his major address, advocated a "demilitarized state" for the Palestinians. I may return to this with further detail, but wanted to mention here that this concept is not being well-received. Obviously not with the Palestinians, who won't hear of it, but in other quarters as well, notably with the Obama administration.
There is the issue of rendering the "Palestinian state" demilitarized, which means physically removing armaments from them, and then making certain they stay that way. Netanyahu has since expanded on his original statement, saying that he wasn't asking for international forces to go in, but rather for their recognition that Israel would be able to do what was necessary in this respect, and that Israel would reserve the right to go into that state after its formation, if necessary.
It seems to me that the big problem here is that he decided, in a nod to Obama, to label this area he was proposing for the Palestinians a "state," rather than using a term such as "autonomy." Because what he is describing isn't a state and now he is in a catch-22 situation of his own creation.
A state has a right to sanctity of borders and a right to defend itself. And he is suggesting that we would be able to cross the borders of this "state," and deprive it (this is all theoretical, of course) of the means for self-defense. It's not going to play, I think. (Although Berlusconi endorsed it today.)
~~~~~~~~~~
After Public Security Minister Yitzhak Aharonovitch (Yisrael Beitenu) made a visit to the Temple Mount, the Islamic Wakf complained that this was a deliberate provocation and that the visit had not been coordinated with Muslim authorities in advance. MK Taleb A-Sanaa (United Arab List) said the purpose of the visit was to "inflame" the area, and Aharonovitch would "suffer the consequences." Excuse me?
But Aharonovitch's media advisor, Tal Harel, just shrugged it off, saying "There will always be such comments."
The fact is that the purely routine visit indeed was coordinated with the Wakf and representatives of the Islamic presence on the Mount accompanied Aharonovitch.
I deplore the fact that the Muslims act as if our Temple Mount is exclusively theirs, and I wait for the day when their misimpression will finally be corrected. At least now I see some hope of this down the road.
~~~~~~~~~~
State Department spokesman Ian Kelly yesterday, when responding to a question, said that the US demand for a freeze on settlements includes everything over the Green Line, even eastern Jerusalem. You understand, eastern Jerusalem is not just the Old City -- which would be bad enough. We're talking about Israeli Jewish neighborhoods in existence for many decades, such as French Hill and Ramat Eshkol. This is part of Israel proper -- all of it.
In their dreams!
~~~~~~~~~~
According to a State Department release of June 18, before he met with officials of Hamas, former president Jimmy Carter met with Near Eastern Affairs Bureau Deputy Assistant Secretary David Hale and National Security staff.
Does this mean the Obama administration implicitly sanctioned this meeting? Wouldn't exactly be surprised.
~~~~~~~~~~
According to Anne Bayefsky of Eye on the UN, the Obama administration has apologized for not attending Durban 2. Anna Morawiec Mansfield, Deputy Legal Adviser of the United States Mission in Geneva also expressed gratitude "to the many country delegations and senior UN officials who worked steadfastly to ... re-focus the Durban Review Conference squarely on the global fight to eliminate racism and racial discrimination.”
~~~~~~~~~~
I would like to share a radically different take from that of Ms. Mansfield. This, from Gerald Steinberg, of NGO-Monitor (and I'm delighted for the opportunity to write this):
The change in tone for Durban 2, Dr. Steinberg related in a recent talk at the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, was a victory for Jewish organizations.
We were blind-sided at Durban 1, for we had no idea what was about to take place there, especially in the NGO forum. What emerged was not just a declaration, but a strategy to be implemented -- it was after Durban 1 that we heard about the "Apartheid wall," and the "Jenin massacre." Boycotts were initiated and charges of "collective punishment." All with intent to delegitimize us.
A pattern emerged: an NGO makes a charge against us, the media pick it up, the UN makes a condemnation, and then academics come on board.
~~~~~~~~~~
But for Durban 2 we saw it coming, and a host of major Jewish organizations (NGOs) did an astonishing amount of cooperative planning. Lobbying began early to convince nations not to attend; by the time of the conference, 10 countries had announced they weren't going to participate. This immediately undercut the legitimacy of the proceedings.
At the same time, the Jewish community had learned to work the system. Jewish, pro-Israel groups registered for the conference and in the end outnumbered the anti-Israel NGOs present. This time no separate NGO forum was permitted, but the NGOs who were accredited for the conference could speak at the main event and hold side events.
And the presence of the Jewish groups reversed the atmosphere to a considerable degree. They brought in real victims of racism -- such as from Darfur -- to speak; Eli Wiesel was brought, as well. They brought in the French students who dressed as clowns during Ahmadinejad's talk -- disrupting it and making a pointed statement.
A proud effort which must be sustained in other venues.
~~~~~~~~~~
This has come to me via several reliable sources and so I pass it along:
The specialty retail grocery chain Trader Joe's is being targeted by anti-Israel groups for boycotts because it has refused to bow to demands to remove Israeli products from its shelves. Please, if you have a Trader Joe's in your area, make a point of patronizing it as extensively as possible -- and letting the management know why you are offering support. Additionally, buy Israeli products from the store and let the management know you are pleased that these are being carried.
You can find a list of store locations here: http://www.traderjoes.com/Attachments/EC_loc.pdf
~~~~~~~~~~
From time to time I would like to present links to videos that you might find interesting.
Here is an absolutely amazing pro-Israel speech by NJ Senator Bob Menendez.
http://www.youtube.com:80/watch?v=LuOH2YycFP8
Watch it, and thank him for it -- especially if you are in NJ.
http://menendez.senate.gov/contact/contact.cfm Fax: 202-228-2197
~~~~~~~~~~
"The Good News Corner"
It gives me special pleasure to write about this, announced by a spokesman from Rambam Hospital:
Lieutenant Asael Lubotzky, serving in the Second Lebanon War as part of the Golani Brigade, was seriously wounded by a direct anti-tank missile hit in the course of the horrific Battle of Bint Jbeil in July 2006. He was taken to Rambam Hospital with severe burns and injuries to both legs. Those tending him expected him to lose his right leg.
However, Dr. Alexander Lerner, Senior Orthopedic Surgeon at the hospital, was determined to save both of Lubotzky's legs.
Lubotzky underwent 20 operations and a long rehabilitation. Dr. Lerner told him that one day he would break the glass (a traditional Jewish practice) under the chuppah (wedding canopy) and he would be there to witness it.
This past Sunday, Asael Lubotzky wed Avital Shimal, and under the chuppah he used his right leg to break the glass, on his very first try.
Dr. Lerner was there, of course, and said "the joy was very great."
~~~~~~~~~~
June 21, 2009
"The Fights to be Fought"
Last Thursday, the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, in conjunction with the Konrad Adenauer Stiftung (Foundation), sponsored a conference: "Hamas, the Gaza War, and Accountability Under International Law."
A number of points made at that conference are worth sharing here. But I begin with what was for me a highlight:
Maj.-Gen. (res) Yaakov Amidror, chairing the session on "International Law & Military Operations in Practice," told us a story:
Years ago, he served in Intelligence for the IDF Northern Command. After considerable effort they had finally located a key member of Hezbollah, who had been responsible for Israeli deaths and was planning more of the same. He was inside a building, and his car sat outside. They planted a bomb under his car, with intentions of detonating it when he got in.
When the mark entered his car, however, he had a child with him.
Said General Amidror: "We didn't ask what international law said, we asked ourselves what was moral. Could we detonate that bomb with a child in the car?"
They decided they could not, and so they watched the Hezbollah terrorist (marked for another day) and the child drive away together.
~~~~~~~~~~
Remember this, my friends, and share it widely. We are, barring none, the most moral fighting force on earth. And yet we endure the greatest number of accusations regarding our "immorality."
And this, of course, is part of the story. International law in some instances has become a weapon, used against us by enemies. Often NGOs play a significant role here. Gerald Steinberg, who heads NGO-Monitor, described what is going on: NGOs consistently push cases against us in international forums, such as the International Court of Justice -- which brought down a terrible decision regarding our security fence without even mentioning the terrorism that motivated its construction.
This applies as well to the UN -- which launches biased investigations from time to time, such as the current Goldstone Inquiry, which is investigating possible Israeli "war crimes" in Gaza. During the visit of inquiry in Gaza, Justice Richard Goldstone, who heads the investigation, was accompanied throughout by armed members of Hamas.
~~~~~~~~~~
At a national level, there is abuse of the principle of universal jurisdiction -- in which a nation provides its courts with the legal jurisdiction to hear cases that involve situations completely beyond its borders. This principle was originally intended to apply to situations such as piracy on the high seas, where there was no national jurisdiction that might have pertained. Now we're seeing things like charges brought in a Spanish court against Israeli leaders for civilian deaths caused in the course of fighting terrorism. Sometimes repeat cases are brought in multiple forums.
~~~~~~~~~~
There are, indeed, some well-established foundations of international law -- targeting civilian populations, using human shields, funding terrorist organizations are all clearly illegal. But when it comes to combating terrorism, in many ways that law is insufficient.
Among the questions to be considered is how to fight a terrorist organization that is not a state -- how to determine when it is appropriate to enter the territory of another state in pursuing after such terrorists. This pertained, for example, in Lebanon: In the last war, we were fighting Hezbollah, not Lebanon. (This would change if we were to launch another operation, as Hezbollah now sits in the government of Lebanon.) Part of the answer lies with the inability of a state to control terrorists within its borders.
And there are legal issues, as well, with regard to the question of when civilians deserve protection. Says international law, when they don't take "direct part" in "hostilities." But what does that mean? Most terrorists, in contradistinction to forces in a standing army, are "civilians." There is sometimes a "revolving door" phenomenon in which they rest at home during the day, and go out at night to participate in terrorism.
The Red Cross insists that the terrorist is only a legitimate target when he is perpetrating a terrorist act. We say it's permissible to target them at any time.
Additionally there is an extra-legal, political issue with regard to defining a terrorist: there are "good terrorists."
And then there are pragmatic considerations in terms of deterrence -- how to prevent a suicide bomber from acting, for example.
~~~~~~~~~~
What I find impressive is the seriousness with which Israel takes issues of international law.
-- Prior to a conflict, training is done of officers on issue of the law, and legal advice is provided at headquarters.
-- During the conflict there is an emergency 24/7 mechanism, as well as daily meeting. The entire issue of what the role of legal advisors is during a conflict is complicated. (When do lawyers and not military people decide if an action can be taken?)
-- Following a conflict, incidents are investigated and appropriate changes to rules and procedures are made.
~~~~~~~~~~
There are four considerations as we enter a conflict:
-- Military Necessity: Confronting a terrorist infrastructure.
-- Necessary Distinction: Obligation to distinguish between civilians and enemy combatants.
This is vastly complicated by Hamas violations that make response very difficult. Booby-trapping residential buildings; recruiting children; using human shields, shooting missiles from civilian sites.
-- Proportionality: This is a balance between over-all military objective and risk to civilians.
We use a variety of techniques to minimize collateral damage, such as early warning mechanisms and aborting attacks if the situation changes.
-- Humanity: Attending to human needs.
~~~~~~~~~~
June 17, 2009
"Shifting Focus"
From where I am sitting, there is currently a surfeit of articles and analyses about Netanyahu's talk. And while, undoubtedly I'll return to the subject -- if not today, then soon -- I think it important to widen our lenses a bit and take a look at some other matters.
Before I do, however, I provide here a link to the full speech Netanyahu gave, in English translation. (Scroll down for the speech.) I apologize for having neglected to provide this earlier. This is the full speech; I had found some translations were truncated.
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/131865
~~~~~~~~~~
I repeat here, verbatim, substantial parts of a letter to the editor that appeared in the Post on Friday, written by Jan Sokolovsky, an American-Israeli and a lawyer, in consultation with a exceedingly knowledgeable international lawyer. It addresses the question of whether Bush's 2004 letter to Sharon regarding settlement blocs is binding, and was written in response to an article that said it was not because it was not ratified by the Senate.
It is true that the US Constitution requires approval of two-thirds of the Senate to ratify a treaty. But, in addition to treaties, for over 200 years American presidents have conducted foreign policy by executive agreements, which are generally an exchange of commitments between the president or his agent and the head of state of another country, or his agent.
The Litvinov Agreement signed in 1933 by FDR and the Russian commissar for foreign affairs is an example, providing for US recognition of the Soviet Union in exchange for the assignment to the US of all claims by Russia against US citizens. It was upheld by the Supreme Court in 1942, holding that tit had the same binding effect as a treaty.
Executive agreements have become an essential tool of US foreign policy. In fact, since the 1960s, each year has seen, on average, 250 executive agreements, compared to 30 treaties. Ariel Sharon's undertaking to withdraw from the Gaza Strip in exchange for the commitments in the Bush letter constituted an executive agreement.
We have every right to continue to rely on those assurances, and should be shocked that the Obama administration appears to have disavowed them. While the president can renege on US commitments...his doing so would call into question this administration's repeated statements that it intends to abide by international law.
~~~~~~~~~~
This very issue was in the news just today, as Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman is in Washington and has met with his counterpart, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.
She reiterated the demand of Obama that settlements be frozen. But Lieberman told her it wasn't going to happen:
"People are born and people die in Judea and Samaria, and the settlements cannot be completely frozen.
"Our stance is clear. We have understandings with the previous administration on the matter."
Right on! Hillary's response, diplomatically put, was that we haven't heard the last from them on this yet.
~~~~~~~~~~
Aaron Lerner, Director of IMRA, yesterday cited a statement by Obama at a press conference, with regard to settlements:
"[Obama:] 'And there is a tendency to try to parse exactly what this means, but I think the parties on the ground understand that if you have a continuation of settlements that, in past agreements, have been categorized as illegal, that's going to be an impediment to progress.'
"OK. So he is president of the United States of America. And you are drawing a salary and don't want to tick off the boss by correcting him.
"But why isn't there someone on his team - or someone from the outside who has access to him - who can explain to him that there are no 'past agreements' that categorize the settlement activity as 'illegal.'
"That's 'agreements.' The Roadmap wasn't an agreement. Nor was the Annapolis 'Joint Understanding on Negotiations.' The only 'agreements' [i.e., signed documents] are the series of Oslo 'agreements' and none of them categorize any Israeli settlement activity as 'illegal.'
"In point of fact, the only construction activity that is illegal in the Oslo agreements is Palestinian construction that is in violation of various mostly security related restrictions."
~~~~~~~~~~
I will note here that Condoleezza Rice, as Secretary of State, knew the settlements weren't illegal. That's why she would, most irritatingly, refer to settlements as "not helpful," or "not in the spirit." As if we had to go above and beyond. But this is worse.
~~~~~~~~~~
And there's yet more to say about Obama. (Isn't there always?)
I was going to address his insistence that he still intends to "dialogue" with Iran, the serious questions of recent electoral improprieties not withstanding. But the situation, with regard to the US position, has morphed from merely seriously stupid to shameful. This is with regard to the refusal of his administration to lend even a modicum of support to those currently protesting in the streets of Iran in the face of considerable repression and official violence.
After a long period of silence, Obama has now said, "I want to start off by being very clear that it is up to Iranians to make decisions about who Iran's leaders will be."
~~~~~~~~~~
As Jeff Jacoby has just written:
"Obama made it clear that he was not going to lift a finger for the courageous throngs in the streets -- and that he was keen to engage the junta, no matter how vicious or contemptible its behavior. 'We will continue,' he said, 'to pursue a tough, direct dialogue between our two countries.' Yesterday he repeated that while he does not like to see 'violence directed at peaceful protesters,' it would not be 'productive' for the president of the United States 'to be seen as meddling' in Iranian affairs.
"But neutrality is not an option. By not unequivocally supporting the Iranian protesters, Obama is aiding their oppressors. Reporting from Tehran the other night, CNN's Samson Desta noted that Iranian students have repeatedly approached him to say that 'they want to appeal to President Obama. They say, "Is he going to accept this result? Because if he does, then we are doomed."'
"Should it really be so difficult for a president who campaigned for office on the themes of hope and change to raise his voice on behalf of the hundreds of thousands of brave Iranians who are risking their lives to bring hope and change to their country? Where is the president who proclaimed on his first day in office that those 'who cling to power through corruption and deceit and the silencing of dissent . . . are on the wrong side of history?' If he could say it at his inauguration, why can't he say it now?
"'Engagement' with the foul Ahmadinejad and the turbaned dictators he answers to has always been a chimera; if that wasn't clear before last week's brazenly rigged election results, surely it is clear now..."
http://www.jeffjacoby.com/5739/obama-iran-and-the-tiananmen-playbook
~~~~~~~~~~
Bret Stephens, writing in the Wall Street Journal, delivered a similar message:
"On Saturday, spokesman Robert Gibbs said the White House 'was impressed by the vigorous debate and enthusiasm that this election generated, particularly among young Iranians.' [Vigorous debate and enthusiasm????] On Sunday, Joe Biden allowed that there 'was some real doubt' about the election, but said the U.S. would continue its outreach to Iran anyway...
"This is a strange turn of events. In Cairo two weeks ago, Mr. Obama trumpeted 'my commitment . . . to governments that reflect the will of the people.'
"Here's a recent comment from one Iranian demonstrator posted on the Web site of the National Iranian American Council. 'WE NEED HELP, WE NEED SUPPORT,' this demonstrator wrote. 'Time is not on our side. . . . The most essential need of young Iranians is to be recognized by US government. They need them not to accept the results and do not talk to government as an official, approved one.'
"...As for the hope -- expressed over the weekend by one unnamed senior U.S. administration official to the New York Times -- that Mr. Ahmadinejad would moderate his course in foreign policy to allay concerns about his legitimacy, the president [Ahmadinejad] made his views plain on Sunday. 'It's not true,' he said. 'I'm going to be more and more solid.'
"...Rarely in U.S. history has a foreign policy course been as thoroughly repudiated by events as his [Obama's] approach to Iran in his first months in office." (emphasis added)
~~~~~~~~~~
What does it take, to get avid supporters of Obama to hang their heads in shame, for what they have wrought?
Coming full circle, this dishonorable and pig-headed policy of Obama's teaches us what we might and might not expect from him vis-a-vis Israel.
~~~~~~~~~~
Yesterday, the Post reported that Palestinians associated with Hamas are in Teheran and helping Iranian authorities to crush the street rebellion. They know who butters their bread.
But this doesn't disturb Jimmy Carter. After meeting with Hamas officials, he announced that he plans to ask President Obama to remove Hamas from the US-designated list of terror organizations.
Carter, the man who was in the White House, and blew it badly, when the current Iranian regime violently grabbed control of the country. No remorse, it seems. No good advice for the current White House resident on making genuine national amends.
What moral obtuseness! What lost opportunity.
~~~~~~~~~~
I'd like to recommend this article, "Willful Deafness About the Meaning of Two States." You might find it useful to share with others, to help them understand the parameters of what we are dealing with.
Writes author Peggy Shapiro:
"The Palestinians, Saudis and Egyptians propose two states. The U.N., E.U., U.S. demand two states. Most Israeli governments have agreed to the concept of two states. Other than Israel, none of the proponents of a "two-state" solution ever planned for one of the states to be the Jewish State of Israel."
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/06/willful_deafness_about_the_rea.html
~~~~~~~~~~
"The Good News Corner"
-- The Israel Antiquities Authority has announced it will be re-excavating a well-preserved 1,700 year old mosaic floor, approximately 180 square meters in size, which colorfully depicts detailed mammals, birds, fish, and ships of the time. It was discovered in 1996, in the course of widening of a street in Lod (south of Tel Aviv) and was then covered over for protection until the funding could be found to complete the excavation and turn the site into a public attraction.
-- Israel is joining with Germany and Ethiopia in launching an agricultural development project in Ethiopia to promote irrigation development activities throughout the country. Israel will be providing the technical know-how.
-- There are currently 110 bio-med companies in Jerusalem, with Teva Pharmaceuticals the largest. Now Mayor Nir Barkat has announced plans to raise 100 million NIS to be invested into the industry in Jerusalem in the next five years.
Right now, approximately 43% of all bio-tech research and about half of all clinical research in Israel is done at Hebrew University and Hadassah Medical Center, both in Jerusalem. Additionally, Jerusalem hosts the only technological incubator in Israel dedicated to drug development, BioLine Innovations Jerusalem.
~~~~~~~~~~
June 16, 2009
"The Right or Wrong of It"
The majority of communications I've received with regard to my last posting indicates that those responding to my material, in the main, seem to agree with me. But not everyone does (of course), and those e-mails that have come to me expressing despair at what Netanyahu did in mentioning a Palestinian state, though few in number, are so heart-felt that they merit further discussion.
In the end, as I've just written to one reader, we will likely have to agree to disagree. At least for now. For my opinion has not changed. Which doesn't mean that it might not change in the course of time. (I fervently hope not, not because I need to be correct, but because this would mean the situation was going badly.)
~~~~~~~~~~
I hope and trust that everyone who reads my material understands fully that I am not glad Netanyahu did what he did; it is not the way I would have chosen. I would have preferred to have had him allude simply to some autonomy, without a mention of a "state," although -- clarifying once again -- he did not actually say a sovereign state, and it was clear that he did not intend a sovereign state.
But neither am I panicked at this point. And it seems to me important to deal pragmatically in terms of how to best protect ourselves and the nation in the current situation.
Some people are upset at the mere mention of a state for the Palestinians because this is seen as an ideological betrayal: The land is ours. Period. No more to say.
Others are concerned that while he advanced highly appropriate parameters -- recognition of Israel as a Jewish state, demilitarization, etc. etc. -- the world will quickly forget them and only remember that he said the phrase "Palestinian state" and push us to get on with it. That is, his arguments will have been futile, and, as he made a concession by uttering the phrase, he will have set himself up for ever more concessions.
~~~~~~~~~~
At the core of the discussion here, I believe, is the question of how much Israel can go it alone in the world, most particularly now.
Again, anyone who regularly reads what I write knows that I reject appeasement as a policy and am sickened by an approach, à la Livni, that is founded in seeking approval from other nations. I delight, for example, in the fact that Netanyahu has had the courage to tell Obama we will continue to build for natural growth in the settlements, even as the president demands a total freeze. If we, as a nation, are not for ourselves, if we do not stand up for ourselves, we are lost.
~~~~~~~~~~
And yet, and yet... It is legitimate to also ask whether we can stand against the world totally, in all circumstances, when it is so ready to be arrayed against us. It is not necessarily inappropriate to ponder what we would do if no one would sell us needed military equipment, or if the Security Council passes a resolution, under chapter 7, which is binding, calling for international troops to be sent here. (It should be noted that such a resolution would mean that the US, which is capable of vetoing such resolutions, was no longer with us.)
Walking the line between these two poles is an excruciatingly difficult task, obviously influenced by ideology and philosophical bent.
I wrote about Netanyahu early on that his style tends not to be confrontational. He is more likely to play the game, as a skilled politician, in an effort to do what he sees as best for Israel. And I believe that is what he did with his speech:
He held his head high. He said things which, I admit for the first time here, actually brought tears to my eyes. That he spoke about our link to Isaiah, who walked here! That he said this is our home and where we were forged. He gave nothing on that score.
What he gave was the phrase "Palestinian state." With provisos attached. Not free. Not like Olmert who made speeches about how much we must sacrifice.
~~~~~~~~~~
He may have made a serious tactical mistake to have given this much. But I still believe at this point -- and it is on this matter that I pray I won't be proven wrong -- that he did it with sincerity in terms of what he sees as best for us in difficult times.
I have alluded to this several times over the last weeks and months: What Netanyahu has said repeatedly is that we are not living in normal times -- that we are confronting extraordinary dangers -- and that he must consider this as he makes his decisions.
What is implied is that this somehow involves our need to take out Iran's nuclear capacity. This is a major theme of his.
We ask, what can he gain via this concession in terms of our ability to attack Iran? And we have no facile or ready answer. We are not sure at all that there is anything. But that is simply the point: we are not, cannot be, sure. And I have not yet been ready to second guess him on this.
Caroline Glick, in her most recent piece (which I will come back to), addresses this very issue and says that:
"In fairness to Netanyahu, in light of Obama's ideological commitment to the two-state paradigm which blames Israel for the absence of peace, it is far from clear that he has any choice other than to go along with the president and just play for time.
"...For Netanyahu...buying time with a hostile administration may be the best he can aspire to during his current term in office.
"...If his speech succeeded in blunting US pressure on Israel - even temporarily - on the Palestinian front, and...Netanyahu has gained the opportunity to act on the Iranian front. If during his current term he prevents Iran from becoming a nuclear power and makes no concessions in Judea, Samaria, Jerusalem or the Golan Heights, he will be remembered as one of our greatest leaders ..."
If.
~~~~~~~~~~
What I am seeing is that the right wing of Likud is lining up behind Netanyahu. There is no desire to criticize him severely or attempt to take him down.
Minister of Strategic Affairs Moshe Ya'alon, who is no shrinking violet when it comes to talking tough, is saying that Netanyahu's speech has "exposed the true face of the Palestinians...All their reactions have been refusal and war."
There is perhaps the beginning of a model for us here.
~~~~~~~~~~
Netanyahu, for his part, claims that our situation is better now than it was before the speech. "The American response to the speech was positive. I would be misleading you to say that the way has been cleared, but our situation is better today than before."
A source in the prime minister's office said that Netanyahu succeeded in "putting a number of diplomatic balls in the air."
While a senior Israeli diplomatic official cited by the Post said, "Before the speech Netanyahu had no credit with the Europeans, and in fact was in deficit. Now he has some credit. Not a lot, but some."
~~~~~~~~~~
Is this true? Will it make a difference? It's too soon to tell.
But here is the part that causes unease. When the Americans and the Europeans push for more concessions, will Netanyahu, having done his thing, hold tight? If he continues to give, and, especially, if he backs off on any of the red lines he himself set into place, it will NOT be all right. And it will be time to scream and yell.
This will be a time of testing. Already I am seeing that Obama is saying that the mention of a Palestinian state was a great start, but we have to move forward with more.
Netanyahu must hold tight.
Glick believes that ultimately a confrontation between Netanyahu and Obama will be inevitable.
~~~~~~~~~~
I believe firmly that there is a place for each of us in terms of how this situation evolves. I've said that there is worry that the provisos set out by Netanyahu with regard to a Palestinian state are quickly forgotten by the world. But we can make sure that they are not forgotten. We can raise them at every forum, and in letters to the editor and most especially in communication to elected officials.
Caroline Glick says something similar: "At this point, it is up to the public and our representatives in the Knesset to pave the way for a better policy in the future. This we can do by rejecting the two-state paradigm and conducting a public discourse relevant to our national interests."
I will be coming back to this with specifics.
~~~~~~~~~~
Glick's article, "Obama's losing streak and us," is well worth reading in its entirety.
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1244371106195&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
Among her points:
"Netanyahu's speech was an eloquent, rational and at times impassioned defense of Israel....a breath of fresh air. But it is hard to see how it could have possibly had any lasting impact on Obama or his advisers.
"To be moved by rational argument, a person has to be open to rational discourse. And what we have witnessed over the past week with the Obama administration...is that its foreign policy is not informed by rationality but by the president's morally relative, post-modern ideology. In this anti-intellectual and anti-rational climate, Netanyahu's speech has little chance of making a lasting impact on the White House.
"...Netanyahu's speech was a positive contribution to the general discourse on the Middle East and Israel's place in it...
"...Netanyahu's speech was a much-needed strong defense. But it was not a perfect defense. It suffered from two flaws that may come back to haunt the premier in the years to come. First, his demand that the US lead the international community in guaranteeing that the Palestinian state is demilitarized provided the Obama administration with a new means to trick Israel into making suicidal concessions.
"...The only way to ensure that a Palestinian state is demilitarized is to send in forces to demilitarize it. Obviously the Americans won't take such a step...
"...But by appointing the US the guarantor of its [the PA's] demilitarized status, Netanyahu is inviting the US to lie...
"The other problem with Netanyahu's speech is that by accepting the idea of a Palestinian state, and embracing Obama's fantasy that it is possible to reach a deal with the Palestinian Authority, Netanyahu blocked the possibility that Israel will be able to forge a new policy...Netanyahu's conditional acceptance of Obama's false and ideologically motivated two-state paradigm damns Israel to the position of foot dragger in relation to someone else's policy rather than trailblazer for its own policy."
But it is here that she then says he may have had no choice but to play it as he did.
~~~~~~~~~~
One other article of note here:
Khaled Abu Toameh asks in the Post why the Palestinian response to Netanyahu was so harsh.
His conclusion is that it is because Obama had created false expectations among the Palestinians. The leaders of the PA were so soothed by Obama's courting of the Arab/Muslim world, and so certain that Obama would push Netanyahu to considerable concessions, that they thought they would be given all that they sought. And they were thrown into shock when it didn't happen.
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1244371107342&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
One more danger of Obama's pie-in-the-sky policies.
~~~~~~~~~~
More will follow on this same subject, which remains so critical.
~~~~~~~~~~
June 15, 2009
"Response is Muted"
What is muted is the criticism of Netanyahu's speech from the right wing of his own party.
Minister of Information Yuli Edelstein, for example, said:
"I think PM Netanyahu proved last night why he is the one who should be leading the country during these difficult times; his speech reflected the complex situation we are currently in."
While Edelstein didn't agree with Netanyahu's reference to a Palestinian state, he said he understood "the pressure he is facing."
And Minister Benny Begin, who said he had some reservations about the speech, praised Netanyahu's "important remarks regarding the root causes of the conflict.
"In his speech Netanyahu presented a number of facts that are sometimes absent from public discourse in Israel and the world, such as why are we here. We are here because we have a historic right to be here, as opposed to those who claim Israel was established on account of the Holocaust."
MK Danny Danon said the allusion to Palestinian statehood was "one unnecessary sentence in a brilliant speech... [The] sentence was added as a result of American pressure."
~~~~~~~~~~
Less muted was the criticism of Habayit Yehudi (The Jewish House), which is part of the coalition, while MK Aryeh Eldad of Ehud Leumi (National Union), which is not in the coalition, was pointed in his attack on the speech.
~~~~~~~~~~
As I had indicated yesterday, Likud members are beginning to work from inside of Likud to block the formation of a Palestinian state. Deputy Minister Ayoub Kara said the Likud Central Committee would be convened as quickly as possible to vote on policy with regard to this issue.
Kara, who is convinced that a majority of Likud members are opposed to a Palestinian state, said that while the party respects Netanyahu, he, in turn, must respect the democratic processes of the party. He referred to the White House as "a branch office of the [Israeli Arab] Balad party." (Kara is Druze.)
~~~~~~~~~~
The work of the Likud party and others in the coalition to block action to establish a Palestinian state will be all important in preventing the slide further down that slippery slope.
In actuality, his reference to "a Palestinian state" aside, Netanyahu didn't actually lay out parameters for a sovereign state for the Palestinians (who fully recognize this). A political entity that cannot have an army, cannot make the treaties it chooses, cannot control its own air space, etc. etc. is not a sovereign state.
The problem is that the world is all too ready to forget the restrictive parameters that were part of the political plan espoused by the prime minister, and to simply latch on to the fact that he uttered those words, thereby ostensibly endorsing a state.
So when the world demands that he proceed, now that he has voiced "endorsement," he will be blocked by his coalition. In truth, I don't believe he will be sorry about this, and he may actually have counted on it. It gives him an out: I cannot do more or the government will fall.
~~~~~~~~~~
Obama responded positively to the speech, already doing just what I described: He grabbed ahold of the phrasing, and ignored the provisos that went with it.
White House Press Secretary Gibbs said:
"The President welcomes the important step forward in Prime Minister Netanyahu's speech. The President is committed to two states, a Jewish state of Israel and an independent Palestine, in the historic homeland of both peoples.
"He believes this solution can and must ensure both Israel's security and the fulfillment of the Palestinians' legitimate aspirations for a viable state, and he welcomes Prime Minister Netanyahu's endorsement of that goal."
Excuse me, Netanyahu did not endorse "the fulfillment of the Palestinians' legitimate aspirations for a viable state." Let us not put words in his mouth.
~~~~~~~~~~
Part of the challenge that Netanyahu leveled last night was against the US government:
"Therefore, today we ask our friends in the international community, led by the United States, for what is critical to the security of Israel: Clear commitments that in a future peace agreement, the territory controlled by the Palestinians will be demilitarized: namely, without an army, without control of its airspace, and with effective security measures to prevent weapons smuggling into the territory – real monitoring, and not what occurs in Gaza today. And obviously, the Palestinians will not be able to forge military pacts."
This, Obama has conveniently ignored.
~~~~~~~~~~
As NewsMax pointed out, what complicates Netanyahu's stipulations is the fact that the US, via the office of General Dayton, is currently training PA security troops. How can the US work towards guaranteeing a demilitarized Palestinian state if this is the case? Would the US ever come out for a policy that requires Palestinian demilitarization? And what would then happen to the troops that had been trained?
There has already been controversy about these troops, who are theoretically being trained to defeat Hamas. First because Dayton is alleged by reliable sources to have said that if the Palestinians don't get their state in a couple of years they may turn on Israelis. Besides which, there are still attempts to forge a unity government that would embrace an unrepentant Hamas. In which case there are serious questions regarding who would command these forces Dayton is training. All of which leads to the most serious of questions regarding the priority of rushing pell-mell to train these troops in an unstable situation.
It is unlikely in the extreme that a Muslim/Arab-tilting Obama will grapple with these issues with seriousness. Easier to make glib, pie-in-the-sky statements and reach for the quick fix.
~~~~~~~~~~
As one of many indicators of what a non-starter the whole proposition of a state with the stipulations outlined by Netanyahu is, we have this:
Jimmy Carter, former US president and spokesman for the Arabs, says that a demand that the PA recognize Israel as a Jewish state is "an obstacle to peace."
Doesn't this perverse statement say it all?
~~~~~~~~~~
Even more pertinent: Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak has made precisely the same charge: "Netanyahu's demand that Palestinians recognize Israel as the Jewish state is ruining the chance for peace."
To those who don't understand the true root of the conflict, such a statement is astounding. For Israel as a Jewish state side-by-side with Palestine as an Arab state would be a given, one might think.
But "peace" in the Arab lexicon means destroying Israel as a Jewish state. We've hit a sore point and must hold fast to our rights.
Mubarak is now hinting that there will be violence if there is not a comprehensive peace agreement.
"The solution to the major problems of the Arab and Islamic worlds is through Jerusalem,” he insisted, meaning that we would have to surrender all of eastern Jerusalem, at least.
The solution to the major problems of the Arab and Islamic worlds? What garbage.
~~~~~~~~~~
The EU has decided not to proceeding with the upgrade of ties with Israel, which had been in the planning stage, because Netanyahu's talk was deemed insufficient. "We need a few steps more," declared Luxembourg's foreign minister.
They should live so long.
The PA saluted this action. An aide to Abbas is calling for isolation of Israel within the international community.
~~~~~~~~~~
So here it is, my friends. In his speech, Bibi told the story of our heritage and our legitimate claim to this land. I cannot remember another leader of the State referring to our links here that go back to Abraham and to Isaiah. He spoke of the settlers as Zionists and patriots. He insisted that Jerusalem will remain eternally undivided, under Israeli sovereignty. He identified the true roots of our conflict with the Arabs. And then he asked for the help of the Almighty in finding peace.
He did us proud.
Yes, he uttered the term "Palestinian state," which makes many of us cringe. But he set out parameters that provide for our rights and security needs -- including the absolute right to be recognized as a Jewish state, as well as the right to live in Judea and Samaria, and to not be threatened by terrorists. He demanded a cessation in PA incitement, and demilitarization; and he categorically refused to accept a single Palestinian Arab refugee.
He did all this in the face of enormous pressure from Obama, reacting in a way that I believe he is convinced is in our best interest.
Because he didn't turn into an eager Olmert clone, running after the Palestinian Arabs to show how many concessions we can make...because he had the audacity to make demands on behalf of Israel, he is facing an enormous amount of hostility from the international community, and most specifically from the Arabs.
And so at this point Bibi deserves our support. We owe it to him, and to our nation, which must present a united front now.
Once again, I ask you to contact him. Tell him what you appreciated about his speech. Let him know that you want him to continue to speak for our strength -- that this is the only way to go, and that you will stand proudly with the nation whatever the difficulties.
Fax: 02-670-5369 (From the US: 011-972-2-670-5369)
Phone: 03-610-9898 (From the US: 011-972-3-610-9898)
E-mail: pm_eng2@it.pmo.gov.il (underscore after pm)
~~~~~~~~~~
Is this a glimmer of light?
According to an interview Malcolm Hoenlein gave to NewsMax, American Jewish leaders "are expressing concern about what was said [in Obama's Cairo speech]. I've heard it from some of his strongest
supporters. It's expected from his detractors. Even people close to him have said to us that there were parts of the speech that bothered them.
"...There's a lot of questioning going on about what he really believes and what does he really stand for."
Hoenlein, is executive vice chairman of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, which represents major Jewish mainstream organizations such as B'nai Brith, American Jewish Congress, and the Anti-Defamation League. While he insists these are simply his observations, he has his finger on a lot of pulses. Until now the discontent that has been present among Jewish leaders -- including and especially those on the left -- has been expressed only privately.
www.newsmax.com:80/headlines/obama_hoenlein_israel/2009/06/14/225064.html
Not only do we need to hope he's reading the situation correctly, it seems to me there are those who are lay members of these various organizations who might now begin to ask hard questions regarding the positions of their leadership.
~~~~~~~~~~
June 14, 2009
"He Did Good in Tough Circumstances"
I am greatly appreciative of the Zionist tone of the just-completed words of Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu. He said things that have very badly needed to be said for a long time:
It's time we faced the truth of why peace has been so elusive. The root of the problem is not our presence in Judea and Samaria. It is the refusal of the Palestinians to recognize the right of the Jewish people in its historic homeland.
There was violence against Jews here before there was a single soldier in Judea and Samaria.
Even those referred to as the moderate members of the Palestinian Authority won't say, "Israel is the nation of the Jewish people."
__________
Every time we have gotten close to an agreement with the Palestinians, they have retreated and raised their demands. We have tried many things.
Claims that withdrawal from land will lead to peace have not proven to be so. "Every retreat by us was met with thousands of suicide terror bombings and rockets. We vacated the Gaza Strip to the last centimeter and received a rain of missiles on our communities and our children."
__________
For 3,500 years there has been a connection between our people and this land. This is the land of our forefathers. Abraham walked here, and Isaac and Jacob, David and Solomon, Isaiah and Jeremiah. Here our identity was forged.
Our legitimacy does not derive from the catastrophes that have befallen us historically, leading to the Holocaust. (This was a direct response to Obama!)
This is the homeland of the Jewish people. It is our right to build here.
__________
But we must face realities. There is also a Palestinian community living in our homeland. We don't want to rule over them. We should be two free peoples living side by side.
He is willing to start negotiations immediately to improve conditions, to develop entrepreneurship and more. This enhances peace.
__________
Before we can approach the idea of a Palestinian state, however, certain issues must be addressed:
[] The Palestinians must acknowledge that Israel is the homeland of the Jewish people.
[] An Palestinian entity must be demilitarized. They cannot close their air space to us or import missiles or make treaties with the likes of Hezbollah. There must be iron-clad security provisions.
[] Jerusalem must remain undivided.
[] Not a single Palestinian refugee can be settled inside of Israel, as this would be incompatible with our existence as a Jewish state. This can be accomplished, as we absorbed our Jewish refugees. (The settlement of the refugee issue is huge -- as it's been used for 60 years as a weapon against us.)
~~~~~~~~~~
Netanyahu said that we will continue to build for natural growth in our settlements. The settlers are not enemies of the state, he declared, but pioneers, Zionists, and principled people. (Good to have this said!)
Further, said Netanyahu, the Palestinians must stop incitement, create law and order in their communities and decide between the path of peace and the path of Hamas. We will never sit at the table with the terrorists of Hamas. (Which precludes a unity government as Abbas and Obama envision it.)
~~~~~~~~~~
Other issues Netanyahu touched upon were the overriding danger of Iran, and the need to expand the circle of reconciliation for regional peace.
~~~~~~~~~~
Yes, he said "Palestinian state." He might have/should have referred to an entity less than a state, as he did previously. This was his caving to Obama and the international community in the face of extraordinary pressure. And on this I expect to hear from some of my readers because there is an issue of principles that should not be enunciated, even if they will not be fulfilled. Better Benny Begin's statement that if the "two state solution" is the only solution then there is no solution.
The fact, however, is that he attached so many provisos to this, that it is clear that he does not believe this will ever come to be. What is more, early statements from the right wing of his coalition make it clear that they will make sure none of this comes to fruition. (They are something less than happy with what he has said in this regard.)
And if truth be told, what he has described is less than a sovereign state, even though he used the word "state."
~~~~~~~~~~
PA negotiator Saeb Erekat has said that we can wait a thousand years for them to sit at the table with us, given these conditions.
Khaled Abu Toameh is reporting that in Ramallah they are saying the speech is worse than they had expected and may trigger a new intifada. Netanyahu is being called "a swindler and a liar" and the person who buried the peace process.
From the office of Abbas:
"The speech has destroyed all initiatives and expectations. It has also placed restrictions on all efforts to achieve peace and constitutes a clear challenge to the Palestinian, Arab and American positions."
Surely, as we take the measure of the speech, these reactions are important.
~~~~~~~~~~
Already I'm reading in various sources that Netanyahu "endorsed" a Palestinian state. Words are important. Olmert endorsed such a state. Olmert couldn't wait to give up half our country and half our capital so that this state might come into being.
Netanyahu's message, as I read it, was that, if this and this and this precondition were to be met, he would be willing to consider such a state. But until such conditions are met (they won't be) we cannot even approach the idea of this state and certainly cannot start negotiations to bring it into being. That is not exactly a ringing endorsement.
He said:
"It is impossible to expect us to agree in advance to the principle of a Palestinian state without assurances that this state will be demilitarized.
"On a matter so critical to the existence of Israel, we must first have our security needs addressed."
And he said:
"The Palestinian leadership must arise and say: 'Enough of this conflict. We recognize the right of the Jewish people to a state of their own in this land, and we are prepared to live beside you in true peace.'
"I am yearning for that moment, for when Palestinian leaders say those words to our people and to their people, then a path will be opened to resolving all the problems between our peoples, no matter how complex they may be.
"Therefore, a fundamental prerequisite for ending the conflict is a public, binding and unequivocal Palestinian recognition of Israel as the nation state of the Jewish people."
And he said:
"...the Palestinians must decide between the path of peace and the path of Hamas. The Palestinian Authority will have to establish the rule of law in Gaza and overcome Hamas. Israel will not sit at the negotiating table with terrorists who seek their destruction".
This says "You want a Palestinian state? OK. But these are my terms up front before I agree to it." Metaphorically, this is "Put up, or shut up." And it puts our rights and our security before the "need" to create such a state.
~~~~~~~~~~
More will follow as there is careful analysis of his words and various reactions are recorded.
~~~~~~~~~~
June 11, 2009
"Disquietude"
Unease, a restive sense -- within the nation and within the hearts of many of us. For we are on the edge and very few, if any, are certain which way we are about to go.
It is possible that Prime Minister Netanyahu feels the greatest disquietude most of all, as he balances many factors in preparing his major speech, scheduled for Sunday. Today it was reported that he hasn't completed it yet.
We see the vast pressure on him of the Likud right wing, not to go with a "two state solution."
There is Benny Begin, who, delivering a speech at Likud headquarters, said:
"There won't be a Palestinian state. The realities of the past 15 years gravely harmed the concept of two states for two peoples. The state they want is only intended to destroy Israel. The Palestinians are not interested in the two-state solution. They want the two-stage solution, after which there would be only one state: Palestine.
"...if the only solution is two states for two peoples, then there is no solution.
"...these communities [the settlements] are implementing the Israeli nation's right to Israel, not only in the Sharon [coastal plain] but in Judea and Samaria. Our pioneers are living there in complicated conditions. But this melody cannot be stopped."
Other MKs echoed these sentiments in their own words.
~~~~~~~~~~
Then, Heaven help us, we have President Shimon Peres, who met earlier today with EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana and told him it's time to move to Phase 2 of the Road Map and establish temporary borders for a Palestinian state. Is this man out of his gourd? This sort of politicking is beyond his ceremonial mandate as president. Tonight several MKs informed him of this and the need to cool it.
~~~~~~~~~~
Knesset Speaker Ruby Rivlin (Likud), today said that Netanyahu doesn't believe in a "two state solution":
"...the prime minister needs to say only what he believes in and tell the Americans - as they asked - the truth. I think that when the prime minister speaks of an arrangement, he really wants to reach an arrangement. But I am not sure that the prime minister believes in two states for two peoples."
Rivlin, bless him, also said:
"We have a right to build here. I think the term 'natural growth' is apologetic and does not embody a principled stance. We live in these places out of a faith in the justice of our cause and also because we see these areas as Israel's belt of security.
"...we are here to stay in Samaria (which is where he visited today to plant trees) and despite some discordant voices we are not considering any other possibility."
~~~~~~~~~~
At the meeting at Likud headquarters, Netanyahu himself refuted a recent prediction by Mubarak that he had decided to embrace a "two state solution." But then he added:
"I will be considering a lot of challenges that come from different directions, that will impact generations. There are strategic threats facing Israel that require us to balance them out."
This echoes statements he has made several times recently. It suggests in vague terms that because of the threat of Iran and positions we have to take with regard to our self-defense, he may have to make concessions that he wouldn't otherwise make.
Because I've covered this ground before, to the very best of my ability, I will be brief now. Can I be certain that this is not simply a cover for concessions to Obama he has decided to make? I cannot. But neither can I be certain that he's not on to something, and that there's not a trade-off or a genuine need he sees to secure a certain modicum of international good will because of our broader situation. Not a one of us is in his shoes, or privy to all the factors that will weigh into his decision.
~~~~~~~~~~
Perhaps most comforting at this point is a Reuters report that American diplomats are quietly saying that Obama is not going to be satisfied with Netanyahu's speech.
One top diplomat quoted said: "The Americans are not satisfied with what they have been told."
The prediction of another diplomat is that Netanyahu will stop short of coming out for a state, and will talk in more general terms about Palestinian governance.
This is what we've been hearing from him. If he goes no further than this, we're OK.
~~~~~~~~~~
It is also encouraging, and of no little significance, that the people of this country are behind Bibi and do not want him to comply with Obama's demands.
For the full Maagar Machot poll, see:
http://imra.org.il/story.php3?id=43912
~~~~~~~~~~
There's one other approach that Bibi may utilize and which I want to mention here: That the issue is not resolution of an Israeli-Palestinian conflict, but rather the readiness of the broader Arab world to accept Israel in its midst. There are statements he has made of late that suggest he might touch upon this, even if obliquely. He is looking for broader Arab involvement.
There is no question -- whether or not this would be verbalized -- that the so-called Palestinian issue would dissipate were the Arab states to accept us. For the entire Palestinian issue, with regard to refugee "return" and all the rest, was promoted by the Arabs as a weapon against us.
And there is a great deal the Arab world might do, from accepting refugees to pressuring Abbas to moderate more genuinely. Might do...but won't.
The Arab idea of assisting with the problem goes as far as the Saudi "peace plan," and no further. That plan is just one more weapon: Withdraw to the pre-'67 lines, take in the refugees and allow the formation of a Palestinian state, and then we'll talk about normalizing relationships with you. Very recently the Arab League determined that this plan was fine as it was and that no modifications were called for.
~~~~~~~~~~
US envoy Mitchell, in meetings just completed with Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmed Aboul Gheit in Cairo, raised this same issue of Arab involvement:
"Proposing the initiative was just the beginning; it brings with it responsibilities to join in taking meaningful steps and important actions that will help us move towards our objective."
Aboul Gheit's response:
"There must be a substantial Israeli act which consists of a complete end to settlement activity and the withdrawal of the Israeli army from all [West Bank] towns and the end of the [Gaza] blockade.
"If we see serious and real Israeli steps we think that Arab parties will also be prepared to return to the situation existing before 2000."
The situation before 2000? That will put us way ahead.
Let's face it: Obama's speech, his blatant kissing-up to the Muslim/Arab world, will not have had the effect of making the Arabs more conciliatory in seeking peace.
Then too, Mitchell's vision of a more regional peace includes our withdrawal from the Golan.
~~~~~~~~~~
June 10, 2009
"Briefs and Links"
It does appear that we are going to stand strong on the issue of settlements. That is reportedly the word that Mitchell got from Bibi when he was here yesterday. Even Kadima is not on board for a settlement freeze.
This isn't just one issue of many: it's a key issue, speaking to our legitimacy and our right to maintain a presence in Judea and Samaria.
~~~~~~~~~~
Daniel Greenfield, who blogs as "Sultan Knish" has an excellent piece on the settlements, complete with photos, which I highly recommend.
http://sultanknish.blogspot.com/2009/06/obama-israel-and-settlements.html
Of the several important issues he addresses, let me here mention two.
First, the strong element of defense with regard to establishment and maintenance of the settlements:
"The Settlements occupy the high ground, creating defensible communities surrounding Israel's capital and moving outward...
"...a new outpost has gone up named mockingly after Obama. Like the other 'illegal' outposts, it is an attempt by patriotic Israelis to hold the high ground against the terrorists who would otherwise use it to wreak havoc even deeper inside Israel. Their message is that Obama may push for the destruction of their homes, but they intend to keep building long after he is gone.
"And the high ground they hold forms a chain, a chain of hilltops that protects the larger cities and towns, which in turn protect major cities such as Jerusalem and Tel Aviv...like the handful of young men and women who daringly fought the Egyptian Army to a standstill, the hilltop youth are prepared to serve that function again, living on the front line in the war against terrorism."
~~~~~~~~~~
The second issue of significance is that some of the communities in Judea and Samaria were in existance before 1948, destroyed by the Jordanians or the Egyptians, and then rebuilt after 1967. The Sultan refers to the community of Kfar Darom, but this is true also of most of the communities in Gush Etzion and others.
~~~~~~~~~~
What Mitchell is holding forth on, in the face of the Israeli stance on settlements, is the need for that "two state solution," which he repeatedly declares to be a major tenent of Obama policy. After leaving Jerusalem, he went to Ramallah and met with heads of the PA. And there he declared that Obama will not turn his back on the "legitimate aspiration" of the Palestinians for a state.
~~~~~~~~~~
In his statement in Ramallah, Mitchell referred to the obligations of the parties under the Road Map. So it's time to raise the issue again with regard to Palestinian incitement. It must continue to be raised until it penetrates public consciousness and becomes a real issue.
It is written in Phase One of the Road Map: "All official Palestinian institutions end incitement against Israel." That's pretty straightforward.
Last time I looked, the PA Ministry of Education was an official Palestinian institution. But the textbooks published by the PA and utilized under Ministry auspices are rife with incitement. Maps in the textbooks have no Israel. Jihad -- martyrdom for Allah -- is praised. All Jewish history in Jerusalem is denied.
There are no plans in the PA to publish new textbooks.
~~~~~~~~~~
And so, my American readers, please, contact the president and ask him how he imagines there can be peace under these circumstances. Demand that this be made a top priority in his search for peace. Decry his emphasis on a settlement freeze while this is going on and an entire generation of Palestinians is being taught that Israel is not legitimate.
Fax: 202-456-2461 White House Comment line: 202-456-1111
e-mail form via: http://www.whitehouse.gov/contact/
Contact each of your elected representatives in Congress with a similar message.
For your representatives in Congress:
http://www.house.gov/house/MemberWWW_by_State.shtml
For your senators:
http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm
And, perhaps most importantly, write letters to the editor on this subject. Brief, clear, factual, and to the point. Most people have no clue. The more newspapers across the country run such letters, the better.
I cannot emphasize enough how important widescale participation in the US is with regard to something like this. Make noise, make noise, make noise. Reach out within your own networks and seek the help of others. It's time to be on the offensive.
Below is a link to my article about the texts. You might want to refer to a few specific details when contacting senators and congresspersons, and when writing letters to the editor.
http://www.frontpagemag.com/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=30231
~~~~~~~~~~
Khaled Mashaal, head of the Hamas politburo in Syria, has now called on the international community to recognize Hamas as a "positive instrument" in the search for peace. You could fall down on the floor laughing, this is so ridiculous -- except for the fact that it's a deeply serious situation we face.
Said Mashaal, "President Obama is speaking a new language, but we expect real pressure on the Israelis."
~~~~~~~~~~
Closer to home, the biggest obstacle we must contend with, in regard to standing strong against this pressure, is Ehud Barak, our defense minister, who today said he hopes Netanyahu will come out for a "two-state solution" in his talk.
No surprise here. But frustrating, none the less.
~~~~~~~~~~
Returning to the issue of US-Israeli agreements on what a "freeze" on settlements means...
I alluded yesterday to the fact that after the Bush letter went out to Sharon, there was a Concurrent "Sense of Congress" Resolution that endorsed the letter. What I have learned is that, as a senator, Hillary Clinton -- who now, as secretary of state, is insisting a freeze means no growth at all -- voted FOR the endorsement of this letter, which acknowledged population centers that change the picture with regard to negotiations. Hillary, a purely political animal, has never been known for consistency. (Thanks to Jeff Daube, head of the Jerusalem office of ZOA for this information.)
~~~~~~~~~~
As the subject of Obama's Cairo speech doesn't go away, I have provided here links to some of the key analyses on the subject, with brief citations from the text of each. I hope those of you who have not already read these pieces will find them helpful:
Frank J. Gaffney, Jr.
American's First Muslim President?
http://jewishworldreview.com:80/cols/gaffney060909.php3
"The man now happy to have his Islamic-rooted middle name featured prominently has engaged in the most consequential bait-and-switch since Adolf Hitler duped Neville Chamberlain over Czechoslovakia at Munich...
"In the final analysis, it may be beside the point whether Mr. Obama actually is a Muslim. In the Speech and elsewhere, he has aligned himself with adherents to what authoritative Islam calls Shariah — notably, the dangerous global movement known as the Muslim Brotherhood...
"Even more troubling were the commitments the president made in Cairo to promote Islam in America...He also pledged to enable Muslims to engage in zakat, their faith's requirement for tithing, even though four of the eight types of charity called for by Shariah can be associated with terrorism. Not surprisingly, a number of Islamic 'charities' in this country have been convicted of providing material support for terrorism."
~~~~~~~~~~
Anne Bayefsky
Obama's stunning offense to Israel and the Jewish people
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/0609/bayefsky060909.php3
"President Obama's Cairo speech was nothing short of an earthquake — a distortion of history, an insult to the Jewish people, and an abandonment of very real human-rights victims in the Arab and Muslim worlds. It is not surprising that Arabs and Muslims in a position to speak were enthusiastic. It is more surprising that American commentators are praising the speech for its political craftiness, rather than decrying its treachery of historic proportions."
~~~~~~~~~~
Caroline Glick
The End of America’s Strategic Alliance with Israel?
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YjdiMjk5ODk2OGYwYmRjNmRhYmNlZjFjNDljNTdkYTE =
"From an Israeli perspective, Pres. Barack Obama’s speech today in Cairo was deeply disturbing. Both rhetorically and programmatically, Obama’s speech was a renunciation of America’s strategic alliance with Israel.
"Rhetorically, Obama [has] sugar coated the pathologies of the Islamic world, from the tyranny that characterizes its regimes, to the misogyny, xenophobia, Jew hatred, and general intolerance that characterizes its societies. In so doing he made clear that his idea of pressing the restart button with the Islamic world involves erasing the moral distinctions between the Islamic world and the free world."
~~~~~~~~~~
Gary Bauer
The Cairo Deception
http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2265469/posts
"OBAMA: 'Given our interdependence, any world order that elevates one nation or group of people over another will inevitably fail.'
"REACTION: Thank you, President Obama, for that clear statement of cultural and moral relativism that infects so many of our elites and obviously shapes the way you deal with the world. So you want a world order, where no nation or group is elevated over another, where America is to be considered no better than North Korea, Syria, or Iran. All cultures and nations are not equal. Some believe in liberty and the dignity of individuals. Some believe people are cattle to be herded by government. That you don’t understand that your own nation is preferable and better than the thug states of the world is tragic and dangerous. How I long for the days when President Reagan regularly reminded us that we were to be a 'shining city upon a hill.'"
~~~~~~~~~~
Mark Steyn
‘The Muslim World’ One-way multiculturalism
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=M2JmNDJlYTBiMGY2MzNkZDg2ZWM4ZTYzNjVhODU3YmI=&w=MA
"Would Obama be comfortable mandating 'no natural growth' to Israel’s million-and-a-half Muslims? No. But the administration has embraced [the commitment of] the "Muslim world" to one-way multiculturalism, whereby Islam expands in the west but Christianity and Judaism shrivel remorselessly in the Middle East.
"A wealthy nation living on the accumulated cultural capital of a glorious past can dodge its rendezvous with fate, but only for a while. That sound you heard in Cairo is the tingy ping of a hollow superpower."
~~~~~~~~~~
And for a different style, this, from Shaul Behr's blog (with thanks to Debbie B.):
Free Thought: Barack Obama as John Lennon
http://sbehr.blogspot.com:80/2009/06/barack-obama-as-john-lennon.html
"But to call him naïve would disrespectful to naïveté.
"The leader of the free world, in front of billions of viewers, metaphorically sat down, lit up a joint and started singing 'Imagine' by John Lennon.
"The real kicker was his vision of a world free of nuclear weapons. The man sounds like an 18-year-old at a university 'Ban The Bomb' protest!
"I feel an icy chill when I consider that for the next 4 years at least, we have a guy with the maturity and subtlety of a teenager leading the greatest world power at a time of international crisis."
~~~~~~~~~~
June 9, 2009
"The Struggle Continues"
There's plenty to report on/analyze with regard to Obama and his administration (including material on the settlements, below), but it's time to take a vacation from analyses of his speech.
As to his much hyped visit to Buchenwald, I will not comment here. Precisely because I think it's hype. He came down harder on Israel than on Iran in Cairo, and then went to the camp to demonstrate to the world how sensitive he was to Jewish suffering. I didn't buy it. Or, rather, I'm more interested in seeing his sensitivity to Jewish rights and heritage.
So, let's turn to other matters.
~~~~~~~~~~
The focus now is on the issue of settlements and our right to continue to build for natural growth (a denial of such a right being equivalent to the denial of our right to thrive and endure on the land).
The Obama government, with the full complicity of Hillary Clinton, is insisting that our commitment via the Road Map is to an absolute freeze on all settlements, with "freeze" meaning no building whatsoever.
The story, as I've indicated here, is more complicated than this by a long shot. There is the exchange of letters between Sharon and Bush, which are like a memorandum of understanding, with court precedent -- I've been advised -- for recognizing such a memorandum as having implications in terms of commitment.
In June 2004, a Concurrent "Spirit of Congress" Resolution (which was not binding) passed in both houses of Congress. It "strongly endorse[d] the principles articulated by President Bush in his letter dated April 14, 2004, to Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon..."
~~~~~~~~~~
Beyond this, we have a statement from Elliot Abrams, a former national security advisor involved in negotiating the issue of settlements. He was cited in the Washington Post, on May 24, as confirming that there were discussions during the Bush administration regarding the nature of the constraints on settlements, with an understanding reached.
On June 2, Dov Weisglass, former chief of staff to PM Sharon, wrote a piece in Yediot Ahronot, with regard to this understanding. Says Weisglass:
"...on May 1, 2003 in Jerusalem. Senior administration officials Steven Hadley and Elliott Abrams met with Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and me, and, over the next two days succeeded in working out an exact definition of the term 'settlement freeze' in the Road Map. According to this definition, (1) no new settlements would be built, (2) no Palestinian land would be expropriated or otherwise seized for the purpose of settlement, (3) construction within the settlements would be confined to 'the existing construction line', and (4) public funds would not be earmarked for encouraging settlements.
"On a further meeting held with Ms. [Condoleezza] Rice on May 14, 2003, the agreement on the definition of the term 'freeze' was confirmed..."
~~~~~~~~~~
Since the height of the confrontation between our government and the US on this issue, however, there has started to be a subtle softening of tone. When Defense Minister Barak was in Washington last week, he was assured that Obama had no intention of trying to topple the Netanyahu government -- which intention has been suggested in certain quarters.
While US envoy George Mitchell, who is here now, has begun a process of de-emphasizing our differences and emphasizing our relationship as close allies.
There are even hints that our disagreement on settlements can be "worked out."
~~~~~~~~~~
While there might be reason to be pleased by this, in point of fact it makes me uneasy. For, when I read that the matter can be "worked out," I immediately ask myself what it is expected that we will surrender in principle. (I've read unconfirmed reports, for example, about our possibly agreeing to limit where we would do construction for natural growth -- with some communities that should not be excluded indeed being left out of the agreement. Unconfirmed.)
~~~~~~~~~~
What we are coming to in a matter of days is a major policy speech by Bibi, to be delivered at Bar Ilan University, at the BESA Center. He's been mum on what the parameters of this speech will be. But within this lies the core of what our policy is likely to be (or, better, will be, with possible adjustments).
Speculation is that he will hold out for something less than the full sovereignty of a state for the Palestinians, insisting that for our security we require that there be an autonomy for them instead -- whatever that autonomy would be called -- that requires demilitarization and keeps them out of strategic areas and high points where their presence would threaten our security.
Beyond a certain point, however, speculation is not productive.
~~~~~~~~~~
But we may have a hint in a speech just delivered by Strategic Affairs Minister Moshe Ya'alon, at the Institute for Near East Policy, in Washington.
The result of an American plan to resolve issues within two years, he said, might lead to a Hamastan in Judea and Samaria.
"These assumptions [that the two-state vision is the only viable solution, and that Israel's settlement activity constitutes a major obstacle to peace] stood behind the Oslo process, and its failure indicates that they deserve to be reexamined. Such examination will reveal that, whereas the Israelis were really ready for this kind of a solution, including myself, the Palestinians do not accept that ‘the two state solution’ refers to two states for two peoples.
"In their view, one state should be the Palestinian state and the national identity of the other state should remain undefined, so that in the future it can become a Palestinian state as well."
Said Ya'alon, "It is our duty to explain the facts to our American friends."
I salute him for this straight talk, which he likely would not have offered without the tacit approval of the prime minister.
~~~~~~~~~~
I am mindful of the tightrope that Bibi walks right now. And I have discussed before the fact that he opts generally to not be confrontational, though he has, to date been tough indeed. His tendency is to work within the system to achieve what he sees as the best result.
Thus, for example, he was not receptive to the letter sent by Minister without Portfolio Yossi Peled (Likud), who suggested that we become less dependent on the US -- for example by buying planes from Airbus in France instead of Boeing in the US.
We're going to see a stance from Bibi that is, indeed, a compromise, which will not please ideologues. No, he is not going to say, "This is our land and so I reject all proposals." He will say, "Because our rights and our security are my first concerns, and because I demand reciprocity, this is as far as I will go."
That much is close to certain.
~~~~~~~~~~
According to Gil Hoffman in the Post, the hawks of Likud are saying that they know they have to be flexible with Bibi because of the heat he's taking. Thus, if he recognizes the Road Map, but secures an agreement to build in the settlements, this will not bring down the coalition.
MK Danny Danon, who is staunchly nationalist and thoroughly opposed to a "two-state solution," said, "We would still scream but we would understand his decision."
Most significantly, according to Hoffman:
"Likud MKs said that if Netanyahu did make such a policy shift, they expected that he would tell them he was doing so with the knowledge that the Palestinians and the Arab world would not do their part to allow US President Barack Obama to advance his policies, so there would not be any real danger that a Palestinian state would actually be created."
My perception is clearly in line with this -- that is, I believe it is a given that a Palestinian state is not going to evolve from what Obama is promoting (and more about this below). The danger, however, is in agreeing to things in principle that can come back to haunt us later.
~~~~~~~~~~
According to an (unconfirmed) report in the Arab daily in London, Asharq Al-Awsat, Obama formulated a two-year plan for achieving Israeli- Palestinian peace, which was presented to Netanyahu when he was in Washington. And, says this report, Netanyahu "was given six weeks" to respond. If this is true, it puts my back up very badly indeed. Obama giving ultimatums? Making demands rather than requests?
Reportedly, the plan was also presented to Egyptian intelligence chief Omar Suleiman and Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmed Aboul Gheit, when they were in Washington.
They took in seriously, but saw a stumbling block: the political fragmentation of the Palestinians. How about that!
Thus, the Egyptians are now taking it upon themselves, once again, to work on reconciliation between Hamas and Fatah.
Forgive me, but this is breathtakingly stupid. There is no way to be diplomatic about this, nor should I try to be. Aside from the fact that any coalition they might cobble together would not be stable long-term, there is the refusal of Hamas to recognize Israel, renounce terrorism, and honor previous agreements. Do they intend to try the diplomatic slight-of-hand, by which Hamas doesn't have to do these things even if it's part of a unity coalition, as long as the members of the government (i.e., the ministers) they select do? And they would expect us to sign off on a significant agreement with such a government?
Quite simply, even if Fatah were sincere about making peace (it's not), Hamas is the fly in the ointment that makes it impossible -- yet Obama and company won't recognize it.
~~~~~~~~~~
On top of Hamas intransigence, there is this: Abbas has declared that until Netanyahu freezes settlements and accepts a "two state solution," he will not sit at a negotiating table with him. He is counting on Obama to take care of matters. Obama's stance has simply hardened the inflexibility of the PA -- hey, the White House is on their side now, no need to worry. Thus are Obama's actions counterproductive to his declared goals. And thus is the likelihood of any agreement even further diminished.
~~~~~~~~~~
June 6, 2009
Motzei Shabbat (After Shabbat)
"Revisiting Obama"
A deluge is the proper word, I think, for the amount of commentary that is being produced with regard to Obama's speech (with much of it being forwarded to me). Here I will provide key insights and background that I have not yet covered, and then, in the next few days, I hope to turn to other issues.
Please my friends, unless you uncover commentary with a whole different perspective, or news that is startling, do not send me anything else with regard to Obama's talk.
~~~~~~~~~~
In his talk, Obama spoke of the Holocaust, and the suffering Jews endured. In practically his next breath, however, he said:
"On the other hand, it is also undeniable that the Palestinian people...have suffered in pursuit of a homeland...."
And, following this observation, he went on to say:
"For decades, there has been a stalemate: two peoples with legitimate aspirations, each with a painful history..."
~~~~~~~~~~
This is deeply troubling -- offensive! -- and must be challenged at several levels.
There is, first, the unacceptable moral equivalency of his statement: The Jews suffered in the Holocaust...the Palestinians suffered the "nakba" -- as if the historical experience of pain of the Palestinians in being "dislocated" is as great as what we endured in the Shoa (Holocaust) when six million died.
Within this formulation is a libelous implication: That just as we endured the Holocaust, we then brought commensurate suffering on another people. But I won't go in that direction now. For there is more that is unacceptable:
What is also implied in Obama's statement is that we are entitled to a Jewish state BECAUSE there was a Holocaust. And this too, fits with Palestinian mythology. See, they say, it is because of the Holocaust that they suffered dislocation -- the Jews who had nowhere to go came here and pushed them out. Obama doesn't say, as the Palestinians do -- when they lament that they shouldn't have to suffer because of our problems -- that we are not entitled to a state, but his approach leans in this direction.
~~~~~~~~~~
What Obama misses, when he focuses on the Holocaust as the reason we have a claim to a state, is the entire religious and historical basis for our claim here.
He says not a word about this land as divine Jewish inheritance, and this is critical. From the time of the Patriarchs, we Jews have been tied to this land. But the Muslims say today that we have no religious connection here. They have written us out in their falsified version of things, they have attempted to destroy ancient archeological evidence, and they call this land a Muslim wakf (trust) for eternity. It has gotten so bad that they call the Kotel (Western Wall ) an exclusively Muslim site: the place where Mohammad tied his horse or something. (Arafat denied there was a Temple on the Mount, ever, and Abbas has made similar statements.)
Make no mistake about it. The battle for the Land of Israel is at heart a religious battle, not a political one. By not acknowledging the Jewish connection to the land, Obama has left room for the Arabs to continue to make their claims.
~~~~~~~~~~
Obama said not a word about our ancient presence here, going back 3,000 years at least: The City of David, the Temple of Solomon, the Machpelah -- the Cave of the Patriarchs in Hebron, and much more, well before there even was Islam.
And he failed to mention our devotion to the land over the millenia, and our continued presence.
In short, he failed to acknowledge this land as our traditional homeland.
~~~~~~~~~~
Beyond all of this, he ignored our modern Zionist history and the legitimacy of our claim to the land that is founded in international law.
It was in 1922 that the League of Nations granted to Great Britain the Mandate for Palestine, which charged Britain with "secur(ing) the establishment of the Jewish national home," which meant, in the words of the Mandate, that Britain was to "facilitate Jewish immigration" and "encourage close settlement by Jews on the land."
Wording in the Mandate was actually drawn directly from the British Balfour Declaration of 1917. This was a letter that had been written by British Foreign Secretary Arthur James Balfour to Lord Rothschild, which said, in part: "His Majesty's Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavors to facilitate the achievement of this object."
~~~~~~~~~~
This is still a matter of international law that has never been superceded. The responsibilities born by the League of Nations were assumed by the United Nations. When the UN General Assembly, in 1947, voted for partition of Palestine into a Jewish and an Arab state, this was only a recommendation, as GA resolutions carry no weight in international law. In any event, the Arabs relinquished all claims by rejecting the recommendation.
~~~~~~~~~~
To this day, at the very most, Judea and Samaria, which represent the very heartland of the ancient Jewish presence here, can be said to be unclaimed Mandate land. By no stretch of the imagination is it a given that this is "Palestinian" land or land which is destined, either morally or legally, to be a Palestinian state. This is yet another myth that the world has bought.
The Green Line was an armistice line from the end of the War of Independence in 1949 -- it is not the demarcation of our border. In fact, when Israel and Jordan signed an armistice agreement, written into it was the understanding that future negotiations on a final border for Israel would not be prejudiced by the armistice line.
We are not, by any stretch of the imagination, "occupiers" in Judea and Samaria. This is land to which we have a most legitimate claim (a claim enhanced by the fact that in modern times we re-acquired it in a defensive war). Legally,"occupation" occurs only when one sovereign nation moves into the land of another sovereign nation. This is simply not the case here.
~~~~~~~~~~
Egypt moved into Gaza, and Jordan into Judea and Samaria, in 1949. In 1964, the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) was founded. In its charter was a statement that the PLO made no claim against either Egypt or Jordan. That is, there was no claim that Gaza and Judea and Samaria had to be turned over to the Palestinians for a state. It was only Israel within the Green Line that was to be "liberated."
Only after Israel acquired control of Gaza and Judea and Samaria in 1967 did the PLO claim that it had a right to these areas for a state. But in point of fact, UN Security Council Resolution 242, passed after the Six Day War, does not even mention either the Palestinian people or a Palestinian state.
It speaks about pullback of Israel from "territories" but not "all territories": It was never the intention of the framers of this resolution that Israel should return to the Green Line. Withdrawal from whatever territories would not, in any event, take place until Israel was also provided with respect for her sovereignty and territorial integrity, and her right to live in peace within secure borders was acknowledged. This was all to be accomplished concurrently. Under no conditions was Israeli withdrawal conceived of as a precondition, something to be done absent the other stipulations of the resolution.
Israel is absolutely not in non-compliance with the resolution because she hasn't withdrawn from territories. It was not expected that Israel would move from one inch until secure boundaries for Israel were accepted by all belligerents.
There is no legal reason for us to not have settlements in Judea and Samaria.
Even Oslo in no way restricted our right to these settlements.
~~~~~~~~~~
How different this legal reality is from the way the world has come to perceive the situation. This is information that every Jew and every lover of Israel must possess.
We must publicize the realities of the situation continuously and energetically in every possible forum. We must speak out, finally, to tell our narrative and claim our rights.
~~~~~~~~~~
According to news yesterday, Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon (Yisrael Beitenu) told reporters in Washington, after meetings he held with government officials and members of Congress, that "Israel won't give up on the continuation of construction in settlement blocs. "Even if it results in a harsh response from the American administration and tension with Washington, it will ultimately dissipate."
Right on!
~~~~~~~~~~
Israel's official response after Obama's talk was appropriate and also demonstrated strength:
"The Government of Israel expresses its hope that this important speech in Cairo will indeed lead to a new period of reconciliation between the Arab and Moslem world and Israel.
"We share President Obama's hope that the American effort heralds the beginning of a new era that will bring about an end to the conflict and lead to Arab recognition of Israel as the homeland of the Jewish people, living in peace and security in the Middle East.
"Israel is committed to peace and will make every effort to expand the circle of peace while protecting its interests, especially its national security."
~~~~~~~~~~
June 5, 2009
"More"
I knew there'd be more to say about Obama's speech. How could there not be, when I wrote in the heat of my first response, and when I had not yet read what others were saying. Sharing a couple of important takes, and reserving the right to comment still further after Shabbat:
Daniel Pipe's comments are incisive. Obama, he said, cited the figure seven million Muslims in the US. But this figure, according to numerous studies, is three times too high.
Where did Obama get it then? Islamist organizations such as CAIR and the Islamic Society of America use this figure.
Says Pipes, "Obama's accepting their version amounts to a giveaway, a cheap way to win the approbation of Islamists."
Are we surprised?
~~~~~~~~~~
A deeply serious and highly informed take comes from B. Ramam (thanks to Judith N.) who was with the Secretariat of the government of India, and is now director of the Institute for Topical Studies. He is an expert on terrorism. From his latest paper:
President Barack Obama’s address at the Cairo University on June 4,2009, which was billed in advance by his staff as a historic message of goodwill and reconciliation to the Islamic world, had a limited audience. Though projected as an address to the Islamic world, it was largely an address to the Arab world and focused largely on issues of interest to the Arabs.
...The Arabs constitute a minority in the Islamic world. Non-Arab Muslims living in countries such as India, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Malaysia and Indonesia constitute the majority. The issues, which agitate them, are different from the issues which agitate the Arab world. Osama bin Laden understands this better than Obama and his advisers. That was why in his audio message released through Al Jazeera a day before Obama’s Cairo address, bin Laden focused on issues of immediate concern to the non-Arab Muslims in the Af-Pak region such as the large-scale displacement of Pashtuns from the tribal areas of Pakistan. By focusing on their plight and by holding the Americans responsible for it, he sought to make it certain that the anti-American anger in the Af-Pak region will increase rather than decrease.
Obama’s address seemed to have been constructed around the belief that the Muslims constitute a monolithic community and that their actions are motivated by certain issues of common concern to all the Muslims of the world. This is a wrong belief. The Muslims are not a monolithic community and there is no common thread uniting the anger motivating the Muslims in different countries and different regions. There are Muslims and Muslims and issues and issues.
If Obama wanted to address the Muslims of the world, Cairo was the wrong place from which to seek to do so. There was a time when Egypt was seen as the beacon of the Arab world. It is no longer so. Al Qaeda and pro-Al Qaeda organizations project Egypt and its leaders as apostate. President Hosni Mubarak is a very unpopular Arab leader. Obama going to Cairo to deliver the address is seen by large sections of pro-Al Qaeda and pro-Taliban leaders as a leader of the American infidels traveling to the country of apostates to deliver an address to the Muslims from a platform provided by the apostates.
...The impact on the world of global jihad will be very little. Their views towards the US have been formed as a result of years of brainwashing in extremist mosques and madrasas. They are not going to change as a result of a beautifully-drafted speech beautifully delivered before an audience carefully assembled by the so-called apostates.
...The impact on the ordinary Muslims outside pockets of urban elite will not be significant. Ordinary Muslims are not so naïve as to be impressed by a couple of quotations from the Holy Koran. Muslims outside India, Bangladesh, Malaysia and Indonesia are not enamoured of democracy. They have nothing against authoritarian rulers, provided they care for the ordinary Muslims. Mubarak is not an example of a caring ruler. Among Muslim rulers blessed and supported by the US, there is hardly anyone whom one can call caring for the common Muslims. The ordinary Muslims will judge the US by the company it keeps in the Islamic world than by the speeches of Obama.
...[The speech] may not help the US much in the Islamic world. The use of soft power to counter pernicious ideologies coming out of the Islamic world is important. They have to be countered in a more subtle and sophisticated manner through personal interactions, dialogue in small groups, radio and TV programmes, Internet chats etc. A Cairo-style address is not suited for this purpose...
~~~~~
June 4, 2009
"The Speech and Its Implications"
I write this almost immediately following the completion of Barack Hussein Obama's speech in Cairo. What I provide here is in great measure my take; undoubtedly I will share other analyses in days ahead.
I will start with other aspects of his talk and save the very worst, regarding Israel, for last.
~~~~~~~~~~
Obama began with his "suck up to Muslims" approach, which is precisely what we expected. It becomes a bit sickening at times:
Talking about how the US has had a solid Muslim connection since its founding, for example. As one TV commentator observed, this man is making up history. Talking about the Muslims in the US and all that they contribute. Informing his audience that there are mosques in every state in the union. Speaking not about the Koran, but the "holy Koran," which he cited some four or five times. Enumerating the great contributions in math and poetry made by Islamic society -- which is true enough, but ancient history now, and hardly relevant to the struggles we face as large parts of the Muslim world are caught in resistance to and resentment of modernization. (According to the dean of Arabists, Bernard Lewis, Islam is now functioning in the 15th century.)
~~~~~~~~~~
When he referred to his own history, and his own connection with Islam across three continents, he misrepresented. "I am a Christian," he intoned, before tracking his father from Kenya -- whose family "includes generations of Muslims" (which isn't quite saying his father was actually Muslim, though he was). And then the years he spent in Indonesia, where he heard the call to prayer of the Azaan. And I say, just a second! He may be a practicing Christian now, but in Indonesia he did more than hear the call to prayer: he was registered in school as a Muslim, was given Muslim teachings, and sometimes was taken to the mosque for prayers, which he is reported to have recited. By birth, and by the practice of his step-father, he is a Muslim. At least he might have said, "I come from Muslim roots." But better for his political fortunes at home not to mention this.
~~~~~~~~~~
The vision that he then presented for a better world was -- almost across the board -- pie-in-the-sky, which I had also anticipated. What he offers far exceeds the real possibilities and sets him up for failure down the road. As another commentator said, "And unicorns won't poop in our streets any more."
He prefers to pontificate on what "must" happen, without grappling with the painful realities of how we get there. For example, fault lines within Islam -- between Sunni and Shiia -- must be closed. Must be? I doubt that he has the remotest idea how deep these divisions are or how long the history of these tensions. His saying this achieves absolutely nothing. Were he serious, he would offer a halting start, for example, saying that he has spoken with this Sunni leader and that Shiite leader, and he is encouraging them to start a dialogue, which will be a beginning.
~~~~~~~~~~
Nowhere was the tendency to avoid confronting the realities more blatant than with regard to Iran. The "rights and responsibilities" of nations with regard to nuclear weapons has been a source of tension, he said, by way of lead-in. It has been a source of tension between the US and Iran. In fact, there has been a tumultuous history between the two countries. But rather than be trapped in the past, he has made it known to the leaders of Iran that he and the American people are prepared to move forward. There will be much to discuss.
"But it is clear to all concerned that when it comes to nuclear weapons, we have reached a decisive point. This is not simply about America's interests. It is about preventing a nuclear arms race in the Middle East that could lead this region and the world down a hugely dangerous path."
And that's it. I had the feeling as he moved to his next sentence (which I'll get to) that there had been a glitch in transmission and something had been lost. With Iran, you see, he didn't use the "must" word. He's too busy offering them sweetness and light (isn't that lovely?), so that he just "suggests." No "If Iran wants to join the community of nations it must abandon plans to build nuclear weapons and must stop threatening Israel." In fact, while at least he mentioned the nuclear issue, he didn't even touch on Iranian threats to Israel. And there was not even a hint of a threat to Iran regarding what will happen if they don't abandon nuclear ambitions.
His next thought? Well, some people might think it's unfair, that some nations have nuclear weapons and some don't. But he has the solution:
"No single nation should pick and choose which nations hold nuclear weapons. That is why I strongly reaffirmed America's commitment to seek a world in which no nations hold nuclear weapons."
I am not making this up. This is what passes for policy with Obama.
He's dreaming, of course. Because nuclear nations are not going to surrender their weapons, nor should they, necessarily. Our capacity to wage war is the edge that keeps us from being destroyed here in Israel. And assured mutual destruction has likely prevented what would have been WWIII between the US and the USSR -- instead we had the Cold War. But never mind, if surrender of weapons would make Iran happy, so that it would not be left out of the club, then it's a good thing to do. Right?
~~~~~~~~~~
In summary, to this point, this is a vacuous speech. Obama is a politician, not a diplomat. I hear a lot about how smart he is, but he sure sounds stupid here. This is a worthless speech on many counts.
And it's particularly important to note how foolish and simplistic it is to address "the Muslim world," as if it's a monolith, which it most certainly isn't.
~~~~~~~~~~
Now as to the clincher: the issue of Israel and the Palestinians.
He began nicely enough, recognizing our suffering in the Holocaust, the unbreakable bond the US has with Israel. Etc. Etc. Setting us up for the one-two punch, POW!
Obama's take on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is one that adopts in toto the Palestinian narrative. Ignoring history. Ignoring painful realities that he doesn't confront -- in spite of his talk of how it's time to be honest.
"...it is also undeniable that the Palestinian people - Muslims and Christians - have suffered in pursuit of a homeland. For more than sixty years they have endured the pain of dislocation. Many wait in refugee camps in the West Bank, Gaza, and neighboring lands for a life of peace and security that they have never been able to lead. They endure the daily humiliations - large and small - that come with occupation. So let there be no doubt: the situation for the Palestinian people is intolerable. America will not turn our backs on the legitimate Palestinian aspiration for dignity, opportunity, and a state of their own."
~~~~~~~~~~
Let me here interject a brief response in terms of history and reality.
"They've suffered in pursuit of a homeland." Hell, they could have had a homeland several times over. It's been offered and they always find a reason to refuse it. (Most recently when Abbas refused a shockingly generous offer made by Olmert.) How about telling the PA to get real, and face the fact that they cannot have everything, such as "return of refugees," and that if they are really serious about wanting a state it's time to make compromises?
And about those refugees: "For more than sixty years they have endured the pain of dislocation. Many wait in refugee camps in the West Bank, Gaza, and neighboring lands..." (This is the nakba vision.)
The "pain of dislocation," he needs to know (DOES he know?), was the result of a war that the Arabs imposed on our brand new nation in order to destroy us. If they had not been the aggressors there would have been no dislocation of Arabs. Time to tell it like it is.
And those refugee camps? Hey, all the other refugees in the world are settled as quickly as is possible -- in many cases re-settled in a third country. Only the Palestinians are kept in those UNRWA camps for generations because it has been decided that they must return to Israel (in order to destroy Israel). How about telling the Arab nations that the way to contribute to peace is to absorb these refugees?
"The situation for the Palestinian people is intolerable"? "Occupation"? How about facing the fact that the Palestinians have made their own bed, via violence and incitement, and corruption and turning international donations to weapons instead of genuine national development? How about holding them responsible for themselves instead of making eternal victims of them? How about acknowledging that per capita the Palestinians get more international money than any other people on earth, but that this hasn't been used by them as an opportunity for self-development?
~~~~~~~~~~
Obama does address the issue of violence. "The Palestinians must abandon violence," he said. Good.
But then he talks about Hamas and how it must abandon violence, recognize past agreements, etc. This is also pie-in-the-sky. Hamas will not do this. (Does he know nothing of their radical ideology?) But the way in which he has spoken about Hamas -- as having a responsibility to the people, and a role in unifying the people and fulfilling their aspirations -- gives troublesome credibility to Hamas as a recognized player. There's a red light on here with regard to where he's going with this.
~~~~~~~~~~
Then there's the "must" for Israel: "The United States does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements. This construction violates previous agreements and undermines efforts to achieve peace. It is time for these settlements to stop."
There's a certain ambiguity in this. What is not accepted by the US -- building in the settlements, or the "legitimacy of continued settlements"? In the short term he's demanding a settlement freeze. And here he sets himself most publicly on a road to conflict with Israel. May Bibi and our government stay strong!!!
But it sounds to me as if he's also laying out a policy of Israeli pullback to the Green Line, which in my book marks him as our enemy.
It must be said unequivocally: There is NO agreement we've participated in that obligates us to remove major settlement blocs. There is no document anywhere that requires us to pull back to the Green Line. This is merely widely-touted Palestinian mythology. And Obama is right in line.
I cannot here do justice to the issue of our rights on the land, but I will return to this.
~~~~~~~~~~
There are other things he said that disturbed me as well:
"All of us have a responsibility to work for the day when...Jerusalem is a secure and lasting home for Jews and Christians and Muslims, and a place for all of the children of Abraham to mingle peacefully together."
Uh oh! He doesn't know that under Israeli sovereignty there IS room now in Jerusalem for all of the children of Abraham? And that ONLY under Israeli rule has this been the case? Doesn't he know, or doesn't he care?
He should mark this well -- Jerusalem will not be divided again.
~~~~~~~~~~
It galls me without end that he has decided what is best for us. This is what he says -- the two-state solution is in "Israel's interest." He hasn't noticed that we're a sovereign state, capable of deciding on our own what's best for us?
The bottom line is that a "two-state solution" is not viable and is not going to happen. It is not remotely the solution to the region's problems that Obama likes to imagine it is.
~~~~~~~~~~
It irks me enormously, by the way, that he's make the analogy between Palestinians and blacks in America who suffered humiliation. Condoleezza redux.
~~~~~~~~~~
You can read the full speech here:
http://imra.org.il/story.php3?id=43806
~~~~~~~~~~
There are difficult days in front of us. May the Almighty grant us wisdom and strength, and may Barack Hussein Obama fall on his face soon.
~~~~~~~~~~
_
June 3, 2009
"A Core Issue"
It's called an Executive Agreement or Memorandum of Understanding. This is an exchange between two heads of state in which there is a quid pro quo -- each promises to deliver something. There is precedent within the courts for such agreements to be binding. They are serious matters.
During the course of the American administrations of Clinton and Bush Jr. there were a number of such agreements with Israeli governments, somehow involving the issue of settlements. Generally speaking, there was an understanding on the American side that we would retain major settlement blocs in any future agreement with the Palestinians, but in the interim, while we could build inside the parameters of those settlements, we would not build beyond their borders or start new settlements.
~~~~~~~~~~
The most famous (or is it now infamous?) of these exchanges involves the letters between PM Sharon and President Bush on April 14, 2004. Sharon, for his part, described his plan for withdrawal ("disengagement.").
And Bush wrote in his letter that:
"As part of a final peace settlement, Israel must have secure and recognized borders, which should emerge from negotiations between the parties in accordance with UNSC Resolutions 242 and 338. In light of new realities on the ground, including already existing major Israeli populations centers, it is unrealistic to expect that the outcome of final status negotiations will be a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949, and all previous efforts to negotiate a two-state solution have reached the same conclusion. It is realistic to expect that any final status agreement will only be achieved on the basis of mutually agreed changes that reflect these realities."
It was on the basis of this that Sharon moved ahead with his plans for leaving Gaza. We may leave there, he told the nation, but look, we will never be expected to leave Judea and Samaria and pull out our people.
In the same vein, it was because of earlier understandings that the Israeli government accepted, albeit tentatively, the Road Map.
~~~~~~~~~~
But now along comes the arrogant Barack Obama, who declares that he is not bound by these prior agreements. He is above it all and can do things according to his own rules, you see. A couple of day ago he made a speech in which he said, essentially, that former administrations lied to us, but now he's going to be tough and tell us the truth.
This is a serious problem, not just for us, but for all nations who deal with the US. When the president declares himself not bound by prior agreements, it is deeply troubling and renders both the president and the government he heads untrustworthy. This is not how a democracy is supposed to operate.
~~~~~~~~~~
Please, see the transcript of a State Department press conference from two days ago, and the way in which spokesman Robert Wood absolutely refuses to answer a journalist's straight question regarding US obligations inherent in the Bush letter to Sharon. (Towards the end of the conference.)
http://imra.org.il/story.php3?id=43773
~~~~~~~~~~
This is at the core of the battle now, regarding Obama's demand that we stop all building, even for natural growth, in the settlements. We've had the American rug pulled out from under us.
What makes it doubly an affront, however, is that Obama is trying to claim that WE have obligations according to prior agreements.
Bibi is holding fast with regard to not freezing settlements, and the government is angered. There is a feeling, at least in certain parts of the Likud and the nationalist parties, that Obama has simply gone too far.
~~~~~~~~~~
Very briefly, I want to return to the issue of outposts. I've described a number of legal complications with regard to what makes an outpost illegal -- in terms of what land it's built on, what permits it received, etc.
But here's another factor. The understanding between us and America, broadly, was that we would keep the major settlement blocs and had a right to build inside of them, but we would not build new settlements beyond a certain time period. But the outposts, at least in some instances, represent an attempt to do just that.
Ideologically, this may be great. But there must be a recognition regarding what our commitments may have been in this regard.
This does not apply across the board. Some outposts are several years old, some can be incorporated as part of existing settlements. In some instances, as with the synagogue on the road to Hebron, referring to what is on the ground as an outpost is a bit of a stretch.
At any rate, a very strong case can be made now for simply saying the deal is off. Maybe we did have a commitment regarding no outposts. But if the other party no longer honors the understanding that we keep major settlements?
I would say a better case can be made now for not dismantling those outposts. Barak has been holding meetings in Washington, and the word is that they are tense.
~~~~~~~~~~
Tomorrow Obama steps to the mike in Cairo. I won't speculate unduly regarding what I expect. In the briefest of terms, I would predict a broad outline of an approach, with effort to ingratiate himself with the Muslim world that we will find mind-blowing.
Some incredible stuff is coming into my mailbox, indicating just how Obama is playing it.
A NY Times blog yesterday describes an interview that Obama gave in preparation for his trip with Laura Haim on Canal Plus, a French television station:
The president said the United States and other parts of the Western world “have to educate ourselves more effectively on Islam.”
“And one of the points I want to make is, is that if you actually took the number of Muslim Americans, we’d be one of the largest Muslim countries in the world.”
One of the largest Muslim countries in the world? He's getting a bit carried away, isn't he?
~~~~~~~~~~
From ABC News Senior White House Correspondent Jake Tapper: "The Emergence of President Obama's Muslim Roots."
During the campaign, writes Tapper, Obama emphasized his Christian identity. But now there's a different tune.
"During a conference call in preparation for President Obama's trip to Cairo...deputy National Security Adviser for Strategic Communications Denis McDonough said 'the President himself experienced Islam on three continents before he was able to -- or before he's been able to visit, really, the heart of the Islamic world -- you know, growing up in Indonesia, having a Muslim father -- obviously Muslim Americans (are) a key part of Illinois and Chicago.'"
Muslim Americans are a key part of Chicago (whence hails Obama)?
I don't know about you, but this sort of makes me gag. It's terribly transparent. It's stretching. I suspect (is this wishful thinking?) that he's going to stretch so hard he loses balance and ultimately falls on his face.
~~~~~~~~~~
June 2, 2009
"This is Our Fight!"
As President Barack Obama makes demands of Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, as he challenges him and plans to weaken him, he is at the same time challenging all Israeli citizens.
And so, ultimately, it is not just Netanyahu -- Bibi -- who must stand strong against Obama, but all of us, who must rise to this challenge and stand with Bibi.
~~~~~~~~~~
It was Obama's fierce desire to go to Cairo on Thursday and say that he is moving along with "peace," having secured a commitment to a "two state solution" from the Israeli prime minister. But the Israeli prime minister wouldn't say those words.
Obama then made it absolutely clear that he considered a total freeze on settlements in Judea and Samaria -- including for natural growth -- to be essential for progress in achieving peace. But then Bibi said it was not a reasonable demand and that he wouldn't do this -- for we have a right to provide for natural growth in our communities.
What Bibi did was for the nation, and for each of us who cares about our nation.
~~~~~~~~~~
Obama must be considerably enraged about these stumbling blocks to his plans. And he doesn't take no lightly -- not from presumptive allies anyway, from Iran it's OK.
So what do we read? That Obama's policy has shifted from that of his predecessors, and now the onus for making concessions toward peace is on Israel and not the PA. This is from Jackson Diehl (no great lover of Israel) in the Washington Post.
In fact, Abbas told Diehl that he expects it to take about two years for Obama to weaken Netanyahu's government, perhaps enough to bring it down. Abbas didn't make this up; it is exceedingly likely that he picked up some message, some hint, from Obama.
Here is the link to the article again, in case you hadn't seen it:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/28/AR2009052803614.html
~~~~~~~~~~
Put the onus on us? Weaken our democratically elected government?
Do we sit still for this? Or do we stand on our feet and allow ourselves to be counted?
~~~~~~~~~~
And we're not done. There's the NY Times piece that cites the fact that the Obama administration is thinking of backing us less in the Security Council because we haven't agreed to freeze settlements.
There's even a quote that indicates that an American official thinks the US gov't can go over Bibi's head, and appeal to the Israeli people. The people, they reason, don't want tension between Israel and the US, and so they'll weaken Bibi because of his stance.
"'There are things that could get the attention of the Israeli public,' a senior administration official said, touching on the widespread belief within the administration that any Israeli prime minister risks political peril if the Israeli electorate views him as endangering the country’s relationship with the United States."
The fact that this has since been played down does not change the reality of what was said.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/01/us/01prexy.html?_r=1&scp=10&sq=israel&st=cse
It may even be that this is why they're thinking of giving us less backing in the UN. So that the Israeli electorate will blame Bibi for causing this problem.
Can we let such a ploy stand, in any terms? Do we allow ourselves to be used against our own prime minister? Or are we prepared to move beyond our national adolescence and stand up for ourselves?
~~~~~~~~~~
Please! I want to strongly urge that each Israeli reading this send a message to Bibi.
He's under enormous pressure and deserves to know that we're with him, appreciate him, and will not permit ourselves to be used by the Americans to weaken his government.
If there are prices to pay, we will pay them with our heads up, standing together for our nation. He, and all of us, are doing what must be done to keep our nation whole and strong.
Fax: 02-670-5369 (From the US: 011-972-2-670-5369)
Phone: 03-610-9898 (From the US: 011-972-3-610-9898)
E-mail: pm_eng2@it.pmo.gov.il (underscore after pm)
I then ask, please, that this be broadly circulated to other Israelis who will also let Bibi know they are behind him.
If you're American, by all means, send a message of encouragement to Bibi and let him know the American president does not speak for you.
~~~~~~~~~~
Messages should also be sent to Obama. Israelis need to tell him that we're with our prime minister. That we deeply resent "demands," as we are a sovereign nation. And that we are infuriated by attempts to manipulate our nation. It won't work.
Americans, of course, let your president know what you think of his policies. And, please, send this on to others who will send similar messages.
Fax: 202-456-2461 Comment line: 202-456-1111
E-mail form via: http://www.whitehouse.gov/contact/
~~~~~~~~~~
There are those of you reading this who will ask about the outposts that Bibi says will be taken down. This is my answer: No, I'm not pleased about the prospect of their being taken down, but I am struggling with the big picture, and concerned about how best to save our country.
Making Bibi weaker now would be counterproductive to our goals. It would, in fact, serve Obama's goals.
I think about the prospect of Livni coming in, should -- G-d forbid -- this gov't be brought down, and I shudder. That would finish us, as she would jump to please Obama, and would brag that she has good relations with the Americans.
~~~~~~~~~~
As I write, nothing additional has been taken down. We don't know yet how this will play out. In spite of the hesitation, the questions, there remains an intuitive sense that there may be some sort of trade, some way in which Bibi will use this issue for larger purposes. We simply don't know.
What I do know, with certainty, is that there is more going on than meets the eye. I also know that Bibi has the support of nationalist members of the government right now.
I will entertain no further private discussion about how turning a blind eye to dismantling of some outposts means an abandonment of Zionist principles. The issues right now are bigger than those outposts.
If the time comes to make noise about the outposts, we will know it. For now, I appeal for a "wait and see" approach because we're in the vortex of a swiftly changing situation.
~~~~~~~~~~
I would like to recommend this very excellent analysis regarding the importance of settlements. (With thanks to Doris M.) Many of you will find this enlightening and useful.
http://jpundit.typepad.com/jci/2009/05/a-readers-guide-to-israeli-settlement-activity.html
~~~~~~~~~~
And see this article as well, which makes clear that when Washington talks about a "building freeze in the settlements," it also means a total building freeze in eastern Jerusalem, part of the unified Jerusalem that is governed under Israeli sovereignty.
This does not sit well with a large majority of Israelis.
www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1089730.html
~~~~~~~~~~
June 1, 2009
"Briefly Only"
To discuss all of the hot issues that call for attention, and to do full justice to each, would require more time than is possible for me, and more space than is reasonable for this posting.
And so, I will touch upon the major issues, commenting relatively briefly, with intention to return as necessary. At the same time here, I will return to a couple of issues pending from the last few days.
The big news here is that Prime Minister Netanyahu has informed the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee that the US demand that the growth of settlements in Judea and Samaria be halted is "not reasonable," and that our government will not stop building for natural growth.
This is major. Especially as the pressure from Obama is intense. (More on this below.) It should be noted that this follows the failure last week of an Israeli delegation to come to terms with US governmental representatives in London on this and related issues.
~~~~~~~~~~
However, Netanyahu also indicated that the government would be taking down "illegal" outposts. This, he said, was a "reasonable demand." And, indeed, I've been picking up reports about preparations for dismantlement of some outposts (outposts with more than a tent and a shack).
This is also major, though not as major as building in the settlements, I suspect, with regard to our future in Judea and Samaria.
Am I all right with this? No. I am deeply disturbed. In particular because Netanyahu is suggesting that he's responding to "a demand." As to all of his talk about this being the "right thing" to do, because the outposts are illegal and we are a nation of law, etc., etc: I don't buy it. The "illegal" outposts have been there for some time and somehow they managed to remain.
Why now? I am reminded of the astute comment by an analyst a couple of weeks ago -- that the fact that we're not engaged in "final negotiations" with the Palestinians, which theoretically would bring progress and resolve matters (ha!), puts more pressure on us with regard to our presence in Judea and Samaria, as if moving us out from there will solve matters. It becomes more of a big deal for Obama. The way to prove he's "making progress."
And so there remains the feeling, still, that this is somehow a trade-off. Which is where I started some days ago. Trade-off for what? Is the deal that Netanyahu will take down outposts in return for continuing to build in the major settlements? Don't think so, and I'll get to that in a minute.
~~~~~~~~~~
At the Committee meeting today, Netanyahu pounded the table and declared that he was responsible for the security of Israel, even if that made him unpopular.
And yes, this feels like a re-run of what he said the other day. The implication, the hint, is that he's taking down the outposts -- which will make him unpopular -- in return for something with regard to taking on Iran, which involves our security. But I won't go there a second time, because right now I just don't know. Is it pretense, pretext, or something more?
~~~~~~~~~~
Netanyahu described for the Committee the meeting he had with Obama thus:
"There was a confirmation of our understandings on strategic matters. There was agreement over the danger of Iran going nuclear and on our right to self defense at all times.
"...during the meeting, there was no talk of linking the Palestinian and Iranian issues. We talked about how Iran will supply a nuclear umbrella to terror organizations."
Do we take this at face value? Is he saying that Obama acknowledges our right to attack Iran and will refrain from getting in the way? And that whatever support -- even passive -- Obama gives in this regard is not tied to our progress regarding negotiations with the Palestinians?
~~~~~~~~~~
Netanyahu said even more, but the rest will keep for another day. Suffice it to say here that he reiterated his position that dealing with Iran is first priority.
~~~~~~~~~~
It's likely to get ugly if and when larger outposts are dismantled. There will be violence, of a sort that pains us all enormously. Sort of like being kicked in the solar plexus.
Right now information is floating about dangers to Havat Gilad in Samaria, named after Gilad Zar, who was murdered by Palestinians.
I remain somewhat dubious as to whether all outposts will come down. Part of what we must see is when (or if) the nationalists in the government kick in with serious rebellion. It's our job to keep the pressure on.
~~~~~~~~~~
Some outposts are potentially more vulnerable than others because of charges of being on private Palestinian land -- which, I've indicated, is not a simple matter. The legalities are vastly complex and further discussion on this must be tabled. Suffice it to say that sometimes the far left organizations make fallacious charges in this regard, and produce "the Palestinian owners." Sometimes it happens that Arab land owners from a different time period have been absent longer than the law allows, and land has been re-allocated. Not a simple picture, because Judea and Samaria are not governed by Israeli civil law, and we are in control only 42 years, and before that was Jordanian control, and before that British Mandate control, and before that Ottoman law -- with rules overlaid one over the other, all within the span of roughly a century.
None of this information contradicts what I wrote the other day with regard to the Road Map, etc. etc. It is simply another layer of information. And at some point I would like to address the actions a few years ago of one Talia Sasson, attorney, who made (infuriating) recommendations regarding what should be considered legal in the way of outposts and what should not.
~~~~~~~~~~
According to the NY Times today, Obama is thinking about weakening support for Israel in the Security Council if we don't freeze settlements.
There is no way to contain the rage I feel in this regard. The duplicity of the man. Concern for Israeli security indeed. The UN is among the most anti-Israel of institutions.
The article suggests that in doing this Obama is trying to play over Netanyahu's head and reach the people, who will pressure him to do as Obama wishes so that we will not suffer. Said one senior administration official cited: "There are things that could get the attention of the Israeli public." This will not work.
Then this same official had the unmitigated gall to say: "Israel is a critical United States ally, and no one in this administration expects that not to continue."
With allies like this, who needs enemies?
~~~~~~~~~~
So, please, my American friends -- avoid using obscenities, just as I have avoided doing so here -- but let Obama know what you think of him with regard to this:
Fax: 202-456-2461 Comment line: 202-456-1111
e-mail form via: http://www.whitehouse.gov/contact/
~~~~~~~~~~
Elected representatives should be contacted on this as well:
To locate your representatives:
http://www.house.gov/house/MemberWWW.shtml
To locate your senators:
http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm
~~~~~~~~~~
I alluded in my last discussion to an article by Caroline Glick, "Israel and the Axis of Evil," in which she shared her opinion that nothing Netanyahu does will make Obama change his Iran policy.
I return to that article now for another issue of great concern. Wrote Glick:
"...last Friday, Yediot Aharonot reported that at a recent lecture in Washington, US Lt.-Gen. Keith Dayton, who is responsible for training Palestinian military forces in Jordan, indicated that if Israel does not surrender Judea and Samaria within two years, the Palestinian forces he and his fellow American officers are now training at a cost of more than $300 million could begin killing Israelis. (emphasis added)
"Assuming the veracity of Yediot's report, even more unsettling than Dayton's certainty that within a short period of time these US-trained forces could commence murdering Israelis, is his seeming equanimity in the face of the known consequences of his actions. The prospect of US-trained Palestinian military forces slaughtering Jews does not cause Dayton to have a second thought about the wisdom of the US's commitment to building and training a Palestinian army. (emphasis added)
"Dayton's statement laid bare the disturbing fact even though the administration is fully aware of the costs of its approach to the Palestinian conflict with Israel, it is still unwilling to reconsider it."
Is your blood boiling yet? This is so in-your-face awful that it rather defies further comment.
There's more of significance in this article as well (make sure you move to page two):
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1243346492707&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
~~~~~~~~~~
Then I want to turn to yet another article that is exceedingly illuminating: A piece in the Washington Post by Jack Diehl, "Abbas's Waiting Game," which ran last Friday after Abbas's meeting with Obama. This was the original article that carried the expectation voiced by Abbas that it would take about two years for Obama to squeeze Netanyahu out; it describes a meeting Diehl had with Abbas the day before his meeting with Obama.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/28/AR2009052803614.html
Abbas, writes Diehl, says that he will make no compromises, and will not meet in negotiations with Israel until Netanyahu agrees to his terms: freeze settlement construction and publicly accept a two-state solution.
"What's interesting about Abbas's hardline position, however, is what it says about the message that Obama's first Middle East steps have sent to Palestinians and Arab governments. From its first days the Bush administration made it clear that the onus for change in the Middle East was on the Palestinians: Until they put an end to terrorism, established a democratic government and accepted the basic parameters for a settlement, the United States was not going to expect major concessions from Israel.
"Obama, in contrast, has repeatedly and publicly stressed the need for a West Bank settlement freeze, with no exceptions. In so doing he has shifted the focus to Israel. He has revived a long-dormant Palestinian fantasy: that the United States will simply force Israel to make critical concessions, whether or not its democratic government agrees, while Arabs passively watch and applaud."
But Diehl looks at even more than the damage Obama is doing:
"In our meeting Wednesday, Abbas acknowledged that Olmert had shown him a map proposing a Palestinian state on 97 percent of the West Bank -- though he complained that the Israeli leader [my note: a sneak if ever there was one] refused to give him a copy of the plan. He confirmed that Olmert 'accepted the principle' of the 'right of return' of Palestinian refugees -- something no previous Israeli prime minister had done -- and offered to resettle thousands in Israel. In all, Olmert's peace offer was more generous to the Palestinians than either that of Bush or Bill Clinton; it's almost impossible to imagine Obama, or any Israeli government, going further.
"Abbas turned it down. 'The gaps were wide,' he said."
But Abbas didn't really turn it down because of wide gaps. He turned it down because he doesn't want a state, he wants the status quo and the pressure on Israel to continue. If ever there was clear evidence of this, it is right here.
Diehl quotes Abbas at the end of the article: "Until then, in the West Bank we have a good reality . . . the people are living a normal life."
"A normal life." No huge suffering under "occupation," no great longing for a state. Good people in America, please make sure the president and your elected representatives see this.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/28/AR2009052803614.html
(thanks, Judith N.)
~~~~~~~~~~
It must be noted that a good deal of Obama's tough posture with regard to Israel precedes his major speech in Cairo, to be delivered on Thursday (and which I predict will fall flat because he's over-shooting and making tactical errors).
What I find astonishing is the degree to which he has Mubarak licking his shoes. This week, the Egyptian president declared that peace in the Middle East is more important than resolving the issue of Iran. Of course, that he is saying this just before Obama comes to talk about his Middle East peace plans is just a coincidence.
This is total nonsense, in any event. Egypt, a Sunni country, has hated Shiite Iran forever, and is now quite afraid of the radical Islamic groups supported by Iran encroaching on it and threatening instability. This is far more important to Egypt than whether Abbas gets his state.
~~~~~~~~~~
Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon, who is in the US and was interviewed by Fox News, said that Iranian long range missiles are capable of hitting the east coast of the US.
I hope a lot of people are paying attention.
~~~~~~~~~~
"The Good News Corner"
A cutting edge brain research center -- to be called the Edmond and Lily Safra Center for Brain Sciences Israel -- is to be built at Hebrew University. The international committee that made the decision regarding investment in this center had determined that the level of research in the field of brain sciences at HU is already among the highest in the world. With the advantage of a newly equipped center, HU will be ranked among the top five in the world in this field.
It will open shortly on the Givat Ram campus of the university, with dozens of staffers. Research will be done in how the human brain works, and advances will be made in treating neurological disorders.
What a source of pride this is -- that we are capable of this at the same time that we face down Iran, and endure a host of security threats as well as international attempts at delegitizimation. We are doing very well indeed.
~~~~~~~~~~
May 31, 2009
"Standing Tough"
So much to discuss within a rapidly shifting scenario.
I begin with a clarification of my previous stated position on Netanyahu, Obama, and the outposts. There were a handful of readers who saw in my recent words a shift towards appeasement, and G-d forbid, that is not what I intended to convey.
I had the impression that Netanyahu believed that agreeing to take down a few outposts would allow him to acquire greater support from Obama for being tough on Iran. What I call a quid pro quo, which is not the same as appeasement.
Here in Israel we are facing down the Iranian threat directly. I was not recommending, and would never, ever recommend, appeasement of Iran. I am mightily contemptuous of Obama's terribly dangerous tendency to appease. I believe it likely that we will attack Iran and I support that. But I am mindful that acquiring certain bunker busters from the US can make us more effective, and that not having the US object to our flying over Iraq can make our mission enormously easier (and provide it with greater chance of success). And, yes, I reasoned that IF (this is the critical qualifier) taking down a few outposts is the cost of acquiring these things, it would be a trade that is worth making. I still reason so. This is what I heard in Netanyahu's comments.
My position was that we must not get so caught in the ideology of protecting our right to some part of the land that we miss out on an opportunity to better protect all of the land and all of the people, vis-a-vis a more effective attack on Iran. I believe Netanyahu speaks truth when he says we are not living in normal times.
~~~~~~~~~~
However, what I wrote about was "a few outposts." Not all of them, and certainly nothing in the way of large settlements. I acknowledged as I wrote that going this route presents the danger of a slippery slope. What reassured me was the position of key members of the gov't, who are watching Netanyahu and demanding that he (or Barak) not do wholesale taking down of settlements. I trust Benny Begin, and Moshe Ya'alon, and Yisrael Katz, etc. etc., more than I trust Netanyahu. And I had what I consider fairly solid reason to believe that Netanyahu knew full well what his constraints would be with regard his own government.
I also had reason to believe that a token -- taking down a tent here, a few shacks there -- would be what we would see, in order to give Obama the semblance of "movement" towards peace, and not a whole lot more. And yes, from a purely ideological position, those few shacks are the same as a settlement of 40 or 50 families. But this has not been my focus because of the existential threats we face. Sometimes, I believe, we have to settle for the best deal we can get, on balance, within a given set of parameters.
Please note, I have been taking my cue in part from the settlers, who are rather sanguine about what's happening because they know with these small outposts they can re-build and re-build until they are victorious. That, in the long run is what matters.
At any rate, I thank those who wrote to me with heartfelt anguish and prompted some serious thought and discussion. I take none of this lightly, ever. Many nights, I lose sleep over these issues.
~~~~~~~~~~
But the situation is now changing, and there is a great deal more to consider. My earlier words may become moot, my perspective superseded by new situations and new information.
Obama met with Abbas on Thursday. With the holiday of Shavuot upon us, I had no chance until now to write about what followed from that meeting. There are a number of factors to consider:
Obama surprised me in one respect regarding what he reportedly said to the media after the Abbas meeting. He actually mentioned PA incitement, an issue rarely addressed. What he said was that Abbas had to "continue to make progress on reducing incitement."
I believe we have to grab hold of this issue as if we were pit bulls, who bite down and don't let go. So much is said about settlements as "an obstacle to peace." (See below) But this is nonsense, because were there to be some peaceful arrangement, settlements could be (not should be, but could be) negotiated out of existence. That is, their presence does not block peaceful negotiations from advancing.
But incitement is another matter all together. The hatred for us that has been inculcated by the PA in the Palestinian population cannot be negotiated out of existence. We cannot have peace with these Arabs at our periphery, or in our midst, unless and until they accept our presence and our right to be where we are. Unless and until they no longer believe that Allah wants them to martyr themselves in a jihad to destroy us. Unless and until they understand that Jews are entitled to dignity.
Palestinian Arabs need to be told consistently by their leadership that genuine peace with us is a good thing. That there is an ancient Jewish history in Jerusalem. That our presence in the land is acceptable and not an affront. And no where is this more urgently needed than in the schools, where the textbooks that are used are invidious and undermine any genuine possibility for peace.
The work to change the textbooks must begin immediately.
This, above all, must be a demand we hold fast to, with the premise, always, that no peace is possible otherwise. That the PA hasn't demonstrated peaceful intent, otherwise. That it's a farce to make demands of Israel, otherwise.
We are being put on the defensive, and this is a necessary offensive stance. And it's absolutely valid.
~~~~~~~~~~
The PA will not agree to make these changes. The ideology of radical Islam is too mainstream (especially with the growing influence of Hamas). No PA leader could change the line this radically and expect to remain a leader, never mind to live.
To demand this is to unmask the insincerity of Palestinian Arab statements.
~~~~~~~~~~
But I would demand this not of Abbas, but of Obama, first:
"Mr. President, if you are sincere about promoting ME peace, this is essential. If you cut the PA slack on this, you are destroying chances for peace and putting the lie to your intentions."
"Mr. President, work on changing the horrendously inciteful PA textbooks must begin immediately. This is an absolute prerequisite for peace. You must make this demand a priority."
"Mr. President, PA textbooks teach that martyrdom for Jihad is blessed by Allah. They teach that Jews have no rights in Jerusalem or the land of Israel. How can you ask Israel to make peace with the Palestinian people when this is what they are taught?"
And the time to start is now.
Fax: 202-456-2461 Comment line: 202-456-1111
e-mail form via: http://www.whitehouse.gov/contact/
~~~~~~~~~~
It seems that Obama intends to cut us no slack on the issue of settlements. He is demanding (and Hillary has reiterated this) a total settlement freeze, even with regard to natural growth.
This means if a young man returns to his community after serving in the army and wants to marry and build a home near his family, he cannot. Of if young couples in a neighborhood have a number of small children, a new nursery school (gan) cannot be built. This is the case even if the new home or nursery school would be built entirely within the existing boundaries of the community and not extended a single meter into "contested area." In fact, a new room could not even be added to an existing home, if a family became larger.
Commentators are observing that this represents an essential change from previous American policy.
~~~~~~~~~~
But Obama cannot ultimately demand anything. For we are a sovereign nation. The response I'm picking up from various gov't officials is mixed.
From Daniel Herschkowitz, Science Minister and head of Habayit Hayehudi: The American demand to prevent natural growth is unreasonable, and brings to mind Pharaoh who said: 'Every son that is born ye shall cast into the river.'
"If there is a family that expands from one child to four or five, what should we tell them - to ship the children off to Petah Tikva? This is an unacceptable demand, even [even?] if it comes from the Americans, and Israel should reject it decisively."
From Eli Yishai, Interior Minister and head of Shas: "The American demand to freeze construction means expulsion for young people living in large locales. I hope the US administration understands that. If not, I don't want to be an apocalyptic prophet saying we're facing struggle and confrontation. The concessions they're demanding of us are a security impediment we cannot withstand."
~~~~~~~~~~
But then we have Information Minister Yuli Edelstein (Likud):
"The recent days prove what luck we have that it is Netanyahu's government conducting talks on West Bank natural growth and construction in Jerusalem. Just imagine someone else, he would have led us to an entanglement lasting generations.
"We aren't headed for a confrontation with the White House but rather for understandings..."
And Welfare Minister Isaac Herzog (Labor):
"The current American administration sees things differently than the last two presidents did. Construction is being undertaken around Jerusalem according to understandings with previous administrations. Israel wants very much to reach understandings, and Defense Minister Ehud Barak's upcoming trip to Washington proves it."
At which point an unease moves in....
~~~~~~~~~~
So it's time to sound the alarm with Netanyahu, who to this day has not agreed to freeze settlements. Let him know that you're behind him as he stands strong, that you are outraged by what Obama is demanding. Remind him that Israel is a sovereign state and does not have to give in to demands from abroad. Implore him to instruct Barak not to cave on settlements when he is in Washington.
Fax: 02-670-5369 (From the US: 011-972-2-670-5369)
Phone: 03-610-9898 (From the US: 011-972-3-610-9898)
E-mail: pm_eng2@it.pmo.gov.il (underscore after pm)
~~~~~~~~~~
There is one other point of interest I noted with regard to Obama's comments. This provides a glimmer of hope.
Obama said: "...obviously Prime Minister Netanyahu has to work through these issues in his own government."
This seems to indicate that Obama knows that Netanyahu can take issues regarding outposts and settlements just so far before he will be blocked. Thus it's important to make sure this is the case. And so, I would encourage, lastly, communication with key ministers of the gov't, imploring them to stand strong and to block any Barak/Netanyahu initiative that takes down major outposts or freezes settlements. Express your outrage with Obama and say you're counting on them to carry the day.
Minister Moshe Ya'alon: myaalon@knesset.gov.il (no fax given) office phone: 02-640-8891
Minister Yisrael Katz: yiskatz@knesset.gov.il fax: 02-6496-525 office phone: 02-640-8174
Minister Benny Begin: bbegin@knesset.gov.il (no fax given) office phone: 02-640-8022
Yuli Edelstein: yedelstein@knesset.gov.il fax: 02-6758919 office phone: 02-6408-392
For additional ministers: http://www.knesset.gov.il/mk/eng/MKIndex_Current_eng.asp?view=1
~~~~~~~~~~
Then we have an article, "Israel and the Axis of Evil," written by Caroline Glick right before Shavuot, in which she says: "No destruction of Jewish communities will convince Obama to act against Iran." She says a great deal more, and I would like to return to her in a day or two. But here I wish to say simply that if the evidence points to her being correct, if there is going to be no quid pro quo, as Netanyahu had indicated -- either naively or hopefully or disingenuously -- then there is no reason to countenance taking down of outposts.
~~~~~~~~~~
In point of fact, another outpost was dismantled last night. This was at Shvut Ami, near Kedumim in Samaria. What was dismantled? One hut; six young people were sent away, without violence. There was talk immediately after of putting up the hut again, but, according to Arutz Sheva, for now the youths have decided to take up residence in a cave on the property, as a cave is difficult to dismantle.
And so, yes, ideologically this is the same as a more significant outpost. But, really, one hut? One has the feeling that Barak is going for what creates the least fuss.
~~~~~~~~~~
I note as well that the office of the defense minister has declared that it will not, at least not now, take down nine homes in Ofra -- a significant settlement northeast of Jerusalem in Samaria -- that have been declared "illegal." What we're seeing here is evidence that the defense minister indeed has latitude as to what should be dismantled and that politics play a role in the decision process. In fact, the situation in Ofra serves as a model of exactly how politicized this whole issue of "illegal" is.
This, too, I would like to return to in due course.
~~~~~~~~~~
I welcome a statement reported by the Washington Post that an Abbas associate made following Abbas's visit with Obama:
"It will take a couple of years" for Obama to force Netanyahu from office.
It is to be welcomed because of the stupidity of the remark, and because it serves to stiffen the spines of members of our government.
The question is whether this was a unilaterally stupid remark, or one based on something said by Obama off the record. My purely intuitive hunch is that it's the latter. And that's certainly the take as well of Likud Faction Chair MK Ze'ev Elkin, who commented, "With all due respect to the United States...we are an independent democratic country..."
~~~~~~~~~~
Dear friends, bear with me, as the number of issues to address seems to overwhelm my time and ability to address them all. My UNRWA report awaits my serious and reasonably undivided attention. I will post as I can.
~~~~~~~~~~
"The Good News Corner"
-- An Israeli company called Opgal has developed the Fever Detection and Alarm System, which can spot persons with fevers in a crowd in transportation hubs such as airports and train stations. This may have potential in combating pandemics. Drawing on non-invasive heat sensor technology and cameras, the system requires no installation of equipment and is relatively inexpensive to utilize. Persons pegged as feverish would be stopped for culture swabs or further questioning.
-- Special Israeli security companies are greatly in demand for providing protection against pirates on the open seas who attack cruise ships and commercial liners. Israeli anti-pirate teams are deemed the best trained and are proving effective. They function on board in hidden capacities (e.g., as life guards) so that pirates collecting intelligence won't be aware of them. The Israeli teams also use hi-tech optic systems to identify pirate ships a distance away.
-- A kibbutz called Kishorit, in northern Israel, has become a model of how to provide full living experience for adults who are mentally challenged -- whether because of autism, schizophrenia, or other problems. The roughly 150 members, who are resident for life (a facility for seniors is being developed), have established the largest organic goat farm in Israel, run a TV station and have developed a line of toys. Their efforts are supported by a strong sense of community and an aesthetic environment that is comforting.
~~~~~~~~~~
May 27, 2009
"First Things First"
And the first order of business is Shavuot, which begins tomorrow night. This holiday, the culmination of our counting of the Omer for seven weeks, marks Matan Torah -- our receiving of the Torah. The counting from Pesach until now -- which has significance in many ways -- tells us that there is a spiritual progression from the Exodus to Sinai.
We traditionally celebrate this Festival by studying through the night.
It is unlikely that there will be another posting after this one until after Shabbat.
Chag Shavuot Sameach!
~~~~~~~~~~
Well, the delegation headed by Minister of Intelligence Dan Meridor has gone to London to discuss matters with US officials there, prior to Barak's visit in Washington, and it's being reported that both Iran and settlements are on the agenda.
As to Iran, it truly is wait and see how Obama will respond to what Barak brings him.
But we cannot escape the link with the enormously threatening and worrisome way in which North Korea is currently behaving. US response will be watched carefully by the world, and one must hope (and pray!) that the American president will be jarred into waking up before it is too late.
Guess what? Being nice guys with a renegade regime simply does not work. Not in North Korea and not in Iran. What is more, it's a lot easier (safer for the world) to deal with stopping such a regime from going nuclear than to confront one that already is nuclear.
Barack Hussein Obama -- do you get the picture yet?
~~~~~~~~~~
Here in Israel there is concern about nuclear proliferation and nuclear material getting into the hands of ME terrorists. But there is also the hope that alarm over Korea internationally may spur a stronger stance with regard to Iran. There is, for example, Russia, which has cut Iran a great deal of slack, but is now alarmed about North Korea.
~~~~~~~~~~
As to settlements: Two other illegal -- or more properly, unauthorized -- outposts outside of Kiryat Arba were taken down last night. One is at the Federman farm, which was demolished last year. There had been some activity reported regarding re-establishment of the property, but when police went there last night all they actually found was a tent filled with equipment. The other is at Hill 18, otherwise called Givat Avichai, which had been founded by yeshiva students from Kiryat Arba. There authorities found two shacks and some electrical equipment. The handful of yeshiva students present put up no resistance.
On the one hand, it seems altogether ludicrous, that authorities are taking the time to dismantle tents and shacks. But there is another way of looking at this. While they may end up doing bigger things, we must remember that as of now it's been mostly a show. Wow! Two unauthorized outposts taken down. They're tough. You think Barak will report to Obama on what he's done so far?
~~~~~~~~~~
A reader (thanks, Don S.) has asked me to elaborate on the different statuses that outposts or settlements can have. And I'd like to devote space to that here, as this is an important issue.
The whole business of legal vs. illegal settlements is both complicated and political. Most settlements have had some interaction with some government departments or agencies. They've hooked up water lines, or electric lines, or paved a road, or whatever. There is sanction somewhere along the way. And sometimes that sanction is considerable. But if final papers are not in place, then the settlement can be called "illegal" or "unauthorized."
The region comprised of Judea and Samaria is not governed by Israeli civil law -- civil law was never extended to this area as it was to the Golan and to eastern Jerusalem. (Note: this is not a case of annexing it, but extending the law of Israel to apply.) The region is administered separately under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Defense, and it is the office of the Defense Minister that must sign off on a settlement. Thus Barak's involvement here.
There are instances in which "illegal" settlements have been later declared legal, and there is hope that this might happen now in a handful of instances at least. That can particularly be the case when so-called outposts are really outlying neighborhoods of recognized settlements.
But it can happen in other instances as well. And actually it was explained to me by a lawyer some time ago that many settlements considered authorized today moved through a process this way.
~~~~~~~~~~
There are some charges being made -- by far left groups such as Peace Now and Yesh G'vul -- that some of the settlements are on private Palestinian land. While these charges are not necessarily accurate, where this might be a problem, shifting of the settlement to other land, rather than demolishing it, is a possible resolution.
~~~~~~~~~~
Several political issues complicate this whole matter. The Obama administration is saying that we have certain obligations with regard to settlements stemming from the Road Map for Peace. Introduced by the US, with Quartet sponsorship, in the spring of 2003, it presented a phased plan, with a timeline, for achieving a two-state solution.
You can see the full text here:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2989783.stm
In the proposed first phase, it says the Government of Israel must "immediately dismantle settlement outposts erected since March 2001" and "freeze all settlement activity (including natural growth of settlements)."
We may not like it. We may hate it. But it says it.
~~~~~~~~~~
But -- wait! -- it's not nearly as simple as Obama would have it.
First there is the question of whether it still applies, as it was envisioned as resulting in a Palestinian state by 2005. Has a post-2005 situation superseded this document?
Unfortunately, our new foreign minister, Avigdor Lieberman, has made it more difficult to make this case, as he declared early on that we should scrap Annapolis and go back to the Road Map. It was clear why he did this: Annapolis was trying to jump past the phased program and get to the end result of a Palestinian state at the beginning. Lieberman was undoubtedly reasoning that under the Road Map the PA had obligations it would not honor and thus we'd not get to that end result.
~~~~~~~~~~
Then there is the very important issue of reciprocity (which Netanyahu has made much of) and the need for the Palestinian Authority to simultaneously fulfill its obligations. We cannot be the only party that "walks the walk."
According to this same Road Map, the Palestinians must "declare an unequivocal end to violence and terrorism and undertake visible efforts on the ground to arrest, disrupt, and restrain individuals and groups conducting and planning violent attacks on Israelis anywhere."
Never mind that Fatah is not exactly clean itself, what about Hamas terrorism, with rockets and mortars still launched (170 since the end of our war in Gaza)? What action will the PA take with regard to this? This is a joke. The PA, which has this obligation, cannot do it.
And there's more: "All official Palestinian institutions [must] end incitement against Israel." This is an even bigger joke than the terrorism issue. Anyone who has seen an analysis of the textbooks produced and utilized by the PA understands what a huge joke it really is.
See my article, "Texts of Hate," for some mind-blowing examples of what PA school kids are taught.
http://www.frontpagemag.com/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=30231
To comply with this requirement, the PA would have to publish a whole set of adjusted texts. And there's no thought of doing so. Not a glimmer of a suggestion that they must do so.
But WE have to stop building in the settlements? The Road Map calls for "reciprocal steps by the two parties."
It seems to me a very public campaign has to be launched focusing on the inequities of what is demanded of us and of the PA. Most of the world knows about the settlements as an "impediment to peace." Time they knew that there can't be peace when the Palestinian kids are taught to hate us, but that the PA, which is bound to do so under the Road Map, is taking no action in this regard. The PA is always yapping about how we don't want peace because we keep building. Where is the voice of our government saying that clearly the PA doesn't want peace if its youngsters are taught Jihad and Palestine from the river to the sea?
~~~~~~~~~~
And this is not the end to the problems surrounding the demands made of us.
The Sharon government of 2003 did not simply accept the Road Map as is. A set of "14 reservations" was attached and given to the Bush government. It was only after the US government committed to "fully and seriously address[ing]" the issues raised by Israel that the Israeli Cabinet voted to accept the Road Map. Unfortunately, this was naive, for a commitment to address the issues is not a promise that they will ultimately be incorporated into arrangements.
But the government of Israel is on record as having reservations. Some of those reservations:
"...during the process, and as a condition to its continuance. calm will be maintained. The Palestinians will dismantle the existing security organizations and implement security reforms during the course of which new organizations will be formed and act to combat terror, violence and incitement (incitement must cease immediately and the Palestinian Authority must educate for peace). (emphasis added)
"In the first phase of the plan and as a condition for progress to the second phase, the Palestinians will complete the dismantling of terrorist organizations (Hamas. Islamic Jihad. the Popular Front, the Democratic Front Al-Aqsa Brigades and other apparatuses) and their infrastructure... (emphasis added)
"...declared references must be made to Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state and to the waiver of any right of return for Palestinian refugees to the State of Israel."
Additionally, PM Sharon is on record as having objected to the call for a freeze on settlements. It was "impossible," he said to Secretary of State Colin Powell.
"Our finest youth live there. They are already the third generation, contributing to the state and serving in elite army units. They return home and get married, so then they can't build a house and have children?
"What do you want, for a pregnant woman to have an abortion just because she is a settler?"
(You can find this quote here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3020335.stm)
Unfortunately, bewilderingly, this objection, this perception that a freeze is impossible, was not written into the reservations.
~~~~~~~~~~
And one last factor in helping you understand the complexities of this situation:
In April of 2004, PM Sharon met with President Bush and they exchanged letters in the context of the Road Map and the forthcoming "Disengagement." President Bush's letter contained the phrase:
"In light of new realities on the ground, including already existing major Israeli populations centers, it is unrealistic to expect that the outcome of final status negotiations will be a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949..."
This was broadly understood as an acknowledgement by the US that in any final agreement with the Palestinians we would retain major settlement blocs. Dore Gold, head of the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, called it a "significant shift in US policy."
Netanyahu is currently using this to make the case that it had become informal US policy to acknowledge that we will be retaining settlement blocs in any event, and that there is thus no reason for the US to demand that we be restricted in building within those settlements. (Gold, by the way, is a Netanyahu advisor.)
From what I've read, this letter of Bush's is a stumbling block to Obama's demands, a frustration to him as he seeks to move on pressuring us.
~~~~~~~~~~
The good news for today: I've received some off-the-record information coming ultimately from an impeccable source, regarding Netanyahu's sincere resistance to a "two-state solution." We'll keep watching...
~~~~~~~~~~
May 26, 2009
"Drawing Sense from Confusion"
If I could turn myself into a fly on the wall, and be present at key meetings, it would be great. Or if I could read minds. But I have not the power to do either. Yet I sit here at my computer, trying to put together various statements made by government officials (for the most part as filtered through the reportage of various media sources), and various conclusions drawn by knowledgeable persons whose opinions I have sought. And it isn't quite coming together.
Yesterday I wrote about a quid pro quo that PM Netanyahu may well believe he will receive from Obama in return for an apparent gesture towards "peace" -- i.e,. the dismantling of some "illegal outposts." Netanyahu, after all, had made an impassioned statement to his Likud faction with regard to this, as reported in several sources. This involves making Obama look good in his bid for "peace," so that he's more amenable on other issues.
Today I picked the brain of a savvy individual who often has inside information, and he reiterated this same perspective. He maintained, in fact, that the coalition was so structured that any major concession would be blocked, and that there was in the end no great need for concern.
~~~~~~~~~~
I could go with that perspective. I still may.
But today the problem is conflicting statements and positions that are not coming together coherently. This leads to the almost inevitable conclusion that there is more going on than meets the eye. The "more" is not necessarily bad, but it suggests game playing at some level.
Consider all of the following, keeping in mind that these are media reports, which means that the journalists' own perspectives may have to be factored in.
Reports today that Netanyahu, after having denied any connection, is starting to see it Obama's way: that there is a linkage between progress on the Israeli-Palestinian front and ability to successfully counter Iran. Surely he doesn't believe this. To say this is different from simply buying into a quid pro quo deal. Is this just part of the role he's playing?
~~~~~~~~~~
But then Barak made an impassioned statement that it has to be explained to America that there is no connection between taking down outposts and countering Iran. So Barak wasn't playing the same game. Or had a different role. Or what? A good cop-bad cop act with Netanyahu?
One suspects it's a role because of one particular statement he made: "It's not as if the moment the last outpost is dismantled...the Iranians will abandon their nuclear ambitions." Come on! No one ever suggested this would happen. The linkage originally made by the Obama administration was with regard to Arab nations who would be more supportive of our stance against Iran if we made concessions towards the Palestinians. This is also nonsense, but different from what Barak was saying.
~~~~~~~~~~
And still we're not done. There are also reports that Barak, who is going to Washington next week for meetings with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Defense Secretary Robert Gates and National Security Advisor General James Jones, will propose that we dismantle all 24 illegal outposts within the next few weeks in exchange for US approval on our doing construction for natural growth in major settlement blocs.
In fact, Minister Dan Meridor has gone to London to meet with some US officials there to coordinate plans for Barak's visit.
But if this is true, this is stomach turning. Because we don't need US permission to build in our settlements. We should do what we need to do for our best interest and be done with it. No need to get Obama to sign off on it!
In fact, it was my understanding that our government had already communicated to the US that for the present we intend to continue building in settlements, at least for natural growth. According to a Reuters report, at the Cabinet meeting this week, Netanyahu told the Cabinet, "The demand for a total stop to building is not something that can be justified and I don't think that anyone here at this table accepts it."
Besides which, and this is a major catch, the government is now presenting the dismantling of outposts as a trade off for two different things: Obama's increased cooperation on Iran and Obama's "approval" of our building in our settlements.
They had better get their act together. Or their stories straight.
~~~~~~~~~~
But when I encounter communication from horrified readers who see Netanyahu as totally dishonest and a sell-out, I recall other Netanyahu positions:
Say what you will, he sat next to Obama, who was crystal clear about expecting a "two-state solution," and he did not utter that mantra.
And last week, he said very publicly that Jerusalem will remain undivided under Israeli sovereignty forever. Not only that, we will build there without restrictions. That is a proud and appropriate defiance, not a sell-out.
~~~~~~~~~~
And so here I'm going to resort to my fall-back position, which is "Wait and See." Being ever watchful and dilgent while doing so, of course.
~~~~~~~~~~
One thing that continues to be most encouraging is the nationalist strength of the current coalition, including members of Likud. I alluded to some of this yesterday, and there is no doubt in my mind but that it will have a major effect on how matters play out. We're not watching Netanyahu in a vacuum, after all.
Today there was a significant seminar held in the Knesset on the issue of alternatives to a two-state solution, organized by MK Tzipi Hotovely (Likud). Remember that name. She's young (31), she's dynamic, she's sharp, and she has her priorities right. She's up-and-coming for sure.
The fact of such a seminar is cause for hope.
A number of significant people spoke, including: Minister of Strategic Affairs Moshe Ya'alon (Likud); Minister of Internal Affairs Eli Yeshai (Shas); Minister of Information Yuli Edelstein (Likud); MK Robert Illatov (Yisrael Beitenu); Former Ambassador Yoram Ettinger; Maj.-Gen. (res) Giora Eiland, former head of the National Security Council; and Moshe Arens, who has served as ambassador to the US, foreign minister and defense minister in various Likud governments.
~~~~~~~~~~
The messages of these various speakers varied in details but were consistent in their perspective: A two-state solution would be a disaster were it to happen, it is not viable and won't happen.
As Moshe Ya'alon said:
"We have to free ourselves from this failed approach and its erroneous premise in order to allow for new patterns of thought.
"In handling the Israeli-Palestinian conflict we should not apply terms like 'solution' in the foreseeable future, rather the terms should be 'crisis management' or coping in the long-term. This strategy should maintain and strengthen [our] interests while managing the conflict, and working towards stabilization in the distant future."
While Eli Yeshai observed:
"I am willing to give up the embraces [from the US] and keep the assets. We keep trying to get the Americans to like us when we should be sticking to what we know to be true."
Various alternatives were discussed, such as some form of autonomy within Palestinian cities and cooperation with Jordan on the Palestinians.
~~~~~~~~~~
Ahmed Queria, who was PA chief negotiator for Annapolis talks, has given an interview to Haaretz.
One phrase caught my eye, as it tells the truth of their position:
"If they want peace, they should pay the price."
~~~~~~~~~~
May 25, 2009
"Outposts and Settlements"
The picture is unsettling -- indeed, infuriating, but it's also complex and, I believe, not grim.
There are some indications of government intentions to get tough with regard to some 20-plus "illegal outposts," with Defense Minister Barak declaring that he will take them down, one way or another.
For the record, an "illegal outpost" is usually a small collection of modest buildings or caravans -- often on a hilltop -- that has been constructed without permission. The line is not all together clear, however, as to what "without permission" means, as sometimes there has been some legitimacy conferred by some department or other -- as, for example, if some electric lines have been put in. Sometimes an "outpost" is no more than a neighborhood of an existing community, and sometimes what was illegal is declared legal -- for the political aspects of this are considerable.
Many of the "illegal outposts" have had that status for some years. This is not a new development. Yet it is now that action is being taken, or threatened, more vociferously.
~~~~~~~~~~
The news today was that nine outposts have been served with "zoning notices," informing them that they are "illegal." While there was no announcement that they will be taken down, such zoning notices often precede demolition orders. And this follows the very recent demolition of Maoz Esther.
One example serves to demonstrate how ridiculous the whole thing can become: Of the nine outposts listed, one is "Hazon David, Kiryat Arba-Hebron." This, it turns out, is not a cluster of buildings and is not an "outpost" in the general sense of that word. It is one structure -- a very temporary, tent-like structure --outside of Kiryat Arba, on the road to Hevron. A structure used as a synagogue. That's it. "Hazon David" means David's vision and is named in memory of David Cohen and Hezi Mualem who were murdered by terrorists seven years ago outside of Kiryat Arba.
Taking down this modest place of prayer and study, where no one actually lives, really advances peace, right?
This is what Barak and company need to be concerned with? They should hang their heads in shame. This makes Obama happy? What?
~~~~~~~~~~
When we ask why this is happening now, there are general answers in terms of Netanyahu having somehow caved to Obama. But I'd like to look a bit closer at the issues (including more below).
Nahum Barnea, writing on YNet, makes the observation that the mere fact that Netanyahu refuses to even say "two state solution," never mind to agree now to negotiate such a "solution," puts the heat on the outposts and settlements. Were negotiations advancing, then Obama would be able to boast of "progress," and the issue of outposts would be minimal. But as it is, Obama has nothing to point to, unless there is "progress" on this score.
Barnea doesn't say this explicitly, but what his analysis implies is that the very strength of our prime minister for the big issues makes our government more vulnerable on the small issues. And there is the possibility -- which hardliners don't accept -- that there will be some quid pro quo here.
~~~~~~~~~~
And then there's the upside of what's happening:
PM Netanyahu told the Cabinet yesterday that, when he was in Washington, he informed Obama that we would not stop building in Jerusalem or accommodating natural growth in settlements.
"Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, under Israeli sovereignty, and we do not accept limits on construction or on our activity inside of Israel."
This in the face of a State Department statement that "Jerusalem is a final-status issue. Israel and the Palestinians have agreed to resolve its status during negotiations..."
Well, Jerusalem may have been a final-status issue for Olmert, but it is not now.
~~~~~~~~~~
In addition to this, we have a new strength within the Cabinet -- so much so that it's questionable whether support could be garnered among the ministers for dismantling all of the "illegal outposts." As Gil Hoffman has written in the Post:
"...the ministers made clear that the settlers had a strong lobby in the Cabinet."
Leaders of Shas, Yisrael Beitenu and Habyit Hayehudi "each tried to take upon themselves the mantle of the settlers' top advocate, as did Likud ministers Yuli Edelstein, Yisrael Katz, and Benny Begin..."
Most vociferous in his defense of outposts was Katz, who said, "the government agenda cannot become a witch hunt against the residents of Judea and Samaria."
Edelstein and Lieberman criticized Barak for unilateral action without sanction of the Cabinet. Edelstein indicated that "an entire team of ministers would insist on keeping Barak in check and ensuring that the Cabinet would have the final say on the outposts..."
Barak, he said, "has not internalized that a nationalist government had taken over."
~~~~~~~~~~
Additionally we see a new strength on the part of the nationalists of Israel. A meeting of several groups has been held and plans have been put in place that call for reinforcing the numbers at existing outposts, setting up new ones, and immediately rebuilding any outpost that is demolished.
I spoke today with David Wilder, spokesman for the Hevron community. His tone was cool, as he explained that Hazon David had been destroyed about 30 times already, and would be built again if the Defense Ministry took it down.
There is the feeling, with solid reason, that determined settlers can outlast government demolition efforts.
~~~~~~~~~~
With justification, the nationalists point to the illegal outposts put up by the Bedouin in the Negev and Arabs in the Galil that the government ignores. It is their intention to make this issue more public.
~~~~~~~~~~
It's not entirely clear to me how extensively the US media covered the plan by home-grown Muslim terrorists to target synagogues in New York City and down planes at a military air base. The plot was foiled in a sting operation, and the concern is that the lessons to be drawn from this will not be attended to with sufficient seriousness because the disaster was averted. The attitude, unfortunately, is likely to be one of "Thank goodness nothing happened!" and done.
In point of fact, however, a major alarm should go up with regard to the circumstances surrounding this planned attack: Three of the four alleged would-be terrorists were converts to Islam who were converted in prison.
~~~~~~~~~~
Steve Emerson, founder and executive director of the Investigative Project on Terrorism, addresses the serious dimensions of this problem in a recent piece, "Radicals in Our Prisons." Every American needs to take heed.
Writes Emerson:
"Radicalism in prisons is a problem that has been festering for years...
"Some prison libraries include the Nobel Quran, an extreme interpretation of Islam's holy book that includes a call for jihad...
"These books are not reviewed by prison officials, perhaps due to language differences or because they are perceived simply as religious texts. [The Department of Justice], which has oversight over [the Bureau of Prisons], refuses to acknowledge the problem.
"Meanwhile, federal records identified by the Investigative Project on Terrorism and available on the Internet show a number of Muslim Brotherhood-tied organizations receiving government contracts, including contracts with the Bureau of Prisons, to perform work such as chaplain services and Islamic studies...
"Wahhabist literature, Muslim Brotherhood tracts calling for Jihad, Saudi produced Qurans that exude hatred for Jews and Christians - all of this continues to flow into federal and local prisons unhampered."
http://www.nypost.com/seven/05232009/postopinion/opedcolumnists/radicals_in_our_prisons_170673.htm?page=0
~~~~~~~~~~
Charles Krauthammer has also written an interesting article, "Obama in Bush Clothing," which I call your attention to. Says Krauthammer:
"...the flip-flops on previously denounced anti-terror measures are the homage that Barack Obama pays to George Bush. Within 125 days, Obama has adopted with only minor modifications huge swaths of the entire, allegedly lawless Bush program.
"The latest flip-flop is the restoration of military tribunals. During the 2008 campaign, Obama denounced them repeatedly, calling them an 'enormous failure.' Obama suspended them upon his swearing in. Now they're back."
The pattern is an "Obama three-step: (a) excoriate the Bush policy, (b) ostentatiously unveil cosmetic changes, (c) adopt the Bush policy...
"OBSERVERS OF ALL political stripes are stunned by how much of the Bush national security agenda is being adopted by this new Democratic government." This agenda includes wire taps, e-mail intercepts, turning over terrorists seized abroad to foreign countries, and denial of habeas corpus to certain detainees.
What has happened?
"The urgencies and necessities of the actual post-9/11 world, as opposed to the fanciful world of the opposition politician, present a rather narrow range of acceptable alternatives."
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1242212459529&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
~~~~~~~~~~
Now, if only the urgencies and necessities of the actual post-9/11 world would move Obama to shift his policy with regard to Iran.
Certainly he's getting only one slap in the face after another from the Iranians in response to his reaching out with offers of dialogue.
According to a local news agency, Iranian naval commander Admiral Habibollah Sayyari has announced the dispatch of several warships: "Iran has dispatched six ... warships to international waters and the Gulf of Aden region in an historically unprecedented move by the Iranian Navy." This, he says is, "indicative of the country's high military capability in confronting any foreign threat on the country's shores."
This war-like action comes as Ahmadinejad has rejected an offer by the US, Russia, China, France, Germany and Britain to hold off on all new sanctions in exchange for a freeze on Iranian nuclear activity.
"Our talks [with major powers] will only be in the framework of cooperation for managing global issues and nothing else. We have clearly announced this," he said. "The nuclear issue is a finished issue for us."
And Obama will still try to dialogue on the nuclear issue in the face of this?
~~~~~~~~~~
Coming full circle: PM Netanyahu injected a perspective relevant to this in his meeting with the Likud faction today. Giving in to US demands on the outposts is important to do, he says, so that there can be focus on Iran. But there are multiple way to read this.
Presumably he expects more from Obama in terms of cooperation on Iran if we give in on this. This may be the quid pro quo.
"We're not [living] in ordinary times," he declared. "The danger is gaining on us. The most dangerous threat to a living organism is not to identify danger. My role, first and foremost, is to secure the future of the State of Israel. This comes before anything else."
But he also seems to be deflating internal political dissension on the issue because he believes it weakens us:
"There must be broad national unity as much as possible, so as to stave off the danger."
A ruse simply to weaken dissent? Possible, but I do not believe so. Binyamin Netanyahu has been warning us about the dangers of Iran for years. I take him seriously here.
To attempt to severely weaken him politically over outposts -- as is being threatened by those on the far right -- just as he must make decisions involving attacking Iran would be, I concur, a mistake in judgment. Dissent should not stop but must be moderated in light of the priorities and the times within which we live. Purists see a slippery slope whereby if we surrender claim to a square meter of land we are surrendering our claim to Israel. But it will avail us naught if vociferous protection of that square meter renders us -- G-d forbid -- more likely to be blown away completely later.
~~~~~~~~~~
Nothing is ever simple, and most certainly not where Russia is concerned.
It was very recently announced that we will be expediting the sale to Russia of UAVs (unmanned aerial vehicles) following the cancellation by Russia of plans to sell Syria advanced MIG-31 fighter jets.
This was good news.
However...Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov met with Hamas's Mashaal on Saturday and has declared that continued contact with Hamas is considered "necessary."
In fact, Lavrov hopes to see a delegation from a Palestinian unity government attend the peace conference in Moscow later this year.
Oh joy. Such a unity government would have as a major component a Hamas that embraces terrorism.
~~~~~~~~~~
"The Good News Corner"
-- Wheat, which is a staple grain in many societies, is subject to a virulent fungus disease called rust (because its spores have a rust color) that can destroy crops, causing food shortages and economic loss.
The answer to combating this lies here in Israel. For it is in Israel that a wild wheat grows, believed to be the original wheat plant before domestication. In the course of 10,000 years of domestication, the wheat was bred for certain properties considered desirable, such as higher yield, but in the course of changes lost resistance to disease.
Professor Tzion Fahima of Haifa University's Department of Evolutionary and Environmental Biology is working with a team that has discovered a gene in the wild wheat that provides resistance to eight strains of rust disease. The next step is to reintroduce this gene to domestic wheat, either by traditional breeding practices or genetic engineering.
Additional projects are anticipated that would involve work with the genes in wild wheat that make it more drought resistant and provide it with a higher percentage of protein and minerals.
-- According to the World Health Organization, Israel is one of the healthiest nations in the world. WHO lists Israel with Europe, and it is with European nations that comparisons are made. (Israel is way way ahead of the nations of the MidEast.)
The Israeli infant and maternal mortality rates are much lower than European averages. E.g., in Israel there are three newborn deaths per 1,000 as compared with five in Europe. Israel has 37 doctors per 10,000 people as compared to 32 in Europe. Israel has low rates of infectious diseases and high rates of immunization. And the entire Israeli population has access to improved drinking water, compared to 97% in Europe.
-- Now for the really important item: Work to be wrinkle free while you sleep (I am not making this up). An Israeli company named Cupron, in Beit Shemesh, makes pillow cases that contain copper. Perspiration from your skin as you sleep releases copper ions, which stimulate the production of collagen, which reduces fine lines and wrinkles.
~~~~~~~~~~
May 21, 2009
"The Proof is Here"
The proof that the Palestinian Authority is not really working toward a state, that is.
I wrote yesterday about Palestinian Arab objections to Obama's plan to give the holy sites of Jerusalem to the UN for supervision. Today there is more.
Elements of Obama's plan, which he is going to announce in Cairo next month, have been leaked. PA officials have expressed surprise, as they weren't told anything by the Obama administration. (Abbas is scheduled to meet with Obama soon.) But now that they've seen the plan, they are voicing objections, maintaining that some portions of the proposal are completely unacceptable.
Those portions are: resettling Palestinian refugees in Arab countries, swapping lands between the future Palestinian state and Israel (which would allow retention of some settlements in exchange for land elsewhere), creating a demilitarized state, and granting the Old City of Jerusalem the status of an international city.
Said one PA official: "The Palestinian position on these issues is very clear. We insist on the right of return for all refugees on the basis of UN resolution 194, and the establishment of an independent Palestinian state with all of East Jerusalem, including the Old City, as its capital."
As to demilitarization and an exchange of land with Israel, these suggestions had previously been rejected.
~~~~~~~~~~
So what we see is a total rigidity. No compromise, no flexibility. This stance -- when they know full well that there are elements of their demands that Israel will never accept, such as return for all refugees and relinquishment of the Kotel to Arab control -- signals clearly that achievement of a state is not their primary goal.
This tells us that, for all the rhetoric, there will be no "two state solution."
~~~~~~~~~~
What I wonder is, how long it will take Obama to realize this. Not that he would publicly admit failure in his efforts, of course. He'll slog on, just as Condoleezza Rice did in her time. But how long will it take him to internalize the fact that the obstacle is the PA, and that he can't fix things. Here's a guy who is willing to play with them, who is viscerally on their side, who called their leader first after being inaugurated. And even for him they are not prepared to bend.
Or, put another way, they are not permitted by their ideological stance to bend. Which means their ideology is focused, ultimately, on such matters as an all-Muslim Palestine from river to sea.
~~~~~~~~~~
A quick word about the claim that UN resolution 194 gives all the "refugees" the "right" to return. It does no such thing. For starters, it is a General Assembly resolution, and GA resolutions have no standing in international law -- they are only recommendations. There is no "right of return."
For a bit more information, see: http://www.arlenefromisrael.info/background-right-of-return/
~~~~~~~~~~
One other factor should be mentioned here. For a long time we've been hearing with full and distinct clarity what the PA demands are. It's a litany, and we all know it: return of refugees, Jerusalem as a capital, etc. etc. But until now there has been no litany on our side -- no delineation of what the red lines are for us. With Olmert all we got was a rush to show the other side, ad nauseum, how much we could bend to please them and thus make "peace" possible.
With the Netanyahu government now, I have hope that this is changing. We must be recognized as a Jewish state. We will not divide Jerusalem. We demand parameters that provide for security. Stating these positions for all the world to hear, over and over with consistency, would make a real difference.
~~~~~~~~~~
Pressure is continuing on us to freeze all settlement growth. Clinton, in a statement on Al Jazeeera, has stated unequivocally, "All types of construction must stop."
The only construction being done in settlements (I prefer to say communities) in Judea and Samaria now are on the basis of tenders issued late last year. If further permits to build are not issued, construction will halt soon.
Netanyahu has not yet committed to a cessation of building, and it is to be hoped that he won't. This is a critically important issue that involves several factors. One is the question of where construction would be done -- our government's position being that it should continue in major settlement blocs which we intend to retain. This is what's key: it's a declaration of our intention to not, under any circumstances, move back to pre-'67 lines. Then there is a distinction being made between natural growth -- which means additions for growing families, etc., and additional growth, which means construction for new people to move into the communities. In both instances, the borders of the communities would not be extended -- growth would be internal.
I have it from an impeccably reliable source that certain key members of the Netanyahu government are saying they want to see both sorts of construction sustained.
~~~~~~~~~~
Netanyahu has announced that four working groups with the US have been established: on Iran, strategic issues, diplomatic process and bringing in other Arab countries.
The Washington Times, in an exclusive with regard to the group on Iran, said it would provide the "U.S. a clear channel for communicating with the new Israeli government and a vehicle for keeping tabs on any military contingency plans Israel might make if diplomacy fails." This group "would begin to examine contingency plans now in case Iran continues a nuclear weapons program." The Times suggests that this group might be a vehicle for renewing Israeli requests for certain equipment, such as bunker busters, that were left pending at the end of the last administration.
Netanyahu has made a statement, not clarified, regarding "strategic agreements" between Israel and the US that have been reapproved by Obama.
It is altogether unclear to me at this point whether there will be discussion on settlements within the strategic arrangements group.
Work within the groups has already begun.
~~~~~~~~~~
The greatest impediment to government policies with regard to settlements is Defense Minister Ehud Barak, who has been carrying on about illegal outposts.
Today security forces demolished a small outpost called Maoz Esther outside of Kochav Hashachar in Samaria. A resident of the outpost -- which is named for a victim of terror -- said 40 people lived there and would begin rebuilding immediately. This is not the first time that this outpost has been taken down by authorities and put up again. More power to those who have the courage and staying power to do this!
~~~~~~~~~~
The thought that immediately occurs, of course, is that this may be a good-cop/bad-cop routine with Barak playing bad-cop within the new government. Perhaps. Today's demolition very much seems a sop of sorts to Clinton's demand. Haaretz certainly thinks this is the case -- the price Netanyahu agreed to pay in return for some Obama statements on Iran.
But it also is a direct expression of Barak's own ideology. He is mightily frustrated by Netanyahu's refusal to say "two-state solution." And Barak himself has come out with a statement that what he did at Maoz Esther had nothing to do with the US, but was how a nation of law had to function with regard to illegal building. If truth be told, Barak did precisely the same thing before.
I've already cited the fact that other members of the government, including one influential minister, are solidly in favor of continuing the building in the settlements. So I don't believe the situation can be summed up simplistically. We need to watch it.
Head of Peace Now, Yariv Oppenheimer, called Maoz Esther a "puny outpost," and its demolition a "public relations exercise." This tells us something, perhaps.
~~~~~~~~~~
My own ideology would oppose taking down a single building. But -- unlike some purists who write to me -- I have a pragmatic streak as well, and recognize that we're operating in a tough situation. If taking down a couple of small outposts gives Obama the cover he needs to say that there is "progress," and then we proceed with other actions that protect our larger interest here, or secure statements from Obama that are helpful, this will hardly be an unbearable price to pay.
The trick is to avoid that slippery slope, so that we don't end up conceding so much that it becomes an unbearable, or even unacceptable, price. And vigilance is the watchword.
~~~~~~~~~~
Surprisingly, and undoubtedly at Obama's urging, Netanyahu has agreed to begin negotiations with Syria. Cannot say this is a pleasing piece of news. However, he clarified that there would be no conditions going in, and Assad has repeatedly said that he'll negotiate only if we agree in advance to give back the Golan. If this commitment is not made, he may not agree to sit with us in any event. And this exposes Syria's lack of good intent.
~~~~~~~~~~
Good news is that the US will provide the funding for the development and production of the Arrow 3 anti-missile system -- which will take on longer range missiles than the Arrow system currently in use here. It will be able to intercept missiles at a higher altitude and greater distance from Israel than the current system.
There has been concern here that with the economic crisis in the States, this program would be abandoned. But it has turned out to not be the case.
~~~~~~~~~~
My friends, I dropped the ball yesterday and must issue a correction. I wrote about the many members of Congress who recently supported us by sending Obama a letter that said, "peace cannot come while terrorism continues to wrack Israel.”
This is true enough, but everything is in the spin. And the spin in the news article from which I drew this blinded me to the larger context. The letter sent to the president was one of the letters endorsing a two state solution that had been actively promoted by AIPAC. The message more broadly was that the two-state solution wouldn't be possible until terrorism stopped. Not good enough.
~~~~~~~~~~
"The Good News Corner"
At official ceremonies today marking Yom Yerushalayim, Prime Minister Netanyahu said:
"Jerusalem was always ours and will always be ours. It will never again be partitioned and divided."
A clear and powerful message.
Jerusalem Mayor Nir Barkat then reiterated this:
"With the world examining us let it be said here: We will never divide Jerusalem."
Amen and Amen.
~~~~~~~~~~
May 20, 2009
"Rejoice in Jerusalem"
It is 42 two years since Jerusalem was reunited under our sovereignty. Four-two years since we took eastern Jerusalem and the Old City in the Six Day War.
Tonight and tomorrow we celebrate Yom Yerushalayim -- may she remain united in our hands eternally.
Enjoy this one-minute video that celebrates Yerushalayim with scenic and historical views:
http://www.aish.com:80/movies/YomYerushalayim.asp
And for the most stunning version of Yerushalayim shel zahav (Jerusalem of Gold) sung by the late, magnificent Ofra Haza z"l:
http://judaismoreformista.blogspot.com/2007/08/ierushalaim-shel-zahav-ofra-haza.html
~~~~~~~~~~
Speaking of Jerusalem:
Palestinian sources are lamenting that they were promised by the US that in any peace deal Jerusalem would be their capital.
But President Obama's peace plan -- essentially the Saudi plan with some modifications, which he intends to unveil in Cairo when he gives his much-vaunted talk in early June -- envisions things just a bit differently. In this plan the Palestinians would get eastern Jerusalem as their capital, but the holy places would be under the jurisdiction of the UN.
I can just imagine him, thinking how sage this is, how fair. That an international agency should supervise these sites, thus preventing Jewish-Arab rivalry for control.
For us this is nothing more than a joke. The United Nations controlling the Kotel (Western Wall) and the Temple Mount? Oi! Give me a break!
That Obama would think this is OK means he is totally devoid of any sensitivity to how the UN has treated us (does he even know the UN Human Rights Council record?) or how we respond to this agency. Either that, or he just doesn't care, as long as he provides a surface semblance of impartiality.
But it seems this plan doesn't suit the Palestinians either. And I love this complication.
~~~~~~~~~~
An even worse hindrance to the "peace plan" is the instability of the Palestinian Authority, with which we would be expected to negotiate, and which would presumably govern an autonomous region or state. Seems a good part of the Fatah party is not happy with the new government that Abbas has put in place. While many Fatah people have become ministers, they have done so as individuals and not as members of the party.
Fayyad, it should be noted, is viewed (not without reason) as a puppet of the West.
Has Obama figured out precisely whom we are supposed to talk to and who actually can speak for the Palestinian Arab body politic?
~~~~~~~~~~
An issue was raised by a reader today (thanks, Minka) that I've addressed before, but would like to return to here. I refer above to the "Palestinian Arab body politic," but the question is whether there really is one. That is, are the Arabs known as Palestinians truly united in their perceptions of themselves as one people, with a genuine yearning for a state?
There is every indication that the answer is no. There are multiple loyalties -- to the hamula, which is the all-important clan; to ideologies, including radical Islam and even socialism; to cultural associations linked with Egypt or Jordan; etc. But they don't get their act together as one people. And thus have they failed to develop the infrastructure necessary for building a state.
~~~~~~~~~~
Whatever Obama's intentions towards us, our strongest friends in the US are in Congress. A letter initiated both by members of the Republican and Democratic parties has been sent to President Obama, telling him that "peace cannot come while terrorism continues to wrack Israel.”
It was signed by over 250 members of Congress, including 76 senators.
~~~~~~~~~~
Prime Minister Netanyahu was pushed with regard to a freeze on settlements while he was in Washington, but he declined to commit to anything, saying that first he wants to see what commitments the PA is honoring. This is his principle of reciprocity. As National Security Advisor Uzi Arad put it, "If this is about give and take, then what is the Palestinian side ready to give? You can't expect Israel alone to answer the Palestinians' demands time and again."
Washington leaders were told that we will continue to build in Jerusalem and in our major settlement blocs.
~~~~~~~~~~
Netanyahu arrived back home today and pronounced himself satisfied.
It is being reported that in a briefing on the plane coming home, Ron Dermer, one of Netanyahu's closest aides, told the journalists present that "the focus by the media on the concept of solving the Israel-Palestinian issue through a two-state solution is childish and stupid...the fixation with that idea rather than focusing on the fundamental issues." He was careful to say he wasn't describing the concept itself this way, but he was headed in that direction.
However, according to YNet, another, unnamed, Netanyahu aide was less circumspect and referred to the concept itself as "juvenile."
What we're seeing then is the beginning of a campaign to discredit the Obama approach and deal more realistically with the complexities of the situation.
My response: A very cautious, a very tentative Halleluyah!
~~~~~~~~~~
As many of you may know, Iran today announced the test of a Sajjil-2 missile with a range of 2,000 kilometers, which has the capacity to reach not only Israel, but US troops in the region and parts of Europe. This announcement has been confirmed.
It is not of immediate concern to Israel, as Iran has older missiles with a range sufficient to reach us, and we have been preparing defense against this via anti-missile systems. But it should be of concern to the Western world more broadly.
An unnamed US official cited by Reuters said, that though the United States wants to engage with Teheran, American patience is "not infinite."
"Iran just keeps going in the wrong direction. We want them to engage with us, to talk about how we can make the region more stable. This is just a step in the wrong direction,"
~~~~~~~~~~
Do the Americans responsible for current policy know how stupid this sounds?
It's as if this official is speaking to a recalcitrant child who won't get with the program: "You didn't like it when Bush ostracized you, and we're trying to be nice to you. So why are you making it so hard for us and being so contrary? Naughty, naughty. We can't help you when you act this way."
Has it occurred to anyone over there that it is simply not a goal of the Iranian mullahs to make the region more stable? That this is the whole point?
~~~~~~~~~~
Sigh... Then we have the secretary of state, who spoke about Iran at a Senate hearing today. She said that the prospect of a nuclear Iran was an "extraordinary threat", and that the government was working "to persuade the Iranian regime that they will actually be less secure if they proceed with their nuclear weapons program."
In my humble opinion, Hillary is not sounding too swift either.
~~~~~~~~~~
"The Good News Corner"
Today it's political good news. First an announcement from the Foreign Ministry:
"Israel will, for the first time, open an embassy in Ashgabat, capital of Turkmenistan. The decision to open the embassy was reached in view of the development of the good bilateral relationship with Turkmenistan and the new momentum in relations with Central Asian countries.
"Turkmenistan is one of the leading countries in Central Asia, and Israel's relations with it are of political, economic and strategic importance.
"We are certain that the permanent presence of an Israeli diplomat at the ambassadorial level in Ashgabat will ensure an additional quantum leap in the development of relations with a pivotal and friendly country such as Turkmenistan."
~~~~~~~~~~
Interestingly, in today's Jerusalem Post is an article by the ambassador to Israel from Kazakhstan, another Central Asian nation. He praises the cooperation and positive dynamic between his country and ours, and seeks stronger ties.
From the Foreign Ministry announcement: "the new momentum in relations with Central Asian countries." Our future is with these nations and not the nations of western Europe.
~~~~~~~~~~
Kuwait has just held a general election and the results represent a stunning victory for reform and democratization. For the first time ever, women -- four of them -- were elected to the parliament, while the Muslim Brotherhood lost three of its four seats.
~~~~~~~~~~
Then, as this is Yom Yerushalayim, sharing of a bit of news regarding Mayor Barkat's new master plan for Jerusalem, to be carried out over a period of years:
[] A green belt surrounding the city, with picnic areas and hiking trails, a bicycle path and a lake.
[] Revamped eastern Jerusalem infrastructure, with 13,00 housing permits for Arab housing and special attention to historic sites.
[] A massive tourist drive.
[] Tens of thousands of new hi-tech jobs.
[] Affordable housing and arrangements for young couples who are now squeezed out of the city.
Let it be!
~~~~~~~~~~
April 19, 2009
"Looking OK from Here"
AFP
I was not pleased today with the carping from certain quarters: Well, Netanyahu hesitated at one point during the press conference. He called Obama a great leader and that was obsequious. And so on, and on.
Give this man a break! Sitting next to someone of huge power and influence who wanted him to say certain things, he never-the-less refrained from saying them. He held his own and spoke in Israel's best interest.
We can live in peace with the Palestinians, he said. If they agree to end of conflict, and recognize us as a Jewish state, and permit us the means to protect ourselves, and teach their children peace (which means new textbooks). Not bad.
He also said that this is an historic moment because it's the first time that Israelis and Arabs see a common threat (i.e., Iran).
And I noticed that Obama spoke about a US commitment to Israel's security as a Jewish state, and conceded that a nuclear Iran threatened the US as well as Israel. Well, then...
~~~~~~~~~~
I thought these comments by Scott Lucas, writing on the website "Enduring America," with regard to the Netanyahu-Obama press conference were interesting:
"Obama didn’t get it. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu made his high-profile visit and engaged in two hours of discussions with the President. And after those talks, there was no sign that Netanyahu had given any ground on the US showpiece demand: two-state negotiations with the Palestinian Authority.
"And Obama, or at least his advisors, may not get it. That very public refusal of the Israeli Prime Minister is likely to damage, if not sink, far more than the American position on Israel-Palestine. The bigger casualty may be Obama’s strategy towards the Middle East and the Islamic world.
"The outcome is the result both of flaws in the Administration’s Palestine approach, which has never been comprehensive but rests on the narrower illusion that peace rests on an agreement between the Israeli Government and the Palestinian Authority and — more importantly in the short term — the tactical error of announcing an Obama talk from Cairo on 4 June...
"The problem is that a lot of folks, maybe not in Middle Eastern Governments, but amongst populations in and beyond the region, are going to ask the Emperor if his clothes are real when Obama speaks in Cairo. And I can’t see where the cloth is coming from..."
Lucas is professor of American studies at Birmingham University and founder of the website. (I discovered the site when searching for video of the press conference.)
You can find that video of the Netanyahu-Obama press conference, as well as a transcript, and a link to the article above, here:
http://enduringamerica.com/2009/05/18/video-obama-netanyahu-news-conference/
~~~~~~~~~
Oh! and then there's the subsequent press briefing held by Obama's press secretary Robert Gibbs. One of the reporters asked, "Didn't Netanyahu get more out of this than Obama?" (Thanks Doris M.)
~~~~~~~~~~
The contact information for Prime Minister Netanyahu is repeated here, so that you have the opportunity to express your satisfaction with the way he handled himself and let him know you're behind him as he stands strong. I am convinced that it's important to do this.
Fax: 02-670-5369 (From the US: 011-972-2-670-5369)
Phone: 03-610-9898 (From the US: 011-972-3-610-9898)
E-mail: pm_eng2@it.pmo.gov.il (underscore between pm and eng)
~~~~~~~~~~
There were no leaks today regarding what was said between Netanyahu and Obama privately yesterday -- there is no further content to analyze. Obama now moves on to meetings with Abbas and then Mubarak, and we'll see what transpires as a result of these. The PA has to be sorely disappointed in Obama for not "forcing" Netanyahu to embrace a "two-state solution." They were counting on that.
After meeting with the president yesterday, Netanyahu meet with Secretary of State Clinton; Senator John Kerry, Chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee; House Speaker Nancy Pelosi; and House Minority Leader John Boehner.
How tiresome and irritating Clinton is when she harps on the "you can't expect help in fighting Iran unless you make peace with the Palestinians first" line. Obviously Netanyahu -- who spoke about the common threat shared by Israel and Arabs -- hasn't bought this. And it seems she didn't notice that her president had just conceded that a nuclear Iran was also a threat to the US and to Middle East stability. She'd best stop pretending that any nation that helps with Iran is simply doing Israel a favor.
Both Clinton and Kerry emphasized the need to halt settlement activity.
~~~~~~~~~~
Today Shin Bet head Yuval Diskin told the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee that there is "no chance for an effective peace process so long as Hamas rules Gaza...Hamas will never give up control of Gaza, and the PA will not concede power in Judea and Samaria."
This follows the breakdown of one final meeting yesterday between Fatah and Hamas regarding the formation of a unity government. This is no more than was expected.
~~~~~~~~~~
Hamas had rejected a proposal by Fatah that they form a joint security force. And the mere fact that this is being discussed illustrates the total insanity of the entire situation. For the Fatah security forces, at least in theory, are supposed to be trained (with help from US General Dayton) to combat terrorism (or, as a Hamas spokesman put it, "uproot resistance"). Talk about schizoid.
~~~~~~~~~~
Today Abbas swore in a new PA government, compromised mainly of Fatah people and headed by Salam Fayyad (an independent) as prime minister. Hamas calls it not legitimate.
~~~~~~~~~~
When Defense Minister Ehud Barak ruled recently that Zion Road in Hebron would be opened to Arab traffic soon, it caused a furor in the Hebron Jewish community and adjacent Kiryat Arba. This road, which runs from Kiryat Arba to the Cave of Machpelah (Tomb of the Patriarchs), is traversed by thousands of Jews annually. (Jews walk from Kiryat Arba to the Machpelah to pray on Shabbat and holidays.)
It had been closed to Arabs for some time because of a series of terror attacks, and there was real fear that this decision would result in the loss of life.
Earlier, Interior Minister Eli Yishai (Shas) had voiced opposition to the opening of the road. Yesterday, the four MKs of Ichud Leumi (National Union party) -- chair Ya'akov (Ketzelah) Katz, Aryeh Eldad, Uri Ariel, and Michal Ben Ari -- toured the area under heavy guard, seeking a better understanding of the situation.
Today the community of Hebron released an announcement:
"Israel's security chief...Yuval Diskin opposes opening of the road. As a result of his position, the road will (for now) remain closed.
"The decision to reopen the road, beginning with Defense Minister Ehud Barak...was not security-related. Israeli lives were not taken into account when [the] decision was made. Rather, the decision was politically motivated, in keeping with the idea that 'easing Palestinian lives' is more important than protecting Jewish lives.
"Hebron's Jewish Community calls on the Defense Minister to admit his error, to accept the opinion of ... Yuval Diskin, and officially end attempts to reopen Zion Road. It's time that Ehud Barak stops playing politics with Israeli lives!"
~~~~~~~~~~
"The Good News Corner"
In the course of recent City of David excavations being done by the Israel Antiquities Authority, a seal was found engraved with Hebrew letters. Made of bone, this seal dates to First Temple times (8th century BCE) and clearly bears the name of its owner, Shaul. When examined in conjunction with another seal and three bullae (stamped pieces of clay), all previously discovered in the area, it has considerable significance for the study of the development of the use of seals in ancient times.
Today the Knesset presidium headed by Knesset speaker Ruby Rivlin visited the National Park at the City of David in anticipation of the celebration of Yom Yerushalayim, which begins tomorrow night.
The seal was displayed for the first time for this visit, a reminder of our ancient roots in the city.
The City of David (Ir David) was the original Jerusalem, on a hillside outside of today's Old City walls. When David's son, Solomon, built the Temple, he moved up to the high spot above the city.
~~~~~~~~~~
May 18, 2009
"He Didn't Cave!"
The meeting between Prime Minister Netanyahu and President Obama is over. The two leaders first met privately, with their discussions going beyond scheduled time. They were then joined by advisors -- Netanyahu by top aide Ron Dermer and National Security Advisor Uzi Arad. Obama by US National Security Advisor James Jones.
Much has been made of the need for positive personal chemistry to be established between the two, as the human relationship is said to be important in greasing the wheels of diplomacy. (As press here has put it, inexplicably to me, trust has to be established. ) I don't know to what degree the chemistry was positive -- and undoubtedly more will follow on this.
At a press conference after the meeting, the two declared that they would work together to meet the challenges of the Middle East, including Iran. But what is clear is that there was no meeting of the minds.
Obama reiterated his two previously stated positions: That the dialogue with Iran should have no artificial time limit put on it and will be open-ended, although he would like to see progress by the end of the year and will consider other options such as sanctions in due course if necessary (no mention of a military option). And that his goal is two states living side by side in peace, which he hopes to achieve before the end of his term.
Netanyahu, for his part, repeated his previous position: that he would like to see the Palestinians govern themselves. But he has in mind some sort of autonomy, less than a full state. He referred to economic development and other assistance for the Palestinian Authority, but -- Baruch Hashem! -- he did not speak either of a Palestinian state or a two-state solution.
His emphasis, we were told before the meeting, was to be on Iran and the need for strong action. As would be expected, whatever was determined in terms of US sanction of/or refusal to sanction Israeli military action against Iran is not being shared. Interestingly, Netanyahu seemed to turn the Obama claim about the need to solve the Palestinian conflict first on its head, saying that more Arab nations need to get involved because of the instability generated by Iran.
Undoubtedly more news -- major analysis -- on the meeting will be forthcoming in the days ahead.
~~~~~~~~~~
There's a tough time ahead for us (see below), whatever may have been said in private or established today in terms of personal relationship between the two leaders. And, just as I suggested that we ask Netanyahu to stay strong before his meeting with Obama, I would like to suggest that now we applaud his strength, let him know we're behind him, and ask him to retain his resolve.
Fax: 02-670-5369 (From the US: 011-972-2-670-5369)
Phone: 03-610-9898 (From the US: 011-972-2-610-9898)
E-mail: pm_eng2@it.pmo.gov.il (underscore between pm and eng)
~~~~~~~~~~
UN-related issues that require our attention:
Anne Bayefsky, of Eye on the UN, has written a piece called "Obama's UN Mistake," in which she describes the move Obama has made to further empower the UN.
http://article.nationalreview.com:80/?q=MmE3ZmUwZDY0ZmFiMzllYTJiY2UwOTllNjBjYTY2MGQ=
The Security Council, Bayefsky tells us, just a little over a week ago, adopted what is called a "presidential statement." This one says:
“The Security Council supports the proposal of the Russian Federation to convene, in consultation with the Quartet and the parties, an international conference on the Middle East peace process in Moscow in 2009.”
This statement, while it has no legal status, does require a unanimous vote. This means Obama could have vetoed it, but chose not to.
You'll note that the statement alludes to consultation with "the parties." Israel has been working to convince Russia not to hold such a conference this year -- and our government is not pleased. Bayefsky sees the 22 nations of the Arab League as being among "the parties" -- which squeezes Israel badly.
Israeli UN ambassador Gabriella Shalev issued a statement putting forth Israel’s position:
“Israel does not believe that the involvement of the Security Council contributes to the political process in the Middle East. This process should be bilateral and left to the parties themselves."
What is more, Shalev expressed dissatisfaction with the timing of this, when she had shared with the Security Council the fact that Netanyahu, in preparation for his meeting with Obama, was working on his approach to dealing with the Palestinians.
~~~~~~~~~~
The American UN ambassador, Susan Rice, took a very different approach, when she announced to the Security Council that “we intend to integrate the Arab Peace Initiative into our own approach.”
To reporters she said:
"We welcome Foreign Minister Lavrov’s initiative to convene the Council, and we’re very pleased with the constructive and comprehensive statement that will be issued by the president of the Council on the Council’s behalf. This was a product of really collaborative, good-faith efforts by all members of the Council, and we’re pleased with the outcome.”
And worst of all: “The United States cannot be left to do all the heavy lifting by itself, and other countries... must do all that they can to shore up our common efforts.”
This positively screams a warning. Obama has set up a situation in which he doesn't have to put the screws to Netanyahu himself, he can get the international community to help.
Bayefsky believes Obama has set this up as a "good-cop/bad cop" routine, so that he can rescue Israel, for a price. It's possible. It's also possible that he hopes he won't have as much to answer for with his pro-Israel constituents, if the UN is doing the dirty work.
~~~~~~~~~~
And we're not done.
This past week the US formally joined the UN Human Rights Council. This anti-democratic group is virulently anti-Israel. It has adopted more resolutions and decisions condemning Israel than condemning all of the 191 other UN members combined; has held ten regular sessions on human rights, and five special sessions to condemn only Israel; and has insisted on an investigator with an open-ended mandate to condemn Israel, while all other investigators must be regularly renewed.
What is more, the US, along with the four other Western nations sitting on the Council, can expect to be outvoted by nations from other geographic areas, including Cuba, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Djibouti, Bahrain, Qatar, Russia, and China. Actually, the balance of power lies with the Organization of the Islamic States, which has members on the Council from both the African and Asian groupings.
This means the influence the US can have on Council decisions is minimal if not non-existent.
Great situation, is it not?
~~~~~~~~~
In the course of the research I'm doing on UNRWA, I came across the following information, which I believe it is valuable to share. It provides a more accurate perspective in the face of the "awfulizing" that is routinely done regarding the situation of the Arabs in Gaza. This comes from an article by Justus Weiner, an international lawyer with the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs.
"...Gaza's offshore gas deposits are worth an estimated $4 billion. This natural resource could be accessed to improve the lives of residents of Gaza once the anarchy and violence of Hamas is curtailed. Second, the population of Gaza is comparatively healthy and well educated. Life expectancy in the Gaza Strip is more than 72 years, which is higher than in Russia, the Bahamas, India, Ukraine and Glasgow East (Scotland).
"Third, Gaza has a much lower infant mortality rate than Angola, Iran, India, Egypt and Brazil...
"Likewise, despite the ceaseless repetition by journalists that 'the Gaza Strip is the most densely populated place on Earth,' it is in fact markedly less densely populated than an array of other locales, including a number of economic success stories such as Monaco, Hong Kong, Singapore and Gibraltar."
Surprised? Save this and refer to it as necessary.
~~~~~~~~~~
According to Fox News, American intelligence sources are saying that a secret commando unit under the Joint Special Operations Command is prepared to infiltrate Pakistan and secure its mobile arsenal of nuclear weaponry if it appears that the country is about to fall to the Taliban or Al Qaida. This is significant because Islamic forces have taken territory not far from Islamabad, Pakistan's capital.
This is good news. It indicates a readiness to deal with an emergency realistically, and not with pie-in-the-sky approaches.
~~~~~~~~~~
MK Alex Miller (Yisrael Beiteinu) has submitted a bill that would make it illegal to celebrate the Nakba, which means "catastrophe" in Arabic, and is how the Arabs refer to the founding of Israel.
It is unlikely to pass, as it infringes on freedom of speech and right of protest. But none-the-less, this highlights a serious problem in this country. As Miller put it in a statement to the Post:
"From my perspective, it very much harms me, as a citizen, when citizens... mourn the establishment of the State of Israel when they themselves have equal rights in this country.
"If we really want to achieve coexistence, the time has come that we stop this absurd theater."
~~~~~~~~~~
A new settlement is scheduled to be built in the Jordan Valley, for the first time in 26 years. To be called Maskiot, it will be established on the ruins of a settlement abandoned years ago.
At the same time we are seeing this: Four years ago, as part of the expulsion from Gush Katif, there were four communities in northern Samaria that were demolished as well. One of those was Homesh.
Last week, in a demonstration approved by the IDF, 1,500 people returned to the site of Homesh; they are working towards the re-building of the community.
Those rallying carried letters of support from members of the current government written for the event:
"I want to bless the participants and support them in the realization of the Zionist way," wrote Strategic Affairs Minister Moshe Yaalon (Likud).
Minister of Information and Diaspora Yuli Edelstein (Likud), said, "I have the utmost respect for the (former) Homesh settlers and all those who work to resettle the community as part of the settlement enterprise in the Land of Israel."
Fantastic! This brings hope.
~~~~~~~~~~
May 17, 2009
"Hearing It Straight"
Now, as we approach the meeting between Prime Minister Netanyahu -- who does not utter that phrase "two-state solution" -- and President Obama -- who has committed himself to formation of a Palestinian state. Now, is the time to hear this and share this.
MEMRI, the Middle East Media Research Institute, follows what Arabs are saying in Arabic to other Arabs -- in TV interviews, speeches, editorials and more -- and provides translations. These are the words that provide the surest key to what the Arabs intend. Yet these are the words most often ignored by politicians (decision-makers) and media. Which means that decision makers and media -- afloat in an aura of wishful thinking -- are often lost with regard to those intentions.
~~~~~~~~~~
On May 7, Abbas Zaki, who is PLO Ambassador to Lebanon, gave an interview on ANB TV (Lebanon).
It's time, he said, to stop fooling around with half-way measures in dealing with Israel, and to come to a final agreement. Everyone talks about a two-state solution:
"With the two-state solution, in my opinion, Israel will collapse, because if they get out of Jerusalem, what will become of all the talk about the Promised Land and the Chosen People? What will become of all the sacrifices they made – just to be told to leave? They consider Jerusalem to have a spiritual status. The Jews consider Judea and Samaria to be their historic dream. If the Jews leave those places, the Zionist idea will begin to collapse. It will regress of its own accord. Then we will move forward."
Can it get any clearer than this? (Thanks! Cheryl H.)
The clip (in Arabic with translation) can be seen at: http://www.memritv.org:80/clip/en/2109.htm
The transcript of the (translated) interview is at: http://www.memritv.org/clip_transcript/en/2109.htm
~~~~~~~~~~
I will suggest to my American readers that this quote and the URLs for the clip and transcript be sent to President Obama immediately. Ask him if he knows what he's pushing.
Phone: 202-456-1111 Fax: 202-456-2461 E-mail form at http://www.whitehouse.gov/contact/
Send this material as well to your elected representatives and senators:
To locate your representatives:
http://www.house.gov/house/MemberWWW.shtml
To locate your senators:
http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm
~~~~~~~~~~
A note of explanation here. Zaki speaks in his interview of how they shouldn't give Israel a hudna anymore, as this allows Israel to strengthen. I found this amusing. A hudna is an Islamic term, not a Western or Israeli one, and it reflects an Islamic concept of warfare. While the word is often translated as "truce," what it more accurately means is an agreed upon temporary cessation of hostilities that allows Muslim forces to strengthen towards the day when hostilities will be initiated again. This is what Hamas aims for when it seeks a ceasefire with us.
Zaki was a member of the Palestinian Legislative Council and has served as head of Fatah operations; he is presently a PLO Central Committee member.
~~~~~~~~~~
There is considerable press being dedicated to that meeting between Netanyahu and Obama tomorrow, with various predictions as to how hard Obama will lean on Netanyahu and how likely it is that Netanyahu will cave (and finally utter that "two state" phrase).
We must hope (and pray) that Netanyahu has gotten the message here: We don't want him to shift his current position. The feeling is so strong that I believe he will risk his coalition if he agrees to start negotiations on a Palestinian state.
Most of the Likud faction is opposed to his doing this -- in particular influential ministers such as Moshe Yaalon, Benny Begin and Yisrael Katz -- and there is even talk of a rebellion within the party should Netanyahu give way. Likud MK Danny Danon wrote a letter to the prime minister last week urging him to stay strong; Danon reports that Netanyahu assured him not to worry.
Other right wing factions within the coalition are equally concerned, while residents of Judea and Samaria have demonstrated outside of Netanyahu's residence, urging him to stay strong. Likud MK Ofir Akonis says that "The vast majority of Israelis, including representatives of the Opposition in Knesset, reject this formula" -- two-states, which would (as the Palestinians intend it) ultimately be for one people. He believes that Netanyahu, who understands the situation, will not commit to establishment of a Palestinian state while in Washington.
Only Barak and his Labor associates are pushing for negotiations for two states.
~~~~~~~~~~
There is the possibility, as well, that Obama is not even planning on lowering the boom on our prime minister on their very first meeting.
According to unnamed senior White House officials cited by YNet, Obama will not be advancing a new plan for Middle East peace now, but will be pushing for compliance on both sides with regard to Road Map stipulations.
While Obama has already met with Jordan's King Abdullah, he is scheduled to meet with Egypt's President Mubarak and PA President Abbas only after meeting with Netanyahu. He may yet be in relationship-building and fact-finding mode with respect to the various Middle East leaders he will be speaking with.
~~~~~~~~~~
We must remember, as well, that while Netanyahu has said he would be going to Washington with a plan for dealing with the Palestinians based on a fresh analysis of the situation, his primary concern is Iran.
On this issue, as well, there is no meeting of the minds between Israeli and US officials, so that the possibility of conflict presents itself. But here, too, I am seeing what seems to me a subtle shift in tone from Obama. He is certainly not withdrawing his intention to pursue dialogue with Iran, but he made some statements that surprised me in an interview with Newsweek that is currently on its website.
"I understand very clearly that Israel considers Iran an existential threat, and given some of the statements that have been made by President Ahmadinejad, you can understand why." This doesn't mean he thinks Iran represents an existential threat, but he's coming part way.
In fact, said the president, since Israel is "right there in the range [of Iranian missiles], their calculation of costs and benefits are (sic) going to be more acute." Thus he didn't see it as his place to "determine for the Israelis what their security needs are."
Really?
~~~~~~~~~~
Why is it then, that, according to the Post, CIA director Leon Panetta, during his trip here three weeks ago urged our leaders to "tone down" our pronouncements with regard to attacks on Iran? This is being seen as counterproductive to the US policy of reaching out a hand of peace to the Iranians -- offering them inclusion in the international community in return for abandoning their nuclear development.
While Netanyahu refused to take the possibility of our attacking Iran off the table, promises were made to Panetta that "there will be no surprises": the US will be informed if we move to attack. It is not clear to me if this means notice would be considerably in advance of an attack, or very briefly before ("we're going into the air in an hour") to preclude US moves to stop us.
~~~~~~~~~~
There are mixed messages being delivered as to how the US will handle itself when dialogue with Iran fails. In that interview alluded to above, Obama said:
"...the approach we are taking is one that has to be given a chance and offers the prospect of security, not just for the United States but also for Israel, that is superior to some of the other alternatives."
However, he explained, he wasn't naive, and "I've been very clear that I don't take any options off the table with respect to Iran..." (Have some of his aides injected a note of realism into his thinking?)
This delivers a different message than the one coming from US officials concerned about Israel sounding too bellicose. They, according to the Post, acknowledge that Obama's efforts may fail, but they say that in this case it may be necessary for the US and its allies to live with a nuclear Iran. (So say they.) And -- the most disgusting part of this entire scenario -- either way there should be no threats. Talk about an appeasing attitude.
~~~~~~~~~~
The budget has passed in the Cabinet and is expected to also pass in the Knesset. I'm particularly glad for this now, as internal struggling in the face of all we have to contend with on the outside would weaken us.
~~~~~~~~~~
Pope Benedict is back at the Vatican, which is just fine with most of us.
I observed that he said what his hosts of the moment wanted to hear, so that, for example, he lamented with the Palestinians regarding the suffering they endure because of the imposition of the security fence: "In a world where more and more borders are being opened up - to trade, to travel, to movement of peoples, to cultural exchanges - it is tragic to see walls still being erected." But when he was with Peres he addressed the unfortunate need to put up such a barrier against terrorism. A pointless exercise, finally.
But in the end what raised my hackles the most was his statement to Abbas:
"Mr. President, the Holy See supports the right of your people to a sovereign Palestinian homeland in the land of your forefathers."
Excuse me? This land is our homeland, the land of our forefathers.
~~~~~~~~~~
The new PA government, which was supposed to have been sworn in by now, is being delayed because of internal Fatah tensions regarding its composition.
~~~~~~~~~~
I am currently in the midst of a major report on UNRWA, which has particular significance because of Hamas connections to this agency and international intentions of using it as a conduit of fund for reconstruction in Gaza.
And so, please, bear with me, my friends, if I am slow in answering communication. I will try not to skip posting on any day on which there are significant happenings.
There are, actually, several other issues regarding the UN that I want to look at, as well, in my postings.
~~~~~~~~~~
"The Good News Corner"
Prof. Abraham Katzir of Tel Aviv University's School of Physics and Astronomy has developed a technique for identifying contaminated water, even though it looks clear to the naked eye, by use of the infrared spectrum, which is not visible to humans.
Using a specially designed infrared spectrometer that is connected by fibers to the water source, this system is able to detect contamination as soon as it enters a reservoir or pipeline and notify authorities immediately. It can detect poison in amounts well below the thresholds set by the World Health Organization, and may be the first real-time monitor to protect against chemical attack.
~~~~~~~~~~
May 13, 2009
"The Visit"
Something less than a resounding success on several fronts, this visit from Pope Benedict XVI:
Yesterday, Rev. Federico Lombardi, a Vatican spokesman, said that, contrary to common impression, the pope was never in Hitler Youth. A strange statement, considering the pope himself had said so some years previous. But wait: What Lombardi explained is that Ratzinger (the pope's family name) was in a German army anti-aircraft unit, and wore the uniform of the Wehrmacht, the German armed forces -- but was never a part of Nazi ideology. Well, then, this is all OK, apparently.
~~~~~~~~~~
This statement followed a visit Benedict made to the Holocaust Memorial and Museum, Yad VaShem, where he spoke on Monday night. His words were disappointing on several levels. His talk was academic in nature, lacking the passion that was required. Reading like the statement of an uninvolved third party, it simply fell short.
"I have come to stand in silence before the monument erected to honor the millions of Jews killed in the horrific tragedy of the Shoah," intoned the pope. "They lost their lives, but they will never lose their names...
"As we stand here in silence, their cry still echoes in our hearts. It is a cry raised against every act of injustice and violence. It is a perpetual reproach against the spilling of innocent blood.
"I am deeply grateful...for the opportunity to stand here in silence: a silence to remember, a silence to pray, a silence to hope."
Some critics pointed to the fact that the word used was "killed," and not a more evocative "murdered," or "massacred." I was bothered by his rush to make the issue a universal one rather than focusing on a uniquely Jewish one.
Lacking was apology, or remorse, or regret. Any or all of which would have been appropriate considering that he was in the Wehrmacht (or Hitler youth), that he recently lifted the excommunication of a Holocaust-denying bishop (although he was not totally reinstated), that serious questions are raised about whether Pope Pius XII might have done much more to save Jews during the Holocaust, and that centuries of endemic anti-Semitism in Church teachings set the tone that made the Holocaust more possible. As it was, neither positions of the Church, nor Nazis, nor Germany were referred to at all.
~~~~~~~~~~
The pope's visit was further marred by an outburst on Monday evening, when he was hosting an ecumenical evening of dialogue. In a tirade that was not anticipated by the organizers of the event, Sheikh Tayseer Tamimi, chief Islamic judge in the Palestinian Authority, attacked Israel for war crimes in Gaza, confiscation of Palestinian land, and more, calling for Christians and Muslims to unite against Jews. The pope, who was visibly uncomfortable throughout, ultimately walked out. Criticism from several quarters followed.
~~~~~~~~~~
But the visit was not all negative by any means.
Yesterday at Hechel Shlomo -- next to the Great Synagogue -- Pope Benedict had an historic meeting with Ashkenazi Chief Rabbi Yona Metzger and Sephardi Chief Rabbi Shlomo Amar, at which he agreed to stop all Church missionizing among Jewish people.
This is no small matter.
Additionally, the pope addressed intention to continue Christian-Jewish dialogue and advance the process of reconciliation: "I assure you of my desire to deepen mutual understanding and cooperation between the Holy See, the Chief Rabbinate of Israel and Jewish people throughout the world."
~~~~~~~~~~
Rabbi Metzger asked the pope to identify Jewish children placed with Christian families during the Holocaust. I don't know what the outcome here will be and I am frankly not optimistic.
This is a source of no small turmoil and contention. There were Catholic families in eastern Europe who accepted Jewish babies and children given to them by parents facing annihilation, and literally saved their lives. But many of these children were baptized and absorbed into the Christian community, lost, after the war, to their surviving families and the Jewish people. (There was a story publicized recently of a priest who did not know he had Jewish roots until he had been in the priesthood for 12 years and now wants to make aliyah.)
~~~~~~~~~~
I share here the surprising take on the pope's visit expressed by Caroline Glick in her column, "Opportunity is knocking."
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1242029503802&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
In the face of a downgrade in US-Israel relations, she says, it is important for Israel to move quickly to establish stronger strategic alliances in other quarters. It is a delicate and imperfect business, she acknowledges, often with parties each wanting more from the other than is possible. But one strategic alliance our government is now seeking, says Glick, is with the Vatican.
Our goal here would be "the strengthening of [our] international position as the sole sovereign in Jerusalem." This particularly caught my eye, as there was a spate of panicked e-mail messages that came out before the pope's arrival regarding the Church's desire to acquire certain properties in Jerusalem -- most notably on Mt. Zion -- and the need to prevent that from happening, as Israel is and must remain sovereign here. I remained unconcerned because I had learned from an impeccable inside source that the Israeli government intended to turn over nothing to the Church.
~~~~~~~~~~
"UNDER POPE BENEDICT XVI," wrote Glick, "the possibility of winning the support of the Catholic Church for Israel's position that Jerusalem will never again be partitioned and will remain under perpetual Israeli sovereignty is greater than it was under his predecessors. Unlike his predecessors, Benedict has been outspoken in his concern for the plight of Christian minorities in Islamic countries...Since he replaced Pope John Paul II, Benedict has made repeated calls for religious tolerance and freedom in Islamic countries - most notably in his 2006 speech at Regensberg where he quoted a Byzantine emperor from the Middle Ages criticizing Islam for seeking to spread its message by the sword.
"After his words sparked murderous violence throughout the Islamic world, Benedict expressed his regret for the hurt his statement caused. But he never retracted it. Moreover, during his visit to the King Hussein Mosque in Amman on Saturday, Benedict indirectly reasserted his 2006 message...
"The pope's obvious recognition of the danger jihadist Islam constitutes for Christians puts the Vatican, under his leadership, in a position where it could be more interested than it was in the past in working with Israel to secure the Christian holy sites in Jerusalem by supporting Israeli control of the city."
Glick maintains, in fact, that statements by the pope make it clear that he "views the preservation of Jewish holy sites in Jerusalem as essential for Christian heritage" -- Jewish holy sites that would be at risk under Muslim control.
A fascinating thesis, and one that should be followed. The power of the Catholic Church is not to be dismissed.
~~~~~~~~~~
Whether Pope Benedict knows it or not, whether or not he is willing to acknowledge this reality publicly, the bottom line is that only Israeli sovereignty will guarantee Christian and Jewish holy places. The Palestinian record in this record is abysmal.
But I've yet to be convinced that he will support full Israeli sovereignty in Jerusalem. I've already expressed concern about statements made by the pope or his representatives that seemed to me to indicate a pro-Palestinian tilt (e.g., that there has not been justice in this part of the world for 60 years).
What is certainly the case is that the PA would like to utilize the pope's visit, manipulate his presence, toward their ends.
This morning, when the pope meet with PA president Mahmoud Abbas in Bethlehem, Abbas gave him as a gift a concrete piece of the security wall.
“We have been suffering since the Nakba ("catastrophe") 61 years ago,” Abbas said to him. “On this holy land, there are people who continue to build separation walls instead of building bridges for connection.”
Never mind that on this holy land it is necessary to build a separation that prevents Arab terrorists from killing innocent Jews.
~~~~~~~~~~
And I cannot let this pass without an observation: This, above all else, is how the Palestinians represent themselves -- as victims, eternally suffering and in need of succor. No attempt to show the pope what a determined people has been able to accomplish in terms of academics, social services or anything else that would indicate their readiness to have a state. There is no pride, no dignity. This is how they play it and how the world receives them.
A piece of concrete as a gift to the pope?
~~~~~~~~~~
Responded the pope: "The Holy See supports the right of your people to a sovereign Palestinian homeland in the land of your forefathers, secure and at peace with its neighbors, within internationally recognized borders."
He cautioned young people to “have the courage to resist any temptation you may feel to resort to acts of violence or terrorism.” But in the same breath he sanctioned their sense of grievance, which might lead to terror: “Do not allow the loss of life and the destruction that you have witnessed to arouse bitterness or resentment in your hearts...I know how much you have suffered and continue to suffer as a result of the turmoil that has afflicted this land for decades.”
And as I write, the visit to the nearby refugee camp is still to come, where the "right of return" will be highlighted.
Not good enough to give me any reassurance. Not by a long shot.
~~~~~~~~~~
Yet another alliance Glick anticipates that Netanyahu will be working on is with Egypt. And here I see it. The focus strategically is with regard to Iran, which, as I've been writing, Egypt is considerably worried about.
She cites a statement by Netanyahu for the AIPAC conference that sets the tone:
"For the first time in my lifetime... Arabs and Jews see a common danger... There is a great challenge afoot. But that challenge also presents great opportunities. The common danger is echoed by Arab leaders throughout the Middle East; it is echoed by Israel repeatedly... And if I had to sum it up in one sentence, it is this: Iran must not be allowed to develop nuclear weapons."
Netanyahu has just returned from a meeting with Mubarak, and, while statements were made regarding peace with the Palestinians (during which Netanyahu still did not utter that "two state solution" phrase), we don't know what went on behind closed doors with regard to Iran.
Whatever transpires is likely to be discreet, as Mubarak would not be expected to assume an overtly pro-Israel stance.
~~~~~~~~~~
Glick also makes mention of something that has been of concern to me for some time now: The changing tone of Jordan's King Abdullah, who now embraces the Obama theory that we have to make peace with the Palestinians in order to deal with Iran -- a position very different from the one he had previously embraced. As she puts it, "the Obama administration has clearly enlisted King Abdullah II to act as its proxy in the Arab world."
Indeed, as Abdullah's tone changed after his visit to the US.
Additionally, what we see coming next is an Obama visit to Egypt, from where he will deliver his speech for US conciliation with the Muslim world.
A troublesome picture.
~~~~~~~~~~
Our prime minister has his work cut out for him and needs our prayers and support.
~~~~~~~~~~
Personal considerations are likely to prevent my posting again until after Shabbat. There is a great deal more that must be looked at, all in due course.
~~~~~~~~~~
May 10, 2009
"Holding Fast"
There are many contexts in which this concept is relevant.
At a Likud forum today PM Netanyahu vowed that "Israel will not withdraw from the Golan Heights."
His comment was prompted by a question posed by Transportation Minister Yisrael Katz, who then said,
"I view this declaration as a message to the Golan's residents and to all of Israel's residents. The prime minister's statement carries good news [for] Israel's security. It is a message to the United States, the region's countries and the rest of the world.
"The message is that Israel will be ready for negotiations in the future, but that there will not be an Israeli commitment to withdraw from the Golan, so that they know the rules in advance. This message is undoubtedly very significant, on the eve of the prime minister's visit to the White House."
~~~~~~~~~~
While he indeed may apply pressure on us in this regard, it's just possible that Obama will take this decision more in stride than we might have expected. For -- in spite of his having sent US emissaries to Syria in an effort to improve US-Syrian relations and his having expressed intent to promote Israeli-Syrian negotiations -- Obama himself has just taken a stand against Syria.
Just five years ago, President Bush issued an executive order with regard to Syria, declaring a national emergency in dealings with this nation and authorizing sanctions.
The law states that the sanctions will be automatically terminated at the end of a year unless the president provides notification of intent to continue them. This process has been sustained annually until now.
Now President Obama has officially provided notification again:
"The actions of the Government of Syria in supporting terrorism, pursuing weapons of mass destruction and missile programs, and undermining U.S. and international efforts with respect to the stabilization and reconstruction of Iraq pose a continuing unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security, foreign policy, and economy of the United States. For these reasons, I have determined that it is necessary to continue in effect the national emergency declared with respect to this threat and to maintain in force the sanctions to address this national emergency."
In fairness, just how hard could he push us to negotiate with a state that he describes this way?
~~~~~~~~~~
Would that Obama demonstrated so clear-eyed an understanding of matters in other regards.
Jeff Jacoby, in his latest column, "Lady Justice's blindfold," describes one way in which Obama is missing the boat. This particular situation reflects a left-wing, "touchy-feely" approach that is actually contrary to the spirit of how the US is supposed to operate. (As will become clear, I am able to say "supposed to" without fear of contradiction here.) What is more, it exemplifies an attitude that I would suggest is at the heart of what's wrong with Obama's foreign policy more broadly.
Jacoby provides us with the oath taken by every federal judge:
"I . . . do solemnly swear that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me..."
Impartiality is at the core of this pledge. Says Jacoby, "Without judicial restraint there is no rule of law. We live under 'a government of laws and not of men.'"
But Obama is calling for something else:
"Time and again, Obama has called for judges who do not put their private political views aside when deciding cases. In choosing a replacement for Justice David Souter, the president says, he will seek not just 'excellence and integrity,' but a justice whose 'quality of empathy, of understanding and identifying with people's hopes and struggles,' would be 'an essential ingredient' in his jurisprudence. In an interview last year, he said he would look for judges 'sympathetic' to those 'on the outside, those who are vulnerable, those who are powerless.'
"...in 2005, Obama declared that the 'truly difficult' cases that come before the Supreme Court can be decided only with reference to 'the depth and breadth of one's empathy,' and that 'the critical ingredient is supplied by what is in the judge's heart.'"
As Jacoby points out, "Sympathy for others is an admirable virtue, but a judge's private commiserations are not relevant to the law he is expected to apply.
"If Obama means what he says, he wants judges who can be counted on to violate their oath of office."
http://www.jeffjacoby.com/5568/lady-justices-blindfold
~~~~~~~~~~
And if this is the yardstick utilized for making decisions in the international arena?
If one identifies, for example, with Palestinians who call themselves refugees, or has great empathy for them in one's heart, does this mean one judges with less severity terrorist acts for which they are responsible, or demands less transparency with regard to how they expend funds?
~~~~~~~~~~
The nation is currently in a turmoil because of budget issues. And so we might apply the term "holding fast" here as well. In a time of global economic downswing, PM Netanyahu, who rescued us from financial straights via his policies as finance minister just a few short years ago, is now attempting to levy budget cuts. But they are not being well received in several quarters -- most notably Labor and Shas, but even within his own party. Already the prime minister has backed down on some projected cuts.
Of concern here is a coalition rift with internal fiscal battles just on the eve of Netanyahu's important meetings in Washington. He is walking a tight-rope between the necessity of tightening the national belt and responding to protested concerns with regard to education, childcare subsidies and more.
~~~~~~~~~~
The Pope, Benedict XIV, will be arriving here for an official visit tomorrow and the tone in the nation is one of enormous ambivalence
His predecessor, John Paul II, worked sincerely on improving Catholic-Jewish relations and was loved here. Born Karol Jozef Wojtyla, he served as Bishop of Krakow and was sensitized by what he witnessed during the Holocaust. A supporter of Vatican II, he declared, "We owe a debt to our older brother, the Jewish People."
Benedict XIV, on the other hand, was born Joseph Alois Ratzinger in Germany, and during the Second World War, when a young teenager, served in the Hitler Youth. A theological conservative, he embroiled himself in controversy recently when he reinstated the excommunicated Holocaust-denying Bishop Richard Williamson.
It has further been noted that only weeks ago, when Ahmadinejad spoke at Durban 2, the EU delegates left the hall but the delegates of the pope remained.
Former chief rabbi Yisrael Meir Lau, himself a survivor of the Holocaust, advises, “We must not rebuff the visit. We need not bend over backwards or flatter him, but it should not be rejected."
~~~~~~~~~~
The pope will be visiting the Al-Aida refugee camp outside of Bethlehem, and -- as I had indicated -- bells went off for me when his representative said the camp, "Symbolizes the right of return." Then, just the other day, the bells got louder, when a statement on behalf of the pope was released. He was coming in a spirit of peace he said, because for 60 years now there has been injustice in this part of the world.
And how would that be?
~~~~~~~~~~
The PA, hoping to politicize the pope's visit to the camp, arranged for the ceremonies to be adjacent to the security fence. The plans have since been readjusted at Israeli insistence (the refugee camp is in an area controlled by Israel). Still, every effort will be made by the Palestinians to get that fence, promoted as a sign of Palestinian suffering, into photographs that will be taken. Never mind that the fence -- having been necessitated by Palestinian terrorism -- can also be seen as a means for saving Jewish lives.
~~~~~~~~~~
There is the possibility that Netanyahu will meet with Jordan's king Abdullah before he goes to the States. Our prime minister will be meeting with Egyptian president Mubarak tomorrow. Their top agenda item will be Iran
~~~~~~~~~~
I was not happy to see today that James Jones, US National Security Adviser, is mouthing the same nonsense about a link between Iran and an Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement as other members of the Obama administration. In an ABC interview, he said:
"There are a lot of things that you can do to diminish that existential threat [Iran] by working hard towards achieving a two-state solution."
According to Arutz Sheva, Jones "added that European and Arab leaders had high expectations of the United States advancing a solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict."
Sigh. A whole lot of people are going to be disappointed here.
~~~~~~~~~~
There is the possibility that my next posting will not come until Wednesday or Thursday.
On the agenda to be examined: Durban follow-up and UN charges against Israel. (No, it never ends.)
Tomorrow night and Tuesday are Lag B'Omer -- the 33rd day of the counting of the Omer, which lasts from the second day of Pesach until Shavuot. This is counted as the day when a plague that fell upon the students of Rabbi Akiva stopped and is celebrated here with bonfires at night and a day of fun.
~~~~~~~~~~
"The Good News Corner"
Toxicity in soil (waste products, including toxic metals such as lead and cadmium, from various industries)presents a serious problem. The toxicity has to be kept from entering the food chain, and can render real estate worthless. But now a solution may be on the way.
Professors from the life sciences, chemistry and engineering faculties of Tel Aviv University are working on an innovative technique for cleaning soil, using a cement mixer as a giant "washing machine." The secret is a complex, biodegradable, environmentally-safe formulation for cleaning soil. Ultimately it should be possible for soil by the truckload to be cleaned and returned to its source. The compound binds to and removes toxic materials but leaves beneficial minerals in place. The product will be able to be customized to remove specific chemicals or minerals.
~~~~~~~~~~
May 7, 2009
"Pushing Along"
After meeting with Quartet envoy Tony Blair, PM Netanyahu today announced a ministerial committee to work on improving the economic situation and the quality of life for the Palestinians.
Members include Defense Minister Ehud Barak, Finance Minister Yuval Steinitz and Minister Silvan Shalom; Netanyahu himself will chair the committee. Shalom has been asked to begin with economic projects in Jenin and Jericho. Also, at the Qasr al-Yehud baptismal site, which is on the Jordan River, near Jericho, although I haven't a remote clue as to what sort of economic project would be initiated at a baptismal site.
The release about this emphasizes that the projects are in line with the economic track to peace that Netanyahu had announced earlier. May be. But I would describe this as the do-something-for-the-Palestinians-to-show-good intentions announcement that is traditionally a precursor to high level meetings between our officials and US officials.
~~~~~~~~~~
Also announced was outreach by Netanyahu to Egyptian president Mubarak. Eager to stress Egypt's diplomatic importance, Netanyahu will be traveling to Sharm el Sheikh on Monday for a meeting. This will be his first trip abroad since assuming office.
Netanyahu wants to see greater involvement by the "moderate" states -- Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia -- in what is alluded to as "the peace process" -- whatever that entails at present -- which would be approached at a regional level. (Note: while Jordan and Egypt have peace treaties with Israel, Saudi Arabia is technically still at war with us.)
~~~~~~~~~~
Just as important, if not more so, in Netanyahu's meeting with Mubarak is seeking Egyptian cooperation in thwarting Iran's nuclear goals.
Egypt is not a nation to be trusted, nor one that has ever exhibited good will towards Israel. But Sunni Egypt fears and hates Shiite Iran and will find a measure of common cause with Israel here. Of some concern, however, have been recent statements by Mubarak regarding the dangers of Israel as a nuclear power. (Mubarak's position is that the Middle East would be safer nuclear-free.)
~~~~~~~~~~
Word had come in the last few days -- from anonymous Arab diplomatic sources -- that the Obama administration had requested of the Arab League that the Arab (Saudi) peace plan be adjusted in order to be more palatable to Israel. The Al Quds Al Arabi newspaper on Tuesday then indicated the Arabs were considering concessions, most specifically with regard to withdrawing the demand for the return of refugees and permitting UN control of the Old City of Jerusalem, where holy sites are situated.
But there has now been a rejection of the request in several quarters:
"It is not possible to amend the Arab peace initiative. ... I don't see any justification for amending this initiative," Syrian Foreign Minister Walid Moallem told a press conference.
Similarly, Arab League Secretary General Amr Moussa has voiced his rejection.
And the PA news agency Maan has quoted PA president Mahmoud Abbas as saying that there will be "no new document," as all sides were in agreement regarding the soundness of the current proposal.
~~~~~~~~~~
At the same time, it has been announced that Abbas will be asking prime minister Salem Fayyad to begin formation of a new government without inclusion of Hamas. He's tired of waiting on failed negotiations; he will attend one more meeting on May 16, where he expects nothing will be achieved.
~~~~~~~~~~
And where does this leave Barack Obama and his grand plans to push ahead peace between Israel and the Palestinians?
It is clear that the Arabs are adamant -- as is their wont -- that there will be no compromise on right of return or control of all eastern Jerusalem.
And if there is no unity government, he's stuck with the problem of what happens with Hamas and Gaza.
One might hope that this dose of reality might set him back a bit, give him just a little pause, inject a note of humility into his assumption that he can succeed here. But that would be silly. He is Barack Obama. He is the president. And he is going to go ahead with his new plan.
~~~~~~~~~~
In fact, not only is he going full steam ahead on this front, he is also pushing for us to negotiate with Syria. Jeffrey Feltman, the State Department's top Middle East envoy, and White House official Daniel Shapiro have gone to Damascus as part of the Obama plan to reach out to nations shunned by President Bush.
"We came here today as part of President Obama's commitment to use diplomacy, to use dialogue in order to try to see where we can move forward," said Feltman.
After a meeting with Syrian Foreign Minister Walid Moallem, Feltman indicated that he had conveyed "President Obama's sincere commitment to pursue Arab-Israeli peace on all tracks including on the Syria-Israel track."
~~~~~~~~~~
Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman has been tasked with overseeing "strategic dialogue" with the US. I'll have more definitive information on this in due course.
Additionally, he will be heading a ministerial committee to lead the Israeli struggle against lawsuits filed around the world against Israelis -- public figures, ministers, military and defense officials -- their goal being to foil these actions.
In a spate of highly politicized and deeply anti-Israel maneuvers, various parties are abusing universal jurisdiction laws that permit charges to be brought in courts in one country against parties in another, even if the country in which the charges are brought has nothing to do with the issue.
The committee will include Attorney General Menachem Mazuz, Defense Minister Ehud Barak, Interior Minister Eli Yishai, Justice Minister Yaakov Ne'eman, Deputy Premier and Minister for Regional Development Silvan Shalom, Welfare and Social Services Minister Isaac Herzog, Minister of Information and Diaspora Yuli Edelstein and Minister Yossi Peled. They will call upon the services of experts in international law, PR, and more.
This is a serious matter -- just one more attempt to delegitimize and weaken Israel, and I applaud the seriousness with which the new government is approaching this.
The first issue to be addressed will be the reopening in Spanish court of the matter of the 2002 assassination of Hamas official Salah Shehadeh.
~~~~~~~~~~
"The Good News Corner"
The news is so often grim, I've decided to make an effort to also share good news (largely non-political) with my readers from time to time.
--- Research by geneticist Prof. Karen Avraham of Tel Aviv University's Sackler School of Medicine and Dr. Lilach Friedman and other post-doctoral researchers in her lab, has brought about a discovery that may lead to a cure for deafness, whether caused by genetics, disease, aging, or drugs.
Single-stranded RNA molecules, called MicroRNAs, regulate gene expression in cells and decide whether proteins will be produced. The research team has discovered for the first time that these molecules are vital to the development and survival of hair cells in the inner ear necessary for normal hearing.
Healthy babies are born with 15,000 sensory hair cells in each ear, which are responsible for translating sounds to electrical pulses. When these cells die off hearing disability results. Avraham believes that scientists now need to figure out how MicroRNAs regulate hair cell growth.
-- Scientists at the Weizmann Institute have been researching the nature of sea urchin teeth. While these animals dig themselves holes for shelter in underwater limestone, the sharp edge of their teeth never grows dull or blunt. Their teeth in the main are composed of the same calcite as the limestone, but they also contain crystals of magnesium calcite that are harder.
What is more, all the crystalline elements are aligned in two different arrays that are interlocked like the fingers of folded hands, just at the tip of the tooth. It is believed that this interlocking results in a notched, serrated ridge -- like that of a carpenter’s file -- that is self-sharpening. As the tooth is ground down, the crystalline layers break in such a way that the ridge always stays serrated.
It is hoped that the information being explored will lead to the development of ever-sharp tools and mechanical parts that do not go blunt.
-- A new archeological garden has been opened outside the Knesset, on display are some artifacts that are 2,000 years old.
~~~~~~~~~~
May 6, 2009
"Hamas and More"
Yesterday Vice President Biden addressed the AIPAC conference, and he sang the very same administration song as we've been hearing in other quarters.
President Obama, he told the delegates gathered, is "strongly and personally committed to achieving what all have basically said is needed - a two-state solution..."
Then he made a link between Iran and a peace agreement with the Palestinians: "One of the most pressing reasons may be to deprive Iran of the ability to extend its destabilizing influence."
Well, he's got that absolutely backwards too. For the possibility to achieve peace with the Palestinians is far greater if we defang Iran first. In fact, there are statements from Netanyahu regarding the absolute impossibility of reaching peace here until the Iran issue is confronted. I've written extensively about Hamas -- the "elephant in the room" -- making a viable peace impossible. Hamas is funded and guided from Teheran.
~~~~~~~~~~
And here we have it:
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, after a meeting in Damascus yesterday, told journalists that they continue to support “Palestinian resistance.” The two were conducting meetings with the key Hamas officials in Damascus.
~~~~~~~~~~
And with regard to Hamas...
I indicated yesterday that there will likely be a separate Hamas government in Gaza. If a final unity government agreement is not achieved at a May 16 meeting, they are likely to proceed. Apparently Ismail Haniyeh -- who was briefly the prime minister of a 2007 joint Fatah-Hamas government -- is slated to be prime minister.
~~~~~~~~~~
But Hamas has also gone public in another venue, as politburo head in Damascus, Khaled Mashaal (newly elected to another term) has just given an interview to the NY Times.
What is obvious here is that Mashaal is playing to the Obama administration, which has not yet recognized this group as a negotiating partner (but is on its way to doing so should Hamas join a unity government). "His [Obama's] language is different and positive," he said.
Shouldn't we take note of the fact that a jihadist terror group sees Obama's language as positive??
"I promise the American administration and the international community that we will be part of the solution, period," he intoned.
But he was not going to recognize Israel, for "There is only one enemy in the region, and that is Israel."
In light of Hamas intentions to be "part of the solution," Mashaal says Hamas has stopped firing rockets at Israel for now.
"Not firing the rockets currently is part of an evaluation from the movement which serves the Palestinians' interest. After all, the firing is a method, not a goal. Resistance is a legitimate right, but practicing such a right comes under an evaluation by the movement's leaders."
This is what Hamas is proposing:
Israel must return to '67 lines (which includes leaving eastern Jerusalem), dismantle settlements, and permit the "right of return."
In exchange, Hamas would offer a 10 year truce. Not a final cessation of hostilities. Oh, no. For 10 years Hamas would not fire rockets on us, and but would reserve the right to do so again thereafter. To secure this, we would have to move into indefensible borders and permit ourselves to be overrun by hostile Arab so-called refugees.
Actually, as I think about it, the cessation of rocket fire might be permanent, because at the end of 10 years with this formulation, there'd be so little of Israel left that Hamas might not want to bother.
I note that there is nothing said about cessation of smuggling weapons during that period of truce. Nor was it said that there would be a renunciation of terrorism -- which means Hamas, while not shooting rockets, could covertly foster terror attacks from which it distanced itself.
All in all, quite a deal, is it not? Mark my words, there will comments somewhere indicating that Hamas is moderating.
~~~~~~~~~~
Both Hamas and the PA have rejected Netanyahu's statements made by video to the AIPAC conference regarding readiness to enter talks without delay. This is no surprise, for he doesn't speak about a two-state solution.
What raises the blood pressure once again is this, however:
Tony Blair, envoy for the Quartet (i.e., the US, the UN, the EU, and Russia), has announced that the Quartet will be unveiling a new peace plan in a few weeks. It is being devised by the "highest level of the American administration."
Another attempt to dictate terms from the outside.
~~~~~~~~~~
According to Reuters, at a meeting of Non-Proliferation Treaty signatories yesterday, Assistant Secretary of State Rose Gottemoeller was quoted as saying, "Universal adherence to the NPT itself, including by India, Israel, Pakistan and North Korea...remains a fundamental objective of the United States."
Uh oh. Big time. This hits at our essential right to protect ourselves.
Dov Weisglass, a former Israeli strategist, told Army Radio that these comments were alarming:
"If these statements indicate a change in American policy on this issue, I believe this may be the most worrisome development for Israel's security in many years."
Today, however, Israel Radio quoted an Israeli Foreign Ministry official as saying there was no significant shift in US policy on this matter.
I hope so, but I don't know. I have the sense that the world is upside down and that we are besieged on all sides.
~~~~~~~~~~
British journalist Melanie Phillips has my greatest respect and regard. I close today with excerpts from her latest piece, "Obama prepares to throw Israel under the bus."
"...It is of course, by any sane standard, quite fantastic [i.e., incredible] that America is behaving as if it is Israel which is holding up a peace settlement when Israel has made concession after concession: giving up Sinai, giving up Gaza, offering all the territories to the Arabs in return for peace in 1967, offering more than 90 per cent of them ditto in 2000, ditto again to Mahmoud Abbas in the past year -- only to be attacked in return by a Palestinian terrorist entity, backed in its continued aggression, let us not forget, by the countries of the Organisation of the Islamic Conference, which has made no concessions at all and is not being pressured to do so.
"It is not the aggressor here but the victim of aggression that America is now choosing to beat up. In any sane world, one might think the Americans would be piling the pressure on the Palestinians to renounce their genocidal ambitions against Israel, to stop teaching and training their children to hate and kill Jews, to adhere to the primary requirement in the Road Map that they must dismantle their infrastructure of violence as the first step in the peace process; one might think, indeed, that they would view Mahmoud Abbas's repeated statements that the Palestinians will never accept Israel as a Jewish state to be the main impediment to peace.
"But no. The repeated professions that America will never jeopardise Israel's security are stomach churning when Obama is actually blaming Israel for measures it has taken to safeguard its security -- the settlements were always first and foremost a security measure, and the travel restrictions are there solely to prevent more Israelis being murdered -- and trying to force it to abandon them. Today comes further news that Obama will also try to force Israel to give up its nuclear weapons -- which it only has as a last ditch insurance against the attempt to annihilate it to which several billion Arabs remain pledged.
"Of course Obama doesn't care that Hamas would run any Palestinian state. Of course he doesn't care that Israel would be unable to defend itself against such a terrorist state. Because he regards Israel as at best totally expendable, and at worst as a running sore on the world's body politic that has to be purged
altogether (see this bleak assessment by Sultan Knish). His administration is proceeding on the entirely false analysis that a state of Palestine is the solution to the Middle East impasse and the route to peace in the region. What that state will look like or do is something to which at best the administration's collective mind is shut and at worst makes it a potential cynical accomplice to the unconscionable. So Israel is to be forced out of the West Bank. Far from building a coalition against Iran, Obama is thus doing Iran's work for it.
"None of this, however, should come as the slightest surprise to anyone who paid any attention to Obama's background, associations and friendships before he became President and to the cabal of Israel-bashers, appeasers and Jew-haters he appointed to his administration, with a few useful idiots thrown in for plausible deniability.
"...But the ordinary American people are a different matter. They do value and support Israel. They do understand that if Israel is thrown under that bus, the west is next. And it is they to whom Israel's Prime Minister Netanyahu must now appeal, over the heads of the politicians and the media and certainly America's Jews and everyone else. He must tell the American people the terrible truth, that America is now run by a man who is intent on sacrificing Israel for a reckless and amoral political strategy which will put America and the rest of the free world at risk.
"This is shaping up to be the biggest crisis in relations between Israel and America since the foundation of Israel six decades ago. Those who hate Israel and the Jews will be gloating. This after all is precisely what they hoped Obama would do. To any decent person looking on aghast, this is where the moral sickness of the west reaches the critical care ward.(Emphasis added)
~~~~~~~~~~
Phillips alludes to the "bleak assessment of Sultan Knish." She is referring to "Obama's plan to destroy Israel," written by NY- based, Israeli-born writer Daniel Greenfield, who posts as Sultan Knish: http://sultanknish.blogspot.com/2009/05/obamas-plan-to-destroy-israel.html.
~~~~~~~~~~
May 5, 2009
"Confrontation"
I knew it was going to be ugly. But the bounds of the confrontation we are going to face with Obama's administration transcends what I had expected. We have an enemy in the White House. And we have been let down by large parts of the American Jewish community.
Following here are excerpts from a report that has just come out from Middle East News Line (MENL) -- an exceedingly reliable news and intelligence source.
~~~~~~~~~~
"President Barack Obama intends to press Israel to establish a Palestinian state in the West Bank over the next two years.
"Administration sources said the president has relayed messages to American Jewish leaders that the establishment of a Palestinian state would be the priority of his first term in office. The sources said Israeli assistance would determine whether Washington decides to resume efforts to block Iran's nuclear weapons program.
"'The order is first a Palestinian state and then Iran,' an administration source said.
"The sources said the White House has determined that a Palestinian state by 2012 was vital in the formation of any international coalition against Iran and its nuclear weapons program. They said Israel would be pressed to enable Palestinian Authority security forces to deploy throughout the West Bank as well as dismantle Jewish communities.
"'They are systematically setting up the most decisive confrontation that we've ever seen,' former House Speaker Newt Gingrich said.
"...Obviously, we want these [American Jewish] leaders to relay the president's priorities to Israel before the visit of the prime minister,' the source said.
"The sources said Obama has also told European Union leaders that his administration would be more forceful with Israel. They said the Obama message stressed that Israel would not be allowed to sidetrack the international effort to establish a Palestinian state.
"Obama was also said to have reaffirmed his determination for renewed talks for an Israeli withdrawal from the Golan Heights, captured from Syria in the 1967 war. The sources said Obama was convinced that Israel should pursue negotiations with both Syria and the Palestinian Authority over the next year.
"'The president will get very specific in his talks with the Israeli prime minister,' the administration source said. 'The president will discuss specific measures and timetables..'"
~~~~~~~~~~
Where to begin in responding to this enraging information?
It's the tone, perhaps most of all, that infuriates: "Israel would not be allowed..." "Obama was convinced that Israel should..." We are a sovereign state and yet Obama believes he can dictate to us.
Or maybe it's the threat that riles: If you want help in taking down Iran's nuclear program, deliver what we want first.
~~~~~~~~~~
Then again it might be the collosal, pig-headed stupidity of this approach. I've said it before and I'll say it again here, and as many more times thereafter as is necessary:
Establishment of a Palestinian state and stopping Iran's nuclear ambitions are two different issues that should be handled separately. The linkage being made by Obama is simply not acceptable or reasonable. Supporting our efforts to stop Iran does not DEPEND on anything except Obama's will to act appropriately.
Iran is a threat to the free world, not just to Israel. If it goes nuclear it will certainly undermine all of the genuine interests of the US. So, if Iran does -- G-d forbid -- go nuclear, and US interests are threatened, is Obama going to say, "Gee, I couldn't act because Israel didn't establish a Palestinian state"? He has a responsibility to his nation and to the West on this score and he's evading it.
The moderate Arab states -- most significantly Egypt and Saudi Arabia -- whatever they say publicly, are very much frightened by the prospect of a nuclear Iran and would be pleased to see Iran stopped. What is more, they have no genuine, deep, and abiding interest in a Palestinian state.
As to the European states, Obama has moved to the left of them now with regard to Iran and nations such as France have expressed unease.
~~~~~~~~~~
And we have not yet come to the ludicrous or devious parts of this entire line of reasoning:
Obama is saying that we must produce a Palestinian state by 2012 and then he'll act on Iran. But by 2012 Iran would have already gone nuclear and it would be much too late.
Is this Obama's true intention? To let this happen while holding a threat over our heads?
~~~~~~~~~~
And finally this: The time is not ripe for a Palestinian state, even if it were a good idea (it's not) to establish one some day.
Actually, the time is so wrong for this that anyone pushing for a state "within two years" has to be acting without concern for the repercussions of its establishment. Consider:
-- Abbas is a weak leader who has not established the solid civic infratructure necessary for the establishment of a stable state.
-- The PA is rife with corruption.
-- Consequently the PA is one large welfare client, which operates on international handouts and has not established a viable economic base.
-- The Palestinian people have not been prepared for peace, as incitement continues in the textbooks and in the press. The most horrendous of terrorists are lauded as martyrs, while school children are taught that jidad is something Allah seeks. But real peace must be built from the bottom up.
-- The PA security forces, even those who have more recently been trained, are not reliable in so far as their will and capacity to take out terrorism is concerned. But then, there is a mixed message from the PA leaders.
-- The PA has grown increasingly radical in recent years and is adamently opposed to any compromise with Israel at all. They want what they want.
-- The PA refuses to recognize Israel as a Jewish state. This is of major import, for if there is to be talk of a "two state solution," the idea is one state for the Jews and one for the Palestinians. Except the Palestinians won't sign on to this. They want to establish their state as Judenrein, and then to send 4.1 million hostile refugees inside our borders, swallowing us up as well.
So, go build a stable, responsible Palestinian state from this that is supposed to lead to "peace."
~~~~~~~~~~
And this is just the beginning, for there is also an elephant in the room: Hamas. Obama clearly would prefer not to deal with this, but Hamas won't go away.
Hamas refuses to renounce terrorism, honor past PA agreements with Israel or recognize Israel's right to exist. Hamas is in control of Gaza, which is currently a center for terrorist activities and an area into which ever more weaponry is being smuggled.
What does Obama suggest will happen to Hamas if we sign a deal with Abbas and the PA?
There are two possibilites. One is that the PA will form a unity government with Hamas. In this case, Obama would be expecting us to deal with a government that has a party that still embraces terrorism.
More likely, Hamas will remain independent. It is already on its way to establishing a separate government. (More on this, hopefully tomorrow.) What this means is that we're being asked to live with TWO Palestinian states between the Mediterranean and the Jordan. What is more, Hamas has clearly indicated a desire to take over in Judea and Samaria (the West Bank) if the Israeli forces that contain them pull out. This means Palestinian states on both flanks that are overtly terrorist.
~~~~~~~~~~
So, what we're seeing is that Obama's bow to the Saudi king was emblematic of his kissing-up-to-the-Muslims intent, which includes a willingness to put Israel on the chopping block.
But we Israelis are not having it.
~~~~~~~~~~
Yesterday Prime Minister Netanyahu addressed the AIPAC conference by video. He's playing a difficult game -- the game I wrote about recently: being as conciliatory as possible without stepping over a red line. He spoke about the fact that he is ready to do negotiations with the Palestinians -- on economy, security and political matters. He said that he was sure that it was possible to reach peace. HOWEVER, he refrained from ever referring to either a "two state solution" -- the sacred mantra -- or referring to a "Palestinian state." He has neither in mind.
What is more, he says he will never sacrifice Israel's security. That alone precludes a Palestinian state in Judea and Samaria. And he will insist that Israel be recognized by the Palestinians as a Jewish state.
~~~~~~~~~~
I would like, then, to return to what I wrote about yesterday. Netanyahu requires the maximum in support from all of us before he heads to the White House. If you have not yet communicated with him, please, do so.
Israelis: Let him know that you are a citizen, and that you support him as he goes to the US. Ask him please to stand strong and to resist pressure to accept a "two state solution." Tell him that this is what his nation needs of him right now, that we need him to speak in the best interests of Israel and to speak out for Israeli rights. Numbers matters, folks!
American citizens can also contact him. But you will need to say something different. From Americans he needs to hear that not everyone in the US wants a two-state solution. Tell him briefly about how you personally work to support Israel from within the US: rallying support via e-mails, holding discussions with people, writing letters to the editor, contacting your Congresspersons or Senators -- or whatever else you do.
Whether here in Israel, or in the US, please share this broadly by forwarding. Remove the "forwarding" data from the subject line and at the head of the message, and, if you wish, add your own introduction.
Note that I've added the proper way to dial from the States and note as well that the e-mail has an underscore after "pm."
Fax: 02-670-5369 (From the US: 011-972-2-5369)
Phone: 03-610-9898 (From the US: 011-972-3-610-9898)
E-mail: pm_eng2@it.pmo.gov.il
~~~~~~~~~~
One more word about AIPAC here: The question has been raised in several quarters regarding whether Netanyahu signed off on their "two state" position. This was asked because normally AIPAC, which is a US organization lobbying for Israel, takes its cue from the Israeli government.
It would seem he did not sign off on this, because had he, in his address to AIPAC he would have spoken about his vision of a "two state solution," and instead he studiously avoided this term. But I went further and asked some questions of people in the know, and the best answer is that it is highly unlikely that he did.
What has happened, however, is that AIPAC has now made things more difficult for Netanyahu. There are various theories floating, but why they did what they did is a question to which I have no answer as I write. My bet has something to do with pressure from the White House in one form or another.
~~~~~~~~~~
Americans must wake up and understand that what Obama is doing is enormously destructive to America. They must be educated to the realities. And I'm hoping that those of you in the US reading this who are activists and care deeply about the current situation will be on board over the next several months as we mount campaigns to fight this.
I've provided core information to bolster arguments and am available to anyone who seeks more.
Those of you who are Jewish Americans and connected to establishment Jewish organizations must begin to apply serious pressure on the leadership of these organizations, which has let us down -- caving to Obama rather than making the case that needs to be made.
In short order I hope I will be able to have more regarding contact with elected representatives.
~~~~~~~~~~