YNET
Merav Yudilovitch
Prominent actors, directors, playwrights send letter to boards of Israeli theaters in protest of plans to put on shows in news culture auditorium beyond Green Line. Yesha Council vows harsh response to 'vile, anti-Zionist' letter A long line of actors and artists from all fields of the theater industry sent a letter to the boards of Israel's repertory theaters announcing they will refuse to perform in the new culture auditorium in Ariel, which is located outside the Green Line. It should be noted that tickets have already been sold to productions that include all of Israel's theaters.
The letter, addressed to the boards of the Cameri, Habima, Beit Lessin, Khan and the Haifa and Beersheba theatres, read: "We wish to express our disgust with the theater's board's plans to perform in the new auditorium in Ariel. The actors among us hereby declare that we will refuse to perform in Ariel, as well as in any other settlement. We urge the boards to hold their activity within the sovereign borders of the State of Israel within the Green Line."
On Wednesday, the Ometz Lesarev (courage to refuse) organization sent a letter to the theaters' boards and actors requesting they refrain from performing in Ariel. In response, the city's mayor, Ron Nachman said, "Culture has nothing to do with politics. If the actors and artists want to deal with politics, let them go to the Knesset. The vileness, baseness and hypocrisy of those who work in culture and call on a boycott of us, is intolerable."
But it seems many in the industry gave in to the organization's calls, and Friday's letter included the signatures of dozens of prominent people in the theater business.
Dramaturgist Vardit Shalfi, one of the letter's initiators, told Ynet on Friday, "Ariel is not a legitimate community, and as such, is against international law and international treaties that the State of Israel has signed. This means anyone performing there would be considered a criminal according to international law. The theater's boards should inform their actors that there are apartheid roads for Jews only that lead into the settlement of Ariel. The moment we perform there, we are giving legitimization to this settlement's existence."
The long list of signatories includes many prominent actors, which could make it difficult for the theaters to decide which shows to put on in Ariel without having to make serious changes to the cast.
The list includes Israel Prize laureate Renee Yerushalmi, actors Yossi Pollack and Itay Tiran, director Ofira Henig, playwrights Joshua Sobol and Savyon Liebrecht and many more.
Yesha Council vows 'harsh response'
Liebrecht said in response: "I object to the settlement enterprise and obviously, when it comes to theater, it is my duty not to be silent. Until there is a signed peace agreement, Ariel is not a legitimate community. I haven't crossed the Green Line in years, and as far as I'm concerned, anyone who has decided to live there and wants to enjoy Israeli culture can come to Kfar Saba or any other Israeli city. I believe that if enough actors and people in the theater business sign the letter, the shows won't go up there."
Israel Prize laureate Renee Yerushalmi said, "I am not against, but for the future of the State of Israel. These days talks are being head about the Israeli-Palestinian future, and we must allow them to take place to see if there is hope for future existence here. Ariel today is beyond the Green Line and therefore we must not cross it. This applies to theater productions as well."
Yesha Council said in response: "Our response to the letter signed by a bunch of anti-Zionist leftists and refusniks will be very harsh. This vile letter, which speaks out against the best of the State's sons who defend them while they are acting on stage, requires a direct, poignant and clear response from the theaters' boards, and this is what we expect. We will announce our future steps in the coming days."
The Habima national theater said in response on Friday: "This is the first time the matter of putting on theater shows beyond the Green Line is raised in Israeli discourse. As a national theater, Habima believes discussing the matter is of the utmost importance, but it also calls for an in-depth examination of all the issues it includes… We are looking into the matter."
Dror Gerber, of the Haifa Theater said, "If the actors are expressing ethical and moral claims in their letter, I consider this problematic. The way to express protest and objection to the occupation is not via boycotting the residents of Ariel. The Haifa Theater was founded in order to bring the art of theater to all the citizens of the State of Israel."
Tzipi Pines of Beit Lessin said, "I personally object to the occupation and support peace, but there are people living in Ariel who I respect, and I respect their desire to consume culture."
The Cameri said in response: "We are against boycotts and will perform anywhere where there are people who desire culture and wish to see Israeli theater."
Comment: How many of these "entertainers" even know, comprehend or otherwise are aware of the arguments for and against the "so-called" green line? So, following their expression of upset, they are dismissing out of hand their fellow Israeli citizens who do not live their lives where they think they should! How many individuals,over the years, have sat in their audiences, many with different politics, yet the actors et al supported their shekels for coming to be entertained.This action shows how ignorant and/or arrogant the entertainers are here in Israel.
Saturday, August 28, 2010
Friday, August 27, 2010
"The Good Fight"
Arlene Kushner
That's what we -- Israelis and all those who love Israel -- must take on. The situation is enough to make one tear one's hair out. But the antidote is hard work to combat the threats and the insanity. ALet's begin with a piece on the dangers of the US training of PA security forces, which I wrote with David Bedein, and which has now been put up in the JPost. It is exceedingly relevant with regard to current prospects for "peace negotiations" and the issue of demilitarization of a Palestinian state.
There is considerable evidence that the PA forces, no matter how trained, will not reliably take on Hamas. What is more, there is genuine concern that these forces might in time actually turn on Israel.
http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Op-EdContributors/Article.aspx?id=185979
~~~~~~~~~~
I spoke yesterday about contacting your elected officials in Congress regarding incitement in PA textbooks.
The issue of the US training of PA forces is yet another one about which they are lacking information. In the main, they have been told that this training is going swimmingly well. Anyone seeking more information, after reading the article, is invited to contact me.
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
~~~~~~~~~~
Please see an excellent "tell-it-like-it-is" article by Khaled Abu Toameh, writing in Hudson-NY: "Abbas & Fayyad: Do They Have a Mandate?"
The answer, of course, is that they do not. Says Abu Toameh:
"A president whose term in office expired a long time ago, and a prime minister who won about 2% of the vote when he ran in an election, have now been invited by the US Administration to hold direct peace talks with Israel on behalf of the Palestinians.
"...The 18-member PLO Executive Committee, which met in Ramallah last week to approve the Palestinians' participation in the direct talks with Israel, is dominated by unelected veteran officials.
"Only nine PLO officials attended the meeting. The PLO constitution requires a minimum of 12 members for a quorum. This means that, contrary to reports in the Palestinian and international media, Abbas and Fayyad do not have the support of the PLO committee to negotiate directly with Israel.
"With regards to the Central Council of Fatah, it remains unclear whether its 21 members ever endorsed the US invitation to hold direct talks with Israel.
"So here is a president whose term in office expired in January 2009 -- and who has won the backing of only some of his traditional loyalists -- preparing to negotiate with Israel about extremely important issues such as borders, refugees, Jerusalem, settlements and security.
"As if it is not enough that Abbas and Fayyad do not have a real mandate from their people, now they are going to lose what is left of their credibility as they appear to have "succumbed" to the outside pressure.
"...Over the past few months, Abbas and Fayyad had been telling their people that there would be no direct talks with Israel unless their conditions are fulfilled. Now, however, they...and are being pressured to the negotiating table by Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.
"...How can any Palestinian buy an agreement from them after they told their people that they are going to the talks only
because the Americans and Europeans threatened to cut off financial aid?
"Any agreement Abbas and Fayyad bring back home will be seen by many Palestinians as the fruit of 'extortion' and 'threats' and not as the result of peace talks that were conducted in good faith.
"Leaders who do not have a clear mandate from their people will not be able to strike any deal with Israel, particularly when it concerns explosive issues such as Jerusalem, refugees and settlements...
"Abbas and Fayyad are nonetheless not stupid. The two are well aware of the fact that they do not have a mandate to sign any agreement with Israel. This is why they will search for any excuse to withdraw from the direct talks and blame Israel for the failure of the peace process."
www.hudson-ny.org/1502/abbas-fayyad-mandate
~~~~~~~~~~
For a taste of PA intransigence, it would be hard to beat this. The PA cabinet chaired by Prime Minister Fayyad met, reports WAFA (the PLO news agency,) and approved the decision to go ahead with negotiations, based on the Quartet statement.
The full cabinet statement included condemnation of all Israeli "violations." Included was condemnation of "the settlements' plans in East Jerusalem such as building a huge elevator system which connects the Jewish square in East Jerusalem's
Old City' and the western wall."
Of course it is nonsense to call these "the settlement's plans" -- this phrase is meaningless. But there is talk (by the Municipality? a ministry? not sure) about putting in an elevator between the Jewish Quarter (the Rova) and the plaza in front of the Kotel. Anyone who has been there knows what a huge set of steps there is between the two -- steps that inhibit movement for the elderly or disabled. What a lovely thing this would be.
~~~~~~~~~~
One particular e-mail has been forwarded to me in recent days more frequently than any other e-mail I've ever received. I've been astonished at the frequency with which it has come into my In-box.
The e-mail I'm referring to says at the top something like "Can you guess where these pictures were taken?" Then after a string of some 20 or more pictures, the "answer" is provided: "Gaza."
The problem is that there is no person's name attached to this, no organization or site. No identification that might be used to confirm what is being said. And, quite simply, there is no way to know if these really are pictures of Gaza. I myself, and some others I consulted with, have some doubts.
The idea, of course, is to show how luxurious Gaza is, even as there are claims of suffering there. Certainly I know Gaza in its totality is not as dreary, as slum-like and down-and-out as some would have us believe. And I have readily shared pictures of a Gaza market filled with goods, the new swimming pool and more. But in all of these instances I confirmed their validity.
What it seemed to me is that some of the pictures in this sequence were from Gaza, while others -- of the more "glitzy' and upscale buildings -- seemed likely not.
And yet, thousands upon thousands of people are accepting this as a given veracity. One of the dangers of the Internet.
My advice, across the board, is not to share material unless it can be validated and confirmed. There is enough legitimate material that can be confirmed to combat the lies coming from the other side without relying upon what is dubious and may be fallacious. Our integrity in fighting that good fight depends upon our reliability as we present information. If we are not careful, we can -- inadvertently and unintentionally -- undermine our own case
~~~~~~~~~~
"The Good News Corner"
Certain parts of the country are currently adrift in storks, and will be for some time yet.
Israel is the crossroads for many birds in migration, and right now it's stork migration time, with the birds heading south. At the moment, at the height of the migration, some 31,000 storks are in the south. They flew over the Beit She'an valley and then landed in the Negev, where they will rest before continuing on to east Africa for the winter. By the end of the migration, which takes six weeks, some 350,000 storks will have been in Israel. This is an annual event.
When the birds were expected over the Beit She'an area, experts from the Society for the Protection of Nature in Israel advised farmers to plow their fields to uncover rodents so the birds could prey on them -- thereby benefiting both birds and farmers.
The SPNI, working with the Air Force, is monitoring the flight of these birds, which can cause a hazard if they collide with air craft.
Incredibly, all of the various species of birds who will migrate over Israel this fall and winter will total 500 million.
~~~~~~~~~~
see my website www.ArlenefromIsrael.info
That's what we -- Israelis and all those who love Israel -- must take on. The situation is enough to make one tear one's hair out. But the antidote is hard work to combat the threats and the insanity. ALet's begin with a piece on the dangers of the US training of PA security forces, which I wrote with David Bedein, and which has now been put up in the JPost. It is exceedingly relevant with regard to current prospects for "peace negotiations" and the issue of demilitarization of a Palestinian state.
There is considerable evidence that the PA forces, no matter how trained, will not reliably take on Hamas. What is more, there is genuine concern that these forces might in time actually turn on Israel.
http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Op-EdContributors/Article.aspx?id=185979
~~~~~~~~~~
I spoke yesterday about contacting your elected officials in Congress regarding incitement in PA textbooks.
The issue of the US training of PA forces is yet another one about which they are lacking information. In the main, they have been told that this training is going swimmingly well. Anyone seeking more information, after reading the article, is invited to contact me.
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
~~~~~~~~~~
Please see an excellent "tell-it-like-it-is" article by Khaled Abu Toameh, writing in Hudson-NY: "Abbas & Fayyad: Do They Have a Mandate?"
The answer, of course, is that they do not. Says Abu Toameh:
"A president whose term in office expired a long time ago, and a prime minister who won about 2% of the vote when he ran in an election, have now been invited by the US Administration to hold direct peace talks with Israel on behalf of the Palestinians.
"...The 18-member PLO Executive Committee, which met in Ramallah last week to approve the Palestinians' participation in the direct talks with Israel, is dominated by unelected veteran officials.
"Only nine PLO officials attended the meeting. The PLO constitution requires a minimum of 12 members for a quorum. This means that, contrary to reports in the Palestinian and international media, Abbas and Fayyad do not have the support of the PLO committee to negotiate directly with Israel.
"With regards to the Central Council of Fatah, it remains unclear whether its 21 members ever endorsed the US invitation to hold direct talks with Israel.
"So here is a president whose term in office expired in January 2009 -- and who has won the backing of only some of his traditional loyalists -- preparing to negotiate with Israel about extremely important issues such as borders, refugees, Jerusalem, settlements and security.
"As if it is not enough that Abbas and Fayyad do not have a real mandate from their people, now they are going to lose what is left of their credibility as they appear to have "succumbed" to the outside pressure.
"...Over the past few months, Abbas and Fayyad had been telling their people that there would be no direct talks with Israel unless their conditions are fulfilled. Now, however, they...and are being pressured to the negotiating table by Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.
"...How can any Palestinian buy an agreement from them after they told their people that they are going to the talks only
because the Americans and Europeans threatened to cut off financial aid?
"Any agreement Abbas and Fayyad bring back home will be seen by many Palestinians as the fruit of 'extortion' and 'threats' and not as the result of peace talks that were conducted in good faith.
"Leaders who do not have a clear mandate from their people will not be able to strike any deal with Israel, particularly when it concerns explosive issues such as Jerusalem, refugees and settlements...
"Abbas and Fayyad are nonetheless not stupid. The two are well aware of the fact that they do not have a mandate to sign any agreement with Israel. This is why they will search for any excuse to withdraw from the direct talks and blame Israel for the failure of the peace process."
www.hudson-ny.org/1502/abbas-fayyad-mandate
~~~~~~~~~~
For a taste of PA intransigence, it would be hard to beat this. The PA cabinet chaired by Prime Minister Fayyad met, reports WAFA (the PLO news agency,) and approved the decision to go ahead with negotiations, based on the Quartet statement.
The full cabinet statement included condemnation of all Israeli "violations." Included was condemnation of "the settlements' plans in East Jerusalem such as building a huge elevator system which connects the Jewish square in East Jerusalem's
Old City' and the western wall."
Of course it is nonsense to call these "the settlement's plans" -- this phrase is meaningless. But there is talk (by the Municipality? a ministry? not sure) about putting in an elevator between the Jewish Quarter (the Rova) and the plaza in front of the Kotel. Anyone who has been there knows what a huge set of steps there is between the two -- steps that inhibit movement for the elderly or disabled. What a lovely thing this would be.
~~~~~~~~~~
One particular e-mail has been forwarded to me in recent days more frequently than any other e-mail I've ever received. I've been astonished at the frequency with which it has come into my In-box.
The e-mail I'm referring to says at the top something like "Can you guess where these pictures were taken?" Then after a string of some 20 or more pictures, the "answer" is provided: "Gaza."
The problem is that there is no person's name attached to this, no organization or site. No identification that might be used to confirm what is being said. And, quite simply, there is no way to know if these really are pictures of Gaza. I myself, and some others I consulted with, have some doubts.
The idea, of course, is to show how luxurious Gaza is, even as there are claims of suffering there. Certainly I know Gaza in its totality is not as dreary, as slum-like and down-and-out as some would have us believe. And I have readily shared pictures of a Gaza market filled with goods, the new swimming pool and more. But in all of these instances I confirmed their validity.
What it seemed to me is that some of the pictures in this sequence were from Gaza, while others -- of the more "glitzy' and upscale buildings -- seemed likely not.
And yet, thousands upon thousands of people are accepting this as a given veracity. One of the dangers of the Internet.
My advice, across the board, is not to share material unless it can be validated and confirmed. There is enough legitimate material that can be confirmed to combat the lies coming from the other side without relying upon what is dubious and may be fallacious. Our integrity in fighting that good fight depends upon our reliability as we present information. If we are not careful, we can -- inadvertently and unintentionally -- undermine our own case
~~~~~~~~~~
"The Good News Corner"
Certain parts of the country are currently adrift in storks, and will be for some time yet.
Israel is the crossroads for many birds in migration, and right now it's stork migration time, with the birds heading south. At the moment, at the height of the migration, some 31,000 storks are in the south. They flew over the Beit She'an valley and then landed in the Negev, where they will rest before continuing on to east Africa for the winter. By the end of the migration, which takes six weeks, some 350,000 storks will have been in Israel. This is an annual event.
When the birds were expected over the Beit She'an area, experts from the Society for the Protection of Nature in Israel advised farmers to plow their fields to uncover rodents so the birds could prey on them -- thereby benefiting both birds and farmers.
The SPNI, working with the Air Force, is monitoring the flight of these birds, which can cause a hazard if they collide with air craft.
Incredibly, all of the various species of birds who will migrate over Israel this fall and winter will total 500 million.
~~~~~~~~~~
see my website www.ArlenefromIsrael.info
Wednesday, August 25, 2010
Yesha Challenges Netanyahu to Sign Pledge to Renew Building
Tzvi Ben Gedalyahu
A7 News
Leaders of Judea and Samaria have challenged Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu to fulfill his promise publically and declare the renewal of building on September 26, when the 10-month freeze ends, before he leaves next week for ”direct talks” with the Palestinian Authority,.
“Evading the approval of tenders on September 26 is equivalent to continuing the building freeze. This is the day of judgment,” they stated. In a letter to Prime Minister Netanyahu, with copies to Cabinet ministers and Knesset Members, the Council of Jewish Communities in Judea and Samaria (Yesha) reminded the Prime Minister of his public comment after the building freeze began, when he said, “Even if Abu Mazen (PA Chairman Mahmoud Abbas) comes in another eight months and tells me ‘peace now,” we will begin to build as we did before” the freeze.
The Yesha leaders want a similar public declaration that building will renew and noted that simply not extending the freeze officially is not a solution to the problem of lack of public and private facilities for Jews in Judea and Samaria.
They wrote, “There should be no doubt. The main significance of ending the freeze and returning to building “as before” is not fulfilled simply by not renewing the freeze but rather by immediate approval of tenders for building projects that already have passed the bureaucratic process and are waiting only for the political signature of the Defense Minister [Ehud Barak]. These tenders must be signed and approved on September 26 [when the freeze expires] in order to enable a return to normal life as you promised.
The letter included a New Year’s greeting and incorporated the needed signature for approving construction with the traditional Rosh HaShanah blessing that one “be inscribed” for a good year.
“Happy New Year. May you be inscribed for a good year, and it is our opinion that the most important ’inscription’ for the future of the nation will be the “good inscription [play on the word for signature in Hebrew which is the same as inscription] for tenders for building and continuing development of life in Judea and Samaria,” the letter concluded.
Historical Fiction
Israel is not a colonialist state.
Dore Gold
The argument that Israel is a colonialist entity is often marshaled to undermine the Jewish state’s legitimacy. The theme has certainly permeated Western academia, almost uncritically. For decades, it has been employed against Israel in one international forum after another. In 1973, the U.N. General Assembly gave initial momentum to this idea when it condemned the “unholy alliance between Portuguese colonialism, South African racism, Zionism, and Israeli imperialism.”
That association of Israel with colonialist regimes set the stage in 1975 for the most insidious resolution ever adopted in the General Assembly against Israel, which stated that Zionism was a form of racism. It helped cement the Afro-Asian bloc behind both the resolution and the movement to delegitimize Israel. Even when, in 1991, the General Assembly finally overturned the resolution, comparisons between Zionism and colonialism persisted, arguably becoming even more strident.Speaking in Johannesburg in 2008, Azmi Bishara, a former member of the Knesset, explained another way that accusing Israel of being a colonialist entity has real political utility. Bishara, who today does not miss an opportunity to question Israel’s legitimacy before audiences abroad, explained that two points had to be established to show that Israel was an apartheid state: first, that Israel practiced racial separation; and second, that it was a product of colonialism.
Of course, anyone who visits the emergency rooms in Israeli hospitals, or the classrooms at any Israeli university, or the voting booths on election day, to say nothing of the Knesset itself, would see both Jewish and Arab doctors, patients, professors, students, voters, and parliamentarians mixing together in a way that utterly disproves the charge of apartheid. That leaves Bishara with mainly the claim of colonialism to make his case.
Unlike the charge of racial separation, the tag “colonialist” cannot be refuted simply by looking around modern Israel. It is a historical charge about how Israel came to exist: In effect, it amounts to the claim that Israel was established as an outpost of another distant power imposing itself on the territory and its native inhabitants. But the fact is that while modern Israel succeeded the 1922 British Mandate for Palestine, it was created by neither the British nor any other occupying power.
The Jews were already asserting their right to self-determination well before the British and the French dismantled the Ottoman Empire. For example, the Jewish people had already re-established their majority in Jerusalem by 1863. Decades later, Britain and the rest of the League of Nations considered Jewish rights in Palestine beyond their power to bestow because those rights were already there to be accepted. Thus the League of Nations gave recognition to “the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine.” In other words, it recognized a pre-existing right. It called for “reconstituting” the Jewish people’s national home. And the rights recognized by the League of Nations in 1922 were preserved by its successor organization, the United Nations, which in Article 80 of its charter acknowledged all rights of states and peoples that existed before 1945.
The accusation that Israel has colonialist roots because of its connection to the British Mandate is ironic, since most of the Arab states owe their origins to the entry and domination of the European powers. Prior to World War I, the Arab states of Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, and Jordan did not exist, but were only districts of the Ottoman Empire, under different names. They became states as a result of European intervention, with the British putting the Hashemite family in power in two of these countries.
Saudi Arabia and the smaller Gulf states, meanwhile, emerged from treaties that their leaders signed with Britain. By means of those treaties, the British recognized the legitimacy of local Arab families to rule what became states like Kuwait, Bahrain, and Qatar. A similar British treaty with the al-Saud family in 1915 set the stage for the eventual emergence of Saudi Arabia in 1932.
Moreover, during Israel's War of Independence, Arab armies benefited directly from European arms and training—and even manpower. The Arab Legion initially fought in Jerusalem with British officers, while the skies of the Egyptian Sinai were protected from the Israeli Air Force by the Royal Air Force. Indeed, Israeli and British aircraft clashed in 1949.
William Roger Louis, one of the foremost historians of British imperial strategy, uncovered an extremely revealing document from the British foreign office that puts into perspective Israel’s relationship with the European colonial powers at its birth. In his 1984 book, The British Empire in the Middle East, 1945-1951, he describes a meeting on July 21, 1949 of senior British officials at the end of Israel’s War of Independence. Sir John Troutbeck, head of the British Middle East Office, said, “We were in a position to control the Arab governments but not Israel.” He then expressed fear that “the Israelis might drag the Arab States into a neutral bloc and even attempt to turn us out of Egypt.” The original Foreign Office document also expressed concern that the British would lose their airbases in Iraq. In 1956, Israel briefly made common cause with Britain and France against Nasser’s Egypt, but this could not alter the fact that, for the imperial powers, Israel was an obstacle, not an outpost.
Nevertheless, in recent years, the effort to portray Israel as a colonial entity has expanded. For many Palestinian spokesmen, in particular, it became important to deny the historical ties of the Jewish people to their land and to portray them as recent colonialist arrivals to the region—in contrast to the Palestinians, who were portrayed as the authentic native population.
This effort reached an audacious peak when Yasser Arafat denied that the Temple had ever existed in Jerusalem at the end of the July 2000 Camp David Summit with President Clinton. Many of his deputies—from Saeb Erekat to Mahmoud Abbas—have since picked up the same theme. Speaking on November 12, 2008, at a U.N. General Assembly “Dialogue of Religions and Cultures,” the Palestinian prime minister, Salam Fayyad, addressed the historical connections of Islam and Christianity to Jerusalem, but noticeably did not say a single word about Judaism's ties to the Holy City.
In a similar vein, Arafat used to tell Western audiences that the Palestinians are descendents of the Jebusites, with ancient roots in the land. But in Palestinian society, one establishes one’s status by claiming to be a relative latecomer, whose ancestors were from the Arabian families that accompanied the Second Caliph Umar bin al-Khatttab when he conquered and colonized Byzantine Palestine in the seventh century. Even at that time, the Jews were still a plurality—and, perhaps along with the Samaritans, a majority—in the land, six hundred years after the Romans destroyed their ancient Temple and the Second Jewish Commonwealth. This emerges from Professor Moshe Gil’s monumental 800-page A History of Palestine: 634-1099.
Ascertaining the truth has never been the objective of those trying to paint Israel with a colonialist brush. They have been determined simply to conclude that the Jews came as an alien force to Palestine, to advance European interests, rather than see them as a people recovering their historical homeland, where they had deep, indigenous roots.
Dore Gold is an Israeli statesman who has served in various diplomatic positions under several Israeli governments. He is the current President of the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs.
Dore Gold
The argument that Israel is a colonialist entity is often marshaled to undermine the Jewish state’s legitimacy. The theme has certainly permeated Western academia, almost uncritically. For decades, it has been employed against Israel in one international forum after another. In 1973, the U.N. General Assembly gave initial momentum to this idea when it condemned the “unholy alliance between Portuguese colonialism, South African racism, Zionism, and Israeli imperialism.”
That association of Israel with colonialist regimes set the stage in 1975 for the most insidious resolution ever adopted in the General Assembly against Israel, which stated that Zionism was a form of racism. It helped cement the Afro-Asian bloc behind both the resolution and the movement to delegitimize Israel. Even when, in 1991, the General Assembly finally overturned the resolution, comparisons between Zionism and colonialism persisted, arguably becoming even more strident.Speaking in Johannesburg in 2008, Azmi Bishara, a former member of the Knesset, explained another way that accusing Israel of being a colonialist entity has real political utility. Bishara, who today does not miss an opportunity to question Israel’s legitimacy before audiences abroad, explained that two points had to be established to show that Israel was an apartheid state: first, that Israel practiced racial separation; and second, that it was a product of colonialism.
Of course, anyone who visits the emergency rooms in Israeli hospitals, or the classrooms at any Israeli university, or the voting booths on election day, to say nothing of the Knesset itself, would see both Jewish and Arab doctors, patients, professors, students, voters, and parliamentarians mixing together in a way that utterly disproves the charge of apartheid. That leaves Bishara with mainly the claim of colonialism to make his case.
Unlike the charge of racial separation, the tag “colonialist” cannot be refuted simply by looking around modern Israel. It is a historical charge about how Israel came to exist: In effect, it amounts to the claim that Israel was established as an outpost of another distant power imposing itself on the territory and its native inhabitants. But the fact is that while modern Israel succeeded the 1922 British Mandate for Palestine, it was created by neither the British nor any other occupying power.
The Jews were already asserting their right to self-determination well before the British and the French dismantled the Ottoman Empire. For example, the Jewish people had already re-established their majority in Jerusalem by 1863. Decades later, Britain and the rest of the League of Nations considered Jewish rights in Palestine beyond their power to bestow because those rights were already there to be accepted. Thus the League of Nations gave recognition to “the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine.” In other words, it recognized a pre-existing right. It called for “reconstituting” the Jewish people’s national home. And the rights recognized by the League of Nations in 1922 were preserved by its successor organization, the United Nations, which in Article 80 of its charter acknowledged all rights of states and peoples that existed before 1945.
The accusation that Israel has colonialist roots because of its connection to the British Mandate is ironic, since most of the Arab states owe their origins to the entry and domination of the European powers. Prior to World War I, the Arab states of Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, and Jordan did not exist, but were only districts of the Ottoman Empire, under different names. They became states as a result of European intervention, with the British putting the Hashemite family in power in two of these countries.
Saudi Arabia and the smaller Gulf states, meanwhile, emerged from treaties that their leaders signed with Britain. By means of those treaties, the British recognized the legitimacy of local Arab families to rule what became states like Kuwait, Bahrain, and Qatar. A similar British treaty with the al-Saud family in 1915 set the stage for the eventual emergence of Saudi Arabia in 1932.
Moreover, during Israel's War of Independence, Arab armies benefited directly from European arms and training—and even manpower. The Arab Legion initially fought in Jerusalem with British officers, while the skies of the Egyptian Sinai were protected from the Israeli Air Force by the Royal Air Force. Indeed, Israeli and British aircraft clashed in 1949.
William Roger Louis, one of the foremost historians of British imperial strategy, uncovered an extremely revealing document from the British foreign office that puts into perspective Israel’s relationship with the European colonial powers at its birth. In his 1984 book, The British Empire in the Middle East, 1945-1951, he describes a meeting on July 21, 1949 of senior British officials at the end of Israel’s War of Independence. Sir John Troutbeck, head of the British Middle East Office, said, “We were in a position to control the Arab governments but not Israel.” He then expressed fear that “the Israelis might drag the Arab States into a neutral bloc and even attempt to turn us out of Egypt.” The original Foreign Office document also expressed concern that the British would lose their airbases in Iraq. In 1956, Israel briefly made common cause with Britain and France against Nasser’s Egypt, but this could not alter the fact that, for the imperial powers, Israel was an obstacle, not an outpost.
Nevertheless, in recent years, the effort to portray Israel as a colonial entity has expanded. For many Palestinian spokesmen, in particular, it became important to deny the historical ties of the Jewish people to their land and to portray them as recent colonialist arrivals to the region—in contrast to the Palestinians, who were portrayed as the authentic native population.
This effort reached an audacious peak when Yasser Arafat denied that the Temple had ever existed in Jerusalem at the end of the July 2000 Camp David Summit with President Clinton. Many of his deputies—from Saeb Erekat to Mahmoud Abbas—have since picked up the same theme. Speaking on November 12, 2008, at a U.N. General Assembly “Dialogue of Religions and Cultures,” the Palestinian prime minister, Salam Fayyad, addressed the historical connections of Islam and Christianity to Jerusalem, but noticeably did not say a single word about Judaism's ties to the Holy City.
In a similar vein, Arafat used to tell Western audiences that the Palestinians are descendents of the Jebusites, with ancient roots in the land. But in Palestinian society, one establishes one’s status by claiming to be a relative latecomer, whose ancestors were from the Arabian families that accompanied the Second Caliph Umar bin al-Khatttab when he conquered and colonized Byzantine Palestine in the seventh century. Even at that time, the Jews were still a plurality—and, perhaps along with the Samaritans, a majority—in the land, six hundred years after the Romans destroyed their ancient Temple and the Second Jewish Commonwealth. This emerges from Professor Moshe Gil’s monumental 800-page A History of Palestine: 634-1099.
Ascertaining the truth has never been the objective of those trying to paint Israel with a colonialist brush. They have been determined simply to conclude that the Jews came as an alien force to Palestine, to advance European interests, rather than see them as a people recovering their historical homeland, where they had deep, indigenous roots.
Dore Gold is an Israeli statesman who has served in various diplomatic positions under several Israeli governments. He is the current President of the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs.
Tuesday, August 24, 2010
Abbas & Fayyad: Do They Have a Mandate?
Khaled Abu Toameh
August 24, 2010
A president whose term in office expired a long time ago, and a prime minister who won about 2% of the vote when he ran in an election, have now been invited by the US Administration to hold direct peace talks with Israel on behalf of the Palestinians.
Mahmoud Abbas, the president, and Salam Fayyad, his prime minister, have even won the "backing" of two key decision-making bodies that are largely controlled by their supporters: the PLO Executive Committee and the Fatah Central Committee. The 18-member PLO Executive Committee, which met in Ramallah last week to approve the Palestinians' participation in the direct talks with Israel, is dominated by unelected veteran officials.
Only nine PLO officials attended the meeting. The PLO constitution requires a minimum of 12 members for a quorum. This means that, contrary to reports in the Palestinian and international media, Abbas and Fayyad do not have the support of the PLO committee to negotiate directly with Israel.
With regards to the Central Council of Fatah, it remains unclear whether its 21 members ever endorsed the US invitation to hold direct talks with Israel.
Elections for the committee were held on July 8, 2009. The results of the vote, which has been denounced by many Fatah officials as unfair, was that only Abbas loyalists were elected.
Some of the committee members have even issued contradictory statements over the past few weeks regarding the direct talks. In the beginning, most of them seemed to oppose such talks unless Israel agreed to stop settlement construction and recognized the 1967 lines as the future borders of a Palestinian state.
Now, however, most of the committee members appear to have changed their minds -- clearly as a result of immense US pressure on Abbas and the Palestinian leadership.
It is not easy for a committee member who receives his or her salary from the Palestinian government to speak out in public on controversial matters.
So here is a president whose term in office expired in January 2009 -- and who has won the backing of only some of his traditional loyalists -- preparing to negotiate with Israel about extremely important issues such as borders, refugees, Jerusalem, settlements and security.
As if it is not enough that Abbas and Fayyad do not have a real mandate from their people, now they are going to lose what is left of their credibility as they appear to have "succumbed" to the outside pressure.
Abbas is in power because George W. Bush and Condaleeza Rice back then told him to stay, even though his term in office had expired.
Fayyad, who ran in the January 2006 parliamentary election at the head of the Third Way list, won only two seats. His number two, Hanan Ashrawi, has since abandoned him, making him the head of a one-man list.
Abbas was forced to appoint Fayyad as prime minister only because of pressure from the Americans and Europeans, who threatened to suspend financial aid to the Palestinian Authority if the Palestinian president failed to comply.
Fayyad's government was never approved by the Palestinian parliament, known as the Palestinian Legislative Council, as required by the Palestinian Basic Law. Parliamentary life in the Palestinian territories has anyway been completely paralyzed ever since Hamas forced the Palestinian Authority out of the Gaza Strip.
Officials in Ramallah say that the Palestinian leadership is being dragged, against its will, to the negotiating table with Israel. They say that the only reason the Palestinians agreed to hold unconditional talks with Israel is because of threats and pressure from the Americans and Europeans.
Over the past few months, Abbas and Fayyad had been telling their people that there would be no direct talks with Israel unless their conditions are fulfilled. Now, however, they have been forced to drop all their conditions and are being pressured to the negotiating table by Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.
Besides, who said that Abbas and Fayyad would be able to sell any agreement to a majority of Palestinians? How can any Palestinian buy an agreement from them after they told their people that they are going to the talks only because the Americans and Europeans threatened to cut off financial aid?
Any agreement Abbas and Fayyad bring back home will be seen by many Palestinians as the fruit of "extortion" and "threats" and not as the result of peace talks that were conducted in good faith.
Leaders who do not have a clear mandate from their people will not be able to strike any deal with Israel, particularly when it concerns explosive issues such as Jerusalem, refugees and settlements. The Palestinian leadership's decision to negotiate directly with Israel unconditionally has already enraged many Palestinians across the political spectrum.
Abbas and Fayyad are nonetheless not stupid. The two are well aware of the fact that they do not have a mandate to sign any agreement with Israel. This is why they will search for any excuse to withdraw from the direct talks and blame Israel for the failure of the peace process.
Under the current circumstances, it would have been better had the US Administration thought twice before issuing the invitation for the peace talks.
August 24, 2010
A president whose term in office expired a long time ago, and a prime minister who won about 2% of the vote when he ran in an election, have now been invited by the US Administration to hold direct peace talks with Israel on behalf of the Palestinians.
Mahmoud Abbas, the president, and Salam Fayyad, his prime minister, have even won the "backing" of two key decision-making bodies that are largely controlled by their supporters: the PLO Executive Committee and the Fatah Central Committee. The 18-member PLO Executive Committee, which met in Ramallah last week to approve the Palestinians' participation in the direct talks with Israel, is dominated by unelected veteran officials.
Only nine PLO officials attended the meeting. The PLO constitution requires a minimum of 12 members for a quorum. This means that, contrary to reports in the Palestinian and international media, Abbas and Fayyad do not have the support of the PLO committee to negotiate directly with Israel.
With regards to the Central Council of Fatah, it remains unclear whether its 21 members ever endorsed the US invitation to hold direct talks with Israel.
Elections for the committee were held on July 8, 2009. The results of the vote, which has been denounced by many Fatah officials as unfair, was that only Abbas loyalists were elected.
Some of the committee members have even issued contradictory statements over the past few weeks regarding the direct talks. In the beginning, most of them seemed to oppose such talks unless Israel agreed to stop settlement construction and recognized the 1967 lines as the future borders of a Palestinian state.
Now, however, most of the committee members appear to have changed their minds -- clearly as a result of immense US pressure on Abbas and the Palestinian leadership.
It is not easy for a committee member who receives his or her salary from the Palestinian government to speak out in public on controversial matters.
So here is a president whose term in office expired in January 2009 -- and who has won the backing of only some of his traditional loyalists -- preparing to negotiate with Israel about extremely important issues such as borders, refugees, Jerusalem, settlements and security.
As if it is not enough that Abbas and Fayyad do not have a real mandate from their people, now they are going to lose what is left of their credibility as they appear to have "succumbed" to the outside pressure.
Abbas is in power because George W. Bush and Condaleeza Rice back then told him to stay, even though his term in office had expired.
Fayyad, who ran in the January 2006 parliamentary election at the head of the Third Way list, won only two seats. His number two, Hanan Ashrawi, has since abandoned him, making him the head of a one-man list.
Abbas was forced to appoint Fayyad as prime minister only because of pressure from the Americans and Europeans, who threatened to suspend financial aid to the Palestinian Authority if the Palestinian president failed to comply.
Fayyad's government was never approved by the Palestinian parliament, known as the Palestinian Legislative Council, as required by the Palestinian Basic Law. Parliamentary life in the Palestinian territories has anyway been completely paralyzed ever since Hamas forced the Palestinian Authority out of the Gaza Strip.
Officials in Ramallah say that the Palestinian leadership is being dragged, against its will, to the negotiating table with Israel. They say that the only reason the Palestinians agreed to hold unconditional talks with Israel is because of threats and pressure from the Americans and Europeans.
Over the past few months, Abbas and Fayyad had been telling their people that there would be no direct talks with Israel unless their conditions are fulfilled. Now, however, they have been forced to drop all their conditions and are being pressured to the negotiating table by Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.
Besides, who said that Abbas and Fayyad would be able to sell any agreement to a majority of Palestinians? How can any Palestinian buy an agreement from them after they told their people that they are going to the talks only because the Americans and Europeans threatened to cut off financial aid?
Any agreement Abbas and Fayyad bring back home will be seen by many Palestinians as the fruit of "extortion" and "threats" and not as the result of peace talks that were conducted in good faith.
Leaders who do not have a clear mandate from their people will not be able to strike any deal with Israel, particularly when it concerns explosive issues such as Jerusalem, refugees and settlements. The Palestinian leadership's decision to negotiate directly with Israel unconditionally has already enraged many Palestinians across the political spectrum.
Abbas and Fayyad are nonetheless not stupid. The two are well aware of the fact that they do not have a mandate to sign any agreement with Israel. This is why they will search for any excuse to withdraw from the direct talks and blame Israel for the failure of the peace process.
Under the current circumstances, it would have been better had the US Administration thought twice before issuing the invitation for the peace talks.
Ayalon: Israel will react to Iran attack accordingly
JPOST.COM STAFF
08/24/2010
Deputy FM addresses Iranian people in Farsi radio broadcast; calls on Iranian people to protest 'aggressive dictatorial regime' that denies its citizens their civil rights.
Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon said that regional war initiated by Iran was a distinct possibility, adding that "Israel is committed to defending its citizens and if attacked will act accordingly." The comments, released Tuesday, came in a Farsi language broadcast on Israel Radio in which Ayalon addressed the people of Iran, taking calls and answering questions . The broadcast was originally aired on Monday. "A fear exists that Iran – as it becomes more pressured by sanctions – will goad those under its patronage in Hizbullah and Hamas to initiate military action against Israel. There’s also a possibility that Iran will make a military move against the Arab Gulf states and harm the flow of oil to the world, in which case the entire situation will degrade into widespread confrontations. Remember that the sanctions are aimed against Iran’s efforts to arm itself with nuclear weapons, and if they don’t elicit results, the United States and other nations might consider other options."
Ayalon emphasized the fact that Israel's problems with Iran were not with the country's people, but rather with the Islamic Republic's regime.
"Israel bears no animosity towards the Iranian people. We have deep respect and aspire to cooperate with them to bring about a better reality in the region. The problem is intrinsic to the Iranian regime and its conduct, particularly regarding the nuclear issue. This is a regime that calls for 'Death to the United States, Great Britain and Israel'. The Iranian regime spreads instability, supports terror, and oppresses its own people. It is impossible to accept atomic weapons in the hands of such a regime.
"The Iranian reactor constitutes a tremendous danger to the stability of the entire region and to world peace in general because, besides nuclear armaments, Iran is also developing a missile system that threatens countries beyond the Middle East, such as Europe. Nuclear weapons in Iran’s hands will enable it to threaten all the Arab governments with its present means (subversive elements in various countries, agents, and so forth). Even now it controls bodies that function as a state within a state, in Lebanon, Yemen, the Palestinian Authority, and other places."
Ayalon called on the "oppressed" Iranian people to protest the dictatorial regime's repeated violations of its citizen's civil rights.
"This is an aggressive dictatorial regime, and all progressive elements throughout the world should take action against it, if only for that reason. Israel congratulates the Iranian people for their efforts to liberate themselves from the burden of the oppressive regime. At international forums, Israel has raised the issue of the suffering of the Iranian people and the cruelty of the regime ruling them. That is the main thing we can do for such an illustrious nation suffering from oppression. But in the end, it is the Iranian people themselves who must take their fate in their own hands and act to achieve their rights. The more the citizens of Iran increase their protest activities, the higher the international support will be."
Monday, August 23, 2010
Jewish Fields and Crops Burned
My Right Word
First, there were stories about Jews uprooting Arab olive trees.
As I wrote there, I couldn't get any information more than the Arab announcement. No confirmation. Have you seen any evidence of their tale? We have a name, Abdelhameed Muhsen, but I don't have his phone number. But I was at Achiyah this morning. And do you know what I saw? I saw lots of Jewish land burnt. Saplings destroyed. In between Achiyah and Esh Kodesh.
The photographic evidence:
a) looking north-east from Achiyah, along the ridge is Jaloud. There's the last Jewish house (at present) in the lower-left corner and the Arab village a few hundred meters on. And in the lower right-hand corner, already you can see the remnants of the third (!) fire in the past 8 days set by Arabs.
b) the burned area there at the bottom of the slope:
c) a close-up of the charred remnants:
d) to the east, the extent of the damage:
e) to the north-east and on the ridge is Kuzra, an Arab village, and center below, more damaged area:
f) Esh-Kodesh on the horizon and the end of the blackened wadi:
Did you hear or see of this series of incidents?
"On What Premises?"
Arlene Kushner
I wrote yesterday about the fact that the Quartet had, in the end, not mentioned pre-conditions in its call for negotiations released on Friday. Almost. But this turns out not quite to be so.
In today's JPost, Khaled Abu Toameh writes that the PLO Executive Committee, which met Friday night, supported talks because they were being held on the basis of a Quartet statement made earlier this year. The Quartet statement referred to was made in Moscow on March 19, 2010. And, indeed, the Quartet statement released on Friday states:
"The Quartet reaffirms its full commitment to its previous statements, including in Trieste on 26 June 2009, in New York on 24 September 2009, and its statement in Moscow on 19 March 2010 which provides that direct, bilateral negotiations that resolve all final status issues should 'lead to a settlement, negotiated between the parties...'"
This is the old "inclusion by allusion" technique. The Quartet did not have to declare that there were pre-conditions, it merely had to declare its commitment to an earlier statement that implied there were such pre-conditions. Friday's statement simply says that there should be direct bilateral negotiations to resolve all issues, etc. This is slippery (and not accidentally so). One must look at the Moscow statement in its entirety to know what's really being referred to.
The text of that statement can be found here:
http://sofiaecho.com/2010/03/19/875958_middle-east-quartets-march-19-statement-in-moscow
While it specifically says there are no pre-conditions to negotiations, it also says:
"The Quartet urges the government of Israel to freeze all settlement activity, including natural growth, dismantle outposts erected since March 2001; and to refrain from demolitions and evictions in East Jerusalem."
And, further, that:
"Recalling that the annexation of East Jerusalem is not recognized by the international community, the Quartet underscores that the status of Jerusalem is a permanent status issue that must be resolved through negotiations between the parties and condemns the decision by the government of Israel to advance planning for new housing units in East Jerusalem."
The readiness of the PLO Executive Committee to move ahead with negotiations is premised, then, on these statements.
And understand that when "East Jerusalem" is referred to, this is not a geographic designation but a political one, referring to everything over the Green Line, so that new housing units in Gilo or French Hill would be prohibited.
~~~~~~~~~~
Meanwhile, MK Ophir Akunis has released an official Likud statement saying that the American statement calling for talks without pre-conditions is a huge victory for Israel:
"It took a year and a half to persuade the international community and the Palestinians that direct dialogue is the only way to reach a solution to the conflict. This is further proof that when you stand up for your principles and do not give in, you can attain diplomatic achievements."
Well... I'm totally on board for our standing up for our principles, and I do believe that standing strong can lead to diplomatic achievements.
But I am not yet convinced that we've genuinely achieved a diplomatic success here. It seems to me, rather, that there is a stalemate -- because the premises on which the two ostensible negotiating partners will be proceeding will not be the same. We will proceed under the assumption that there are no pre-conditions. But the first time we begin to build in eastern Jerusalem (may it be!) Abbas and the PLO will scream and holler that the Quartet said we should not be doing this and we've undermined everything (and perhaps made it impossible to proceed).
This, I would suggest, is a paradigm for the entire anticipated "negotiating process." We and the PA are so far apart on our goals and intentions that there will be neither a meeting of the minds nor genuine negotiations of any meaningful sort.
~~~~~~~~~~
At today's Cabinet meeting, PM Netanyahu made the following statement:
"We are coming to talks from a real desire to achieve a peace agreement between the two peoples, while safeguarding Israel's national interests, foremostly security. I know that there is a considerable skepticism after 17 years having passed since the beginning of the Oslo process. It is possible to understand why this doubtfulness exists. We are seeking to surprise the critics and the skeptics, but in order to do this we need a real partner on the Palestinian side. It is possible to succeed with a hand extended in peace, but only if someone on the other likewise extends one. If we discover that we have a real partner on the Palestinian side, sincere and serious in negotiations, negotiations which will require both sides to take necessary measures, not only the Israeli side but also the Palestinian side, if we discover we have such a partner, we will be able to shortly reach a historic peace agreement between the two peoples.
"This agreement will be based on three initial components: First of all, on real and sustainable security arrangements on the ground; secondly, upon recognition of Israel as the national state of the Jewish People, and this means that the solution of a problem like the demand for return will be realized in the territory of the Palestinian state; and the third component,
the end to the conflict. We are discussing a peace agreement between Israel and a demilitarized Palestinian state. This state, if it should be established after this process, is due to end the conflict and not to be a façade for its continuation by other means...."
~~~~~~~~~~
While it is difficult indeed at times to accept with equanimity the apparent eagerness of our prime minister to negotiate with the Palestinian Arabs, I remain convinced that he is -- as I have discussed on several previous occasions -- playing a very calculated game, walking a tightrope. He does not wish to appear to be the "stumbling block to peace" before the international community -- although the Arabs will do all in their power to counter with charges that make it appear that he is. He plays the game, while setting out stipulations that he very clearly knows are not only important for us but will be rejected outright by the Arabs, thereby insuring that their state does not come into being.
The insistence, alone, of our being recognized as a Jewish state, with "refugees" to be resettled outside of Israel, is a deal-killer. While, by expressing intention that any deal must be end of conflict and not "a façade for its continuation by other means," he is demonstrating awareness of the devious PLO "strategy of stages" and his determination that we not become enmeshed in these Arab plans.
While Netanyahu will be charged with setting out unreasonable demands, it is not because he is genuinely intransigent, but because he is calling the Arabs' bluff. They are totally without sincerity with regard to establishing a peaceful state that would exist at our border.
The trick here is for him to remain strong in his stipulations and red lines, and to avoid falling into a trap devised by either the Arabs or Obama. A tall order, which requires us both to pray a great deal and to express support in a variety of ways.
~~~~~~~~~~
Another way to play this would be to simply say that the PA is still inciting jihad among its young people and supporting Hamas financially, and thus we cannot negotiate now. But this -- which would require great courage and nerves of steel -- is not Netanyahu's style and we would be ill-advised to expect this of him.
His desire to appear before the international community as the cooperative party does have a logic: There is a possibility that when talks fail, the Arabs will charge us with being uncooperative and head for the Security Council. Netanyahu wants to be able to say: Us? I was pushing for direct talks but they dragged their feet. They have no legitimate right to claim redress.
~~~~~~~~~~
One additional comment from Dr. Aaron Lerner, of IMRA. Security interests may be very important in our considerations now, but he is a bit uneasy in finding too much emphasis on this. He wrote today:
"Israel's 'national interests' go well beyond security.
"Israel has a 'national interest,' for example, that for generations to come, Jews will continue to be able to pray at ancient sites sacred to Judaism in places such as Jerusalem, Bethlehem and Hebron...
"Put simply, if the IDF had a special gizmo that could satisfactorily protect Israel's national security interests with Israel finding itself on the '67 lines - including the complete division of Jerusalem, Israel still would have national interests to address on the other side of that line.'
http://imra.org.il/story.php3?id=49109
Let us never forget this!
~~~~~~~~~~
The New York Times the other day informed its readers that the US had "convinced" Israel that there is at least a year until Iran would be able to go nuclear, and that thus there was no reason to rush in bombing Iran. Obama's chief nuclear advisor on nuclear issues, Gary Samore, was quoted as saying, "A year is a very long time."
Well, never mind that a year is a very short time indeed. I read the report from the Times and thought it strange, for this is, as I've been reading it, pretty much what our intelligence has been indicating for quite a while. So now the US has "informed" us of this? Actually, as I've been reading it, the US estimates gave Iran more time, and our people have been saying, no, only a year to two more.
Then along came Jeffrey Goldberg, writing in the Atlantic, confirming my sense of the situation. Goldberg observes that there is no Israeli quoted in the Times article, confirming or denying what it says.
I mention this here only because the Times article created something of a splash.
~~~~~~~~~~
The IDF has announced that Chief of Staff Gabi Ashkenazi will be replaced by Major General Yoav Galant, currently head of the IDF Southern Command. Galant will be the first Chief of Staff to have begun his military career in the Navy. He moved over to the IDF, however, when he was appointed commander of the Jenin Brigade and then later became commander of the Gaza Division.
According to Yaakov Katz, writing in the JPost: "A strong charismatic commander with vast field and combat experience, Galant is well respected throughout the IDF." Galant was organizer of the Cast Lead operation in Gaza, during which time "he insisted on visiting the Gaza Strip during the operation and spending time with battalion and company commanders in the field." He clashed with a more hesitant Ashkenazi, pushing for movement deeper into Gaza.
We can only hope that this report rings true (especially in the light of a major "incident" within the IDF regarding the replacement for Ashkenazi, which I will not explore here, but which had the regrettable effect of tarnishing the IDF image). We desperately need a well respected, highly competent and courageous leader at the helm of the IDF.
~~~~~~~~~~
see my website www.ArlenefromIsrael.info
I wrote yesterday about the fact that the Quartet had, in the end, not mentioned pre-conditions in its call for negotiations released on Friday. Almost. But this turns out not quite to be so.
In today's JPost, Khaled Abu Toameh writes that the PLO Executive Committee, which met Friday night, supported talks because they were being held on the basis of a Quartet statement made earlier this year. The Quartet statement referred to was made in Moscow on March 19, 2010. And, indeed, the Quartet statement released on Friday states:
"The Quartet reaffirms its full commitment to its previous statements, including in Trieste on 26 June 2009, in New York on 24 September 2009, and its statement in Moscow on 19 March 2010 which provides that direct, bilateral negotiations that resolve all final status issues should 'lead to a settlement, negotiated between the parties...'"
This is the old "inclusion by allusion" technique. The Quartet did not have to declare that there were pre-conditions, it merely had to declare its commitment to an earlier statement that implied there were such pre-conditions. Friday's statement simply says that there should be direct bilateral negotiations to resolve all issues, etc. This is slippery (and not accidentally so). One must look at the Moscow statement in its entirety to know what's really being referred to.
The text of that statement can be found here:
http://sofiaecho.com/2010/03/19/875958_middle-east-quartets-march-19-statement-in-moscow
While it specifically says there are no pre-conditions to negotiations, it also says:
"The Quartet urges the government of Israel to freeze all settlement activity, including natural growth, dismantle outposts erected since March 2001; and to refrain from demolitions and evictions in East Jerusalem."
And, further, that:
"Recalling that the annexation of East Jerusalem is not recognized by the international community, the Quartet underscores that the status of Jerusalem is a permanent status issue that must be resolved through negotiations between the parties and condemns the decision by the government of Israel to advance planning for new housing units in East Jerusalem."
The readiness of the PLO Executive Committee to move ahead with negotiations is premised, then, on these statements.
And understand that when "East Jerusalem" is referred to, this is not a geographic designation but a political one, referring to everything over the Green Line, so that new housing units in Gilo or French Hill would be prohibited.
~~~~~~~~~~
Meanwhile, MK Ophir Akunis has released an official Likud statement saying that the American statement calling for talks without pre-conditions is a huge victory for Israel:
"It took a year and a half to persuade the international community and the Palestinians that direct dialogue is the only way to reach a solution to the conflict. This is further proof that when you stand up for your principles and do not give in, you can attain diplomatic achievements."
Well... I'm totally on board for our standing up for our principles, and I do believe that standing strong can lead to diplomatic achievements.
But I am not yet convinced that we've genuinely achieved a diplomatic success here. It seems to me, rather, that there is a stalemate -- because the premises on which the two ostensible negotiating partners will be proceeding will not be the same. We will proceed under the assumption that there are no pre-conditions. But the first time we begin to build in eastern Jerusalem (may it be!) Abbas and the PLO will scream and holler that the Quartet said we should not be doing this and we've undermined everything (and perhaps made it impossible to proceed).
This, I would suggest, is a paradigm for the entire anticipated "negotiating process." We and the PA are so far apart on our goals and intentions that there will be neither a meeting of the minds nor genuine negotiations of any meaningful sort.
~~~~~~~~~~
At today's Cabinet meeting, PM Netanyahu made the following statement:
"We are coming to talks from a real desire to achieve a peace agreement between the two peoples, while safeguarding Israel's national interests, foremostly security. I know that there is a considerable skepticism after 17 years having passed since the beginning of the Oslo process. It is possible to understand why this doubtfulness exists. We are seeking to surprise the critics and the skeptics, but in order to do this we need a real partner on the Palestinian side. It is possible to succeed with a hand extended in peace, but only if someone on the other likewise extends one. If we discover that we have a real partner on the Palestinian side, sincere and serious in negotiations, negotiations which will require both sides to take necessary measures, not only the Israeli side but also the Palestinian side, if we discover we have such a partner, we will be able to shortly reach a historic peace agreement between the two peoples.
"This agreement will be based on three initial components: First of all, on real and sustainable security arrangements on the ground; secondly, upon recognition of Israel as the national state of the Jewish People, and this means that the solution of a problem like the demand for return will be realized in the territory of the Palestinian state; and the third component,
the end to the conflict. We are discussing a peace agreement between Israel and a demilitarized Palestinian state. This state, if it should be established after this process, is due to end the conflict and not to be a façade for its continuation by other means...."
~~~~~~~~~~
While it is difficult indeed at times to accept with equanimity the apparent eagerness of our prime minister to negotiate with the Palestinian Arabs, I remain convinced that he is -- as I have discussed on several previous occasions -- playing a very calculated game, walking a tightrope. He does not wish to appear to be the "stumbling block to peace" before the international community -- although the Arabs will do all in their power to counter with charges that make it appear that he is. He plays the game, while setting out stipulations that he very clearly knows are not only important for us but will be rejected outright by the Arabs, thereby insuring that their state does not come into being.
The insistence, alone, of our being recognized as a Jewish state, with "refugees" to be resettled outside of Israel, is a deal-killer. While, by expressing intention that any deal must be end of conflict and not "a façade for its continuation by other means," he is demonstrating awareness of the devious PLO "strategy of stages" and his determination that we not become enmeshed in these Arab plans.
While Netanyahu will be charged with setting out unreasonable demands, it is not because he is genuinely intransigent, but because he is calling the Arabs' bluff. They are totally without sincerity with regard to establishing a peaceful state that would exist at our border.
The trick here is for him to remain strong in his stipulations and red lines, and to avoid falling into a trap devised by either the Arabs or Obama. A tall order, which requires us both to pray a great deal and to express support in a variety of ways.
~~~~~~~~~~
Another way to play this would be to simply say that the PA is still inciting jihad among its young people and supporting Hamas financially, and thus we cannot negotiate now. But this -- which would require great courage and nerves of steel -- is not Netanyahu's style and we would be ill-advised to expect this of him.
His desire to appear before the international community as the cooperative party does have a logic: There is a possibility that when talks fail, the Arabs will charge us with being uncooperative and head for the Security Council. Netanyahu wants to be able to say: Us? I was pushing for direct talks but they dragged their feet. They have no legitimate right to claim redress.
~~~~~~~~~~
One additional comment from Dr. Aaron Lerner, of IMRA. Security interests may be very important in our considerations now, but he is a bit uneasy in finding too much emphasis on this. He wrote today:
"Israel's 'national interests' go well beyond security.
"Israel has a 'national interest,' for example, that for generations to come, Jews will continue to be able to pray at ancient sites sacred to Judaism in places such as Jerusalem, Bethlehem and Hebron...
"Put simply, if the IDF had a special gizmo that could satisfactorily protect Israel's national security interests with Israel finding itself on the '67 lines - including the complete division of Jerusalem, Israel still would have national interests to address on the other side of that line.'
http://imra.org.il/story.php3?id=49109
Let us never forget this!
~~~~~~~~~~
The New York Times the other day informed its readers that the US had "convinced" Israel that there is at least a year until Iran would be able to go nuclear, and that thus there was no reason to rush in bombing Iran. Obama's chief nuclear advisor on nuclear issues, Gary Samore, was quoted as saying, "A year is a very long time."
Well, never mind that a year is a very short time indeed. I read the report from the Times and thought it strange, for this is, as I've been reading it, pretty much what our intelligence has been indicating for quite a while. So now the US has "informed" us of this? Actually, as I've been reading it, the US estimates gave Iran more time, and our people have been saying, no, only a year to two more.
Then along came Jeffrey Goldberg, writing in the Atlantic, confirming my sense of the situation. Goldberg observes that there is no Israeli quoted in the Times article, confirming or denying what it says.
I mention this here only because the Times article created something of a splash.
~~~~~~~~~~
The IDF has announced that Chief of Staff Gabi Ashkenazi will be replaced by Major General Yoav Galant, currently head of the IDF Southern Command. Galant will be the first Chief of Staff to have begun his military career in the Navy. He moved over to the IDF, however, when he was appointed commander of the Jenin Brigade and then later became commander of the Gaza Division.
According to Yaakov Katz, writing in the JPost: "A strong charismatic commander with vast field and combat experience, Galant is well respected throughout the IDF." Galant was organizer of the Cast Lead operation in Gaza, during which time "he insisted on visiting the Gaza Strip during the operation and spending time with battalion and company commanders in the field." He clashed with a more hesitant Ashkenazi, pushing for movement deeper into Gaza.
We can only hope that this report rings true (especially in the light of a major "incident" within the IDF regarding the replacement for Ashkenazi, which I will not explore here, but which had the regrettable effect of tarnishing the IDF image). We desperately need a well respected, highly competent and courageous leader at the helm of the IDF.
~~~~~~~~~~
see my website www.ArlenefromIsrael.info
Sunday, August 22, 2010
Will an IDF Withdrawal from the West Bank Mean a Safe Haven for Extremist Groups?
Col. Richard Kemp
* To stand any real chance of success, every insurgent or terrorist movement needs a safe haven to operate from. Israel has had more than a flavor of what it can mean to leave hostile groups in control of lands adjacent to its own borders in southern Lebanon and in Gaza. Any similar move to totally cede control to the Palestinians of the West Bank or a part of Jerusalem would carry immense risk. * Some might argue that a modern high-tech state can monitor hostile activities outside its borders. But surveillance and intelligence collection against a deeply embedded, secretive, extremist network operating within a dense civilian population is the most difficult target, and no national intelligence organization can be confident that it will have a high success rate against such a target.
* It has been suggested that an international force, perhaps a NATO force, should replace the IDF presence in the West Bank, an idea that raises a number of very serious questions. Where are the NATO troops going to come from and how long are they going to stay? Some nations are simply not prepared to put their troops into undue danger.
* What would happen to those who were prepared to take part in such a force when the going got tough, as it inevitably would? Think of Lebanon in 1983 when suicide bomb attacks killed 300 troops and led to the withdrawal of the French and American peacekeeping forces, or al-Qaeda's attack in Madrid which led to the withdrawal of Spanish forces from the Iraq campaign. Just how sure could we be that the electorates in contributing countries would allow their militaries to remain deployed in the West Bank under these kinds of pressures.
* To what extent would a NATO mission get in the way of a vital Israeli effort to protect their own people? Finally, a failed NATO mission and a West Bank under extremist control, flourishing under a security vacuum there, would encourage and strengthen violent jihadists everywhere in the world.
The Implications for Asymmetrical Activity by Extremist Groups
To stand any real chance of success, every insurgent or terrorist movement needs a safe haven to operate from - one that is outside the control of the state being targeted and preferably in a land that is free from interference by the target state or its allies, whether due to geography, the protection of a friendly regime, or operating within a failed state. The Vietnam conflict was a classic example of the use of a safe haven. More recently, in the Iraq campaign, Sunni extremists had a safe haven in Syria which was their main logistic support base and a pipeline for suicide bombers flowing into Iraq. They also used extensive support networks in Iran, which also provided a safe haven for Shi'ite insurgents attacking coalition forces, as well as through the Iranian Revolutionary Guards and Hizbullah, which provided training, organization, munitions, and direction.
Today the Afghan Taliban's safe haven and support base is in Pakistan, although the second largest extremist group engaged in Afghanistan, Hizb-i-Islami, has its main base in Iran itself. In March, General Petraeus, the Head of U.S. Central Command, in testimony to the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee, revealed that Tehran is letting al-Qaeda leaders travel freely between Pakistan and Afghanistan, effectively using Iranian territory as a safe haven, while permitting them also to hold meetings in Iran to plan terrorist attacks against U.S. and other Western targets.
Israel has had more than a flavor of what it can mean to leave hostile groups in control of lands adjacent to its own borders in southern Lebanon and in Gaza. Any similar move to totally cede control to the Palestinians of the West Bank or a part of Jerusalem may have considerable attraction for any peace process, and that is certainly the view of many in the international community. But both prospects would carry immense risk from the perspective of asymmetrical activities against Israel.
Some might argue that a modern high-tech state can monitor hostile activities outside its borders. Yet we've seen many failures of intelligence in relation to offensive activities by conventional forces and war plans by nation-states which are generally relatively easy to identify and monitor. But surveillance and intelligence collection against a deeply embedded, secretive, extremist network operating within a dense civilian population is the most difficult target, and no national intelligence organization can be confident that it will have a high success rate against such a target.
Despite many spectacular successes, including the killing in Pakistan of al-Qaeda's number three, Mustafa Abu al-Yazid, the unrivalled technological supremacy of the U.S. military has failed to effectively dent the Taliban's ability to smuggle munitions and infiltrate large groups of fighters across the Afghan border. I do not for a moment underestimate the difficulties this entails. Jordan's support or effectiveness in countering extremist activity directed at Israel from the West Bank could not be counted upon, and extremists would also seek to destabilize Jordan, an important stepping stone to the destruction of Israel.
We can look again at Pakistan and Afghanistan to get an insight here. NATO puts in a significant effort to coordinate cross-border security measures with the government of Pakistan. Some of this is successful some of the time. Some elements of the Pakistan government have different agendas, supporting the Taliban when it suits them or at least turning a blind eye, but Pakistan itself is suffering a very serious, dangerous, and worsening insurgency from its own Taliban. Despite the contrary views of some, its own Taliban, closely linked to the Afghanistan Taliban, is intent on bringing down Pakistan's government, a goal shared by al-Qaeda leaders in Pakistan, and despite efforts on both sides of the border, insurgents operate with relative freedom. The importance of safe havens to extremists is well understood by the Pakistan military. One of their greatest fears is that NATO forces will withdraw precipitously from Afghanistan, leaving a vacuum from which their own insurgency could be supported and strengthened. That, of course, leaves a prospect of a nuclear-armed state falling into the hands of extremists.
Questions Surrounding a Prospective NATO Peacekeeping Deployment
It has been suggested that an international force, perhaps a NATO force should replace the IDF presence in the West Bank. While I would not exclude that idea in principle, it raises a number of very serious questions. First of all, where are the NATO troops going to come from and how long are they going to stay? Let us not forget the difficulties that NATO has had for years and still has in mustering forces for the war in Afghanistan - and this is for a campaign that is NATO's declared main effort and its only real, current, live operation. Many of the troops that are there are restricted by significant national caveats, including restricting deployments to the safest areas. Some nations are simply not prepared to put their troops into undue danger. Unfortunately, undue danger goes hand in glove with war and with the toughest peacekeeping operations, and the West Bank would fall clearly into that category. Some NATO nations can't operate after dark and they leave the insurgents to control the night, with all the implications that this has.
There is a significant risk that in trying to develop and maintain good relations with all parties, the peacekeepers would instead become the enemy of both sides. Potential contributors to the international forces would know that. What would happen to those who were prepared to take part when the going got tough, as it inevitably would? Think of Lebanon in 1983 when suicide bomb attacks killed 300 troops and led to the withdrawal of the French and American peacekeeping forces. An extremist with global reach will not have forgotten al-Qaeda's attack in Madrid twenty years later which led to the withdrawal of Spanish forces from the Iraq campaign. And let us not for a moment assume that sinister, yet powerful, hands would not turn their attention onto the peacekeeping forces in the West Bank, especially if they showed signs of succeeding in their mission to bring lasting peace into the region. Iran has a track record of stiffening the resolve of insurgent groups that show any sign of faltering in their aggression against Israel, and a track record of attacking Western forces using their proxies.
Just how sure could we be that the electorates in contributing countries would allow their militaries to remain deployed in the West Bank under these kinds of pressures, and how effective would NATO be as a peacekeeping force in the demanding circumstances that we are considering? The only previous success that NATO is able to claim in this field, and it is by no means uncontroversial, was in Kosovo, which also in practice was a far less complex situation.
NATO is, of course, not peacekeeping in Afghanistan, but we can get some insight from its activities there. I've already mentioned the national caveats. Similar difficulties apply to differing national rules of engagement and tactical procedures, including a very wide variety of constraints on air support. Would a NATO mission be ready and able to take on insurgents, and if not, to what extent would they then get in the way of a vital Israeli effort to do so to protect their own people?
After seven years in Afghanistan, how effectively has NATO taken control of the insurgency there? In the six-month period up to March 2010 the number of attacks against NATO forces increased by over 80 percent over the same period in the previous year, and in the same time frame, attacks on the civilian population in Afghanistan were up by over 70 percent. And how assiduous has NATO been in its civilian reconstruction and governance efforts, a critical element of its role in Afghanistan? Reconstruction has been notable by its relative inability to gain traction and provide essential depth for the military element of the counter-insurgency campaign.
In many ways peacekeeping is far tougher and more challenging than fighting as combatants. It is one thing to act robustly against people that are attacking you and your comrades. It is quite another to put your troops' lives on the line when it is not them but others who are in danger. Dutch forces have fought gallantly and effectively in Afghanistan. They've been brave and they've taken many casualties, but Srebrenica cannot be forgotten. More than 8,000 civilians were massacred there in 1995 under the eyes of Dutch UN peacekeepers.
To conclude, I would neither exclude the possibility of an IDF withdrawal from the West Bank nor their replacement with a NATO force, but before either can be seriously contemplated there are some fundamental questions to be resolved. These issues are critical to NATO, the West as a whole, and the entire Middle East because a failed NATO mission and a West Bank under extremist control, flourishing under a security vacuum there, would encourage and strengthen violent jihadists everywhere in the world
* To stand any real chance of success, every insurgent or terrorist movement needs a safe haven to operate from. Israel has had more than a flavor of what it can mean to leave hostile groups in control of lands adjacent to its own borders in southern Lebanon and in Gaza. Any similar move to totally cede control to the Palestinians of the West Bank or a part of Jerusalem would carry immense risk. * Some might argue that a modern high-tech state can monitor hostile activities outside its borders. But surveillance and intelligence collection against a deeply embedded, secretive, extremist network operating within a dense civilian population is the most difficult target, and no national intelligence organization can be confident that it will have a high success rate against such a target.
* It has been suggested that an international force, perhaps a NATO force, should replace the IDF presence in the West Bank, an idea that raises a number of very serious questions. Where are the NATO troops going to come from and how long are they going to stay? Some nations are simply not prepared to put their troops into undue danger.
* What would happen to those who were prepared to take part in such a force when the going got tough, as it inevitably would? Think of Lebanon in 1983 when suicide bomb attacks killed 300 troops and led to the withdrawal of the French and American peacekeeping forces, or al-Qaeda's attack in Madrid which led to the withdrawal of Spanish forces from the Iraq campaign. Just how sure could we be that the electorates in contributing countries would allow their militaries to remain deployed in the West Bank under these kinds of pressures.
* To what extent would a NATO mission get in the way of a vital Israeli effort to protect their own people? Finally, a failed NATO mission and a West Bank under extremist control, flourishing under a security vacuum there, would encourage and strengthen violent jihadists everywhere in the world.
The Implications for Asymmetrical Activity by Extremist Groups
To stand any real chance of success, every insurgent or terrorist movement needs a safe haven to operate from - one that is outside the control of the state being targeted and preferably in a land that is free from interference by the target state or its allies, whether due to geography, the protection of a friendly regime, or operating within a failed state. The Vietnam conflict was a classic example of the use of a safe haven. More recently, in the Iraq campaign, Sunni extremists had a safe haven in Syria which was their main logistic support base and a pipeline for suicide bombers flowing into Iraq. They also used extensive support networks in Iran, which also provided a safe haven for Shi'ite insurgents attacking coalition forces, as well as through the Iranian Revolutionary Guards and Hizbullah, which provided training, organization, munitions, and direction.
Today the Afghan Taliban's safe haven and support base is in Pakistan, although the second largest extremist group engaged in Afghanistan, Hizb-i-Islami, has its main base in Iran itself. In March, General Petraeus, the Head of U.S. Central Command, in testimony to the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee, revealed that Tehran is letting al-Qaeda leaders travel freely between Pakistan and Afghanistan, effectively using Iranian territory as a safe haven, while permitting them also to hold meetings in Iran to plan terrorist attacks against U.S. and other Western targets.
Israel has had more than a flavor of what it can mean to leave hostile groups in control of lands adjacent to its own borders in southern Lebanon and in Gaza. Any similar move to totally cede control to the Palestinians of the West Bank or a part of Jerusalem may have considerable attraction for any peace process, and that is certainly the view of many in the international community. But both prospects would carry immense risk from the perspective of asymmetrical activities against Israel.
Some might argue that a modern high-tech state can monitor hostile activities outside its borders. Yet we've seen many failures of intelligence in relation to offensive activities by conventional forces and war plans by nation-states which are generally relatively easy to identify and monitor. But surveillance and intelligence collection against a deeply embedded, secretive, extremist network operating within a dense civilian population is the most difficult target, and no national intelligence organization can be confident that it will have a high success rate against such a target.
Despite many spectacular successes, including the killing in Pakistan of al-Qaeda's number three, Mustafa Abu al-Yazid, the unrivalled technological supremacy of the U.S. military has failed to effectively dent the Taliban's ability to smuggle munitions and infiltrate large groups of fighters across the Afghan border. I do not for a moment underestimate the difficulties this entails. Jordan's support or effectiveness in countering extremist activity directed at Israel from the West Bank could not be counted upon, and extremists would also seek to destabilize Jordan, an important stepping stone to the destruction of Israel.
We can look again at Pakistan and Afghanistan to get an insight here. NATO puts in a significant effort to coordinate cross-border security measures with the government of Pakistan. Some of this is successful some of the time. Some elements of the Pakistan government have different agendas, supporting the Taliban when it suits them or at least turning a blind eye, but Pakistan itself is suffering a very serious, dangerous, and worsening insurgency from its own Taliban. Despite the contrary views of some, its own Taliban, closely linked to the Afghanistan Taliban, is intent on bringing down Pakistan's government, a goal shared by al-Qaeda leaders in Pakistan, and despite efforts on both sides of the border, insurgents operate with relative freedom. The importance of safe havens to extremists is well understood by the Pakistan military. One of their greatest fears is that NATO forces will withdraw precipitously from Afghanistan, leaving a vacuum from which their own insurgency could be supported and strengthened. That, of course, leaves a prospect of a nuclear-armed state falling into the hands of extremists.
Questions Surrounding a Prospective NATO Peacekeeping Deployment
It has been suggested that an international force, perhaps a NATO force should replace the IDF presence in the West Bank. While I would not exclude that idea in principle, it raises a number of very serious questions. First of all, where are the NATO troops going to come from and how long are they going to stay? Let us not forget the difficulties that NATO has had for years and still has in mustering forces for the war in Afghanistan - and this is for a campaign that is NATO's declared main effort and its only real, current, live operation. Many of the troops that are there are restricted by significant national caveats, including restricting deployments to the safest areas. Some nations are simply not prepared to put their troops into undue danger. Unfortunately, undue danger goes hand in glove with war and with the toughest peacekeeping operations, and the West Bank would fall clearly into that category. Some NATO nations can't operate after dark and they leave the insurgents to control the night, with all the implications that this has.
There is a significant risk that in trying to develop and maintain good relations with all parties, the peacekeepers would instead become the enemy of both sides. Potential contributors to the international forces would know that. What would happen to those who were prepared to take part when the going got tough, as it inevitably would? Think of Lebanon in 1983 when suicide bomb attacks killed 300 troops and led to the withdrawal of the French and American peacekeeping forces. An extremist with global reach will not have forgotten al-Qaeda's attack in Madrid twenty years later which led to the withdrawal of Spanish forces from the Iraq campaign. And let us not for a moment assume that sinister, yet powerful, hands would not turn their attention onto the peacekeeping forces in the West Bank, especially if they showed signs of succeeding in their mission to bring lasting peace into the region. Iran has a track record of stiffening the resolve of insurgent groups that show any sign of faltering in their aggression against Israel, and a track record of attacking Western forces using their proxies.
Just how sure could we be that the electorates in contributing countries would allow their militaries to remain deployed in the West Bank under these kinds of pressures, and how effective would NATO be as a peacekeeping force in the demanding circumstances that we are considering? The only previous success that NATO is able to claim in this field, and it is by no means uncontroversial, was in Kosovo, which also in practice was a far less complex situation.
NATO is, of course, not peacekeeping in Afghanistan, but we can get some insight from its activities there. I've already mentioned the national caveats. Similar difficulties apply to differing national rules of engagement and tactical procedures, including a very wide variety of constraints on air support. Would a NATO mission be ready and able to take on insurgents, and if not, to what extent would they then get in the way of a vital Israeli effort to do so to protect their own people?
After seven years in Afghanistan, how effectively has NATO taken control of the insurgency there? In the six-month period up to March 2010 the number of attacks against NATO forces increased by over 80 percent over the same period in the previous year, and in the same time frame, attacks on the civilian population in Afghanistan were up by over 70 percent. And how assiduous has NATO been in its civilian reconstruction and governance efforts, a critical element of its role in Afghanistan? Reconstruction has been notable by its relative inability to gain traction and provide essential depth for the military element of the counter-insurgency campaign.
In many ways peacekeeping is far tougher and more challenging than fighting as combatants. It is one thing to act robustly against people that are attacking you and your comrades. It is quite another to put your troops' lives on the line when it is not them but others who are in danger. Dutch forces have fought gallantly and effectively in Afghanistan. They've been brave and they've taken many casualties, but Srebrenica cannot be forgotten. More than 8,000 civilians were massacred there in 1995 under the eyes of Dutch UN peacekeepers.
To conclude, I would neither exclude the possibility of an IDF withdrawal from the West Bank nor their replacement with a NATO force, but before either can be seriously contemplated there are some fundamental questions to be resolved. These issues are critical to NATO, the West as a whole, and the entire Middle East because a failed NATO mission and a West Bank under extremist control, flourishing under a security vacuum there, would encourage and strengthen violent jihadists everywhere in the world
"Up to No Good"
Arlene Kushner
The US plans afoot to bring Netanyahu and Abbas to Washington to kick off direct negotiations are most definitely not a harbinger of anything good.
Yesterday, in a briefing for the press, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, accompanied by special envoy George Mitchell, announced that:
"Since the beginning of this Administration, we have worked with the Israelis and Palestinians and our international partners to advance the cause of comprehensive peace in the Middle East, including a two-state solution which ensures security and dignity for Israelis and Palestinians. The President and I are encouraged by the leadership of Prime Minister Netanyahu and
President Abbas and fully share their commitment to the goal of two states - Israel and Palestine, living side by side in peace and security. "After proximity talks and consultations with both sides, on behalf of the United States Government, I've invited Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu and Palestinian Authority President Abbas to meet on September 2nd in Washington, D.C. to re-launch direct negotiations to resolve all final status issues, which we believe can be completed within one year.
"President Obama has invited President Mubarak of Egypt and King Abdullah of Jordan to attend in view of their critical role in this effort. Their continued leadership and commitment to peace will be essential to our success. The President will hold bilateral meetings with the four leaders followed by a dinner with them on September 1st. The Quartet Representative Tony Blair has also been invited to the dinner in view of his important work to help Palestinians build the institutions of their future state, an effort which must continue during the negotiations. I've invited Prime Minister Netanyahu and President Abbas to join me here at the State Department on the following day for a trilateral meeting to re-launch direct negotiations."
See here for the full briefing with press questions:
www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2010/08/146156.htm
~~~~~~~~~~
Also on Friday, the Quartet (the US, the UN, the EU, and Russia) issued a statement, which said in part:
The representatives of the Quartet reaffirm their strong support for direct negotiations between the Israelis and the Palestinians to resolve all final status issues. The Quartet reaffirms its full commitment to its previous statements...which [provide] that direct, bilateral negotiations that resolve all final status issues should "lead to a settlement, negotiated between the parties, that ends the occupation which began in 1967 and results in the emergence of an independent, democratic, and viable Palestinian state living side by side in peace and security with Israel and its other neighbors.
"The Quartet expresses its determination to support the parties throughout the negotiations, which can be completed within one year, and the implementation of an agreement. The Quartet again calls on both sides to observe calm and restraint, and to refrain from provocative actions and inflammatory rhetoric. Welcoming the result of the Arab Peace Initiative Committee in Cairo on July 29, the Quartet notes that success will require sustained regional and international support for the negotiations and the parallel process of Palestinian state-building and the pursuit of a just, lasting and comprehensive regional peace...The Quartet Principals intend to meet with their colleagues from the Arab League in September in New York to review the situation. Accordingly, the Quartet calls on the Israelis and the Palestinians to join in launching direct negotiations on September 2 in Washington, D.C. to resolve all final status issues and fulfill the aspirations of both parties."
www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2010/08/146146.htm
~~~~~~~~~~
What does one say to this except "Oi vey"?
Anyone who has even a modicum of genuine understanding of the situation here (which leaves out a whole lot of people) is able to recognize that this latest effort towards a "two-state solution" is going to go nowhere, but is likely to cause many headaches for us and possibly generate additional violence before it arrives.
An independent, viable, democratic Palestinian state living in peace and security next to Israel, to be established within a year...
The PA is not peaceful, continuing as it does to utilize textbooks that promote jihad and otherwise honor terrorists. Not to mention that a major part of its budget goes to Gaza and ends up in Hamas hands.
It is not democratic. One or two elections do not a democracy make. Never mind that the PA is past due for elections, and that Abbas's term has expired. There is no free press in the PA, next to no human rights.
And viable? This is a joke, when we're talking about the entity that receives more funds per capita than any other group in the world.
But these problems will all be corrected within a year.
Oh, and the small matter of Hamas -- which controls Gaza and is eager to take over a PA state in Judea and Samaria as well -- will be dispensed with. I've lost track of how many times Abbas said that a deal has to include all the Palestinian people?
Can it truly be that the Quartet is doing anything but spouting words here? Can they possibly take their own declaration seriously?
~~~~~~~~~~
From the Israeli perspective, what I see most troubling is the Quartet reference to the Arab Peace Initiative, which -- in supporting, among other things, "right of return" -- is a plan for the slow destruction of Israel, and to the end of the "occupation," which means Israel pulling back to pre-67 lines.
I am further unhappy with a kick-off in Washington, which puts our prime minister under additional pressure.
~~~~~~~~~~
The PLO Executive Committee met on Friday night and, according to WAFA, the official PLO news agency, voted to accept Secretary Clinton's invitation, based on the Quartet statement.
However, the PLO also noted that if Israel didn't "halt all settlement activities, it consequently threatens the continuity of direct negotiations."
http://english.wafa.ps/?action=detail&id=14669
~~~~~~~~~~
And here I stop to note that the Quartet statement did not include this pre-condition, as earlier rumors predicted it would. What had been said is that the US would then follow with a statement without pre-conditions. My assumption is that matters were resolved this way, instead, with no separate US statement.
But the PLO has implicitly laid out that same pre-condition in any event. And negotiator Saeb Erekat, according to the Palestinian news agency Ma'an, was explicit about this today:
"The Palestinian leadership will pull out of peace talks if the Israeli government announces additional settlement construction projects [outside] the 1967 borders (sic), senior Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat confirmed Saturday.
"'If the Israeli government decides, on 26 September, to continue to permit the submission of settlement bids, then there will be no talks,' Erekat said, adding that the stance was reached during the PLO Executive Committee meeting Friday that formally accepted the US invitation to re-start direct talks.
"...Erekat's statement appeared to broaden the demand, however, in stating that any settlement announcement in the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, would be considered provocation. The initial partial moratorium did not include the occupied holy city."
www.maannews.net/eng/ViewDetails.aspx?ID=309683
~~~~~~~~~~
And so here's the deal: If indeed the meeting takes place on September 2, the Palestinians may be counting on Obama to pressure Netanyahu into extending that freeze -- which would be an unmitigated disaster for us. This is one reason why the fact that the meeting is in Washington is such bad news. The turf on which a meeting is held has significant psychological impact.
Or, alternatively, they may simply plan on using this as their out, while blaming us for the failure of the talks.
A great deal will fall to us in the next couple of weeks, with regard to all of this -- and you'll be hearing from me about it. It is imperative that Netanyahu stay strong with regard to not continuing the freeze. The sense I'm getting is that he knows that this would not be a politically viable move here in Israel, but nothing can be left to wishful thinking or chance.
~~~~~~~~~~
What I find interesting is that there has been no direct public statement regarding the talks (that I've uncovered) by PA president Mahmoud Abbas himself, although Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu put out a statement welcoming this opportunity. Perhaps more on Netanyahu's approach later, but here I focus on Abbas.
Clinton said there was consultation with both parties before the invitation was extended. And indeed this is the way such things are done, to insure success of an event of major proportions. But Mitchell, at the press conference, made it clear that "consultation" didn't mean securing acceptance in this instance -- if was, rather, more a matter of letting the parties know what was coming. The PLO didn't even meet to decide whether to accept the invitation until Friday night.
We will presume for the moment that Abbas ultimately will show up in Washington by September 2. But his failure to demonstrate public enthusiasm about this meeting is a large piece of the story. If Abbas does show up, he will have come kicking and screaming.
I hate being tiresome and repeating what's been said before, but it seems I have no choice here: Abbas's reluctance, in and of itself, assures failure. While he may be pushed to sit at the table, he is not going to negotiate anything that includes reasonable compromise, and the net result of the talks will be only failure. More's the pity that Obama et al don't -- or choose not to -- comprehend this.
~~~~~~~~~~
see my website www.ArlenefromIsrael.info
The US plans afoot to bring Netanyahu and Abbas to Washington to kick off direct negotiations are most definitely not a harbinger of anything good.
Yesterday, in a briefing for the press, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, accompanied by special envoy George Mitchell, announced that:
"Since the beginning of this Administration, we have worked with the Israelis and Palestinians and our international partners to advance the cause of comprehensive peace in the Middle East, including a two-state solution which ensures security and dignity for Israelis and Palestinians. The President and I are encouraged by the leadership of Prime Minister Netanyahu and
President Abbas and fully share their commitment to the goal of two states - Israel and Palestine, living side by side in peace and security. "After proximity talks and consultations with both sides, on behalf of the United States Government, I've invited Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu and Palestinian Authority President Abbas to meet on September 2nd in Washington, D.C. to re-launch direct negotiations to resolve all final status issues, which we believe can be completed within one year.
"President Obama has invited President Mubarak of Egypt and King Abdullah of Jordan to attend in view of their critical role in this effort. Their continued leadership and commitment to peace will be essential to our success. The President will hold bilateral meetings with the four leaders followed by a dinner with them on September 1st. The Quartet Representative Tony Blair has also been invited to the dinner in view of his important work to help Palestinians build the institutions of their future state, an effort which must continue during the negotiations. I've invited Prime Minister Netanyahu and President Abbas to join me here at the State Department on the following day for a trilateral meeting to re-launch direct negotiations."
See here for the full briefing with press questions:
www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2010/08/146156.htm
~~~~~~~~~~
Also on Friday, the Quartet (the US, the UN, the EU, and Russia) issued a statement, which said in part:
The representatives of the Quartet reaffirm their strong support for direct negotiations between the Israelis and the Palestinians to resolve all final status issues. The Quartet reaffirms its full commitment to its previous statements...which [provide] that direct, bilateral negotiations that resolve all final status issues should "lead to a settlement, negotiated between the parties, that ends the occupation which began in 1967 and results in the emergence of an independent, democratic, and viable Palestinian state living side by side in peace and security with Israel and its other neighbors.
"The Quartet expresses its determination to support the parties throughout the negotiations, which can be completed within one year, and the implementation of an agreement. The Quartet again calls on both sides to observe calm and restraint, and to refrain from provocative actions and inflammatory rhetoric. Welcoming the result of the Arab Peace Initiative Committee in Cairo on July 29, the Quartet notes that success will require sustained regional and international support for the negotiations and the parallel process of Palestinian state-building and the pursuit of a just, lasting and comprehensive regional peace...The Quartet Principals intend to meet with their colleagues from the Arab League in September in New York to review the situation. Accordingly, the Quartet calls on the Israelis and the Palestinians to join in launching direct negotiations on September 2 in Washington, D.C. to resolve all final status issues and fulfill the aspirations of both parties."
www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2010/08/146146.htm
~~~~~~~~~~
What does one say to this except "Oi vey"?
Anyone who has even a modicum of genuine understanding of the situation here (which leaves out a whole lot of people) is able to recognize that this latest effort towards a "two-state solution" is going to go nowhere, but is likely to cause many headaches for us and possibly generate additional violence before it arrives.
An independent, viable, democratic Palestinian state living in peace and security next to Israel, to be established within a year...
The PA is not peaceful, continuing as it does to utilize textbooks that promote jihad and otherwise honor terrorists. Not to mention that a major part of its budget goes to Gaza and ends up in Hamas hands.
It is not democratic. One or two elections do not a democracy make. Never mind that the PA is past due for elections, and that Abbas's term has expired. There is no free press in the PA, next to no human rights.
And viable? This is a joke, when we're talking about the entity that receives more funds per capita than any other group in the world.
But these problems will all be corrected within a year.
Oh, and the small matter of Hamas -- which controls Gaza and is eager to take over a PA state in Judea and Samaria as well -- will be dispensed with. I've lost track of how many times Abbas said that a deal has to include all the Palestinian people?
Can it truly be that the Quartet is doing anything but spouting words here? Can they possibly take their own declaration seriously?
~~~~~~~~~~
From the Israeli perspective, what I see most troubling is the Quartet reference to the Arab Peace Initiative, which -- in supporting, among other things, "right of return" -- is a plan for the slow destruction of Israel, and to the end of the "occupation," which means Israel pulling back to pre-67 lines.
I am further unhappy with a kick-off in Washington, which puts our prime minister under additional pressure.
~~~~~~~~~~
The PLO Executive Committee met on Friday night and, according to WAFA, the official PLO news agency, voted to accept Secretary Clinton's invitation, based on the Quartet statement.
However, the PLO also noted that if Israel didn't "halt all settlement activities, it consequently threatens the continuity of direct negotiations."
http://english.wafa.ps/?action=detail&id=14669
~~~~~~~~~~
And here I stop to note that the Quartet statement did not include this pre-condition, as earlier rumors predicted it would. What had been said is that the US would then follow with a statement without pre-conditions. My assumption is that matters were resolved this way, instead, with no separate US statement.
But the PLO has implicitly laid out that same pre-condition in any event. And negotiator Saeb Erekat, according to the Palestinian news agency Ma'an, was explicit about this today:
"The Palestinian leadership will pull out of peace talks if the Israeli government announces additional settlement construction projects [outside] the 1967 borders (sic), senior Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat confirmed Saturday.
"'If the Israeli government decides, on 26 September, to continue to permit the submission of settlement bids, then there will be no talks,' Erekat said, adding that the stance was reached during the PLO Executive Committee meeting Friday that formally accepted the US invitation to re-start direct talks.
"...Erekat's statement appeared to broaden the demand, however, in stating that any settlement announcement in the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, would be considered provocation. The initial partial moratorium did not include the occupied holy city."
www.maannews.net/eng/ViewDetails.aspx?ID=309683
~~~~~~~~~~
And so here's the deal: If indeed the meeting takes place on September 2, the Palestinians may be counting on Obama to pressure Netanyahu into extending that freeze -- which would be an unmitigated disaster for us. This is one reason why the fact that the meeting is in Washington is such bad news. The turf on which a meeting is held has significant psychological impact.
Or, alternatively, they may simply plan on using this as their out, while blaming us for the failure of the talks.
A great deal will fall to us in the next couple of weeks, with regard to all of this -- and you'll be hearing from me about it. It is imperative that Netanyahu stay strong with regard to not continuing the freeze. The sense I'm getting is that he knows that this would not be a politically viable move here in Israel, but nothing can be left to wishful thinking or chance.
~~~~~~~~~~
What I find interesting is that there has been no direct public statement regarding the talks (that I've uncovered) by PA president Mahmoud Abbas himself, although Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu put out a statement welcoming this opportunity. Perhaps more on Netanyahu's approach later, but here I focus on Abbas.
Clinton said there was consultation with both parties before the invitation was extended. And indeed this is the way such things are done, to insure success of an event of major proportions. But Mitchell, at the press conference, made it clear that "consultation" didn't mean securing acceptance in this instance -- if was, rather, more a matter of letting the parties know what was coming. The PLO didn't even meet to decide whether to accept the invitation until Friday night.
We will presume for the moment that Abbas ultimately will show up in Washington by September 2. But his failure to demonstrate public enthusiasm about this meeting is a large piece of the story. If Abbas does show up, he will have come kicking and screaming.
I hate being tiresome and repeating what's been said before, but it seems I have no choice here: Abbas's reluctance, in and of itself, assures failure. While he may be pushed to sit at the table, he is not going to negotiate anything that includes reasonable compromise, and the net result of the talks will be only failure. More's the pity that Obama et al don't -- or choose not to -- comprehend this.
~~~~~~~~~~
see my website www.ArlenefromIsrael.info