Defense minister briefs senior cabinet members on London meeting with Obama's Mideast envoy; one of them quoted as saying Barak 'offered dismantling of illegal West Bank outposts in exchange for nothing'
Roni Sofer
YNET News
"(Defense Minister Ehud) Barak returned with nothing from his talks with (special US Mideast envoy) George Mitchell; it appears that he offered the dismantling of illegal West Bank outposts in exchange for nothing," a senior minister said Tuesday. The minister, who asked to remain nameless, was also quoted by his associates as saying, "The inclusion of Syria and Lebanon in the statement on a comprehensive peace agreement that followed the (Barak-Mitchell) meeting is a huge flop."
During their meeting in London on Monday, Barak told the US envoy that "Israel is committed to evacuating the 23 illegal outposts within weeks or months, not years."
Barak's entourage characterized the meeting, which lasted a little over an hour, as positive, and said progress had been made on several issues – including clarifying the status of construction in existing settlements and Israel's willingness to enter negotiations with the Palestinians and other Arab nations in exchange for a normalization of relations.
On Tuesday Barak briefed a group of senior cabinet members, including Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman on the meeting with Mitchell.
Ministers Moshe Yaalon, Benny Begin and Avigdor Lieberman have tried to obstruct Barak's attempts at reaching a compromise with the US, which demands a complete halt to all settlement construction.
However, Minister Dan Meridor and Netanyahu himself are in favor of finding ways to alleviate the ongoing dispute with US President Barack Obama's administration.
The defense minister, who is willing to offer a temporary freeze on settlement building as a confidence building measure, said he informed Mitchell of the complexities a complete settlement freeze would involve.
Barak also briefed the ministers on American efforts to promote the normalization of ties between Israel and the Arab world. Mitchell is expected to visit a number of Arab capitals during his upcoming tour of the region towards this end. He is scheduled to meet Netanyahu in Jerusalem sometime after the expected approval of the State Budget on July 15.
While Barak's office called the minister's claims "inaccurate", one of his associates said the issue of dismantling illegal outposts "was not related to the Americans" and is "part of the defense minister's obligation to uphold the law and act in accordance with the State of Israel's obligation to its citizens."
Wednesday, July 08, 2009
Tuesday, July 07, 2009
The Rules of the Contemporary Potemkin Universe: How Media and Academia Works Today
RubinReports
Barry Rubin
Perhaps you’ve heard the expression “Potemkin villages.” These were supposedly stage-set prosperous villages created by Grigory Potemkin to impress the Russian Empress Catherine II when she visited the Crimea in 1787. The idea was to show her that he was doing a great job enhancing the region’s prosperity.. Historians are divided as to whether Potemkin really did this but Communist and other totalitarian countries repeatedly used this gimmick in fooling foreign reporters and delegations about the well-being and good treatment of people who were actually suffering deprivation and repression.
Later, Soviet officials dubbed those so duped as “useful idiots,” a tradition which Roger Cohen of the New York Times recently showed to be very much alive when his regime-managed visit to Iran convinced him what a great place it was. The current upheaval followed immediately thereafter but Cohen, after a brief and partial apology that he was 100 percent duped by the dictatorship, is still writing about Iran as if he were some kind of expert.
A couple of years ago the top official running the Middle East division in the Foreign Ministry of a certain country told me that he thought Iran was a free country because when he walked around the area of his hotel he didn’t see a lot of armed police. And, no, I’m not making that up.
Often, today, it seems as if we are living in a Potemkin universe. There are many reasons for this but let me mention some. The key is a modernization of the old medieval concept of the “torturable” and the “untorturable” classes. We now have the "criticizable" and the "uncriticizable" sectors. The old Enlightenment notion which worked so well and built democratic, prosperous societies has gone out the window faster than you can say "politically correct," "multi-cultural," "hate crimes based on offending someone," and "affirmative action quotas."
Law Number One: If you are considered to be on the left you cannot be criticized by the dominant Western intellectual elite; on anyone else (including people who in the not so distant past would be regarded as mainstream liberals) it is open season.
Law Number Two: If you are in the Third World, you cannot be criticized by the dominant Western intellectual elite; on anyone else it is open season.
Law Number Three: Law Number Two trumps Law Number One, for example in the treatment of radical Islamist groups and regimes. During periods of crisis—the current upheaval in Iran, for example—Law Number One may temporarily take precedence but only for the most limited possible time. [Note, a special exemption might be made in the case of a Third World politician or intellectual who loves Western civilization. See, for example, Ayaan Hirsi Ali.]
Law Number Four: Women will be treated according to these laws and will receive little special consideration. [See Law Number Five, below].
Law Number Five: Social class will be treated according to these laws and will receive little special consideration. If someone from further down the social ladder—e.g., Sarah Palin, Joe the Plumber—falls under Law Number One, the full force of social snobbery may be unleashed against them. Being poor—beyond the most basic lip service—is out; being downtrodden is in.
Law Number Six: The mass media and academia in general follow these laws. If necessary under duress, however, they will fall back on the claim that they are fair and balanced. A key element of being fair and balanced is to accord proven liars, dictators, and terrorists total credibility as to their claims. Since these two institutions are structurally independent and judge only themselves, in any self-examination they will always be acquitted by themselves.
Law Number Seven: There are a growing list of sins—which do not include being a dictator or a terrorist—which result in someone being cast into the outer darkness. At one time, this list more reasonably included real racism, real sexism, and mass murder. Today, the list includes disbelief in human-made global warming, opposition to unlimited immigration, the idea that the United States is and has been a great country, and many more such items. Once someone is classified under the heading of thought criminal, any point that person may make will be ignored or distorted to a ridiculous extent.
Law Number Eight: In contrast, a member of the "uncriticizable" categories by definition cannot be racist (a Latina is a better court judge? International economic problems caused by people with blue eyes? No problem), sexist (Chadors? Female genital mutilation? Local customs!), or oppressive (They love being ruled by Hamas, the Taliban, etc.).
Law Number Nine: Any attempt to mention for the first time in these circles the misdeeds of the uncriticizable categories will be met by instant invocation of some misdeed of the Western or democratic society which has been endlessly discussed because that society itself uncovered and repudiated the fault.
Note 1: Of course these are generalizations and do not apply to many individuals, institutions, or even issues. But it is an attempt to understand the underlying structure of the contemporary Western intellectual/media reality.
Note 2: To keep this post from getting too long, I am providing a little case study of how some of this works as a separate post: “Aspen Suspension of Credibility.”
Obama Meets, Greets, and Self-Inflicts Defeats
Posted: 06 Jul 2009 06:04 PM PDT
Some months ago I teased a European ambassador by saying, "You Europeans have spent years pulling back the United States from one direction and now you're going to have to pull it back from the opposite direction." He laughed, understanding the point precisely. Europeans thought Bush was too far to the right, now they have to deal with an American president who, even for their tastes, is too far to the left.
The G-8 meeting will show how much this factor is in play. Clearly, a number of European countries were tougher on the Iranian regime than was Obama. But still, the Europeans don't actually want to do anything so perhaps the Americans and Europeans will get along okay any way.
Obama's visit to Moscow, in contrast, looks like a failure to anyone other than the mass media for which he cannot do much wrong. Given the massive problems and misunderstandings plauging the relationship, getting an agreement on reduction of nuclear arms doesn't achieve very much.
A serious U.S. president would have been dealing with differences over Central Europe and the south Caucasus, as well as regarding sanctions on Iran. But Obama's world view seeks to avoid trouble so--except when dealing with Israel or Honduras--he ignores actual problems (North Korea, Iran crisis, Somali pirates, instability in Pakistan, for example). That's the first thing wrong with Obama's policy.
There is something profoundly revealing about his use of the phrase "bearing witness" regarding the conflict within Iran. The issue is not that a U.S. president should intervene internally there, but certainly if America becomes witness rather than leader, observer rather than shaper of events, there is a second aspect of Obama's policy that is seriously wrong.
In the stead of real issues we get utopianism, the third thing wrong. Obama wants to eliminate nuclear weapons, he says, and so the deal with Russia can be portrayed as such. But there's a mistake here. America's problem is not with Russian nukes but with Pakistani and Iranian nukes. No matter how few warheads the United States and Russia have will not contribute anything to world peace or stability.
Similarly, Obama wants to obtain a quick Arab-Israeli peace agreement but gets tangled up in details; to make friends with Iran and Syria but they keep biting his hand; and make Muslims love America by pretending that radical Islamists are an insignificant minority that's got nothing much to do with Islam.
As the administration approaches the six-month mark, one can be grateful that not more damage has been inflicted but it's still early and the president has not faced a crisis yet. True, there have been some crises, but he didn't face them either..
Barry Rubin
Perhaps you’ve heard the expression “Potemkin villages.” These were supposedly stage-set prosperous villages created by Grigory Potemkin to impress the Russian Empress Catherine II when she visited the Crimea in 1787. The idea was to show her that he was doing a great job enhancing the region’s prosperity.. Historians are divided as to whether Potemkin really did this but Communist and other totalitarian countries repeatedly used this gimmick in fooling foreign reporters and delegations about the well-being and good treatment of people who were actually suffering deprivation and repression.
Later, Soviet officials dubbed those so duped as “useful idiots,” a tradition which Roger Cohen of the New York Times recently showed to be very much alive when his regime-managed visit to Iran convinced him what a great place it was. The current upheaval followed immediately thereafter but Cohen, after a brief and partial apology that he was 100 percent duped by the dictatorship, is still writing about Iran as if he were some kind of expert.
A couple of years ago the top official running the Middle East division in the Foreign Ministry of a certain country told me that he thought Iran was a free country because when he walked around the area of his hotel he didn’t see a lot of armed police. And, no, I’m not making that up.
Often, today, it seems as if we are living in a Potemkin universe. There are many reasons for this but let me mention some. The key is a modernization of the old medieval concept of the “torturable” and the “untorturable” classes. We now have the "criticizable" and the "uncriticizable" sectors. The old Enlightenment notion which worked so well and built democratic, prosperous societies has gone out the window faster than you can say "politically correct," "multi-cultural," "hate crimes based on offending someone," and "affirmative action quotas."
Law Number One: If you are considered to be on the left you cannot be criticized by the dominant Western intellectual elite; on anyone else (including people who in the not so distant past would be regarded as mainstream liberals) it is open season.
Law Number Two: If you are in the Third World, you cannot be criticized by the dominant Western intellectual elite; on anyone else it is open season.
Law Number Three: Law Number Two trumps Law Number One, for example in the treatment of radical Islamist groups and regimes. During periods of crisis—the current upheaval in Iran, for example—Law Number One may temporarily take precedence but only for the most limited possible time. [Note, a special exemption might be made in the case of a Third World politician or intellectual who loves Western civilization. See, for example, Ayaan Hirsi Ali.]
Law Number Four: Women will be treated according to these laws and will receive little special consideration. [See Law Number Five, below].
Law Number Five: Social class will be treated according to these laws and will receive little special consideration. If someone from further down the social ladder—e.g., Sarah Palin, Joe the Plumber—falls under Law Number One, the full force of social snobbery may be unleashed against them. Being poor—beyond the most basic lip service—is out; being downtrodden is in.
Law Number Six: The mass media and academia in general follow these laws. If necessary under duress, however, they will fall back on the claim that they are fair and balanced. A key element of being fair and balanced is to accord proven liars, dictators, and terrorists total credibility as to their claims. Since these two institutions are structurally independent and judge only themselves, in any self-examination they will always be acquitted by themselves.
Law Number Seven: There are a growing list of sins—which do not include being a dictator or a terrorist—which result in someone being cast into the outer darkness. At one time, this list more reasonably included real racism, real sexism, and mass murder. Today, the list includes disbelief in human-made global warming, opposition to unlimited immigration, the idea that the United States is and has been a great country, and many more such items. Once someone is classified under the heading of thought criminal, any point that person may make will be ignored or distorted to a ridiculous extent.
Law Number Eight: In contrast, a member of the "uncriticizable" categories by definition cannot be racist (a Latina is a better court judge? International economic problems caused by people with blue eyes? No problem), sexist (Chadors? Female genital mutilation? Local customs!), or oppressive (They love being ruled by Hamas, the Taliban, etc.).
Law Number Nine: Any attempt to mention for the first time in these circles the misdeeds of the uncriticizable categories will be met by instant invocation of some misdeed of the Western or democratic society which has been endlessly discussed because that society itself uncovered and repudiated the fault.
Note 1: Of course these are generalizations and do not apply to many individuals, institutions, or even issues. But it is an attempt to understand the underlying structure of the contemporary Western intellectual/media reality.
Note 2: To keep this post from getting too long, I am providing a little case study of how some of this works as a separate post: “Aspen Suspension of Credibility.”
Obama Meets, Greets, and Self-Inflicts Defeats
Posted: 06 Jul 2009 06:04 PM PDT
Some months ago I teased a European ambassador by saying, "You Europeans have spent years pulling back the United States from one direction and now you're going to have to pull it back from the opposite direction." He laughed, understanding the point precisely. Europeans thought Bush was too far to the right, now they have to deal with an American president who, even for their tastes, is too far to the left.
The G-8 meeting will show how much this factor is in play. Clearly, a number of European countries were tougher on the Iranian regime than was Obama. But still, the Europeans don't actually want to do anything so perhaps the Americans and Europeans will get along okay any way.
Obama's visit to Moscow, in contrast, looks like a failure to anyone other than the mass media for which he cannot do much wrong. Given the massive problems and misunderstandings plauging the relationship, getting an agreement on reduction of nuclear arms doesn't achieve very much.
A serious U.S. president would have been dealing with differences over Central Europe and the south Caucasus, as well as regarding sanctions on Iran. But Obama's world view seeks to avoid trouble so--except when dealing with Israel or Honduras--he ignores actual problems (North Korea, Iran crisis, Somali pirates, instability in Pakistan, for example). That's the first thing wrong with Obama's policy.
There is something profoundly revealing about his use of the phrase "bearing witness" regarding the conflict within Iran. The issue is not that a U.S. president should intervene internally there, but certainly if America becomes witness rather than leader, observer rather than shaper of events, there is a second aspect of Obama's policy that is seriously wrong.
In the stead of real issues we get utopianism, the third thing wrong. Obama wants to eliminate nuclear weapons, he says, and so the deal with Russia can be portrayed as such. But there's a mistake here. America's problem is not with Russian nukes but with Pakistani and Iranian nukes. No matter how few warheads the United States and Russia have will not contribute anything to world peace or stability.
Similarly, Obama wants to obtain a quick Arab-Israeli peace agreement but gets tangled up in details; to make friends with Iran and Syria but they keep biting his hand; and make Muslims love America by pretending that radical Islamists are an insignificant minority that's got nothing much to do with Islam.
As the administration approaches the six-month mark, one can be grateful that not more damage has been inflicted but it's still early and the president has not faced a crisis yet. True, there have been some crises, but he didn't face them either..
Wishful Thinking Kills
Barry Rubin*
July 5, 2009
http://www.gloria-center.org/Gloria/2009/07/wishful-thinking.html
The more things change, the more they remain the same, sayeth the French. The Bible states that there’s nothing new under the sun. Doing a television interview today made me reflect on the relationship of those concepts on the contemporary Middle East.
It is untrue of course that nothing changes in the region. Quite the contrary: consider the recent upheaval in Iran and a whole list of other events. In fact, there might be truth in the idea that big explosions in the region are more common than small, fundamental changes And yet people—today more than ever—yearn for change, especially in the West where “change” has become the most important cultural principle and the concept of tradition is the new curse word, heard far less often than the four-letter ones seeming to pepper every type of conversation, real –life or fictional.
It is an easy step from the wishful thinking for change to the assertion that change can happen if we only do such-and-such. This is certainly the trap that the U.S. administration is caught up in. While it is natural for a new government to believe it can accomplish everything—didn’t it say that its predecessors were numbskulls?—it is especially true for the Obama administration which used “change” as one of its keywords. And what does the other one, hope, mean? Why, to hope that things can change!
These reflections are prompted by a television interview I did today. There were three questions which follow a common pattern.
Question 1: Is there anything to the story in the London Sunday Times about the United States and Saudi Arabia talking of the possibility of Israel using Saudi airspace to hit Iranian nuclear installations?
Answer 1: Of course not! First of all, nothing in the Sunday Times about the Middle East ever comes true and it should never be used as a source. But if anyone involved in any way with Middle Eastern issues doesn’t understand why this particular story is such a ridiculous notion they should look for other employment.
Question 2: Is there anything to the story that the United States and Saudi Arabia are pressing Syria to demarcate its border with Lebanon so it is clear who the Shabaa Farms belong to?
Answer 2: Of course not! What should instead be highlighted is a scenario which tells you a huge amount about Middle East politics. Here is an accurate picture of the ridiculous situation:
Syrian clients in Lebanon—like Hizballah—are demanding that Israel turn over the Shabaa Farms as occupied Lebanese territory. Yet these groups’ own Syrian sponsor still claims that the territory is Syrian! Here we have an example of obvious propaganda-making falsification. Not too obvious for lots of people in the West to be taken in, though.
And to put the icing on the baklava—to coin a phrase—even though the UN already determined that Israel had withdrawn from all of Lebanon—i.e., that the Shabaa Farms are not Syrian territory--the Obama administration, in its opposite-to-infinite wisdom called for reopening the issue.
Question 3: Is there anything to the story that Obama might visit Syria soon?
Answer 3: Of course not! In fact, a high-ranking State Department official already denied it. Even Obama wouldn’t visit Syria without getting something small from Damascus beforehand. For a while the Syrians believed, and the administration gave them reason to do so, that the Americans would give them everything they wanted in exchange for nothing. The Syrian regime still has illusions on this point though they’re becoming aware that they’re wrong and are starting to get angry about it.
Of course the administration is returning the U.S. ambassador to Damascus at a time when it probably nows that the Syrian regime was directly involved in murdering former Lebanese prime minister and a dozen other politicians, judges, or journalists there. Isn't this pretty shameful?
All these questions have in common a belief that things are going to break open. They betray the unspoken assumption that peace, or cooperation, or moderation is inevitably on its way.
I stressed, and do so again, that I’m not saying this kind of thing because I’m a knee-jerk naysayer. Rather, this conclusion is based on a detailed analysis of the region’s realities, on what makes regimes tick, their worldview, and on the outside and internal constraints they face.
There is no good antidote for this kind of wishful thinking discussed here, but there is a good anecdote. On a radio interview I heard a year ago, former Secretary of State James Baker was bragging that when he was a current secretary of state he persuaded the Syrians to close down the terrorist group offices in Damascus. He was using this as an example of how one could deal with the Syrian regime.
Good example; bad conclusion. In fact, twenty years later the offices are still open. Proper conclusion: You can’t deal successfully diplomatically with the Syrians.
That doesn’t mean they don’t keep agreements in their interest. They haven’t attacked Israel directly since 1973….Because they know they would get smashed. (So instead they attack through Lebanon.) And they were perfectly happy when the United States supported their control over Lebanon, especially since they didn’t have to do much in exchange.
I’ve just read a brilliant book by a writer who is possibly the best political philosopher in the Arab world. It’s a good bookm but an hour after finishing it I was hit by how depressing that experience was. The author has many good and accurate proposals for fixing these societies’ problems. His logic is irrefutable; he gives examples of how others have made these strategies work. He even shows how some of them have been applied in the past in these countries.
And then it hits you: how unlikely any of these things would be done in the next few decades.
This author well understands that the solutions are all long-term. Yet the yearning for quick fixes all too often leads to the belief that quick fixes are possible, which produces policies based on this assumption, which leads to people getting killed and countries being devastated.
Come to think of it, the same point applies to the utopia-through-violence approach of the Islamists and many Arab nationalists, too.
“Abandon hope all ye who enter here” was Dante’s text for the sign that stood over the gates of Hell.
Whether or not the Middle East is the region of this world that most closely resembles that region of the underworld, it is still good advice for journalists, would-be peacemakers, and diplomats who deal with the region.
Only the substitution of mature, accurate analysis for bumbling hope can ensure the Middle East doesn’t change for the worse and give some expectation of it changing for the better.
For those of a literary turn, here's the Cary translation, Canto 3, of Dante explaining the inscription :
"All hope abandon ye who enter here."
"Such characters in colour dim I mark'd
Over a portal's lofty arch inscrib'd:
Whereat I thus [said]: ``Master [his guide, Virgil], these words import
Hard meaning." He as one prepar'd replied:
"Here thou must all distrust behind thee leave;
Here be vile fear extinguish'd. We are come
Where I have told thee we shall see the souls
To misery doom'd, who intellectual good
Have lost."
But why, why, my friends, were these particular people, referred to at the end of the passage (the first section of Hell Dante saw) doomed and have left behind all that is good in the human soul and spirit, according to Dante's work?
Because in the struggle between the two sides (in Heaven) they didn't choose between good and evil but only looked after what they--mistakenly--defined as their own interests!
How appropriate can you get considering how many leaders and nations say? Terrorism, the Iranian regime's suppression of democracy, the Syrian regime's murders in Lebanon, Hamas, Hizballah, antisemitism and intended genocide against Israel, radical Islamism, dictatorship, mistreatment of women. Not our problem!
*Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. His latest books are The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), with Walter Laqueur (Viking-Penguin); the paperback edition of The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan); A Chronological History of Terrorism, with Judy Colp Rubin, (Sharpe); and The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley). To read and subscribe to MERIA, GLORIA articles, or to order books, go to http://www.gloria-center.org
July 5, 2009
http://www.gloria-center.org/Gloria/2009/07/wishful-thinking.html
The more things change, the more they remain the same, sayeth the French. The Bible states that there’s nothing new under the sun. Doing a television interview today made me reflect on the relationship of those concepts on the contemporary Middle East.
It is untrue of course that nothing changes in the region. Quite the contrary: consider the recent upheaval in Iran and a whole list of other events. In fact, there might be truth in the idea that big explosions in the region are more common than small, fundamental changes And yet people—today more than ever—yearn for change, especially in the West where “change” has become the most important cultural principle and the concept of tradition is the new curse word, heard far less often than the four-letter ones seeming to pepper every type of conversation, real –life or fictional.
It is an easy step from the wishful thinking for change to the assertion that change can happen if we only do such-and-such. This is certainly the trap that the U.S. administration is caught up in. While it is natural for a new government to believe it can accomplish everything—didn’t it say that its predecessors were numbskulls?—it is especially true for the Obama administration which used “change” as one of its keywords. And what does the other one, hope, mean? Why, to hope that things can change!
These reflections are prompted by a television interview I did today. There were three questions which follow a common pattern.
Question 1: Is there anything to the story in the London Sunday Times about the United States and Saudi Arabia talking of the possibility of Israel using Saudi airspace to hit Iranian nuclear installations?
Answer 1: Of course not! First of all, nothing in the Sunday Times about the Middle East ever comes true and it should never be used as a source. But if anyone involved in any way with Middle Eastern issues doesn’t understand why this particular story is such a ridiculous notion they should look for other employment.
Question 2: Is there anything to the story that the United States and Saudi Arabia are pressing Syria to demarcate its border with Lebanon so it is clear who the Shabaa Farms belong to?
Answer 2: Of course not! What should instead be highlighted is a scenario which tells you a huge amount about Middle East politics. Here is an accurate picture of the ridiculous situation:
Syrian clients in Lebanon—like Hizballah—are demanding that Israel turn over the Shabaa Farms as occupied Lebanese territory. Yet these groups’ own Syrian sponsor still claims that the territory is Syrian! Here we have an example of obvious propaganda-making falsification. Not too obvious for lots of people in the West to be taken in, though.
And to put the icing on the baklava—to coin a phrase—even though the UN already determined that Israel had withdrawn from all of Lebanon—i.e., that the Shabaa Farms are not Syrian territory--the Obama administration, in its opposite-to-infinite wisdom called for reopening the issue.
Question 3: Is there anything to the story that Obama might visit Syria soon?
Answer 3: Of course not! In fact, a high-ranking State Department official already denied it. Even Obama wouldn’t visit Syria without getting something small from Damascus beforehand. For a while the Syrians believed, and the administration gave them reason to do so, that the Americans would give them everything they wanted in exchange for nothing. The Syrian regime still has illusions on this point though they’re becoming aware that they’re wrong and are starting to get angry about it.
Of course the administration is returning the U.S. ambassador to Damascus at a time when it probably nows that the Syrian regime was directly involved in murdering former Lebanese prime minister and a dozen other politicians, judges, or journalists there. Isn't this pretty shameful?
All these questions have in common a belief that things are going to break open. They betray the unspoken assumption that peace, or cooperation, or moderation is inevitably on its way.
I stressed, and do so again, that I’m not saying this kind of thing because I’m a knee-jerk naysayer. Rather, this conclusion is based on a detailed analysis of the region’s realities, on what makes regimes tick, their worldview, and on the outside and internal constraints they face.
There is no good antidote for this kind of wishful thinking discussed here, but there is a good anecdote. On a radio interview I heard a year ago, former Secretary of State James Baker was bragging that when he was a current secretary of state he persuaded the Syrians to close down the terrorist group offices in Damascus. He was using this as an example of how one could deal with the Syrian regime.
Good example; bad conclusion. In fact, twenty years later the offices are still open. Proper conclusion: You can’t deal successfully diplomatically with the Syrians.
That doesn’t mean they don’t keep agreements in their interest. They haven’t attacked Israel directly since 1973….Because they know they would get smashed. (So instead they attack through Lebanon.) And they were perfectly happy when the United States supported their control over Lebanon, especially since they didn’t have to do much in exchange.
I’ve just read a brilliant book by a writer who is possibly the best political philosopher in the Arab world. It’s a good bookm but an hour after finishing it I was hit by how depressing that experience was. The author has many good and accurate proposals for fixing these societies’ problems. His logic is irrefutable; he gives examples of how others have made these strategies work. He even shows how some of them have been applied in the past in these countries.
And then it hits you: how unlikely any of these things would be done in the next few decades.
This author well understands that the solutions are all long-term. Yet the yearning for quick fixes all too often leads to the belief that quick fixes are possible, which produces policies based on this assumption, which leads to people getting killed and countries being devastated.
Come to think of it, the same point applies to the utopia-through-violence approach of the Islamists and many Arab nationalists, too.
“Abandon hope all ye who enter here” was Dante’s text for the sign that stood over the gates of Hell.
Whether or not the Middle East is the region of this world that most closely resembles that region of the underworld, it is still good advice for journalists, would-be peacemakers, and diplomats who deal with the region.
Only the substitution of mature, accurate analysis for bumbling hope can ensure the Middle East doesn’t change for the worse and give some expectation of it changing for the better.
For those of a literary turn, here's the Cary translation, Canto 3, of Dante explaining the inscription :
"All hope abandon ye who enter here."
"Such characters in colour dim I mark'd
Over a portal's lofty arch inscrib'd:
Whereat I thus [said]: ``Master [his guide, Virgil], these words import
Hard meaning." He as one prepar'd replied:
"Here thou must all distrust behind thee leave;
Here be vile fear extinguish'd. We are come
Where I have told thee we shall see the souls
To misery doom'd, who intellectual good
Have lost."
But why, why, my friends, were these particular people, referred to at the end of the passage (the first section of Hell Dante saw) doomed and have left behind all that is good in the human soul and spirit, according to Dante's work?
Because in the struggle between the two sides (in Heaven) they didn't choose between good and evil but only looked after what they--mistakenly--defined as their own interests!
How appropriate can you get considering how many leaders and nations say? Terrorism, the Iranian regime's suppression of democracy, the Syrian regime's murders in Lebanon, Hamas, Hizballah, antisemitism and intended genocide against Israel, radical Islamism, dictatorship, mistreatment of women. Not our problem!
*Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. His latest books are The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), with Walter Laqueur (Viking-Penguin); the paperback edition of The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan); A Chronological History of Terrorism, with Judy Colp Rubin, (Sharpe); and The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley). To read and subscribe to MERIA, GLORIA articles, or to order books, go to http://www.gloria-center.org
Migron: Our Fate Isn't for Court to Decide
Maayana Miskin Migron: Our Fate Not for Court
Residents of Migron responded Monday to a High Court case debating their future by rejecting the court's right to be involved in the matter. “The future of Jewish settlement in Judea and Samaria should not be decided in this court or any other,” they said.. Recent lawsuits involving Migron and other established Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria -- such as Ofra, Beit El and Neve Tzuf – are aimed at determining political issues in court, they warned. Such suits “have become a standard method used by the extreme Left with the goal of destroying Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria,” they said.
If a debate over Jewish life in Judea and Samaria is to take place, they said, “its place is with the Israeli public.” The legal system is not the place to decide political and diplomatic policy, they argued.
The suit against Migron was brought by the leftist group Peace Now, which argues that the land on which Migron was built belongs to Arabs living in a nearby town. Residents of Migron say Peace Now's claims are false.
A separate legal battle involving the ownership of the land is taking place outside the High Court. Migron representatives have asked the High Court to withhold judgment until the question of ownership is resolved.
Peace Now and similar organizations have called for Migron to be destroyed in any case, as it is located in an area claimed by the Palestinian Authority as part of a future Arab state, and has not received official government authorization.
Besides debating the court's jurisdiction, residents offered arguments in defense of their right to remain in their current homes:
“We, the residents of Migron, say once again that our settlement in Migron stems from the people of Israel's right to settle in its land as part of the process of the return to Zion, by the power of our historic and moral right.
"We were sent to this place ten years ago by representatives of the state of Israel responsible for settlement, in order to establish a community on a barren, rocky hilltop that had never been worked. We did not disinherit anyone from their land.
"Due to this fact, we are not prepared to accept any proposal or agreement involving evacuation or moving the community to another part of the land of Israel.”
The Yesha (Judea and Samaria) Council and the Defense Ministry have agreed that Migron will be destroyed in exchange for the construction of 1,450 housing units in the nearby community of Adam, a larger Samaria town. Only 50 houses will be built in the first stage of construction; they will be offered to the more than 40 families living in Migron.
Comment: "Settlements" are villages, towns or cities, inhabited by Israeli citizens, living in the disputed territories of Judea and Samaria.
As violence subsides,concrete ours into West Bank
Luis Ramirez
Jenin, West Bank
Israel has said it wants to boost the economy of the Palestinian territories as a way to bring peace. The Israeli leadership has not implemented any specific plan to improve economic conditions, yet the territories are experiencing a marked economic upturn as a halt in violence leads to increased trade and investment. West Bank's economy
Afaf Rahal, a Palestinian schoolteacher, shopping in Herbawi department store in Jenin, 30 Jun 2009
Afaf Rahal, a Palestinian schoolteacher, shopping in Herbawi department store in Jenin, 30 Jun 2009
A woman in Islamic veil, speaking in Arabic, has a gleaming smile as she explains she is having trouble deciding on which dish set to buy. She browses through a glitzy showroom boasting European and American brands in a scene that might appear to be a shopping mall in Dubai, Qatar, or New York. In fact, it is Jenin, in the West Bank.
The town until recently was known as a bastion of suicide bombers. But now, with this brand new million-dollar department store, and a shopping mall in the blueprints, Jenin is becoming a haven for shoppers for women like Afaf Rahal, a Palestinian schoolteacher.
She says when she used to go to Amman and other places, she would hope that Palestinians would one day build a department store like this in the West Bank. She says she thanks God her expectations have been exceeded.
The Herbawi department store in Jenin, which was built with Arab investment, is part of what analysts say is a boom that is occurring in the West Bank despite the global slowdown.
They say the reason is security conditions have improved, allowing the wheels of commerce to turn.
Israeli-Palestinian trade improving
Ofir Gendelman, the head of Israeli-Palestinian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, in Tel Aviv, 30 Jun 2009
Ofir Gendelman, the head of Israeli-Palestinian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, in Tel Aviv, 30 Jun 2009
Ofir Gendelman heads the Israeli-Palestinian Chamber of Commerce and Industry in Tel Aviv - a new organization set up as trade grows between Israel and the Palestinian territories.
"It is way quieter now in the West Bank than the way it used to be even six months, or 12 months ago," said Gendelman. "It is totally quiet. No terrorist attacks, nothing. The Palestinian security services are doing what they can to prevent attacks and, of course, the Israeli army is doing what it has to do. At the end of the day, when there is quiet, when there is security, the economy will flourish and this is what we see."
Construction projects can be seen just about everywhere. The town of Ramallah is preparing to open a newly-built five-star hotel, the result of European investment.
Improved security has led the Israeli army in the past year to remove more than 140 checkpoints, allowing for the freer flow of people and goods in the West Bank.
The hope on both sides is that trade, which reached $4 billion last year, will continue to grow, generating jobs and prosperity.
Can economic prosperity bring peace?
Hotel to be opened in Ramallah
Newly-built five-star hotel soon to be opened in Ramallah
But there is a long way to go before trust is established. Palestinians say other checkpoints continue to exist, blocking access to jobs and business opportunities for many. Many Palestinians complain they cannot access the markets of Israel's $162-billion economy.
Other obstacles include persistent political attitudes. Many Palestinians view increased trade with the Israelis as collaboration with the enemy. No Palestinian chamber of commerce has been established to foster trade with Israel.
Few Palestinians and Israelis believe that economic prosperity alone will bring peace. They say previous Israeli efforts to boost the Palestinian economy have failed. Analysts say the bloodiest Palestinian uprisings of the late 1980's and in 2000 were preceded by periods of economic growth.
But some, including Ofir Gendelman, see reason for hope in the current upswing.
"It is easier to negotiate with someone who has a normal life, someone who is not desperate, someone who does not feel disenfranchised," added Gendelman. "I think that the betterment of the economic situation in the West Bank has definitely improved the chances to reach a peace deal."
At the shiny new department store in Jenin, Afaf Rahal glows as she browses American and European porcelain dinnerware. She says finding dishes like these here in Jenin is, for her, like a dream.
She says she has seen plates like these in Amman, but was always afraid of carrying them across the border. Now, when she sees them, she says it is like finding a treasure.
For Afaf Rahal this new department store is a sign of hope that life is becoming normal, even in a place like Jenin.
Jenin, West Bank
Israel has said it wants to boost the economy of the Palestinian territories as a way to bring peace. The Israeli leadership has not implemented any specific plan to improve economic conditions, yet the territories are experiencing a marked economic upturn as a halt in violence leads to increased trade and investment. West Bank's economy
Afaf Rahal, a Palestinian schoolteacher, shopping in Herbawi department store in Jenin, 30 Jun 2009
Afaf Rahal, a Palestinian schoolteacher, shopping in Herbawi department store in Jenin, 30 Jun 2009
A woman in Islamic veil, speaking in Arabic, has a gleaming smile as she explains she is having trouble deciding on which dish set to buy. She browses through a glitzy showroom boasting European and American brands in a scene that might appear to be a shopping mall in Dubai, Qatar, or New York. In fact, it is Jenin, in the West Bank.
The town until recently was known as a bastion of suicide bombers. But now, with this brand new million-dollar department store, and a shopping mall in the blueprints, Jenin is becoming a haven for shoppers for women like Afaf Rahal, a Palestinian schoolteacher.
She says when she used to go to Amman and other places, she would hope that Palestinians would one day build a department store like this in the West Bank. She says she thanks God her expectations have been exceeded.
The Herbawi department store in Jenin, which was built with Arab investment, is part of what analysts say is a boom that is occurring in the West Bank despite the global slowdown.
They say the reason is security conditions have improved, allowing the wheels of commerce to turn.
Israeli-Palestinian trade improving
Ofir Gendelman, the head of Israeli-Palestinian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, in Tel Aviv, 30 Jun 2009
Ofir Gendelman, the head of Israeli-Palestinian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, in Tel Aviv, 30 Jun 2009
Ofir Gendelman heads the Israeli-Palestinian Chamber of Commerce and Industry in Tel Aviv - a new organization set up as trade grows between Israel and the Palestinian territories.
"It is way quieter now in the West Bank than the way it used to be even six months, or 12 months ago," said Gendelman. "It is totally quiet. No terrorist attacks, nothing. The Palestinian security services are doing what they can to prevent attacks and, of course, the Israeli army is doing what it has to do. At the end of the day, when there is quiet, when there is security, the economy will flourish and this is what we see."
Construction projects can be seen just about everywhere. The town of Ramallah is preparing to open a newly-built five-star hotel, the result of European investment.
Improved security has led the Israeli army in the past year to remove more than 140 checkpoints, allowing for the freer flow of people and goods in the West Bank.
The hope on both sides is that trade, which reached $4 billion last year, will continue to grow, generating jobs and prosperity.
Can economic prosperity bring peace?
Hotel to be opened in Ramallah
Newly-built five-star hotel soon to be opened in Ramallah
But there is a long way to go before trust is established. Palestinians say other checkpoints continue to exist, blocking access to jobs and business opportunities for many. Many Palestinians complain they cannot access the markets of Israel's $162-billion economy.
Other obstacles include persistent political attitudes. Many Palestinians view increased trade with the Israelis as collaboration with the enemy. No Palestinian chamber of commerce has been established to foster trade with Israel.
Few Palestinians and Israelis believe that economic prosperity alone will bring peace. They say previous Israeli efforts to boost the Palestinian economy have failed. Analysts say the bloodiest Palestinian uprisings of the late 1980's and in 2000 were preceded by periods of economic growth.
But some, including Ofir Gendelman, see reason for hope in the current upswing.
"It is easier to negotiate with someone who has a normal life, someone who is not desperate, someone who does not feel disenfranchised," added Gendelman. "I think that the betterment of the economic situation in the West Bank has definitely improved the chances to reach a peace deal."
At the shiny new department store in Jenin, Afaf Rahal glows as she browses American and European porcelain dinnerware. She says finding dishes like these here in Jenin is, for her, like a dream.
She says she has seen plates like these in Amman, but was always afraid of carrying them across the border. Now, when she sees them, she says it is like finding a treasure.
For Afaf Rahal this new department store is a sign of hope that life is becoming normal, even in a place like Jenin.
Iran and the Saudis
Arlene Kushner
The Sunday Times (London) reported two days ago that Mossad head Meir Dagan has assured Prime Minister Netanyahu that Saudi Arabia would allow Israel's jets to fly over the kingdom in an action against Iran. According to this report, Dagan had met with the Saudis on this issue earlier in the year.. Our government, however, swiftly denied the report. It was, said the prime minister's office, "thoroughly incorrect and baseless."
Does this mean it isn't true? Perhaps, but not necessarily. There is some logic to thinking that Saudi Arabia -- which is alarmed by Iran's nuclear efforts -- would not stand in the way of our attempts to eliminate that threat. Such are the games being played, however, that the Saudis would never publicly admit to even passively cooperating with Israel against a Muslim state. Perish the thought! And so, part of the understanding would require us to deny that there had been any cooperative communication with the Saudis.
~~~~~~~~~~
Former US ambassador to the UN, John Bolton, who recently met with Arab leaders in the Gulf, weighed in with similar thoughts:
"None of them [Arab leaders] would say anything about it publicly, but they would certainly acquiesce in an overflight if the Israelis didn't trumpet it as a big success."
In fact, said Bolton, while these leaders would be privately relieved they would condemn Israel at the UN.
~~~~~~~~~~
This Arab reluctance to in any way show predisposition towards Israel or to admit having cooperated with Israel is both a sign of the on-going Arab-Israeli conflict and a cause of it.
Last week I wrote about Congressman Wexler and his promises of "normalization" with the Arab nations if we would only take the "tiny, tiny" step of freezing settlements. A day after his interview appeared in The Jerusalem Post, the paper ran an editorial, "Calling their bluff," which ended with this:
"Let Obama, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Special Envoy George Mitchell make their normalization calls on the Arabs publicly, and with the same zeal that has characterized their calls for a settlement freeze."
Enough of the secret back-door whispering. We are here to stay in this part of the world, we are a legitimate sovereign nation. It's time this was acknowledged.
Thus, in my opinion, is Netanyahu's demand that we be recognized as a Jewish state important.
~~~~~~~~~~
On Sunday, Obama sent a letter to Morocco, seeking the assistance of that nation in normalizing relations with Israel and promoting the "peace process." Why Morocco? Because Morocco's King Mohammed VI already has warm relations with us and is outside the norm for Arab nations. This sort of doesn't count.
There is not going to be anything parallel from Saudi Arabia. Their claim is that they've done enough by sponsoring the "peace initiative" of 2002 -- which calls for normalization if we pull back to '67 lines, take refugees and all the rest.
David Weinberg, of the Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies, says that then-Crown Prince Abdullah first spoke to The New York Times about this in 2001 after 9/11, when the reputation of the Saudis was, shall we say, a bit sullied. It was a shrewd PR attempt to create an image of Saudis as "peacemakers" and not terrorists. By 2002, the terms had hardened.
And now, says Weinberg, "According to news reports, Washington can't seem to squeeze any commitments about normalization from the Saudis, even if Israel freezes all settlement activity and paints the Jerusalem Old City walls in the Saudi national colors."
~~~~~~~~~~
This leads us full circle to the question of whether the Saudis would allow us to fly in their air space on our way to bombing Iran's nuclear facilities. We don't know. But there remains the possibility that the Saudis fear Iran more than they hate us.
~~~~~~~~~~
Meanwhile Israel has begun a push for an international back-up plan should the US efforts at negotiations with Iran fail. "Should"? That's polite diplomat talk. The more honest word is "when."
Say our diplomats, a plan for "paralyzing sanctions" has to be in place before that day arrives, and work on drafting the sanctions must begin immediately.
But the Obama administration -- heaven help us! -- is not cooperating. You see, if Teheran gets word that the US is working on these sanctions, say US diplomats, then the Iranian leaders will know the US isn't serious about advancing talks. And so, even though the US diplomats don't think chances of success in negotiations with Iran are good, they don't want to reduce the possibilities.
What more can possibly be said about this reasoning?
~~~~~~~~~~
Meanwhile, I believe we're seeing a certain amount of muscle-flexing by our military:
Recently, in a change in policy, we sent an advanced Dolphin-class submarine through the Suez Canal to participate in maneuvers in the Red Sea.
And there is news that our air force will be taking part in a joint aerial exercise with an unnamed NATO state, and will be participating in an exercise at a Nevada air force base. In addition, we will be involved in a competition at an air force base in Washington state. A major focus of all of this is drilling for long-range maneuvers.
~~~~~~~~~~
Vice President Biden, in an ABC TV interview on Sunday, was asked if the US would stand in our way if Israel decided to take out Iran's nuclear capacity. His answer:
"[The US] cannot dictate to another sovereign nation what they can and cannot do.
"Israel can determine for itself -- it's a sovereign nation -- what's in their interest and what they decide to do relative to Iran and anyone else."
I think I detect a subtle softening of the US position here -- perhaps because the prospect of success in negotiations with Iran is dim. Although this still doesn't tell us if the US would object to our flying over Iraq, or whether there might be some secondary back-up in a crunch.
~~~~~~~~~~
I cannot leave this subject, however, without sharing a perceptive comment by a friend of mine here:
"Interesting how V.P. Biden can say that Israel is a sovereign state and can do whatever is in its interests when it comes to removing Iran's nuclear facilities, but not when it comes to building a few more structures in Judea and Samaria and, by the way, the eastern part of Jerusalem." (Thanks, Judith)
~~~~~~~~~~
This brings us, then, back to the subject of settlements and the US -- a subject that is likely to be on-going for a long time.
On Friday, Ron Dermer, a "good guy" who is Netanyahu's director for policy planning, gave an interview to the Post. In a great many respects I found it a good piece. He insists, for example, that Israel hasn't "hoodwinked" the US with regard to settlements, we've been very above board.
But I want to focus here on a statement he made that unsettles me. "There is a huge gap," he said, "between the conversation that takes place in the press on the settlements and what is said in the diplomatic arena..." His point is that the media have blown the issue out of proportion. His argument -- clearly the Netanyahu line -- is that the US-Israel relationship is so strong that if there is disagreement on just one issue the media focus on it.
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1246443706931&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
My response to this is that it sounds like a regrettable attempt to make light of what is truthfully a very serious issue between the US and Israel -- an attempt to show how great our relations with the US still are.
I would challenge this on several fronts. But what strikes me as most obvious is that it has been Obama and his administration and not the media that have focused inordinately on the issue of settlements. Of all of the things he might have spoken about, he chose this subject to pressure us about in his Cairo talk. He set the tone, and it was continued in the misrepresentation of Hilary, who claimed there was no agreement between Israel and the US with regard to continued building.
I don't want to see this issue minimized. And I don't want to think this is a set-up, preparing us for an "arrangement" on the issue of settlements arrived at between our government and our "good friends" in Washington.
As I've said before, and will continue to say: Our right to build in Judea and Samaria goes to the very heart of our right to maintain a presence in the land that is the foundation of our ancient heritage. It is also a matter of legal right from the time of the Mandate in 1922.
~~~~~~~~~~
I strongly recommend Yisrael Medad's article from the LA Times, "In defense of 'settlements'":
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-medad28-2009jun28,0,6267445.story
~~~~~~~~~~
MK Tzipi Hotovely (Likud) is a freshman in the Knesset and one great up-and-coming lady.
She has now initiated a letter to Netanyahu, signed by Likud right-wingers. It says:
"We Likud MKs are turning to you due to reports that you would agree to freeze settlement growth temporarily in parts of Judea and Samaria, despite our promise to the voters to continue building in the settlements. The Likud has always been in favor of natural development in Judea and Samaria, including during the election campaign.
"As Likud members, we cannot support a two state solution on principle. [Such a solution] is neither possible, nor proper, due to the moral right of the Jewish people to the land and for security reasons. Saying otherwise delegitimizes the Israeli struggle for the land."
"Among those who signed it," according to press reports, were deputy minister Ayoub Kara and Danny Danon, Miri Regev, Tzion Pinyan, Carmel Shama and Yariv Levin. Perhaps I can learn more about the entire list of those who signed it (although perhaps some signatories consider this a private communication at this point).
At any rate, I can only be pleased by this news. If Netanyahu is going to be kept honest on these issues, it will be because Likud faction members are speaking out. Signatory Yariv Levin said that this "gentle" communication was a first warning to Netanyahu that the patience of those who signed the letter was wearing thin.
~~~~~~~~~~
At the Knesset faction meeting today, signatory Danny Danon -- who is strongly principled and feisty -- said that Netanyahu had "defrauded" Likud voters by supporting a Palestinian state, which is opposed by a majority of Likud members and MKs -- as well as by a majority of the country.
Netanyahu responded, according to the Post, that "his statements in favor of a demilitarized Palestinian state had led to key diplomatic achievements, including the Quartet calling on the Palestinians to declare an end the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as part of a peace agreement."
That's what the Post says he said. But I read it and ask, did he really say this? Wouldn't a peace agreement -- if it were genuine -- have to include an end to the conflict? He considers it an achievement that he got the Quartet to call for this? If there were acknowledgement that we have a right to build in the settlements, and to retain settlement blocs in any final agreement, that would be a diplomatic achievement.
Mr. Prime Minister, you're looking rather lame.
~~~~~~~~~~
One passing note in closing. Right-wingers, nationalists, such as Danny Danon, are routinely referred to in the media (which tilts left) as "hawks." This offends me. A "hawk" is war-like. People who seek to defend our rights as a Jewish nation are not war-like. Quite the contrary: we are more likely to end up with war if we cave and surrender our rights and appease.
The reverse has also bothered me for years: Far left groups are referred to as "the peace camp." What? Because we refuse to give away our land this means we are against peace? The philosophy of "Peace Now" will never lead to genuine peace.
~~~~~~~~~~
"The Good News Corner"
The Israel Antiquities Authority has announced the discovery on Shmuel HaNavi Street in Jerusalem of a huge quarry that was used in Second Temple times. Dr. Ofer Sion, who is the excavation director, believes that, "The stones that were quarried here were used by Herod to build the walls of the Temple."
What has been uncovered -- as part of required routine exploration prior to construction -- is actually a small part of a series of quarries across Jerusalem that actually lowered the topography in the area around the Old City.
The project -- which according to ancient historian Josephus took eight years -- boggles the mind. More than 10,000 people were trained for this work. Hundreds of thousands of stones were quarried, some as large as three meters by two meters by two meters. The stones were transported in a variety of ways, including by use of rolling wooden structures drawn by camels.
For further information and pictures: www.antiquities.org.il/about_eng.asp?Modul_id=14
~~~~~~~~~~
see my website www.ArlenefromIsrael.info
The Sunday Times (London) reported two days ago that Mossad head Meir Dagan has assured Prime Minister Netanyahu that Saudi Arabia would allow Israel's jets to fly over the kingdom in an action against Iran. According to this report, Dagan had met with the Saudis on this issue earlier in the year.. Our government, however, swiftly denied the report. It was, said the prime minister's office, "thoroughly incorrect and baseless."
Does this mean it isn't true? Perhaps, but not necessarily. There is some logic to thinking that Saudi Arabia -- which is alarmed by Iran's nuclear efforts -- would not stand in the way of our attempts to eliminate that threat. Such are the games being played, however, that the Saudis would never publicly admit to even passively cooperating with Israel against a Muslim state. Perish the thought! And so, part of the understanding would require us to deny that there had been any cooperative communication with the Saudis.
~~~~~~~~~~
Former US ambassador to the UN, John Bolton, who recently met with Arab leaders in the Gulf, weighed in with similar thoughts:
"None of them [Arab leaders] would say anything about it publicly, but they would certainly acquiesce in an overflight if the Israelis didn't trumpet it as a big success."
In fact, said Bolton, while these leaders would be privately relieved they would condemn Israel at the UN.
~~~~~~~~~~
This Arab reluctance to in any way show predisposition towards Israel or to admit having cooperated with Israel is both a sign of the on-going Arab-Israeli conflict and a cause of it.
Last week I wrote about Congressman Wexler and his promises of "normalization" with the Arab nations if we would only take the "tiny, tiny" step of freezing settlements. A day after his interview appeared in The Jerusalem Post, the paper ran an editorial, "Calling their bluff," which ended with this:
"Let Obama, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Special Envoy George Mitchell make their normalization calls on the Arabs publicly, and with the same zeal that has characterized their calls for a settlement freeze."
Enough of the secret back-door whispering. We are here to stay in this part of the world, we are a legitimate sovereign nation. It's time this was acknowledged.
Thus, in my opinion, is Netanyahu's demand that we be recognized as a Jewish state important.
~~~~~~~~~~
On Sunday, Obama sent a letter to Morocco, seeking the assistance of that nation in normalizing relations with Israel and promoting the "peace process." Why Morocco? Because Morocco's King Mohammed VI already has warm relations with us and is outside the norm for Arab nations. This sort of doesn't count.
There is not going to be anything parallel from Saudi Arabia. Their claim is that they've done enough by sponsoring the "peace initiative" of 2002 -- which calls for normalization if we pull back to '67 lines, take refugees and all the rest.
David Weinberg, of the Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies, says that then-Crown Prince Abdullah first spoke to The New York Times about this in 2001 after 9/11, when the reputation of the Saudis was, shall we say, a bit sullied. It was a shrewd PR attempt to create an image of Saudis as "peacemakers" and not terrorists. By 2002, the terms had hardened.
And now, says Weinberg, "According to news reports, Washington can't seem to squeeze any commitments about normalization from the Saudis, even if Israel freezes all settlement activity and paints the Jerusalem Old City walls in the Saudi national colors."
~~~~~~~~~~
This leads us full circle to the question of whether the Saudis would allow us to fly in their air space on our way to bombing Iran's nuclear facilities. We don't know. But there remains the possibility that the Saudis fear Iran more than they hate us.
~~~~~~~~~~
Meanwhile Israel has begun a push for an international back-up plan should the US efforts at negotiations with Iran fail. "Should"? That's polite diplomat talk. The more honest word is "when."
Say our diplomats, a plan for "paralyzing sanctions" has to be in place before that day arrives, and work on drafting the sanctions must begin immediately.
But the Obama administration -- heaven help us! -- is not cooperating. You see, if Teheran gets word that the US is working on these sanctions, say US diplomats, then the Iranian leaders will know the US isn't serious about advancing talks. And so, even though the US diplomats don't think chances of success in negotiations with Iran are good, they don't want to reduce the possibilities.
What more can possibly be said about this reasoning?
~~~~~~~~~~
Meanwhile, I believe we're seeing a certain amount of muscle-flexing by our military:
Recently, in a change in policy, we sent an advanced Dolphin-class submarine through the Suez Canal to participate in maneuvers in the Red Sea.
And there is news that our air force will be taking part in a joint aerial exercise with an unnamed NATO state, and will be participating in an exercise at a Nevada air force base. In addition, we will be involved in a competition at an air force base in Washington state. A major focus of all of this is drilling for long-range maneuvers.
~~~~~~~~~~
Vice President Biden, in an ABC TV interview on Sunday, was asked if the US would stand in our way if Israel decided to take out Iran's nuclear capacity. His answer:
"[The US] cannot dictate to another sovereign nation what they can and cannot do.
"Israel can determine for itself -- it's a sovereign nation -- what's in their interest and what they decide to do relative to Iran and anyone else."
I think I detect a subtle softening of the US position here -- perhaps because the prospect of success in negotiations with Iran is dim. Although this still doesn't tell us if the US would object to our flying over Iraq, or whether there might be some secondary back-up in a crunch.
~~~~~~~~~~
I cannot leave this subject, however, without sharing a perceptive comment by a friend of mine here:
"Interesting how V.P. Biden can say that Israel is a sovereign state and can do whatever is in its interests when it comes to removing Iran's nuclear facilities, but not when it comes to building a few more structures in Judea and Samaria and, by the way, the eastern part of Jerusalem." (Thanks, Judith)
~~~~~~~~~~
This brings us, then, back to the subject of settlements and the US -- a subject that is likely to be on-going for a long time.
On Friday, Ron Dermer, a "good guy" who is Netanyahu's director for policy planning, gave an interview to the Post. In a great many respects I found it a good piece. He insists, for example, that Israel hasn't "hoodwinked" the US with regard to settlements, we've been very above board.
But I want to focus here on a statement he made that unsettles me. "There is a huge gap," he said, "between the conversation that takes place in the press on the settlements and what is said in the diplomatic arena..." His point is that the media have blown the issue out of proportion. His argument -- clearly the Netanyahu line -- is that the US-Israel relationship is so strong that if there is disagreement on just one issue the media focus on it.
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1246443706931&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
My response to this is that it sounds like a regrettable attempt to make light of what is truthfully a very serious issue between the US and Israel -- an attempt to show how great our relations with the US still are.
I would challenge this on several fronts. But what strikes me as most obvious is that it has been Obama and his administration and not the media that have focused inordinately on the issue of settlements. Of all of the things he might have spoken about, he chose this subject to pressure us about in his Cairo talk. He set the tone, and it was continued in the misrepresentation of Hilary, who claimed there was no agreement between Israel and the US with regard to continued building.
I don't want to see this issue minimized. And I don't want to think this is a set-up, preparing us for an "arrangement" on the issue of settlements arrived at between our government and our "good friends" in Washington.
As I've said before, and will continue to say: Our right to build in Judea and Samaria goes to the very heart of our right to maintain a presence in the land that is the foundation of our ancient heritage. It is also a matter of legal right from the time of the Mandate in 1922.
~~~~~~~~~~
I strongly recommend Yisrael Medad's article from the LA Times, "In defense of 'settlements'":
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-medad28-2009jun28,0,6267445.story
~~~~~~~~~~
MK Tzipi Hotovely (Likud) is a freshman in the Knesset and one great up-and-coming lady.
She has now initiated a letter to Netanyahu, signed by Likud right-wingers. It says:
"We Likud MKs are turning to you due to reports that you would agree to freeze settlement growth temporarily in parts of Judea and Samaria, despite our promise to the voters to continue building in the settlements. The Likud has always been in favor of natural development in Judea and Samaria, including during the election campaign.
"As Likud members, we cannot support a two state solution on principle. [Such a solution] is neither possible, nor proper, due to the moral right of the Jewish people to the land and for security reasons. Saying otherwise delegitimizes the Israeli struggle for the land."
"Among those who signed it," according to press reports, were deputy minister Ayoub Kara and Danny Danon, Miri Regev, Tzion Pinyan, Carmel Shama and Yariv Levin. Perhaps I can learn more about the entire list of those who signed it (although perhaps some signatories consider this a private communication at this point).
At any rate, I can only be pleased by this news. If Netanyahu is going to be kept honest on these issues, it will be because Likud faction members are speaking out. Signatory Yariv Levin said that this "gentle" communication was a first warning to Netanyahu that the patience of those who signed the letter was wearing thin.
~~~~~~~~~~
At the Knesset faction meeting today, signatory Danny Danon -- who is strongly principled and feisty -- said that Netanyahu had "defrauded" Likud voters by supporting a Palestinian state, which is opposed by a majority of Likud members and MKs -- as well as by a majority of the country.
Netanyahu responded, according to the Post, that "his statements in favor of a demilitarized Palestinian state had led to key diplomatic achievements, including the Quartet calling on the Palestinians to declare an end the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as part of a peace agreement."
That's what the Post says he said. But I read it and ask, did he really say this? Wouldn't a peace agreement -- if it were genuine -- have to include an end to the conflict? He considers it an achievement that he got the Quartet to call for this? If there were acknowledgement that we have a right to build in the settlements, and to retain settlement blocs in any final agreement, that would be a diplomatic achievement.
Mr. Prime Minister, you're looking rather lame.
~~~~~~~~~~
One passing note in closing. Right-wingers, nationalists, such as Danny Danon, are routinely referred to in the media (which tilts left) as "hawks." This offends me. A "hawk" is war-like. People who seek to defend our rights as a Jewish nation are not war-like. Quite the contrary: we are more likely to end up with war if we cave and surrender our rights and appease.
The reverse has also bothered me for years: Far left groups are referred to as "the peace camp." What? Because we refuse to give away our land this means we are against peace? The philosophy of "Peace Now" will never lead to genuine peace.
~~~~~~~~~~
"The Good News Corner"
The Israel Antiquities Authority has announced the discovery on Shmuel HaNavi Street in Jerusalem of a huge quarry that was used in Second Temple times. Dr. Ofer Sion, who is the excavation director, believes that, "The stones that were quarried here were used by Herod to build the walls of the Temple."
What has been uncovered -- as part of required routine exploration prior to construction -- is actually a small part of a series of quarries across Jerusalem that actually lowered the topography in the area around the Old City.
The project -- which according to ancient historian Josephus took eight years -- boggles the mind. More than 10,000 people were trained for this work. Hundreds of thousands of stones were quarried, some as large as three meters by two meters by two meters. The stones were transported in a variety of ways, including by use of rolling wooden structures drawn by camels.
For further information and pictures: www.antiquities.org.il/about_eng.asp?Modul_id=14
~~~~~~~~~~
see my website www.ArlenefromIsrael.info
Monday, July 06, 2009
Pentagon Halts Israeli Fighter Jet Bid, US a Rival on Tender
Malkah Fleisher Pentagon Thwarts Israeli Jet Bid
A7 News
A scandal has arisen out of the United States military establishment after Pentagon pressure on Israel Aerospace Industries (IAI) to withdraw from a massive aircraft tender for the Indian Air Force leaves competing American aerospace companies in prime position to win it.On the table: a $12 billion Indian Ministry of Defense tender for 126 multi-role combat aircraft (MRCA) for the Indian Air Force.
In a bid to win the tender, IAI was offered a partnership with Sweden's Saab AB to jointly develop an advanced model of the JAS-39 Gripen jet fighter. Israel was to build the electronic systems for the craft, including communications, electronic warfare and radar systems.
The Pentagon contacted Israel's Ministry of Defense, ordering them to force IAI out of contention, citing concerns that Israel would integrate American technology into the fighter jets.
However, two of the remaining four bidders are American companies, leaving Israeli officials speculating that the actual reason for the demand was America's interest in winning the bid without having to compete by lowering prices, according to Israeli officials quoted in Israeli media
Lockheed Martin's F-16 and Boeing's F-18 Hornet are still in the running, as well as Russia's MiG-35 and the UK's BAE Eurofighter.
The United States has a history of intervening to thwart Israeli military contracts, to America's benefit. Last summer, Israel's defense establishment backed down from a $500 million Turkish tank tender in order not to compete with the Americans.
In 2006, the IAI lost a $2 billion South Korean Airborne Warning and Control System (AWACS) tender after the US imposed technological and commercial restrictions, which prevented Israel from meeting the terms of the tender.
In 2003, the US opposed a $1 billion AWACS contract between Israel and India, citing India's stance against the US war in Iraq. The US offered Israel $1 billion in US military goods to back down from the agreement. However, Israeli officials speculated that the US may have opposed the deal for commercial reasons.
Comment: A prime example how politics can impact Israel. This is all about the kind of pressure Obama will use to get his agenda passed. So much for transparency, fairness and equal opportunity to compete.
The religious kulturkampf
Isi Leibler
July 6, 2009
http://wordfromjerusalem.com/?p=1689
The intense political and economic challenges confronting us divert attention from a festering kulturkampf within the religious arena the outcome of which will impact heavily on the future of Israeli society. Orthodox Jews were never a monolithic group. Over the past century major divisions separated Zionists and anti-Zionists; those favoring stringent applications of Halacha versus those seeking more liberal interpretations; those rejecting secular studies beyond religious learning versus those seeking to synthesize learning Torah with worldly knowledge.
Current trends display a strengthening in the power of the non-Zionist and more extreme religious elements. This is reflected in the extraordinary growth of the haredi school network with almost 25 percent of Jewish first graders currently estimated to be enrolled in the haredi Ashkenazi or Sephardi educational streams. If the high haredi birthrate (a major asset in maintaining Jewish demographic levels) is sustained, the proportion of haredi schoolchildren in the general population will further increase.
In most developed countries, haredim are not exempt from mandatory government requirements that all children receive a minimal secular education. However here, to obtain haredi political support, the Olmert government agreed to extend state funding to the haredi educational network while simultaneously granting it complete autonomy from the government educational network, thus effectively legitimizing the exclusion of core secular curriculum subjects. The current government has also been pressured into providing additional funds exclusively to the independent haredi school system.
The social, economic and political repercussions of these developments will impact over the next few decades. In an approach without precedent in Jewish tradition, most haredi schoolchildren are being encouraged to disdain the virtues of earning a livelihood. One of our great sages, Maimonides (who would doubtlessly be disqualified from teaching in a typical haredi school because of his secular education) wrote in Mishna Torah, "Whoever thinks he can study Torah and not work, and relies on charity, profanes God's name."
In addition, during these difficult times, graduates from haredi schools obliged to seek employment are discovering that having been denied a secular education and lacking professional skills, they are doomed to a life of poverty and reliance on welfare.
An additional offshoot of this system is an accelerating increase in haredi youngsters evading the draft. It is surely bizarre for religious Zionists to be proportionately overrepresented in IDF combat units, willing to fight and die for their country, while their haredi counterparts, without any genuine halachic justification, as evidenced by the tiny but admirable haredi IDF unit, are directed by their rabbis to shirk their national obligations.
THE HAREDI HIJACKING of state rabbinical instrumentalities and courts is also having major negative social repercussions. A substantial proportion of the newly appointed haredi rabbis, chosen on the basis of cronyism, are utterly unsuited for their roles. Many are also unreconstructed anti-Zionists, refusing to recognize the flag, the national anthem, Independence Day and other obligations of living in a Jewish state.
Even the Chief Rabbinate, once the bastion of religious Zionism, has been transformed into an haredi fiefdom, despite undisguised haredi contempt for the institution. Ashkenazi Chief Rabbi Yona Metzger is universally regarded as a mere puppet of the zealots.
The displacement of Zionist rabbis by extremists paves the way for further problems, such as efforts to undermine the heter mechira (sale of land) introduced nearly a century ago by chief rabbi Abraham Isaac Kook to enable farmers to maintain their produce and livelihood during the shmita year.
The most disastrous impact of the haredi dominated rabbinical courts applies to conversion, where fanatical zealots like Rabbi Avraham Sherman are striving to impose unprecedentedly extreme and cruel halachic interpretations.
Sherman went so far as to retroactively annul conversions on grounds of alleged laxity in ritual observance. More outrageously, he accused highly venerated Zionist Rabbi Haim Druckman of expediting fraudulent conversions. He proclaimed that over the past 15 years, thousands of conversions approved by the government Conversion Authority headed by Druckman must be considered invalid unless endorsed by one of his haredi rabbis. Metzger, whose own beit din had supervised these conversions, created a furor after endorsing Sherman's approach and was even called upon to resign.
Every individual is entitled to impose upon himself the most rigorous application of Halacha. Besides there are many positive aspects to the haredi lifestyle that Israelis could emulate to their advantage and a constructive haredi presence should be an important element in the tapestry of Israeli life.
But when zealots leverage their political positions to intrude on personal lives or impose extreme standards on the entire nation, it only serves to alienate people from religion. Even Israelis who support the strengthening of Jewish values within the framework of the state, are angered and frustrated when haredi political zealots leverage their positions to extort sectional concessions which frequently conflict with the national interest.
There are enlightened Orthodox groups sensitive to these tensions which endeavor to promote religious precepts in a nonconfrontational manner. They also encourage a review of Halacha, which has evolved over thousands of years of exile, to relate to the needs of a modern democratic Jewish state. They include organizations like Eretz Hemda, Beit Morasha, Tzohar, Bar-Ilan University and many others who cultivate the shvil hazahav, Maimonides's designated golden path of moderation and tolerance.
THERE IS a need for religious Zionist rabbis and laymen to become more assertive. Religious Zionist parliamentarians scattered among Knesset political parties should insist that state funds for religious functionaries serving in rabbinical courts be channeled toward Zionist rabbis who send their children to the army, embrace modernity and can communicate with university-educated youngsters. While endeavoring to strengthen the Jewish character of the state, they must act on behalf of the nation as a whole and demand an end to shady deals with haredi parties promoting narrow sectional interests. The neutralization of haredi power to extort or veto reform is an additional reason why Kadima should act in the national interest and join the government.
There are ticking time bombs waiting to explode. The aggressiveness of extremist groups, like the Eda Haredit in Jerusalem, which over the past weeks threatened "to set the country on fire" if a proposed Jerusalem parking lot remained open on Shabbat, must be dealt with firmly or the anti-Zionist zealots will achieve a new lease of life.
The time to confront burning issues such as the haredi school system, military service, conversions and Shabbat legislation is now.
ileibler@netvision.net.il
Strategic Challenges in Changing Middle East
Moshe Yaalon
A reminder
Ze’ev Schiff Memorial Lecture – June 9, 2009
Good afternoon ladies & gentlemen,
It is a great honor for me to speak to you today here in the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. I feel at home here. Thank you, Rob, for the invitation to honor the memory of my friend and colleague Ze'ev Schiff.
I knew Ze'ev for years. Our personal acquaintance began in 1992. At that time I was the commander of the Judea and Samaria division of the IDF and Ze'ev came to visit the area. Since I was familiar with his articles, I was interested in getting to know him and therefore personally escorted him during his visit. This was enough for me to notice that Ze'ev was a special type of journalist. His primary goal was not to find a scoop. Ze’ev was very systemic in his approach to any issue and he had ample knowledge on a wide variety of subjects. Rather, he was interested in preserving his integrity and, more important, ensuring the integrity of his reporting. So instead of the usual ritual of questions and answers, we spent the time during that visit in a very interesting discussion about the then-prevailing situation, toward which his contribution was no less than mine.
From that meeting on, as I moved from one assignment to another – director of military intelligence, commander of the central command, deputy chief of staff and chief of staff, we continued getting together to discuss the security and military challenges that Israel was facing, and I always came out of these meetings with admiration of Ze'ev's ability to contribute so much from his point of view.
Of course I started reading his articles long before I knew him personally, and I don't think I missed even one of them. Unlike many others, Ze’ev was not affected by which way the winds were blowing at any given time. He followed his own compass and did his own research, and based upon that he drew his own conclusions. That is why he was so highly appreciated both in Israel and throughout the entire world.
Finally I think that Ze'ev was respected also because he was not shy about his patriotism and his care and love for the state of Israel and everything it stands for. This gave him the necessary credibility when he criticized what he thought needed to be corrected and when he challenged what he thought was wrong.
Ze'ev Schiff approached his profession in a very cautious manner because he was fully aware of the huge influence he had on politicians and public opinion. Today, I want to pursue that same path, because I am also aware of the immense impact the media has in shaping policy.
Once the mainstream media starts to believe something is true – or, more troubling, where it fails to even investigate, but simply parrots someone else’s narrative -- and then refers to this as fact or uses it as an underlying assumption, it becomes extremely difficult for anyone to ever thereafter question the veracity of that purported “fact” or the assumption, let alone to uproot and replace it with a different concept. Simply put, it becomes conventional wisdom.
The media is pervasive. It affects our perception, and nowadays perception is a major component of the complicated, asymmetrical conflicts in which our weaker foes depend primarily on cognitive warfare, especially in the changing Middle East.
There are three examples of this phenomenon that I want to discuss today. One relates to the Iranian issue, the second relates to tensions between pragmatists and radicals in the Middle East, and the third, to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.
The Iranian Issue
There are two problems with the way the media frames the Iranian issue.
The first one is the notion that the Iranian problem is first and foremost a conflict between Iran and Israel. Here we can see, for example, the setting of Fareed Zakaria 's discussion on Iran on CNN. Look at the definition of the subject on the bottom of the screen: "Iran vs. Israel".
The second troubling manner in which the media frames the Iran issue is the recurring suggestion in the media that a combination of a sincere dialogue and non-military sanctions will peacefully persuade the Iranians to change their policy and give up the military nuclear program. Unlike the previous example, which has some relationship to reality, this mistaken assumption is based primarily on wishful thinking.
If, as much evidence suggests, dialogue and non-military sanctions will not work, then there may indeed be a need to resort to the military option in order to halt the Iranian project. Yet, those in the media who frame the issue as one that requires negotiations and diplomacy do the world a disservice by failing to present to their audiences the evidence that such a strategy in fact won’t work.
The media approaches this issue with the assumption that Iran is a rational actor, very much like Western states, and that its primary concern is American behavior towards it.
While I believe this is unlikely, let’s assume that it may be true. But shouldn’t the media nonetheless inform their public of an alternative view?
That alternative view suggests that the Iranians have a completely different agenda and set of motivating factors. Those facts will not only sound strange, but very uncomfortable to the Western ear, yet there is substantial basis for them. All the media has to do is take note of them and report them to the public.
For example, many key Iranian players, in particular the Mullahs, consider the destruction of Israel as just a step on the way to changing the entire world order. The Iranians want to bring about this change, and they have many allies who, though they may not share Iran’s Shiite goals, nonetheless share its desire to bring down American-led global liberalization. Syria and Chavez are of course key active partners in this. The goal of such an alliance is not just the conquest of Israel, but the entire Western world as well.
To appreciate the fallacy of this notion of Iranian “rationality,” it is crucial to understand that the Iranian leadership, just like all the other radicals, is not interested in contributing to stability. On the contrary, they are interested in turbulence and instability - as long as it doesn't threaten their survival and their ability to stay in power - because stability would shore up the very world order they want to replace. Furthermore, the Iranians view the West’s reluctance to use force against them as a lack of will and proof that Iran is moving in the right direction.
There are so many examples of this mindset in the rhetoric of the Iranian leadership that it is quite amazing to consider how little of that affects the way the media refers to the Iranian issue. Let me just mention some of President Ahmadinejad's declarations in recent weeks. For example when he paid a visit to his Syrian counterpart, President Bashar Al Assad, in early May he said that "Alongside the resistance and steadfastness, we must also strive to create a new world order; otherwise new oppressive regimes will emerge." He called the West's fundamental values "inhuman and belonging to past decades," and insisted that "The philosophy and order that emerged after World War II have come to the end of their road, and [the West] is unable to offer solutions for the world's problems." Now granted, this may sound silly to Western ears – that we are inhuman and oppressive in comparison with Syria and Iran. But the media censors this material because they either don’t take it seriously, or they don’t want people to draw the wrong conclusions from it.
Ahmadinejad also added: "today the circumstances in the world and in the region are rapidly changing. Those who, for many years, said that Iran and Syria must be pressured, and wanted to prevent [them] from defending the rights of the peoples in the region, now openly declare that they require the help of Tehran and Damascus in solving their problems. Today we are beginning to move on the path of triumph, and even greater victories lie ahead." Note how Ahmadinejad interprets US desire to negotiate as a sign to press their own advantage.
In a recent speech in Kerman Ahmadinejad announced that Iran was drawing up a new package of proposals for negotiations surrounding the country’s nuclear program. He emphasized that the West was weak, and could not force anything on Iran. “If the United States wants dialogue, there must first be a withdrawal of all Western forces, the destruction of the West's entire nuclear arsenal, and respect for Iran's right to its nuclear program,” he said, and added. “Nearly 7,000 centrifuges are spinning today at Natanz, mocking you."
"The Iranian nation will not accept domination from oppressive powers," said Ahmadinejad, dressed in his trademark light-colored jacket and dark trousers as young men and women chanted "Ahmadi! Ahmadi!" "We have to build an Iran that will have a role in directing the future of the world," he added as the crowd kept shouting. Again, some may wish to dismiss this as “mere rhetoric,” but is the media acting responsibly when it suppresses the public’s awareness of the problem?
There are so many examples of this mindset in the rhetoric of the Iranian leadership that it is quite amazing to consider that none of this gets reported to the Western public in the mainstream media and, more troubling, that the media doesn’t even stop to reevaluate their positions.
How can the American public intelligently discuss major policy decisions that could have major consequences for the entire world, when the MSM withholds basic information that would enable them to conduct a serious analysis of the problem?
Moderates vs. Radicals
The second area that deserves our attention, where the MSM misrepresents the evidence, is in addressing the tension that exists between the radicals and the pragmatists in the Middle East. The mainstream media almost unanimously adopts two basic approaches.
One is the dramatically unempirical notion that the radicals are but a tiny minority, while the vast majority of Muslims embrace the same moderate principles of peace, prosperity and coexistence that we exalt in the West.
The second, perhaps more realistic approach, rests on the following principles: (1), Radicals are the true representatives of the Middle Eastern society while the pragmatists are too weak to be expected to do anything; (2), the reason for this unfortunate situation is because of the Western policy of confrontation; and, therefore (3), the way to stop the radicals is to engage in dialogue with them and simultaneously strengthen the pragmatists by giving them concessions.
This approach does begin correctly by recognizing that the radicals have succeeded to a large extent in influencing the way Middle Easterners perceive themselves and how they relate to the rest of the world. But then it errs by suggesting that the radicals are ascendant primarily because of the behavior of the West which has supposedly alienated a potentially moderate public. This type of reporting works to the advantage of both the radicals and the pragmatists. Indeed, it turns the weakness of the pragmatists into their most valuable asset.
Both the radicals and the pragmatists take full advantage of the Western response to avoid accountability and expect the West to keep feeding them with more and more money and concessions, especially those that come at Israel’s expense. Since this policy has proven quite successful in recent years and since Middle Easterners consider the new administration even more committed to this set of assumptions than its predecessors, the Middle Easterners have bigger expectations and less readiness to change their way of action.
The reaction in the Arab world to President Obama’s reconciliation speech last week was very indicative of this approach. The audience was very receptive and supportive to those words they considered a move towards them but very cold at any mention of the need to give up the use of violence or to accept Israel's right to exist. The pragmatists show no intention to adopt these advices but expect the administration to follow up on its demands from Israel.
In fact, the pragmatists constitute quite a large part of the Middle Easterners and, with proper encouragement; they can play a major role in controlling the radicals. This was proven again in the impressive victory of the opponents of Iran, Hezbollah and Syria in the Lebanese elections. I would like very much to see the Lebanese leadership follow this achievement, that reflects their understanding that Israel is not their enemy, with an initiative towards normalizing the relations with Israel, but I doubt if this is going to happen, bearing in mind that the main reason for the pragmatists' animosity towards the United States and to some extent even towards Israel has very little to do with the reality of the way they are treated by the Americans or the Israelis, and much more with their being persuaded by the radical’s propaganda which portrays all shortcomings of Muslim society as the outcome of a Western plot against them. Thus, despite the best of intentions, it is counterproductive for the West to make more and more concessions and to continue to express regret and contrition, since this “mea culpa” attitude just plays into the hands of the radicals and strengthens their claim about the plot. In the West, we expect that concessions and apologies will lead to reciprocal moves on their part. In the Middle East, it just strengthens their convictions of victimhood and their resolve to restore their honor.
One case which illustrates the dangers of this media-promoted approach is the claim that the Palestinian Israeli conflict is the most important issue for Middle Easterners and that it has to be solved in order to convince the pragmatists to overcome the radicals and help the West and Israel in confronting Iran. But let’s seriously look at that claim. In fact, radicalism in the Middle East began long before the establishment of the state of Israel, and was always characterized by anti-Western feelings and was the reason for many wars between rival Arab and Muslim camps that had nothing to do with the Israeli Palestinian conflict.
To sum up these issues, Iran is the main reason for instability in the region. The combination of the strengthening of the radicals and progress on the Iranian nuclear project, both of which are emboldened by the media’s selective coverage of these issues, are the main threat to Israeli and American security and other interests. As long as the radicals feel that they are marching towards victory we can not afford to show signs of weakness. They will only make our job harder.
The Israeli-Palestinian Conflict
When it comes to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, there is again a set of so-called facts that have become a conventional wisdom that largely goes unchallenged.
The first is that this is primarily a territorial conflict and therefore there must be a solution for this conflict that can be achieved within a short period of time. The media, and with it most Western politicians, wish to believe that if the obstacle for achieving this solution will be removed – such as by conceding territory – a solution will be easy to reach.
Second, the only possible solution is a ‘two state solution’ – in which one state is a Palestinian state in Gaza and the West Bank, or Judea and Samaria as we call it, and the other is the state of Israel.
And third, the Israeli “occupation” and settlement activity are major obstacles for moving towards this inevitable solution and – as I mentioned before - for mobilizing the pragmatic states to the fight against the radicals.
These assumptions stood behind the Oslo process, and its failure indicates that they deserve to be reexamined. Such examination will reveal that, whereas the Israelis were really ready for this kind of a solution, including myself, the Palestinians do not accept that ‘the two state solution’ refers to two states for two peoples. In their view one state should be the Palestinian state and the national identity of the other state should remain undefined, so that in the future it can become a Palestinian state as well. Abu Mazen's public statement a few weeks ago that he would never recognize Israel as a Jewish state, (just as he refused to recognize a Jewish state before Annapolis), was but another, more recent manifestation of this approach.
This means that there's an asymmetry between the Israeli recognition of the Palestinian demand for self determination and the Palestinian recognition of the existence of Israel. As professor Bernard Lewis has put it before the Annapolis summit:
"What is the conflict about?" There are basically two possibilities: that it is about the size of Israel, or about its existence.
If the issue is about the size of Israel, then we have a straightforward border problem, like Alsace-Lorraine or Texas. That is to say, not easy, but possible to solve in the long run, and to live with in the meantime.
If, on the other hand, the issue is the existence of Israel, then clearly it is insoluble by negotiation. There is no compromise position between existing and not existing, and no conceivable government of Israel is going to negotiate on whether that country should or should not exist."
It is obvious that a solution cannot be realized before there is a change in the Palestinian position and the Palestinians accept Israel's right to exist in peace and security as a Jewish state. The reason the Palestinians refuse to accept this is because for them this is not a territorial dispute, but an existential conflict. The media’s failure to report this most basic point, the evidence of it, and the implications of it, creates a dangerously misleading portrayal of the situation and prospects for its resolution. Peace agreements with Egypt and Jordan were signed without addressing this fundamental issue because unlike the case with the Palestinians, we do not share the same land with them.
Regarding the obstacles that prevented the implementation of ‘the two state solution’ I would argue that the settlement activity was never a serious obstacle to peace. Israel proved several times that it is ready to reverse its settlement activity both in the framework of an agreement or unilaterally. In contrast, the Palestinian reaction to Israeli withdrawals has demonstrated time and again that the dismantling of Israeli settlements or the Israeli withdrawal from territory does not yield peace, but rather more warfare.
Instead of using the implementation of the Oslo agreement as an opportunity to prepare the state institutions, Arafat preferred to establish an authority of gangs, without accountability, allowing freedom of action to terror organizations, and so did Abu Mazen, who turned his weakness into a strategic asset that enabled him to escape accountability.
Following Israel’s unilateral disengagement from Gaza, which uprooted nearly ten thousand Jewish people from more than twenty living communities, leaving not a single Israeli settlement or person remaining on Gazan territory, Palestinians had another opportunity to prove that ending the Israeli occupation would lead to fundamental change and bring peace. Yet, the opposite occurred. Terror activities continued and proved that the problem is not the occupation or the settlements.
The lessons that we can learn from all of this are that a permanent settlement of the conflict is not easy to achieve as long as the Palestinians do not remove the real obstacles to peace: namely, by accepting Israel as a Jewish state, by stopping terror activity and incitement, and by addressing the lack of preparedness of the Palestinian authority to assume the responsibilities of a state – governability, monopoly over the use of force, security and economic stability. Without these issues being fully addressed, the creation of a Palestinian state will lead to the establishment of an unstable terror entity on the border of Israel that will threaten not only Israel's security but the stability of moderate states in the region, especially Jordan and American interests in the Middle East.
So, what is the Israeli policy in view of these realities? First, Israel considers itself a part and parcel of the free world and is committed to its strategic friendship with the United States. Just like the new administration, we too believe that friends should be candid with each other. We also believe that since we are living in the Middle East and that we will face the consequences of any policy most directly; it is our duty to explain to our American friends our concerns.
Practically we believe that the radical threat to the world order is the most dangerous challenge of our time. North Korea is a big challenge but the repercussions of a nuclear Iran are much more severe. We consider the prevention of this dangerous development a necessity. If this can be achieved through negotiations and dialogue it's wonderful, but since we doubt it very much we believe that the free world, under the leadership of the United States, has to prepare all the options to deal with this problem and make it clear that it will be ready to use them if it deems it necessary. A credible threat is probably the only effective way to make the Iranians carefully reconsider the direction of their project, and may make them choose another course.
We believe that the pragmatists in the Middle East should, and are ready to, contribute to halting the Iranian nuclear program and to countering the strengthening of the radicals, and that Western concessions are counterproductive toward that process. Likewise, the Palestinian issue has no relationship to it either. On the other hand, we do believe that such pragmatists have an important role to play in the Palestinian context by adopting the solution of two states for two peoples’ and helping to promoting the preparedness of the Palestinians to assume responsibility.
Finally, in regard to the Palestinian issue, we have no intention or will to govern the Palestinians and run their daily life. We want to have a stable peace and for that purpose we are ready to consider further ways to disengage and contribute to the ability of the PA to control the territories under its responsibility in a way that does not threaten the state of Israel. At the same time we believe that an almost exclusively top down approach that characterized the way the Palestinian issue was handled under the Oslo and Annapolis processes should be replaced by a determined performance based, bottom up approach that characterized the road map, which would focus first on building the necessary infrastructure for peace. We have spoken much over the past few years about dismantling the infrastructure of terror. Let us begin to talk about building an infrastructure for peace.
This should include five reforms within the Palestinian authority, which at this stage can be performed only in the West Bank:
1. Educational reform, whereby the PA will stop educating its people to deny any connection between the Jewish people and the land of Israel, stop treating Zionism as a colonialist movement and every Israeli town or village (including Tel-Aviv) as an illegal settlement. This reform has to include stopping the incitement in the media, the mosques and the public discourse as well as an end to raising kindergarten children to hate Israelis and to carry out suicide bombing attacks against the infidel.
2. Economic reform that would focus on strengthening the role of the private sector in the economy and fight corruption. The irresponsible system in which money collected from poor people in rich countries helps rich people in a poor area to become even more rich has to stop.
3. Political reform that would promote an adequate governing culture by strengthening civil society and emphasizing the values of free speech, human rights, and other universal values.
4. Law and order reform which should lead to the implementation of the concept of "one authority, one law, one weapon" – namely, the existence of a strong police and law enforcement system. We fully approve and support in this respect the efforts led by General Dayton.
5. Security reform under which there will be a unification of the security apparatuses and a full range of activities against terrorism including: intelligence collection, thwarting activity, investigations, putting to trial of suspects and imprisonment of convicted terrorists.
It's not clear whether this process is going to be successful. Its success depends first and foremost on the Palestinian leadership, which until now failed in establishing an accountable political entity. The international community should encourage the Palestinians to make progress in this direction through the use of carrots and sticks and not via the provision of unconditional economic aid and blanket political and diplomatic support. Only when the Palestinians give up this hope of destroying Israel and accept Israel’s right to live in peace as a Jewish state will there be a chance to have peace between us and the Palestinians. This is the essence of the change that Prime Minister Netanyahu is trying to promote.
Conclusion
But if we are to succeed in bringing about this change and advancing peace, we must all be ready to challenge the conventional wisdom.
I know that challenging conventional wisdom is not easy and that there is a price to pay for it. But I do not demand of others what I do not demand myself.
As head of military intelligence, I, a member of the Kibbutz movement, was a believer in Oslo, a believer that it could bring about the peace for which we have waited so long.
But when I looked at the evidence, at all the facts, I could not turn my back on the truth. And when I saw the dangers that the disengagement from Gaza would pose to Israel’s security, I could not turn my back on the truth.
I believe that we always have to look reality squarely in the eye and that we must act as Ze'ev Schiff acted his entire life – by letting the evidence lead us to our conclusions, however difficult those conclusions might be.
The reality may be difficult for us to accept. It does not lend itself to simple answers. But if we are prepared to face it honestly, then I am convinced that we can begin to change it for the better -- and we can start heading down the path to a genuine and lasting peace.
A reminder
Ze’ev Schiff Memorial Lecture – June 9, 2009
Good afternoon ladies & gentlemen,
It is a great honor for me to speak to you today here in the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. I feel at home here. Thank you, Rob, for the invitation to honor the memory of my friend and colleague Ze'ev Schiff.
I knew Ze'ev for years. Our personal acquaintance began in 1992. At that time I was the commander of the Judea and Samaria division of the IDF and Ze'ev came to visit the area. Since I was familiar with his articles, I was interested in getting to know him and therefore personally escorted him during his visit. This was enough for me to notice that Ze'ev was a special type of journalist. His primary goal was not to find a scoop. Ze’ev was very systemic in his approach to any issue and he had ample knowledge on a wide variety of subjects. Rather, he was interested in preserving his integrity and, more important, ensuring the integrity of his reporting. So instead of the usual ritual of questions and answers, we spent the time during that visit in a very interesting discussion about the then-prevailing situation, toward which his contribution was no less than mine.
From that meeting on, as I moved from one assignment to another – director of military intelligence, commander of the central command, deputy chief of staff and chief of staff, we continued getting together to discuss the security and military challenges that Israel was facing, and I always came out of these meetings with admiration of Ze'ev's ability to contribute so much from his point of view.
Of course I started reading his articles long before I knew him personally, and I don't think I missed even one of them. Unlike many others, Ze’ev was not affected by which way the winds were blowing at any given time. He followed his own compass and did his own research, and based upon that he drew his own conclusions. That is why he was so highly appreciated both in Israel and throughout the entire world.
Finally I think that Ze'ev was respected also because he was not shy about his patriotism and his care and love for the state of Israel and everything it stands for. This gave him the necessary credibility when he criticized what he thought needed to be corrected and when he challenged what he thought was wrong.
Ze'ev Schiff approached his profession in a very cautious manner because he was fully aware of the huge influence he had on politicians and public opinion. Today, I want to pursue that same path, because I am also aware of the immense impact the media has in shaping policy.
Once the mainstream media starts to believe something is true – or, more troubling, where it fails to even investigate, but simply parrots someone else’s narrative -- and then refers to this as fact or uses it as an underlying assumption, it becomes extremely difficult for anyone to ever thereafter question the veracity of that purported “fact” or the assumption, let alone to uproot and replace it with a different concept. Simply put, it becomes conventional wisdom.
The media is pervasive. It affects our perception, and nowadays perception is a major component of the complicated, asymmetrical conflicts in which our weaker foes depend primarily on cognitive warfare, especially in the changing Middle East.
There are three examples of this phenomenon that I want to discuss today. One relates to the Iranian issue, the second relates to tensions between pragmatists and radicals in the Middle East, and the third, to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.
The Iranian Issue
There are two problems with the way the media frames the Iranian issue.
The first one is the notion that the Iranian problem is first and foremost a conflict between Iran and Israel. Here we can see, for example, the setting of Fareed Zakaria 's discussion on Iran on CNN. Look at the definition of the subject on the bottom of the screen: "Iran vs. Israel".
The second troubling manner in which the media frames the Iran issue is the recurring suggestion in the media that a combination of a sincere dialogue and non-military sanctions will peacefully persuade the Iranians to change their policy and give up the military nuclear program. Unlike the previous example, which has some relationship to reality, this mistaken assumption is based primarily on wishful thinking.
If, as much evidence suggests, dialogue and non-military sanctions will not work, then there may indeed be a need to resort to the military option in order to halt the Iranian project. Yet, those in the media who frame the issue as one that requires negotiations and diplomacy do the world a disservice by failing to present to their audiences the evidence that such a strategy in fact won’t work.
The media approaches this issue with the assumption that Iran is a rational actor, very much like Western states, and that its primary concern is American behavior towards it.
While I believe this is unlikely, let’s assume that it may be true. But shouldn’t the media nonetheless inform their public of an alternative view?
That alternative view suggests that the Iranians have a completely different agenda and set of motivating factors. Those facts will not only sound strange, but very uncomfortable to the Western ear, yet there is substantial basis for them. All the media has to do is take note of them and report them to the public.
For example, many key Iranian players, in particular the Mullahs, consider the destruction of Israel as just a step on the way to changing the entire world order. The Iranians want to bring about this change, and they have many allies who, though they may not share Iran’s Shiite goals, nonetheless share its desire to bring down American-led global liberalization. Syria and Chavez are of course key active partners in this. The goal of such an alliance is not just the conquest of Israel, but the entire Western world as well.
To appreciate the fallacy of this notion of Iranian “rationality,” it is crucial to understand that the Iranian leadership, just like all the other radicals, is not interested in contributing to stability. On the contrary, they are interested in turbulence and instability - as long as it doesn't threaten their survival and their ability to stay in power - because stability would shore up the very world order they want to replace. Furthermore, the Iranians view the West’s reluctance to use force against them as a lack of will and proof that Iran is moving in the right direction.
There are so many examples of this mindset in the rhetoric of the Iranian leadership that it is quite amazing to consider how little of that affects the way the media refers to the Iranian issue. Let me just mention some of President Ahmadinejad's declarations in recent weeks. For example when he paid a visit to his Syrian counterpart, President Bashar Al Assad, in early May he said that "Alongside the resistance and steadfastness, we must also strive to create a new world order; otherwise new oppressive regimes will emerge." He called the West's fundamental values "inhuman and belonging to past decades," and insisted that "The philosophy and order that emerged after World War II have come to the end of their road, and [the West] is unable to offer solutions for the world's problems." Now granted, this may sound silly to Western ears – that we are inhuman and oppressive in comparison with Syria and Iran. But the media censors this material because they either don’t take it seriously, or they don’t want people to draw the wrong conclusions from it.
Ahmadinejad also added: "today the circumstances in the world and in the region are rapidly changing. Those who, for many years, said that Iran and Syria must be pressured, and wanted to prevent [them] from defending the rights of the peoples in the region, now openly declare that they require the help of Tehran and Damascus in solving their problems. Today we are beginning to move on the path of triumph, and even greater victories lie ahead." Note how Ahmadinejad interprets US desire to negotiate as a sign to press their own advantage.
In a recent speech in Kerman Ahmadinejad announced that Iran was drawing up a new package of proposals for negotiations surrounding the country’s nuclear program. He emphasized that the West was weak, and could not force anything on Iran. “If the United States wants dialogue, there must first be a withdrawal of all Western forces, the destruction of the West's entire nuclear arsenal, and respect for Iran's right to its nuclear program,” he said, and added. “Nearly 7,000 centrifuges are spinning today at Natanz, mocking you."
"The Iranian nation will not accept domination from oppressive powers," said Ahmadinejad, dressed in his trademark light-colored jacket and dark trousers as young men and women chanted "Ahmadi! Ahmadi!" "We have to build an Iran that will have a role in directing the future of the world," he added as the crowd kept shouting. Again, some may wish to dismiss this as “mere rhetoric,” but is the media acting responsibly when it suppresses the public’s awareness of the problem?
There are so many examples of this mindset in the rhetoric of the Iranian leadership that it is quite amazing to consider that none of this gets reported to the Western public in the mainstream media and, more troubling, that the media doesn’t even stop to reevaluate their positions.
How can the American public intelligently discuss major policy decisions that could have major consequences for the entire world, when the MSM withholds basic information that would enable them to conduct a serious analysis of the problem?
Moderates vs. Radicals
The second area that deserves our attention, where the MSM misrepresents the evidence, is in addressing the tension that exists between the radicals and the pragmatists in the Middle East. The mainstream media almost unanimously adopts two basic approaches.
One is the dramatically unempirical notion that the radicals are but a tiny minority, while the vast majority of Muslims embrace the same moderate principles of peace, prosperity and coexistence that we exalt in the West.
The second, perhaps more realistic approach, rests on the following principles: (1), Radicals are the true representatives of the Middle Eastern society while the pragmatists are too weak to be expected to do anything; (2), the reason for this unfortunate situation is because of the Western policy of confrontation; and, therefore (3), the way to stop the radicals is to engage in dialogue with them and simultaneously strengthen the pragmatists by giving them concessions.
This approach does begin correctly by recognizing that the radicals have succeeded to a large extent in influencing the way Middle Easterners perceive themselves and how they relate to the rest of the world. But then it errs by suggesting that the radicals are ascendant primarily because of the behavior of the West which has supposedly alienated a potentially moderate public. This type of reporting works to the advantage of both the radicals and the pragmatists. Indeed, it turns the weakness of the pragmatists into their most valuable asset.
Both the radicals and the pragmatists take full advantage of the Western response to avoid accountability and expect the West to keep feeding them with more and more money and concessions, especially those that come at Israel’s expense. Since this policy has proven quite successful in recent years and since Middle Easterners consider the new administration even more committed to this set of assumptions than its predecessors, the Middle Easterners have bigger expectations and less readiness to change their way of action.
The reaction in the Arab world to President Obama’s reconciliation speech last week was very indicative of this approach. The audience was very receptive and supportive to those words they considered a move towards them but very cold at any mention of the need to give up the use of violence or to accept Israel's right to exist. The pragmatists show no intention to adopt these advices but expect the administration to follow up on its demands from Israel.
In fact, the pragmatists constitute quite a large part of the Middle Easterners and, with proper encouragement; they can play a major role in controlling the radicals. This was proven again in the impressive victory of the opponents of Iran, Hezbollah and Syria in the Lebanese elections. I would like very much to see the Lebanese leadership follow this achievement, that reflects their understanding that Israel is not their enemy, with an initiative towards normalizing the relations with Israel, but I doubt if this is going to happen, bearing in mind that the main reason for the pragmatists' animosity towards the United States and to some extent even towards Israel has very little to do with the reality of the way they are treated by the Americans or the Israelis, and much more with their being persuaded by the radical’s propaganda which portrays all shortcomings of Muslim society as the outcome of a Western plot against them. Thus, despite the best of intentions, it is counterproductive for the West to make more and more concessions and to continue to express regret and contrition, since this “mea culpa” attitude just plays into the hands of the radicals and strengthens their claim about the plot. In the West, we expect that concessions and apologies will lead to reciprocal moves on their part. In the Middle East, it just strengthens their convictions of victimhood and their resolve to restore their honor.
One case which illustrates the dangers of this media-promoted approach is the claim that the Palestinian Israeli conflict is the most important issue for Middle Easterners and that it has to be solved in order to convince the pragmatists to overcome the radicals and help the West and Israel in confronting Iran. But let’s seriously look at that claim. In fact, radicalism in the Middle East began long before the establishment of the state of Israel, and was always characterized by anti-Western feelings and was the reason for many wars between rival Arab and Muslim camps that had nothing to do with the Israeli Palestinian conflict.
To sum up these issues, Iran is the main reason for instability in the region. The combination of the strengthening of the radicals and progress on the Iranian nuclear project, both of which are emboldened by the media’s selective coverage of these issues, are the main threat to Israeli and American security and other interests. As long as the radicals feel that they are marching towards victory we can not afford to show signs of weakness. They will only make our job harder.
The Israeli-Palestinian Conflict
When it comes to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, there is again a set of so-called facts that have become a conventional wisdom that largely goes unchallenged.
The first is that this is primarily a territorial conflict and therefore there must be a solution for this conflict that can be achieved within a short period of time. The media, and with it most Western politicians, wish to believe that if the obstacle for achieving this solution will be removed – such as by conceding territory – a solution will be easy to reach.
Second, the only possible solution is a ‘two state solution’ – in which one state is a Palestinian state in Gaza and the West Bank, or Judea and Samaria as we call it, and the other is the state of Israel.
And third, the Israeli “occupation” and settlement activity are major obstacles for moving towards this inevitable solution and – as I mentioned before - for mobilizing the pragmatic states to the fight against the radicals.
These assumptions stood behind the Oslo process, and its failure indicates that they deserve to be reexamined. Such examination will reveal that, whereas the Israelis were really ready for this kind of a solution, including myself, the Palestinians do not accept that ‘the two state solution’ refers to two states for two peoples. In their view one state should be the Palestinian state and the national identity of the other state should remain undefined, so that in the future it can become a Palestinian state as well. Abu Mazen's public statement a few weeks ago that he would never recognize Israel as a Jewish state, (just as he refused to recognize a Jewish state before Annapolis), was but another, more recent manifestation of this approach.
This means that there's an asymmetry between the Israeli recognition of the Palestinian demand for self determination and the Palestinian recognition of the existence of Israel. As professor Bernard Lewis has put it before the Annapolis summit:
"What is the conflict about?" There are basically two possibilities: that it is about the size of Israel, or about its existence.
If the issue is about the size of Israel, then we have a straightforward border problem, like Alsace-Lorraine or Texas. That is to say, not easy, but possible to solve in the long run, and to live with in the meantime.
If, on the other hand, the issue is the existence of Israel, then clearly it is insoluble by negotiation. There is no compromise position between existing and not existing, and no conceivable government of Israel is going to negotiate on whether that country should or should not exist."
It is obvious that a solution cannot be realized before there is a change in the Palestinian position and the Palestinians accept Israel's right to exist in peace and security as a Jewish state. The reason the Palestinians refuse to accept this is because for them this is not a territorial dispute, but an existential conflict. The media’s failure to report this most basic point, the evidence of it, and the implications of it, creates a dangerously misleading portrayal of the situation and prospects for its resolution. Peace agreements with Egypt and Jordan were signed without addressing this fundamental issue because unlike the case with the Palestinians, we do not share the same land with them.
Regarding the obstacles that prevented the implementation of ‘the two state solution’ I would argue that the settlement activity was never a serious obstacle to peace. Israel proved several times that it is ready to reverse its settlement activity both in the framework of an agreement or unilaterally. In contrast, the Palestinian reaction to Israeli withdrawals has demonstrated time and again that the dismantling of Israeli settlements or the Israeli withdrawal from territory does not yield peace, but rather more warfare.
Instead of using the implementation of the Oslo agreement as an opportunity to prepare the state institutions, Arafat preferred to establish an authority of gangs, without accountability, allowing freedom of action to terror organizations, and so did Abu Mazen, who turned his weakness into a strategic asset that enabled him to escape accountability.
Following Israel’s unilateral disengagement from Gaza, which uprooted nearly ten thousand Jewish people from more than twenty living communities, leaving not a single Israeli settlement or person remaining on Gazan territory, Palestinians had another opportunity to prove that ending the Israeli occupation would lead to fundamental change and bring peace. Yet, the opposite occurred. Terror activities continued and proved that the problem is not the occupation or the settlements.
The lessons that we can learn from all of this are that a permanent settlement of the conflict is not easy to achieve as long as the Palestinians do not remove the real obstacles to peace: namely, by accepting Israel as a Jewish state, by stopping terror activity and incitement, and by addressing the lack of preparedness of the Palestinian authority to assume the responsibilities of a state – governability, monopoly over the use of force, security and economic stability. Without these issues being fully addressed, the creation of a Palestinian state will lead to the establishment of an unstable terror entity on the border of Israel that will threaten not only Israel's security but the stability of moderate states in the region, especially Jordan and American interests in the Middle East.
So, what is the Israeli policy in view of these realities? First, Israel considers itself a part and parcel of the free world and is committed to its strategic friendship with the United States. Just like the new administration, we too believe that friends should be candid with each other. We also believe that since we are living in the Middle East and that we will face the consequences of any policy most directly; it is our duty to explain to our American friends our concerns.
Practically we believe that the radical threat to the world order is the most dangerous challenge of our time. North Korea is a big challenge but the repercussions of a nuclear Iran are much more severe. We consider the prevention of this dangerous development a necessity. If this can be achieved through negotiations and dialogue it's wonderful, but since we doubt it very much we believe that the free world, under the leadership of the United States, has to prepare all the options to deal with this problem and make it clear that it will be ready to use them if it deems it necessary. A credible threat is probably the only effective way to make the Iranians carefully reconsider the direction of their project, and may make them choose another course.
We believe that the pragmatists in the Middle East should, and are ready to, contribute to halting the Iranian nuclear program and to countering the strengthening of the radicals, and that Western concessions are counterproductive toward that process. Likewise, the Palestinian issue has no relationship to it either. On the other hand, we do believe that such pragmatists have an important role to play in the Palestinian context by adopting the solution of two states for two peoples’ and helping to promoting the preparedness of the Palestinians to assume responsibility.
Finally, in regard to the Palestinian issue, we have no intention or will to govern the Palestinians and run their daily life. We want to have a stable peace and for that purpose we are ready to consider further ways to disengage and contribute to the ability of the PA to control the territories under its responsibility in a way that does not threaten the state of Israel. At the same time we believe that an almost exclusively top down approach that characterized the way the Palestinian issue was handled under the Oslo and Annapolis processes should be replaced by a determined performance based, bottom up approach that characterized the road map, which would focus first on building the necessary infrastructure for peace. We have spoken much over the past few years about dismantling the infrastructure of terror. Let us begin to talk about building an infrastructure for peace.
This should include five reforms within the Palestinian authority, which at this stage can be performed only in the West Bank:
1. Educational reform, whereby the PA will stop educating its people to deny any connection between the Jewish people and the land of Israel, stop treating Zionism as a colonialist movement and every Israeli town or village (including Tel-Aviv) as an illegal settlement. This reform has to include stopping the incitement in the media, the mosques and the public discourse as well as an end to raising kindergarten children to hate Israelis and to carry out suicide bombing attacks against the infidel.
2. Economic reform that would focus on strengthening the role of the private sector in the economy and fight corruption. The irresponsible system in which money collected from poor people in rich countries helps rich people in a poor area to become even more rich has to stop.
3. Political reform that would promote an adequate governing culture by strengthening civil society and emphasizing the values of free speech, human rights, and other universal values.
4. Law and order reform which should lead to the implementation of the concept of "one authority, one law, one weapon" – namely, the existence of a strong police and law enforcement system. We fully approve and support in this respect the efforts led by General Dayton.
5. Security reform under which there will be a unification of the security apparatuses and a full range of activities against terrorism including: intelligence collection, thwarting activity, investigations, putting to trial of suspects and imprisonment of convicted terrorists.
It's not clear whether this process is going to be successful. Its success depends first and foremost on the Palestinian leadership, which until now failed in establishing an accountable political entity. The international community should encourage the Palestinians to make progress in this direction through the use of carrots and sticks and not via the provision of unconditional economic aid and blanket political and diplomatic support. Only when the Palestinians give up this hope of destroying Israel and accept Israel’s right to live in peace as a Jewish state will there be a chance to have peace between us and the Palestinians. This is the essence of the change that Prime Minister Netanyahu is trying to promote.
Conclusion
But if we are to succeed in bringing about this change and advancing peace, we must all be ready to challenge the conventional wisdom.
I know that challenging conventional wisdom is not easy and that there is a price to pay for it. But I do not demand of others what I do not demand myself.
As head of military intelligence, I, a member of the Kibbutz movement, was a believer in Oslo, a believer that it could bring about the peace for which we have waited so long.
But when I looked at the evidence, at all the facts, I could not turn my back on the truth. And when I saw the dangers that the disengagement from Gaza would pose to Israel’s security, I could not turn my back on the truth.
I believe that we always have to look reality squarely in the eye and that we must act as Ze'ev Schiff acted his entire life – by letting the evidence lead us to our conclusions, however difficult those conclusions might be.
The reality may be difficult for us to accept. It does not lend itself to simple answers. But if we are prepared to face it honestly, then I am convinced that we can begin to change it for the better -- and we can start heading down the path to a genuine and lasting peace.
Sunday, July 05, 2009
Obama's Move Against Jerusalem Gets Clearer
http://www.onejerusalem.org/2009/06/obamas-move-against-jerusalem.php
Top Obama advisors say time for Israel to surrender Jerusalem
A Washington-based think tank that is viewed as one of the primary sources of foreign policy advise for US President Barack Obama is recommending that Israel surrender control of Jerusalem to an international body.
The Center for American Progress (CAP) correctly determined that the issue of Jerusalem is the primarily obstacle to peace between Israel and the Palestinian Authority.
As such, in order to move forward with the land-for-peace process as a whole, CAP has suggested that a third party administer and police the city while both Israel and the Palestinians maintain their claims to sovereignty until an agreement can be reached.
CAP expects that agreement would take a very long time to reach, if ever, but that in the meantime the rest of the conflict could be concluded.
There are concerns in Israel that Obama will adopt the recommendation considering his close ties to CAP and his overriding determination to oversee an Israel-Palestinian peace agreement.
Bloomberg News reported that "CAP has been an incubator for liberal thought and helped build the [Democratic party] platform that triumphed in the 2008 campaign."
It was also noted that Obama adopted many of CAP's policy recommendations while he was still president-elect.
This week Obama's favorite think tank, The Center for American Progress, issued a report detailing Obama's determination to take Jerusalem from the State of Israel and the Jewish people.The study's premise is that the Old City of Jerusalem is a problem. This means that the State of Israel must give up control of the Old City. (It should be noted that reports of the Center of American Progress have repeatedly stated the thinking of the Obama Administration. One Jerusalem brought the Center's influence to public attention and it was the basis for our predictions that Obama would give a speech to the Muslim World and try to negotiate with Iran's mullahs.)
The Center's report on Jerusalem focuses on what entity should replace the State of Israel as the administrator of the Old City, i.e. The Temple Mount, Churches, etc. It does not entertain the idea that Israel should continue in this role. It does not acknowledge that since the State of Israel wrested control of the Old City it has been secure and open to all people. This reality was certainly not the case from 1948 to 1967 when Jewish population was forcefully ejected from the Old City and its synagogues and schools destroyed.
In other words, Obama begins with the premise that the current successful situation must be replaced to satisfy the Palestinians. The plan they highlight creates a third party administrator of the Old City. This, of course, will be a failed experiment. At best it will create a situation that the Old City will be the center of dispute and conflict. For one, Israeli security will be replaced by some international body: The Ant-Israel United Nations?
Obama's determination to bend over backward to satisfy the political whims of Israel's enemies is clear, disturbing, and dangerous. It must be stopped.
If you want to be part of saving Jerusalem from Obama we urge you to take a few minutes to bring this blog post to the attention of friends, relatives, and supporters of Israel. Urge them to sign the our petition to keep Jerusalem united under the State of Israel so they can stay informed about what is happening and they can participate in action items we will bring to your attention during the coming months. If you care about the future of Jewish controlled Jerusalem now is the time to get involved.
On a related note, for anyone who questions Obama's commitment to the Muslim world we bring to your attention his Administration's appointment of America's first State Department representative to the Muslim World. Read about it here.
Vote in our One Jerusalem poll on the Old City.
______________________________
http://www.onejerusalem.org/2009/07/harvard-picks-up-the-internati.php
[07.04.2009]
Harvard Picks Up The Internationalizing Of Jerusalem Theme
One Jerusalem has correctly identified policies of the Obama Administration in their developmental stages. During his transition period we predicted that Obama would adopt a policy of engaging the blood-thirsty Ayatollahs of Iran, we predicted that Obama would give a major address to the Muslim world, and we are now predicting that Obama will pressure Israel to either divide or internationalize Jerusalem.
Our success in predicting Obama policies before they occur is not the result of divine intervention or spies in the White House. It stems from careful study of the Obama inner circle and their allies in the policy making community. Last week we brought to your attention the recommendations on Jerusalem of Obama's favorite think tank. This week we are tracking the movement of the idea of Israel giving over sovereignty of Jerusalem to one of the Obama clans favorite academic institutions: Harvard University
In an essay filled with tortured reasoning a Harvard publication published a Professor Barnett's policy advice on breaking the diplomatic log jam between Israel and the Palestinians. In his piece Barnett acknowledges the absence of any serious opportunities for negotiations and he purposes that Israel simply turn the problem over to the United Nations. And he sees Israel agreeing to internationalizing Jerusalem under the auspices of the United Nations
Professor Efraim Inbar exposes the weakness of Barnett's case very effectively. He writes:
Michael Barnett is right in pointing out that the two-state paradigm cannot solve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict because the two sides cannot reach an acceptable compromise. Without saying so explicitly, he realizes that this paradigm lost its appeal in part because the Palestinians have not been capable state-builders. Probably, this is why he suggests that the UN become the de facto ruler of the areas now in the hands of the Palestinian Authority (PA) and under Israeli military control.
This suggestion shows the great gulf between diagnosis and prognosis that even respected political scientists have problems bridging. The UN is a morally bankrupt institution with automatic majorities for the most ridiculous preferences of dictatorial Third World states. Moreover, for decades the UN has shown an entrenched anti-Israel bias, singling out Israel for every type of abuse. It was the UN that declared Zionism, the Jewish national movement, to be racist, and it is the UN that hosts anti-Semitic Durban-type conferences that annually adopt hundreds of anti-Israeli resolutions.
Finally, the UN is hardly an effective organization that can issue credible security assurances. The UN peacekeeping record is very flawed. In the Arab-Israeli arena, the UN forces have played a particularly dysfunctional role. Will they fight Hamas? The recommendation to place the security of Israelis in the hands of the blue helmets vastly overestimates what the UN can do, and shows disregard for the welfare of Israelis who face Palestinian hatred and terrorism.
Moreover, the belief that a UN trusteeship would bring law and order, prosperity, and political stability to the Palestinians is divorced from Middle East realities. The Palestinians are beleaguered by problems similar to those that haunt other Arab societies, such as in Iraq, Lebanon, Yemen and Somalia. The UN is hardly the remedy for the emerging failed states in the Arab world. Neither UN administrators nor generous outside funding can save the Palestinians from their problems.
While exposing the weakness of Barnett's argument is important, it is even more important to understand that Obama's team is legitimizing these harmful to Israel policies through their allies. Once again, we urge you to take seriously the idea of stripping Jerusalem from the State of Israel. We are confident this idea will be part of a comprehensive peace plan the Obama Administration will try to impose this fall.
You can help stop this morally bankrupted policy by helping grow the One Jerusalem community by getting family and friends to sign our petition to keep Jerusalem united and free the way it is today. The bigger our community becomes the better we will be able to disseminate the truth about what is going on with Jerusalem. You can be sure Obama's media friends are not interested in telling our side of the story.
To all our American friends we wish you all a Happy Independence Day.
______________________________
http://www.onejerusalem.org/2009/06/obamas-move-against-jerusalem.php
[06.08.2009]
Jerusalem Is At The Heart of Zionism
Today, in a speech to a small group of Israel supporters, Israel's Minister of Strategic Affairs, Moshe Yaalon repeated the words of a Palestinian leader who spoke approvingly of the two-state formula because once Israel gets out of Jerusalem "the Zionist idea will begin to collapse."
Throughout his address Yaalon emphasized that the Palestinians were not interested in peace with the Jewish State of Israel. He called for the abandonment of the failed policy of talking to Palestinian leaders and the adoption of what Prime Minister Netanyahu has called the bottom up approach.
Yaalon argued that Israel has no peace partner at this time. He noted that the Palestinian leadership teaches its youngsters to hate the State of Israel; its maps do not include the State of Israel; and it refers to Tel Aviv as a settlement founded in 1948. These leaders also refuse to recognize the free and independent Jewish State. He reminded the audience that recently the Palestinian leader Abu Mazen refused to call Israel a Jewish State.
Yaalon said that Israel should not be expected to help the Palestinians create a state (another Hamastan) that refuses to allow Jews (the way they cleansed Gaza of Jews). He said they must earn acceptance into the international community. This will require educational, political, economic, and security reform. So far they have only made progress on the policing side thanks to the American effort under General Dayton.
Yaalon, who is a retired Chief of Staff of the Israeli Defense Forces, lamented the fact that the international community keeps rewarding the Palestinians with money even though they have done nothing to earn support from anyone. He noted that financing the Palestinian Authority is a case of poor people in rich countries giving money to rich people in a poor country. This aid does not go to those who need it. It is pocketed by those who rule.
Yaalon made it clear that the Netanyahu government is breaking with the policy of dealing with the corrupt Palestinian leadership, that it will not allow a terror state to come into existence, and that it will support the Palestinians if they want economic and political reform.
We left Minister Yaalon as he began his journey to Washington, D.C. to tell the Obama Administration what he told us. With patriots like him, Israel is in good shape to fight the coming battles..
Top Obama advisors say time for Israel to surrender Jerusalem
A Washington-based think tank that is viewed as one of the primary sources of foreign policy advise for US President Barack Obama is recommending that Israel surrender control of Jerusalem to an international body.
The Center for American Progress (CAP) correctly determined that the issue of Jerusalem is the primarily obstacle to peace between Israel and the Palestinian Authority.
As such, in order to move forward with the land-for-peace process as a whole, CAP has suggested that a third party administer and police the city while both Israel and the Palestinians maintain their claims to sovereignty until an agreement can be reached.
CAP expects that agreement would take a very long time to reach, if ever, but that in the meantime the rest of the conflict could be concluded.
There are concerns in Israel that Obama will adopt the recommendation considering his close ties to CAP and his overriding determination to oversee an Israel-Palestinian peace agreement.
Bloomberg News reported that "CAP has been an incubator for liberal thought and helped build the [Democratic party] platform that triumphed in the 2008 campaign."
It was also noted that Obama adopted many of CAP's policy recommendations while he was still president-elect.
This week Obama's favorite think tank, The Center for American Progress, issued a report detailing Obama's determination to take Jerusalem from the State of Israel and the Jewish people.The study's premise is that the Old City of Jerusalem is a problem. This means that the State of Israel must give up control of the Old City. (It should be noted that reports of the Center of American Progress have repeatedly stated the thinking of the Obama Administration. One Jerusalem brought the Center's influence to public attention and it was the basis for our predictions that Obama would give a speech to the Muslim World and try to negotiate with Iran's mullahs.)
The Center's report on Jerusalem focuses on what entity should replace the State of Israel as the administrator of the Old City, i.e. The Temple Mount, Churches, etc. It does not entertain the idea that Israel should continue in this role. It does not acknowledge that since the State of Israel wrested control of the Old City it has been secure and open to all people. This reality was certainly not the case from 1948 to 1967 when Jewish population was forcefully ejected from the Old City and its synagogues and schools destroyed.
In other words, Obama begins with the premise that the current successful situation must be replaced to satisfy the Palestinians. The plan they highlight creates a third party administrator of the Old City. This, of course, will be a failed experiment. At best it will create a situation that the Old City will be the center of dispute and conflict. For one, Israeli security will be replaced by some international body: The Ant-Israel United Nations?
Obama's determination to bend over backward to satisfy the political whims of Israel's enemies is clear, disturbing, and dangerous. It must be stopped.
If you want to be part of saving Jerusalem from Obama we urge you to take a few minutes to bring this blog post to the attention of friends, relatives, and supporters of Israel. Urge them to sign the our petition to keep Jerusalem united under the State of Israel so they can stay informed about what is happening and they can participate in action items we will bring to your attention during the coming months. If you care about the future of Jewish controlled Jerusalem now is the time to get involved.
On a related note, for anyone who questions Obama's commitment to the Muslim world we bring to your attention his Administration's appointment of America's first State Department representative to the Muslim World. Read about it here.
Vote in our One Jerusalem poll on the Old City.
______________________________
http://www.onejerusalem.org/2009/07/harvard-picks-up-the-internati.php
[07.04.2009]
Harvard Picks Up The Internationalizing Of Jerusalem Theme
One Jerusalem has correctly identified policies of the Obama Administration in their developmental stages. During his transition period we predicted that Obama would adopt a policy of engaging the blood-thirsty Ayatollahs of Iran, we predicted that Obama would give a major address to the Muslim world, and we are now predicting that Obama will pressure Israel to either divide or internationalize Jerusalem.
Our success in predicting Obama policies before they occur is not the result of divine intervention or spies in the White House. It stems from careful study of the Obama inner circle and their allies in the policy making community. Last week we brought to your attention the recommendations on Jerusalem of Obama's favorite think tank. This week we are tracking the movement of the idea of Israel giving over sovereignty of Jerusalem to one of the Obama clans favorite academic institutions: Harvard University
In an essay filled with tortured reasoning a Harvard publication published a Professor Barnett's policy advice on breaking the diplomatic log jam between Israel and the Palestinians. In his piece Barnett acknowledges the absence of any serious opportunities for negotiations and he purposes that Israel simply turn the problem over to the United Nations. And he sees Israel agreeing to internationalizing Jerusalem under the auspices of the United Nations
Professor Efraim Inbar exposes the weakness of Barnett's case very effectively. He writes:
Michael Barnett is right in pointing out that the two-state paradigm cannot solve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict because the two sides cannot reach an acceptable compromise. Without saying so explicitly, he realizes that this paradigm lost its appeal in part because the Palestinians have not been capable state-builders. Probably, this is why he suggests that the UN become the de facto ruler of the areas now in the hands of the Palestinian Authority (PA) and under Israeli military control.
This suggestion shows the great gulf between diagnosis and prognosis that even respected political scientists have problems bridging. The UN is a morally bankrupt institution with automatic majorities for the most ridiculous preferences of dictatorial Third World states. Moreover, for decades the UN has shown an entrenched anti-Israel bias, singling out Israel for every type of abuse. It was the UN that declared Zionism, the Jewish national movement, to be racist, and it is the UN that hosts anti-Semitic Durban-type conferences that annually adopt hundreds of anti-Israeli resolutions.
Finally, the UN is hardly an effective organization that can issue credible security assurances. The UN peacekeeping record is very flawed. In the Arab-Israeli arena, the UN forces have played a particularly dysfunctional role. Will they fight Hamas? The recommendation to place the security of Israelis in the hands of the blue helmets vastly overestimates what the UN can do, and shows disregard for the welfare of Israelis who face Palestinian hatred and terrorism.
Moreover, the belief that a UN trusteeship would bring law and order, prosperity, and political stability to the Palestinians is divorced from Middle East realities. The Palestinians are beleaguered by problems similar to those that haunt other Arab societies, such as in Iraq, Lebanon, Yemen and Somalia. The UN is hardly the remedy for the emerging failed states in the Arab world. Neither UN administrators nor generous outside funding can save the Palestinians from their problems.
While exposing the weakness of Barnett's argument is important, it is even more important to understand that Obama's team is legitimizing these harmful to Israel policies through their allies. Once again, we urge you to take seriously the idea of stripping Jerusalem from the State of Israel. We are confident this idea will be part of a comprehensive peace plan the Obama Administration will try to impose this fall.
You can help stop this morally bankrupted policy by helping grow the One Jerusalem community by getting family and friends to sign our petition to keep Jerusalem united and free the way it is today. The bigger our community becomes the better we will be able to disseminate the truth about what is going on with Jerusalem. You can be sure Obama's media friends are not interested in telling our side of the story.
To all our American friends we wish you all a Happy Independence Day.
______________________________
http://www.onejerusalem.org/2009/06/obamas-move-against-jerusalem.php
[06.08.2009]
Jerusalem Is At The Heart of Zionism
Today, in a speech to a small group of Israel supporters, Israel's Minister of Strategic Affairs, Moshe Yaalon repeated the words of a Palestinian leader who spoke approvingly of the two-state formula because once Israel gets out of Jerusalem "the Zionist idea will begin to collapse."
Throughout his address Yaalon emphasized that the Palestinians were not interested in peace with the Jewish State of Israel. He called for the abandonment of the failed policy of talking to Palestinian leaders and the adoption of what Prime Minister Netanyahu has called the bottom up approach.
Yaalon argued that Israel has no peace partner at this time. He noted that the Palestinian leadership teaches its youngsters to hate the State of Israel; its maps do not include the State of Israel; and it refers to Tel Aviv as a settlement founded in 1948. These leaders also refuse to recognize the free and independent Jewish State. He reminded the audience that recently the Palestinian leader Abu Mazen refused to call Israel a Jewish State.
Yaalon said that Israel should not be expected to help the Palestinians create a state (another Hamastan) that refuses to allow Jews (the way they cleansed Gaza of Jews). He said they must earn acceptance into the international community. This will require educational, political, economic, and security reform. So far they have only made progress on the policing side thanks to the American effort under General Dayton.
Yaalon, who is a retired Chief of Staff of the Israeli Defense Forces, lamented the fact that the international community keeps rewarding the Palestinians with money even though they have done nothing to earn support from anyone. He noted that financing the Palestinian Authority is a case of poor people in rich countries giving money to rich people in a poor country. This aid does not go to those who need it. It is pocketed by those who rule.
Yaalon made it clear that the Netanyahu government is breaking with the policy of dealing with the corrupt Palestinian leadership, that it will not allow a terror state to come into existence, and that it will support the Palestinians if they want economic and political reform.
We left Minister Yaalon as he began his journey to Washington, D.C. to tell the Obama Administration what he told us. With patriots like him, Israel is in good shape to fight the coming battles..
Hamas fears a swap!
Chances of securing release of abducted soldier Shalit at this time are slim
Guy Bechor
YNET News
Much had been written in recent months about the Gilad Shalit affair. Shady dealers, self-interested parties, self-righteous individuals, singers, PR firms, celebrities, journalists, non-profit groups, banks, ministers and others made Shalit their top priority. Shalit had also become a way to boost one’s publicity, exposure, and reputation.. In the wake of yet another wave of rumors, what are the realistic chances of securing Shalit’s release? Slim, to my regret. Why so?
1. Gilad Shalit is today the main and possibly only asset possessed by Hamas. He is what turns them from a terror gang to a respectable organization that prompts global politicians to meet with its representatives, seemingly for a “humanitarian” purpose but only a naïve individual would believe that. The Shalit negotiations enable Hamas to bring senior group members into and out of Gaza, send them to Egypt and Syria, grant them immunity from assassination, etc. A reasonable person would not give up such an asset. Israel, with its desire to advance a swap, merely reinforced this asset and made it precious.
2. Egypt promised Israel that as long as Shalit is in captivity, it will not open the Rafah crossing, so that he will not be smuggled in. And so, Shalit has become Egypt’s insurance policy to ensure that Gaza will never be connected to Egypt.
3. Israel’s willingness to release Marwan Barghouti amazed Hamas. After all, the group added his name to the list in order to hinder the talks and did not believe for a moment that Israel would agree to it. Do you think Hamas will agree to secure the release of its greatest enemy so that he will prepare Fatah to engage in a military move against Hamas?
4. For Hamas, Shalit and the prisoners are not the number one issue. This issue has no priority. Higher on the list are the issue of a Palestinian unity government, which will not be established, and the issue of the crossings. As long as these issues hit a snag, the talks on a prisoner swap will also hit a dead-end.
5. Hamas is incredibly scared of the huge outcry in the wake of a swap, once it turns out that instead of 12,000 prisoners it made do with the release of 1,400. Each prisoner’s family is certain that her son will be among those released, and this is a real threat on Hamas and its popularity. This is the reason it will prefer to keep the prisoners in jail. Hamas knows that Mahmoud Abbas will only gain from such huge protest.
6. The moment such a swap is completed, Hamas will lose its media glory. Look how Hizbullah disappeared. Without prisoners and a desperate effort to cling to Israel, there is no interest. Hamas does not like this possibility.
7. Senior Hamas figures are currently in Israeli jails. Should they be released, the balance of power between the domestic Hamas and the group’s leadership abroad may change in favor of the domestic branch. Khaled Mashaal, Musa abu-Marzuk and other Hamas leaders in Damascus view this as a threat to their leadership. In their view, Israel is doing them a favor by detaining the authentic domestic leadership.
8. The Israelis are fighting amongst themselves; one brother slams the other; one urges the government to release Shalit at any cost, while another person rejects this; one person demonstrates, while another person protests for the opposite cause. Hamas takes great pleasure in watching this.
9. There were those around here who deluded themselves into thinking that another name added or taken from the list would get the job done. They sent emissaries Ofer Dekel and Amos Gilad, they played with the lists, but this never had a chance. Hamas is facing weighty interests, rather than a list of names, which in any case are not too important at the moment.
10. Finally, we must realize that an organization like Hamas must be in conflict with us; this is its raison d’être. Holding a captive Israeli soldier reinforces its belligerent Islamic ethos. A captive Israeli soldier symbolizes its all-out struggle against Israel; it symbolizes Hamas’ ability to defeat and embarrass Israel. Without Gilad, Hamas will be forced to actually fight Israel, and Hamas is not interested in doing so at this time.
Guy Bechor
YNET News
Much had been written in recent months about the Gilad Shalit affair. Shady dealers, self-interested parties, self-righteous individuals, singers, PR firms, celebrities, journalists, non-profit groups, banks, ministers and others made Shalit their top priority. Shalit had also become a way to boost one’s publicity, exposure, and reputation.. In the wake of yet another wave of rumors, what are the realistic chances of securing Shalit’s release? Slim, to my regret. Why so?
1. Gilad Shalit is today the main and possibly only asset possessed by Hamas. He is what turns them from a terror gang to a respectable organization that prompts global politicians to meet with its representatives, seemingly for a “humanitarian” purpose but only a naïve individual would believe that. The Shalit negotiations enable Hamas to bring senior group members into and out of Gaza, send them to Egypt and Syria, grant them immunity from assassination, etc. A reasonable person would not give up such an asset. Israel, with its desire to advance a swap, merely reinforced this asset and made it precious.
2. Egypt promised Israel that as long as Shalit is in captivity, it will not open the Rafah crossing, so that he will not be smuggled in. And so, Shalit has become Egypt’s insurance policy to ensure that Gaza will never be connected to Egypt.
3. Israel’s willingness to release Marwan Barghouti amazed Hamas. After all, the group added his name to the list in order to hinder the talks and did not believe for a moment that Israel would agree to it. Do you think Hamas will agree to secure the release of its greatest enemy so that he will prepare Fatah to engage in a military move against Hamas?
4. For Hamas, Shalit and the prisoners are not the number one issue. This issue has no priority. Higher on the list are the issue of a Palestinian unity government, which will not be established, and the issue of the crossings. As long as these issues hit a snag, the talks on a prisoner swap will also hit a dead-end.
5. Hamas is incredibly scared of the huge outcry in the wake of a swap, once it turns out that instead of 12,000 prisoners it made do with the release of 1,400. Each prisoner’s family is certain that her son will be among those released, and this is a real threat on Hamas and its popularity. This is the reason it will prefer to keep the prisoners in jail. Hamas knows that Mahmoud Abbas will only gain from such huge protest.
6. The moment such a swap is completed, Hamas will lose its media glory. Look how Hizbullah disappeared. Without prisoners and a desperate effort to cling to Israel, there is no interest. Hamas does not like this possibility.
7. Senior Hamas figures are currently in Israeli jails. Should they be released, the balance of power between the domestic Hamas and the group’s leadership abroad may change in favor of the domestic branch. Khaled Mashaal, Musa abu-Marzuk and other Hamas leaders in Damascus view this as a threat to their leadership. In their view, Israel is doing them a favor by detaining the authentic domestic leadership.
8. The Israelis are fighting amongst themselves; one brother slams the other; one urges the government to release Shalit at any cost, while another person rejects this; one person demonstrates, while another person protests for the opposite cause. Hamas takes great pleasure in watching this.
9. There were those around here who deluded themselves into thinking that another name added or taken from the list would get the job done. They sent emissaries Ofer Dekel and Amos Gilad, they played with the lists, but this never had a chance. Hamas is facing weighty interests, rather than a list of names, which in any case are not too important at the moment.
10. Finally, we must realize that an organization like Hamas must be in conflict with us; this is its raison d’être. Holding a captive Israeli soldier reinforces its belligerent Islamic ethos. A captive Israeli soldier symbolizes its all-out struggle against Israel; it symbolizes Hamas’ ability to defeat and embarrass Israel. Without Gilad, Hamas will be forced to actually fight Israel, and Hamas is not interested in doing so at this time.
Netanyahu, First Time: '2-State Solution'
Maayana Miskin
A7 News
Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu discussed his government's first 100 days in power on Sunday, and touted the “two-state solution” as an accomplishment. “We have brought about national agreement on the concept of two states for two peoples for the first time,” he said.. Netanyahu credited his government with giving “real meaning” to the concept of “two states for two peoples” by insisting that Israel retain its status as a Jewish state under any agreement aimed at creating a demilitarized Arab state in Judea and Samaria.
The speech was the first time Netanyahu has used the term “two states for two peoples.” Three weeks earlier he made headlines by using the phrase “Palestinian state” for the first time.
The prime minister repeated his conditions for the implementation of a “two state solution,” saying, “The Palestinians will need to recognize the state of Israel as the state of the Jewish people, and the refugee problem will be solved outside Israel's borders. Israel needs, and will get, defensible borders and the complete demilitarization of the Palestinian territory.”
PA Rejects
The Palestinian Authority has rejected all of Netanyahu's conditions, and continues to insist that Arab “refugees” descended from those who fled pre-state Israel in the 1940s be allowed to “return” to Israel. Millions of foreign Arabs currently consider themselves “Palestinian refugees.”
The PA refuses to recognize Israel as Jewish, fearing that such recognition would be taken as denying foreign Arabs the possibility of immigrating to Israel and becoming the demographic majority.
Other Accomplishments: Economy, Calm in South
Netanyahu also claimed the relative calm in Israel's south as one of his government's accomplishments. Operation Cast Lead, conducted shortly before his government took office, created a basis for calm, he said, emphasizing that the actions taken over the past three months preserved the calm.
Israel has maintained its gains in Cast Lead by responding to every single shooting from Gaza, he explained.
The prime minister claimed accomplishments in the financial realm as well. His government has achieved “national economic unity” and stands to pass Israel's first two-year budget, a step he said “is a component of stability in an atmosphere of instability.”
The government has more plans for economic reform, including a proposal to ease building laws, he added.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)