Elliott Abrams
Wednesday, April 8, 2009; Page A17 (first post-a reminder)
Will Israel's new government face American demands for a settlement freeze? If so, we are headed for a needless confrontation with the Netanyahu cabinet. There is wide consensus that the main obstacle to an Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement is settlement activity -- new construction in the communities beyond the "Green Line," as the border of Israel from the 1949 armistice until the 1967 war is known. Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas has called settlement activity "the greatest obstacle" to peace, former president George W. Bush called it an "impediment" to peace, and the international "quartet" -- the United States, the European Union, Russia and the United Nations -- has criticized settlement activity in virtually all of its joint statements.
There is also wide agreement on the antidote: a "settlement freeze," imposed to make peace possible. Consider: In a speech in Washington last February, Palestinian Authority Prime Minister Salam Fayyad said that "what is most desperately required is a cessation of all settlement activity in order to preserve the very possibility of a negotiated two-state solution." The 2001 Mitchell Report said Israel should "freeze all settlement activity, including the 'natural growth' of existing settlements," a conclusion that gained more importance when George Mitchell, the former senator who wrote the report, was named President Obama's Middle East negotiator.
ad_icon
Certainly the establishment of Israeli settlements in the West Bank after 1967 (by Labor and Likud governments) created conditions that complicate negotiations. Hundreds of thousands of Israelis now live beyond the Green Line, and the intense debate in Israel over then-Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's removal of fewer than 9,000 settlers from Gaza suggests that removing settlements from the West Bank will be even more controversial and difficult.
But those settlements exist, and there is no point in debating whether it was right to build them. President Bush largely resolved the issue of the major settlement blocs in a 2004 letter to Sharon. He stated a truth that Palestinians have come to recognize: "In light of new realities on the ground, including already existing major Israeli populations centers, it is unrealistic to expect that the outcome of final status negotiations will be a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949, and all previous efforts to negotiate a two-state solution have reached the same conclusion. It is realistic to expect that any final status agreement will only be achieved on the basis of mutually agreed changes that reflect these realities."
So the real issue is not past settlement activity but the demand for a settlement freeze. Is current and recent settlement construction creating insurmountable barriers to peace? A simple test shows that it is not. Ten years ago, in the Camp David talks, Prime Minister Ehud Barak offered Yasser Arafat approximately 94 percent of the West Bank, with a land swap to make up half of the 6 percent Israel would keep. According to news reports, just three months ago, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert offered 93 percent, with a one-to-one land swap. In the end, under the January 2009 offer, Palestinians would have received an area equal to 98 to 98.5 percent of the West Bank (depending on which press report you read), while 10 years ago they were offered 97 percent. Ten years of settlement activity would have resulted in a larger area for the Palestinian state.
How is this possible? For one thing, most settlement activity is in those major blocs that it is widely understood Israel will keep. For another, those settlements are becoming more populated, not geographically larger. Most settlement expansion occurs in ways that do not much affect Palestinian life. While the physical expansion of settlements may take land that Palestinians own or use, and may interfere with Palestinian mobility or agricultural activity, population growth inside settlements does not have that effect. For the past five years, Israel's government has largely adhered to guidelines that were discussed with the United States but never formally adopted: that there would be no new settlements, no financial incentives for Israelis to move to settlements and no new construction except in already built-up areas. The clear purpose of the guidelines? To allow for settlement growth in ways that minimized the impact on Palestinians.
Israel has largely, but not fully, kept to those rules; there has been physical expansion in some places, and the Palestinian Authority is right to object to it. Israeli settlement expansion beyond the security fence, in areas Israel will ultimately evacuate, is a mistake: It wastes Israeli resources and needlessly antagonizes the Palestinians who live nearby. But the overall impact of such recent activity -- as Olmert's proposal to Abbas showed -- has not undermined Israel's ability to negotiate peace and offer a territorial compromise.
Settlement activity is not diminishing the territory of a future Palestinian entity. In fact, the emphasis on a "settlement freeze" draws attention from the progress that's needed to lay the foundation for full Palestinian self-rule -- building a thriving economy, fighting terrorism through reliable security forces and establishing the rule of law. A "settlement freeze" would not help Palestinians face today's problems or prepare for tomorrow's challenges. The demand for a freeze would have only one quick effect: to create immediate tension between the United States and Israel's new government. That may be precisely why some propose it, but it is also why the Obama administration should reject it.
The writer, a senior fellow for Middle Eastern studies at the Council on Foreign Relations, was the deputy national security adviser overseeing Near East and North African affairs in the George W. Bush administration.
Tuesday, June 02, 2009
Monday, June 01, 2009
OBAMA PROMISES ARABS JERUSALEM WILL BE THEIRS
Aaron Klein
2009 WorldNetDaily
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/?pageId=99664
JERUSALEM President Obama and his administration told Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas during a meeting last week the U.S. foresees the creation of a Palestinian state with Jerusalem as its capital, according to a top PA official speaking to WND.
"The American administration was very friendly to the position of the PA," said Nimer Hamad, Abbas' senior political adviser.
"Abu Mazen (Abbas) heard from Obama and his administration in a very categorical way that a Palestinian state with Jerusalem as its capital is in the American national and security interest," Hamad said.
Read the groundbreaking work that exposes the threats to Israel from within and without in Aaron Klein's "The Late, Great State of Israel" from WND Books.
Another PA official, speaking on condition of anonymity, told WND today that Obama informed Abbas he would not let Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu "get in the way" of normalizing U.S. relations with the Arab and greater Muslim world.
"We were told from this new administration they will not allow a Netanyahu government to hurt their efforts of rehabilitating U.S. relations with the Arab and Islamic world, which is a high priority of Obama," the official said, speaking during a visit to Cairo.
Also in Cairo today, Abbas met with Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, where the Palestinian leader briefed Egypt's president on his recent trip to Washington, saying the U.S. was committed to bringing about an end to Israeli construction in the West Bank.
Hamad's comments about Jerusalem today come as controversy abounded regarding the U.S. position on Israel's capital city.
Last week, the State Department refuted a speech in which Netanyahu said Jerusalem never will be divided.
"Jerusalem is Israel's capital," Netanyahu said at an event marking Jerusalem's reunification. "Jerusalem was always ours and will always be ours. It will never again be partitioned and divided."
In response, the State Department released a statement that Jerusalem "is a final status issue."
"Israel and the Palestinians have agreed to resolve its status during negotiations. We will support their efforts to reach agreements on all final status issues," the statement said.
Also last week, a top Palestinian Authority official claimed in a WND interview that the Obama administration told the PA that Jerusalem will never be united under Israeli sovereignty.
"Americans said an open Jerusalem - yes. But a united Jerusalem under Israeli sovereignty - no," Hatem Abdel Khader, the PA's minister for Jerusalem affairs, said in comments to both WND and Israel's Ynetnews website.
"(The Obama administration) has made clear that Jerusalem must be accessible to everyone - but not united under Israel's rule," Khader said.
Khader claimed the U.S. is cooperating with the PA to "thwart Israel's plans in Jerusalem."
"When they collaborate with us in Israeli courts against home demolitions or the confiscation of land we see their attitude," he said.
Khader told WND, "The Americans are very present on the ground, and they are making pressure over Israeli authorities and even municipalities."
"They are acting according to the concept that the failure to establish a Palestinian state would jeopardize U.S. national security interests - and without Jerusalem there is no Palestinian state," he said.
U.S. helps Palestinians live illegally near Temple Mount
Khader's claim the U.S. is helping the Palestinians gain a foothold in Jerusalem is accurate. In April, WND reported that under intense American pressure and following a nearly unprecedented behind-the-scenes U.S. campaign, the Netanyahu government has decided not to bulldoze Palestinian homes built illegally on Jewish-owned property in Jerusalem.
The issue is critical since the 80 homes in question are located in Silwan, an eastern Jerusalem neighborhood close to the Temple Mount and Jerusalem's Old City that the Palestinians claim as a future capital. Jewish groups have been working to fortify the community's Jewish presence. Silwan is adjacent to the City of David, a massive archeological dig just outside the Temple Mount that is constantly turning up Temple artifacts.
Like tens of thousands of other Arab housing projects throughout eastern Jerusalem, the Palestinian homes in Silwan were illegally constructed on property long ago purchased by Jews. The Israeli government ordered the structures' legal demolition.
But during a visit here in early March, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton strongly protested the planned bulldozing.
"Clearly this kind of activity is unhelpful and not in keeping with the obligations entered into under the Road Map," she said. "It is an issue that we intend to raise with the government of Israel and the government at the municipal level in Jerusalem."
The Road Map calls for Israel to freeze Jewish settlement expansion in the West Bank but does not bar Israel from dismantling illegally constructed Palestinian homes in Jerusalem.
WND learned that in the weeks since Clinton's visit here, the U.S. mounted an intensive campaign lobbying the Israeli government against tearing down the illegal Palestinian homes in Silwan. The campaign included letters from the Middle East section of the State Department addressed to various Jerusalem municipalities, with copies of the letters sent to the offices of Israel's prime minister and foreign minister. The letters called on Israel to allow the illegal Palestinian homes in Silwan to remain and stated any demolitions would not foster an atmosphere of peace.
Also, in a follow-up visit here, State Department officials made it clear to their Israeli counterparts the U.S. opposes the Silwan bulldozing.
According to sources in the Israeli government, including in Netanyahu's administration, a decision has been made not to bulldoze the illegal Palestinian homes. The sources said the issue of the homes may be raised again in the future, but for the time being the houses will remain intact.
The sources attributed the decision against the bulldozing - which has not yet been announced - to the intense American campaign against the house demolitions.
Said one source in Netanyahu's administration, "This was very frustrating to us. Can you imagine if a foreign government came in and told a city office in the U.S. not to tear down a house that was illegally constructed on someone else's property?"
While Clinton opposed the Palestinian house demolitions, informed Israeli officials said the Obama administration is carefully monitoring Jewish construction in eastern Jerusalem and has already protested to the highest levels of Israeli government about evidence of housing expansion in those areas.
The officials, who spoke on condition that their names be withheld, said that last month Obama's Mideast envoy, George Mitchell, oversaw the establishment of an apparatus based in the U.S. consulate in Jerusalem that closely monitors eastern Jerusalem neighborhoods, incorporating regular tours on a daily basis.
The officials said that in recent meetings Mitchell strongly protested Jewish construction in eastern Jerusalem. Mitchell also condemned the work of nationalist Jewish groups to purchase property in Jerusalem's Old City, including in areas intimately tied to Judaism.
Israel recaptured eastern Jerusalem, including the Temple Mount - Judaism's holiest site - during the 1967 Six Day War.
The Palestinians, however, have claimed eastern Jerusalem as a future capital. About 244,000 Arabs live in Jerusalem, mostly in eastern neighborhoods, out of a total population of 724,000, the majority Jewish.
Thanks Israel Lives
Comment: The political plays at this time are many and will continue through the summer. Do not become distraught, it is politics. Do be alert to what is said and is not said. Take note of who is saying what message. We should check facts on the ground, for example let us see if Bibi did order no demolitions of illegal homes-we need this data to launch our owm counter attack. Send information here asap.
2009 WorldNetDaily
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/?pageId=99664
JERUSALEM President Obama and his administration told Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas during a meeting last week the U.S. foresees the creation of a Palestinian state with Jerusalem as its capital, according to a top PA official speaking to WND.
"The American administration was very friendly to the position of the PA," said Nimer Hamad, Abbas' senior political adviser.
"Abu Mazen (Abbas) heard from Obama and his administration in a very categorical way that a Palestinian state with Jerusalem as its capital is in the American national and security interest," Hamad said.
Read the groundbreaking work that exposes the threats to Israel from within and without in Aaron Klein's "The Late, Great State of Israel" from WND Books.
Another PA official, speaking on condition of anonymity, told WND today that Obama informed Abbas he would not let Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu "get in the way" of normalizing U.S. relations with the Arab and greater Muslim world.
"We were told from this new administration they will not allow a Netanyahu government to hurt their efforts of rehabilitating U.S. relations with the Arab and Islamic world, which is a high priority of Obama," the official said, speaking during a visit to Cairo.
Also in Cairo today, Abbas met with Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, where the Palestinian leader briefed Egypt's president on his recent trip to Washington, saying the U.S. was committed to bringing about an end to Israeli construction in the West Bank.
Hamad's comments about Jerusalem today come as controversy abounded regarding the U.S. position on Israel's capital city.
Last week, the State Department refuted a speech in which Netanyahu said Jerusalem never will be divided.
"Jerusalem is Israel's capital," Netanyahu said at an event marking Jerusalem's reunification. "Jerusalem was always ours and will always be ours. It will never again be partitioned and divided."
In response, the State Department released a statement that Jerusalem "is a final status issue."
"Israel and the Palestinians have agreed to resolve its status during negotiations. We will support their efforts to reach agreements on all final status issues," the statement said.
Also last week, a top Palestinian Authority official claimed in a WND interview that the Obama administration told the PA that Jerusalem will never be united under Israeli sovereignty.
"Americans said an open Jerusalem - yes. But a united Jerusalem under Israeli sovereignty - no," Hatem Abdel Khader, the PA's minister for Jerusalem affairs, said in comments to both WND and Israel's Ynetnews website.
"(The Obama administration) has made clear that Jerusalem must be accessible to everyone - but not united under Israel's rule," Khader said.
Khader claimed the U.S. is cooperating with the PA to "thwart Israel's plans in Jerusalem."
"When they collaborate with us in Israeli courts against home demolitions or the confiscation of land we see their attitude," he said.
Khader told WND, "The Americans are very present on the ground, and they are making pressure over Israeli authorities and even municipalities."
"They are acting according to the concept that the failure to establish a Palestinian state would jeopardize U.S. national security interests - and without Jerusalem there is no Palestinian state," he said.
U.S. helps Palestinians live illegally near Temple Mount
Khader's claim the U.S. is helping the Palestinians gain a foothold in Jerusalem is accurate. In April, WND reported that under intense American pressure and following a nearly unprecedented behind-the-scenes U.S. campaign, the Netanyahu government has decided not to bulldoze Palestinian homes built illegally on Jewish-owned property in Jerusalem.
The issue is critical since the 80 homes in question are located in Silwan, an eastern Jerusalem neighborhood close to the Temple Mount and Jerusalem's Old City that the Palestinians claim as a future capital. Jewish groups have been working to fortify the community's Jewish presence. Silwan is adjacent to the City of David, a massive archeological dig just outside the Temple Mount that is constantly turning up Temple artifacts.
Like tens of thousands of other Arab housing projects throughout eastern Jerusalem, the Palestinian homes in Silwan were illegally constructed on property long ago purchased by Jews. The Israeli government ordered the structures' legal demolition.
But during a visit here in early March, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton strongly protested the planned bulldozing.
"Clearly this kind of activity is unhelpful and not in keeping with the obligations entered into under the Road Map," she said. "It is an issue that we intend to raise with the government of Israel and the government at the municipal level in Jerusalem."
The Road Map calls for Israel to freeze Jewish settlement expansion in the West Bank but does not bar Israel from dismantling illegally constructed Palestinian homes in Jerusalem.
WND learned that in the weeks since Clinton's visit here, the U.S. mounted an intensive campaign lobbying the Israeli government against tearing down the illegal Palestinian homes in Silwan. The campaign included letters from the Middle East section of the State Department addressed to various Jerusalem municipalities, with copies of the letters sent to the offices of Israel's prime minister and foreign minister. The letters called on Israel to allow the illegal Palestinian homes in Silwan to remain and stated any demolitions would not foster an atmosphere of peace.
Also, in a follow-up visit here, State Department officials made it clear to their Israeli counterparts the U.S. opposes the Silwan bulldozing.
According to sources in the Israeli government, including in Netanyahu's administration, a decision has been made not to bulldoze the illegal Palestinian homes. The sources said the issue of the homes may be raised again in the future, but for the time being the houses will remain intact.
The sources attributed the decision against the bulldozing - which has not yet been announced - to the intense American campaign against the house demolitions.
Said one source in Netanyahu's administration, "This was very frustrating to us. Can you imagine if a foreign government came in and told a city office in the U.S. not to tear down a house that was illegally constructed on someone else's property?"
While Clinton opposed the Palestinian house demolitions, informed Israeli officials said the Obama administration is carefully monitoring Jewish construction in eastern Jerusalem and has already protested to the highest levels of Israeli government about evidence of housing expansion in those areas.
The officials, who spoke on condition that their names be withheld, said that last month Obama's Mideast envoy, George Mitchell, oversaw the establishment of an apparatus based in the U.S. consulate in Jerusalem that closely monitors eastern Jerusalem neighborhoods, incorporating regular tours on a daily basis.
The officials said that in recent meetings Mitchell strongly protested Jewish construction in eastern Jerusalem. Mitchell also condemned the work of nationalist Jewish groups to purchase property in Jerusalem's Old City, including in areas intimately tied to Judaism.
Israel recaptured eastern Jerusalem, including the Temple Mount - Judaism's holiest site - during the 1967 Six Day War.
The Palestinians, however, have claimed eastern Jerusalem as a future capital. About 244,000 Arabs live in Jerusalem, mostly in eastern neighborhoods, out of a total population of 724,000, the majority Jewish.
Thanks Israel Lives
Comment: The political plays at this time are many and will continue through the summer. Do not become distraught, it is politics. Do be alert to what is said and is not said. Take note of who is saying what message. We should check facts on the ground, for example let us see if Bibi did order no demolitions of illegal homes-we need this data to launch our owm counter attack. Send information here asap.
Standing Tough"
So much to discuss within a rapidly shifting scenario.
I begin with a clarification of my previous stated position on Netanyahu, Obama, and the outposts. There were a handful of readers who saw in my recent words a shift towards appeasement, and G-d forbid, that is not what I intended to convey.
I had the impression that Netanyahu believed that agreeing to take down a few outposts would allow him to acquire greater support from Obama for being tough on Iran. What I call a quid pro quo, which is not the same as appeasement. Here in Israel we are facing down the Iranian threat directly. I was not recommending, and would never, ever recommend, appeasement of Iran. I am mightily contemptuous of Obama's terribly dangerous tendency to appease. I believe it likely that we will attack Iran and I support that. But I am mindful that acquiring certain bunker busters from the US can make us more effective, and that not having the US object to our flying over Iraq can make our mission enormously easier (and provide it with greater chance of success). And, yes, I reasoned that IF (this is the critical qualifier) taking down a few outposts is the cost of acquiring these things, it would be a trade that is worth making. I still reason so. This is what I heard in Netanyahu's comments.
My position was that we must not get so caught in the ideology of protecting our right to some part of the land that we miss out on an opportunity to better protect all of the land and all of the people, vis-a-vis a more effective attack on Iran. I believe Netanyahu speaks truth when he says we are not living in normal times.
~~~~~~~~~~
However, what I wrote about was "a few outposts." Not all of them, and certainly nothing in the way of large settlements. I acknowledged as I wrote that going this route presents the danger of a slippery slope. What reassured me was the position of key members of the gov't, who are watching Netanyahu and demanding that he (or Barak) not do wholesale taking down of settlements. I trust Benny Begin, and Moshe Ya'alon, and Yisrael Katz, etc. etc., more than I trust Netanyahu. And I had what I consider fairly solid reason to believe that Netanyahu knew full well what his constraints would be with regard his own government.
I also had reason to believe that a token -- taking down a tent here, a few shacks there -- would be what we would see, in order to give Obama the semblance of "movement" towards peace, and not a whole lot more. And yes, from a purely ideological position, those few shacks are the same as a settlement of 40 or 50 families. But this has not been my focus because of the existential threats we face. Sometimes, I believe, we have to settle for the best deal we can get, on balance, within a given set of parameters.
Please note, I have been taking my cue in part from the settlers, who are rather sanguine about what's happening because they know with these small outposts they can re-build and re-build until they are victorious. That, in the long run is what matters.
At any rate, I thank those who wrote to me with heartfelt anguish and prompted some serious thought and discussion. I take none of this lightly, ever. Many nights, I lose sleep over these issues.
~~~~~~~~~~
But the situation is now changing, and there is a great deal more to consider. My earlier words may become moot, my perspective superseded by new situations and new information.
Obama met with Abbas on Thursday. With the holiday of Shavuot upon us, I had no chance until now to write about what followed from that meeting. There are a number of factors to consider:
Obama surprised me in one respect regarding what he reportedly said to the media after the Abbas meeting. He actually mentioned PA incitement, an issue rarely addressed. What he said was that Abbas had to "continue to make progress on reducing incitement."
I believe we have to grab hold of this issue as if we were pit bulls, who bite down and don't let go. So much is said about settlements as "an obstacle to peace." (See below) But this is nonsense, because were there to be some peaceful arrangement, settlements could be (not should be, but could be) negotiated out of existence. That is, their presence does not block peaceful negotiations from advancing.
But incitement is another matter all together. The hatred for us that has been inculcated by the PA in the Palestinian population cannot be negotiated out of existence. We cannot have peace with these Arabs at our periphery, or in our midst, unless and until they accept our presence and our right to be where we are. Unless and until they no longer believe that Allah wants them to martyr themselves in a jihad to destroy us. Unless and until they understand that Jews are entitled to dignity.
Palestinian Arabs need to be told consistently by their leadership that genuine peace with us is a good thing. That there is an ancient Jewish history in Jerusalem. That our presence in the land is acceptable and not an affront. And no where is this more urgently needed than in the schools, where the textbooks that are used are invidious and undermine any genuine possibility for peace.
The work to change the textbooks must begin immediately.
This, above all, must be a demand we hold fast to, with the premise, always, that no peace is possible otherwise. That the PA hasn't demonstrated peaceful intent, otherwise. That it's a farce to make demands of Israel, otherwise.
We are being put on the defensive, and this is a necessary offensive stance. And it's absolutely valid.
~~~~~~~~~~
The PA will not agree to make these changes. The ideology of radical Islam is too mainstream (especially with the growing influence of Hamas). No PA leader could change the line this radically and expect to remain a leader, never mind to live.
To demand this is to unmask the insincerity of Palestinian Arab statements.
~~~~~~~~~~
But I would demand this not of Abbas, but of Obama, first:
"Mr. President, if you are sincere about promoting ME peace, this is essential. If you cut the PA slack on this, you are destroying chances for peace and putting the lie to your intentions."
"Mr. President, work on changing the horrendously inciteful PA textbooks must begin immediately. This is an absolute prerequisite for peace. You must make this demand a priority."
"Mr. President, PA textbooks teach that martyrdom for Jihad is blessed by Allah. They teach that Jews have no rights in Jerusalem or the land of Israel. How can you ask Israel to make peace with the Palestinian people when this is what they are taught?"
And the time to start is now.
Fax: 202-456-2461 Comment line: 202-456-1111
e-mail form via: http://www.whitehouse.gov/contact/
~~~~~~~~~~
It seems that Obama intends to cut us no slack on the issue of settlements. He is demanding (and Hillary has reiterated this) a total settlement freeze, even with regard to natural growth.
This means if a young man returns to his community after serving in the army and wants to marry and build a home near his family, he cannot. Of if young couples in a neighborhood have a number of small children, a new nursery school (gan) cannot be built. This is the case even if the new home or nursery school would be built entirely within the existing boundaries of the community and not extended a single meter into "contested area." In fact, a new room could not even be added to an existing home, if a family became larger.
Commentators are observing that this represents an essential change from previous American policy.
~~~~~~~~~~
But Obama cannot ultimately demand anything. For we are a sovereign nation. The response I'm picking up from various gov't officials is mixed.
From Daniel Herschkowitz, Science Minister and head of Habayit Hayehudi: The American demand to prevent natural growth is unreasonable, and brings to mind Pharaoh who said: 'Every son that is born ye shall cast into the river.'
"If there is a family that expands from one child to four or five, what should we tell them - to ship the children off to Petah Tikva? This is an unacceptable demand, even [even?] if it comes from the Americans, and Israel should reject it decisively."
From Eli Yishai, Interior Minister and head of Shas: "The American demand to freeze construction means expulsion for young people living in large locales. I hope the US administration understands that. If not, I don't want to be an apocalyptic prophet saying we're facing struggle and confrontation. The concessions they're demanding of us are a security impediment we cannot withstand."
~~~~~~~~~~
But then we have Information Minister Yuli Edelstein (Likud):
"The recent days prove what luck we have that it is Netanyahu's government conducting talks on West Bank natural growth and construction in Jerusalem. Just imagine someone else, he would have led us to an entanglement lasting generations.
"We aren't headed for a confrontation with the White House but rather for understandings..."
And Welfare Minister Isaac Herzog (Labor):
"The current American administration sees things differently than the last two presidents did. Construction is being undertaken around Jerusalem according to understandings with previous administrations. Israel wants very much to reach understandings, and Defense Minister Ehud Barak's upcoming trip to Washington proves it."
At which point an unease moves in....
~~~~~~~~~~
So it's time to sound the alarm with Netanyahu, who to this day has not agreed to freeze settlements. Let him know that you're behind him as he stands strong, that you are outraged by what Obama is demanding. Remind him that Israel is a sovereign state and does not have to give in to demands from abroad. Implore him to instruct Barak not to cave on settlements when he is in Washington.
Fax: 02-670-5369 (From the US: 011-972-2-670-5369)
Phone: 03-610-9898 (From the US: 011-972-3-610-9898)
E-mail: pm_eng2@it.pmo.gov.il (underscore after pm)
~~~~~~~~~~
There is one other point of interest I noted with regard to Obama's comments. This provides a glimmer of hope.
Obama said: "...obviously Prime Minister Netanyahu has to work through these issues in his own government."
This seems to indicate that Obama knows that Netanyahu can take issues regarding outposts and settlements just so far before he will be blocked. Thus it's important to make sure this is the case. And so, I would encourage, lastly, communication with key ministers of the gov't, imploring them to stand strong and to block any Barak/Netanyahu initiative that takes down major outposts or freezes settlements. Express your outrage with Obama and say you're counting on them to carry the day.
Minister Moshe Ya'alon: myaalon@knesset.gov.il (no fax given) office phone: 02-640-8891
Minister Yisrael Katz: yiskatz@knesset.gov.il fax: 02-6496-525 office phone: 02-640-8174
Minister Benny Begin: bbegin@knesset.gov.il (no fax given) office phone: 02-640-8022
Yuli Edelstein: yedelstein@knesset.gov.il fax: 02-6758919 office phone: 02-6408-392
For additional ministers: http://www.knesset.gov.il/mk/eng/MKIndex_Current_eng.asp?view=1
~~~~~~~~~~
Then we have an article, "Israel and the Axis of Evil," written by Caroline Glick right before Shavuot, in which she says: "No destruction of Jewish communities will convince Obama to act against Iran." She says a great deal more, and I would like to return to her in a day or two. But here I wish to say simply that if the evidence points to her being correct, if there is going to be no quid pro quo, as Netanyahu had indicated -- either naively or hopefully or disingenuously -- then there is no reason to countenance taking down of outposts.
~~~~~~~~~~
In point of fact, another outpost was dismantled last night. This was at Shvut Ami, near Kedumim in Samaria. What was dismantled? One hut; six young people were sent away, without violence. There was talk immediately after of putting up the hut again, but, according to Arutz Sheva, for now the youths have decided to take up residence in a cave on the property, as a cave is difficult to dismantle.
And so, yes, ideologically this is the same as a more significant outpost. But, really, one hut? One has the feeling that Barak is going for what creates the least fuss.
~~~~~~~~~~
I note as well that the office of the defense minister has declared that it will not, at least not now, take down nine homes in Ofra -- a significant settlement northeast of Jerusalem in Samaria -- that have been declared "illegal." What we're seeing here is evidence that the defense minister indeed has latitude as to what should be dismantled and that politics play a role in the decision process. In fact, the situation in Ofra serves as a model of exactly how politicized this whole issue of "illegal" is.
This, too, I would like to return to in due course.
~~~~~~~~~~
I welcome a statement reported by the Washington Post that an Abbas associate made following Abbas's visit with Obama:
"It will take a couple of years" for Obama to force Netanyahu from office.
It is to be welcomed because of the stupidity of the remark, and because it serves to stiffen the spines of members of our government.
The question is whether this was a unilaterally stupid remark, or one based on something said by Obama off the record. My purely intuitive hunch is that it's the latter. And that's certainly the take as well of Likud Faction Chair MK Ze'ev Elkin, who commented, "With all due respect to the United States...we are an independent democratic country..."
~~~~~~~~~~
Dear friends, bear with me, as the number of issues to address seems to overwhelm my time and ability to address them all. My UNRWA report awaits my serious and reasonably undivided attention. I will post as I can.
~~~~~~~~~~
"The Good News Corner"
-- An Israeli company called Opgal has developed the Fever Detection and Alarm System, which can spot persons with fevers in a crowd in transportation hubs such as airports and train stations. This may have potential in combating pandemics. Drawing on non-invasive heat sensor technology and cameras, the system requires no installation of equipment and is relatively inexpensive to utilize. Persons pegged as feverish would be stopped for culture swabs or further questioning.
-- Special Israeli security companies are greatly in demand for providing protection against pirates on the open seas who attack cruise ships and commercial liners. Israeli anti-pirate teams are deemed the best trained and are proving effective. They function on board in hidden capacities (e.g., as life guards) so that pirates collecting intelligence won't be aware of them. The Israeli teams also use hi-tech optic systems to identify pirate ships a distance away.
-- A kibbutz called Kishorit, in northern Israel, has become a model of how to provide full living experience for adults who are mentally challenged -- whether because of autism, schizophrenia, or other problems. The roughly 150 members, who are resident for life (a facility for seniors is being developed), have established the largest organic goat farm in Israel, run a TV station and have developed a line of toys. Their efforts are supported by a strong sense of community and an aesthetic environment that is comforting.
~~~~~~~~~~
see my website www.ArlenefromIsrael.info
I begin with a clarification of my previous stated position on Netanyahu, Obama, and the outposts. There were a handful of readers who saw in my recent words a shift towards appeasement, and G-d forbid, that is not what I intended to convey.
I had the impression that Netanyahu believed that agreeing to take down a few outposts would allow him to acquire greater support from Obama for being tough on Iran. What I call a quid pro quo, which is not the same as appeasement. Here in Israel we are facing down the Iranian threat directly. I was not recommending, and would never, ever recommend, appeasement of Iran. I am mightily contemptuous of Obama's terribly dangerous tendency to appease. I believe it likely that we will attack Iran and I support that. But I am mindful that acquiring certain bunker busters from the US can make us more effective, and that not having the US object to our flying over Iraq can make our mission enormously easier (and provide it with greater chance of success). And, yes, I reasoned that IF (this is the critical qualifier) taking down a few outposts is the cost of acquiring these things, it would be a trade that is worth making. I still reason so. This is what I heard in Netanyahu's comments.
My position was that we must not get so caught in the ideology of protecting our right to some part of the land that we miss out on an opportunity to better protect all of the land and all of the people, vis-a-vis a more effective attack on Iran. I believe Netanyahu speaks truth when he says we are not living in normal times.
~~~~~~~~~~
However, what I wrote about was "a few outposts." Not all of them, and certainly nothing in the way of large settlements. I acknowledged as I wrote that going this route presents the danger of a slippery slope. What reassured me was the position of key members of the gov't, who are watching Netanyahu and demanding that he (or Barak) not do wholesale taking down of settlements. I trust Benny Begin, and Moshe Ya'alon, and Yisrael Katz, etc. etc., more than I trust Netanyahu. And I had what I consider fairly solid reason to believe that Netanyahu knew full well what his constraints would be with regard his own government.
I also had reason to believe that a token -- taking down a tent here, a few shacks there -- would be what we would see, in order to give Obama the semblance of "movement" towards peace, and not a whole lot more. And yes, from a purely ideological position, those few shacks are the same as a settlement of 40 or 50 families. But this has not been my focus because of the existential threats we face. Sometimes, I believe, we have to settle for the best deal we can get, on balance, within a given set of parameters.
Please note, I have been taking my cue in part from the settlers, who are rather sanguine about what's happening because they know with these small outposts they can re-build and re-build until they are victorious. That, in the long run is what matters.
At any rate, I thank those who wrote to me with heartfelt anguish and prompted some serious thought and discussion. I take none of this lightly, ever. Many nights, I lose sleep over these issues.
~~~~~~~~~~
But the situation is now changing, and there is a great deal more to consider. My earlier words may become moot, my perspective superseded by new situations and new information.
Obama met with Abbas on Thursday. With the holiday of Shavuot upon us, I had no chance until now to write about what followed from that meeting. There are a number of factors to consider:
Obama surprised me in one respect regarding what he reportedly said to the media after the Abbas meeting. He actually mentioned PA incitement, an issue rarely addressed. What he said was that Abbas had to "continue to make progress on reducing incitement."
I believe we have to grab hold of this issue as if we were pit bulls, who bite down and don't let go. So much is said about settlements as "an obstacle to peace." (See below) But this is nonsense, because were there to be some peaceful arrangement, settlements could be (not should be, but could be) negotiated out of existence. That is, their presence does not block peaceful negotiations from advancing.
But incitement is another matter all together. The hatred for us that has been inculcated by the PA in the Palestinian population cannot be negotiated out of existence. We cannot have peace with these Arabs at our periphery, or in our midst, unless and until they accept our presence and our right to be where we are. Unless and until they no longer believe that Allah wants them to martyr themselves in a jihad to destroy us. Unless and until they understand that Jews are entitled to dignity.
Palestinian Arabs need to be told consistently by their leadership that genuine peace with us is a good thing. That there is an ancient Jewish history in Jerusalem. That our presence in the land is acceptable and not an affront. And no where is this more urgently needed than in the schools, where the textbooks that are used are invidious and undermine any genuine possibility for peace.
The work to change the textbooks must begin immediately.
This, above all, must be a demand we hold fast to, with the premise, always, that no peace is possible otherwise. That the PA hasn't demonstrated peaceful intent, otherwise. That it's a farce to make demands of Israel, otherwise.
We are being put on the defensive, and this is a necessary offensive stance. And it's absolutely valid.
~~~~~~~~~~
The PA will not agree to make these changes. The ideology of radical Islam is too mainstream (especially with the growing influence of Hamas). No PA leader could change the line this radically and expect to remain a leader, never mind to live.
To demand this is to unmask the insincerity of Palestinian Arab statements.
~~~~~~~~~~
But I would demand this not of Abbas, but of Obama, first:
"Mr. President, if you are sincere about promoting ME peace, this is essential. If you cut the PA slack on this, you are destroying chances for peace and putting the lie to your intentions."
"Mr. President, work on changing the horrendously inciteful PA textbooks must begin immediately. This is an absolute prerequisite for peace. You must make this demand a priority."
"Mr. President, PA textbooks teach that martyrdom for Jihad is blessed by Allah. They teach that Jews have no rights in Jerusalem or the land of Israel. How can you ask Israel to make peace with the Palestinian people when this is what they are taught?"
And the time to start is now.
Fax: 202-456-2461 Comment line: 202-456-1111
e-mail form via: http://www.whitehouse.gov/contact/
~~~~~~~~~~
It seems that Obama intends to cut us no slack on the issue of settlements. He is demanding (and Hillary has reiterated this) a total settlement freeze, even with regard to natural growth.
This means if a young man returns to his community after serving in the army and wants to marry and build a home near his family, he cannot. Of if young couples in a neighborhood have a number of small children, a new nursery school (gan) cannot be built. This is the case even if the new home or nursery school would be built entirely within the existing boundaries of the community and not extended a single meter into "contested area." In fact, a new room could not even be added to an existing home, if a family became larger.
Commentators are observing that this represents an essential change from previous American policy.
~~~~~~~~~~
But Obama cannot ultimately demand anything. For we are a sovereign nation. The response I'm picking up from various gov't officials is mixed.
From Daniel Herschkowitz, Science Minister and head of Habayit Hayehudi: The American demand to prevent natural growth is unreasonable, and brings to mind Pharaoh who said: 'Every son that is born ye shall cast into the river.'
"If there is a family that expands from one child to four or five, what should we tell them - to ship the children off to Petah Tikva? This is an unacceptable demand, even [even?] if it comes from the Americans, and Israel should reject it decisively."
From Eli Yishai, Interior Minister and head of Shas: "The American demand to freeze construction means expulsion for young people living in large locales. I hope the US administration understands that. If not, I don't want to be an apocalyptic prophet saying we're facing struggle and confrontation. The concessions they're demanding of us are a security impediment we cannot withstand."
~~~~~~~~~~
But then we have Information Minister Yuli Edelstein (Likud):
"The recent days prove what luck we have that it is Netanyahu's government conducting talks on West Bank natural growth and construction in Jerusalem. Just imagine someone else, he would have led us to an entanglement lasting generations.
"We aren't headed for a confrontation with the White House but rather for understandings..."
And Welfare Minister Isaac Herzog (Labor):
"The current American administration sees things differently than the last two presidents did. Construction is being undertaken around Jerusalem according to understandings with previous administrations. Israel wants very much to reach understandings, and Defense Minister Ehud Barak's upcoming trip to Washington proves it."
At which point an unease moves in....
~~~~~~~~~~
So it's time to sound the alarm with Netanyahu, who to this day has not agreed to freeze settlements. Let him know that you're behind him as he stands strong, that you are outraged by what Obama is demanding. Remind him that Israel is a sovereign state and does not have to give in to demands from abroad. Implore him to instruct Barak not to cave on settlements when he is in Washington.
Fax: 02-670-5369 (From the US: 011-972-2-670-5369)
Phone: 03-610-9898 (From the US: 011-972-3-610-9898)
E-mail: pm_eng2@it.pmo.gov.il (underscore after pm)
~~~~~~~~~~
There is one other point of interest I noted with regard to Obama's comments. This provides a glimmer of hope.
Obama said: "...obviously Prime Minister Netanyahu has to work through these issues in his own government."
This seems to indicate that Obama knows that Netanyahu can take issues regarding outposts and settlements just so far before he will be blocked. Thus it's important to make sure this is the case. And so, I would encourage, lastly, communication with key ministers of the gov't, imploring them to stand strong and to block any Barak/Netanyahu initiative that takes down major outposts or freezes settlements. Express your outrage with Obama and say you're counting on them to carry the day.
Minister Moshe Ya'alon: myaalon@knesset.gov.il (no fax given) office phone: 02-640-8891
Minister Yisrael Katz: yiskatz@knesset.gov.il fax: 02-6496-525 office phone: 02-640-8174
Minister Benny Begin: bbegin@knesset.gov.il (no fax given) office phone: 02-640-8022
Yuli Edelstein: yedelstein@knesset.gov.il fax: 02-6758919 office phone: 02-6408-392
For additional ministers: http://www.knesset.gov.il/mk/eng/MKIndex_Current_eng.asp?view=1
~~~~~~~~~~
Then we have an article, "Israel and the Axis of Evil," written by Caroline Glick right before Shavuot, in which she says: "No destruction of Jewish communities will convince Obama to act against Iran." She says a great deal more, and I would like to return to her in a day or two. But here I wish to say simply that if the evidence points to her being correct, if there is going to be no quid pro quo, as Netanyahu had indicated -- either naively or hopefully or disingenuously -- then there is no reason to countenance taking down of outposts.
~~~~~~~~~~
In point of fact, another outpost was dismantled last night. This was at Shvut Ami, near Kedumim in Samaria. What was dismantled? One hut; six young people were sent away, without violence. There was talk immediately after of putting up the hut again, but, according to Arutz Sheva, for now the youths have decided to take up residence in a cave on the property, as a cave is difficult to dismantle.
And so, yes, ideologically this is the same as a more significant outpost. But, really, one hut? One has the feeling that Barak is going for what creates the least fuss.
~~~~~~~~~~
I note as well that the office of the defense minister has declared that it will not, at least not now, take down nine homes in Ofra -- a significant settlement northeast of Jerusalem in Samaria -- that have been declared "illegal." What we're seeing here is evidence that the defense minister indeed has latitude as to what should be dismantled and that politics play a role in the decision process. In fact, the situation in Ofra serves as a model of exactly how politicized this whole issue of "illegal" is.
This, too, I would like to return to in due course.
~~~~~~~~~~
I welcome a statement reported by the Washington Post that an Abbas associate made following Abbas's visit with Obama:
"It will take a couple of years" for Obama to force Netanyahu from office.
It is to be welcomed because of the stupidity of the remark, and because it serves to stiffen the spines of members of our government.
The question is whether this was a unilaterally stupid remark, or one based on something said by Obama off the record. My purely intuitive hunch is that it's the latter. And that's certainly the take as well of Likud Faction Chair MK Ze'ev Elkin, who commented, "With all due respect to the United States...we are an independent democratic country..."
~~~~~~~~~~
Dear friends, bear with me, as the number of issues to address seems to overwhelm my time and ability to address them all. My UNRWA report awaits my serious and reasonably undivided attention. I will post as I can.
~~~~~~~~~~
"The Good News Corner"
-- An Israeli company called Opgal has developed the Fever Detection and Alarm System, which can spot persons with fevers in a crowd in transportation hubs such as airports and train stations. This may have potential in combating pandemics. Drawing on non-invasive heat sensor technology and cameras, the system requires no installation of equipment and is relatively inexpensive to utilize. Persons pegged as feverish would be stopped for culture swabs or further questioning.
-- Special Israeli security companies are greatly in demand for providing protection against pirates on the open seas who attack cruise ships and commercial liners. Israeli anti-pirate teams are deemed the best trained and are proving effective. They function on board in hidden capacities (e.g., as life guards) so that pirates collecting intelligence won't be aware of them. The Israeli teams also use hi-tech optic systems to identify pirate ships a distance away.
-- A kibbutz called Kishorit, in northern Israel, has become a model of how to provide full living experience for adults who are mentally challenged -- whether because of autism, schizophrenia, or other problems. The roughly 150 members, who are resident for life (a facility for seniors is being developed), have established the largest organic goat farm in Israel, run a TV station and have developed a line of toys. Their efforts are supported by a strong sense of community and an aesthetic environment that is comforting.
~~~~~~~~~~
see my website www.ArlenefromIsrael.info
Sunday, May 31, 2009
Peace on the Borderline
RubinReprots
Speaking more broadly about peace and negotiations, there’s nothing like standing next to the Israel-Syria ceasefire line for contemplating the meaning of peace, both real and fabled.
Before 1967, the Syrians sat atop the Golan Heights, like a balcony overlooking flat Israel below stretching straight to the Mediterranean coast. The Syrians periodically shelled the area and in the event of full-scale war initiated by a surprise attack could well have swept down like the wolf on the fold, as one of their predecessor states did in Biblical times.
Today, while the Israeli-ruled Golan Heights has army bases aplenty, it’s been transformed into tremendously productive use as wineries, orchards, artist colonies, and tourist destinations.
What would happen if there was “peace” with Syria as that country is at present? The Syrian army would return, declare the territory a closed military area, and again point weapons down at Israel. Would there be conciliation, cultural exchanges, any end to Syrian backing for Hamas and Hizballah, or a termination of attacks from Lebanon? Forget it.
But even this is won’t happen. As long as the current radical regime is in power in Damascus, there won’t be any negotiated peace even of the most superficial variety because the conflict is indispensible to the Syrian dictatorship. And the most probably type of change in Syria—though its likelihood is still low—to a radical Islamist regime would make any such peace even less likely.
Since Syria would give nothing in return for the return of the Golan Heights, what advantage would it give Israel for all intents and purposes to return to the pre-1967 situation with Syria?
Meanwhile, Palestinian Authority (PA) leader Mahmoud Abbas met the potentially most pro-Palestinian president in U.S. history and threw away a great opportunity to win favor.
There’s no question that if any real solution might end the conflict, that would be a two-state solution. But that’s certainly not the same as saying that any two-state solution would meet that need.
That’s because despite ip-service toward Israel security needs, when a Western leader says “two-state solution” he’s not thinking very hard about what this would mean.
Partly, this is due to the Western conception of a successful end to the peace process. It goes, without much exaggeration, like this: the two sides sign an agreement, the conflict ends, and everybody lives pretty happily thereafter. Palestine exists in peace alongside Israel. The lion lies down with the lamb, except only the lion ever gets up again.
It is really pretty much a variation of a song called “Last Night I had the Strangest Dream,” in which papers are signed saying “They’d never fight again,” everyone dances, while swords, guns and uniforms are thrown away.
Now back to the real world. Here, Israel has to worry about:
--A radical Palestinian state ruled by Fatah, a Fatah-Hamas coalition, or taken over by Hamas which is tied to Iran and Syria.
--Creating a Palestine in which all schools, mosques, and media teach Palestinians that all Israel is theirs and they must conquer it, a Palestine full of incitement to violence inspiring hundreds to become terrorists, thousands to help them, and hundreds of thousands to support them. In some respects, this describes the Palestinian Authority (PA) today, despite its real efforts to limit cross-border attacks.
--In any of the above circumstances, extending the conflict another generation by using the state as base for a “second stage” to finish off Israel. While they would almost certainly fail, such an outcome would reduce the benefits of such a”peace” agreement for Israel to close to zero.
.
--Leaving the Gaza Strip in Hamas’s hands which means, in effect, a three-state solution. Short of a U.S.-led multinational invasion force—rather unlikely—there’s no way Gaza can be included in a peace agreement with Israel. Talking about a two-state solution while the PA doesn’t even control Gaza is unconnected to reality.
--Setting off a new cross-border war, with Palestine’s government and security forces either looking the other way or actively assisting terrorists.
--Creating a Palestine that invites in Iranian, Syrian, or other armies, or obtains missiles from them targeted at Israeli cities.
All of the above are very realistic assessments. The best-case outcome would be a Palestine in which a shaky regime held on, kept “moderate” by Israeli pressure and covert operations, Western management of aid funds, and some assistance by Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Jordan to avoid new crises. Yet this is not a solution but a new day-to-day series of crises and sporadic bloodshed.
Even this is unlikely given the PA’s refusal to make the most minimal concessions, including agreeing to resettle Palestinian refugees in their “national homeland” of Palestine.
And we’re supposed to believe that what’s holding up the new golden age is that some settlers might decide to build another room onto their apartments or even a new building inside the perimeter fence of an existing settlement?
Get real.
A two-state solution with Israel and Palestine living side by side in peace? I’m for it. But mindlessly repeating that slogan solves nothing. Answer these questions or don’t expect any progress:
--What incentives you’re offering Israel in exchange for more concessions and risks when all your past promises and claims have proven wrong.
--How you’re going to deal with the Hamas in Gaza problem.
--When will the PA agree that a two-state solution would permanently end the conflict and insist all refugees be resettled in Palestine?
--When will the PA agree in a diplomatic solution to recognize Israel as a Jewish state since the Palestine Israel’s being told to recognize is defined in its constitution as an Arab and Muslim state.
--Prove why anyone should possibly believe a stable solution would emerge from your plan.
Barry Rubin
Bustan-Ha-Golan, Golan Heights
President Barack Obama has said that if Israel examines its long-term interests, it will realize that a two-state solution is in the interests of Israelis and Palestinians alike.
What he doesn’t understand is: that depends on what kind of two-state solution we are talking about. Speaking more broadly about peace and negotiations, there’s nothing like standing next to the Israel-Syria ceasefire line for contemplating the meaning of peace, both real and fabled.
Before 1967, the Syrians sat atop the Golan Heights, like a balcony overlooking flat Israel below stretching straight to the Mediterranean coast. The Syrians periodically shelled the area and in the event of full-scale war initiated by a surprise attack could well have swept down like the wolf on the fold, as one of their predecessor states did in Biblical times.
Today, while the Israeli-ruled Golan Heights has army bases aplenty, it’s been transformed into tremendously productive use as wineries, orchards, artist colonies, and tourist destinations.
What would happen if there was “peace” with Syria as that country is at present? The Syrian army would return, declare the territory a closed military area, and again point weapons down at Israel. Would there be conciliation, cultural exchanges, any end to Syrian backing for Hamas and Hizballah, or a termination of attacks from Lebanon? Forget it.
But even this is won’t happen. As long as the current radical regime is in power in Damascus, there won’t be any negotiated peace even of the most superficial variety because the conflict is indispensible to the Syrian dictatorship. And the most probably type of change in Syria—though its likelihood is still low—to a radical Islamist regime would make any such peace even less likely.
Since Syria would give nothing in return for the return of the Golan Heights, what advantage would it give Israel for all intents and purposes to return to the pre-1967 situation with Syria?
Meanwhile, Palestinian Authority (PA) leader Mahmoud Abbas met the potentially most pro-Palestinian president in U.S. history and threw away a great opportunity to win favor.
There’s no question that if any real solution might end the conflict, that would be a two-state solution. But that’s certainly not the same as saying that any two-state solution would meet that need.
That’s because despite ip-service toward Israel security needs, when a Western leader says “two-state solution” he’s not thinking very hard about what this would mean.
Partly, this is due to the Western conception of a successful end to the peace process. It goes, without much exaggeration, like this: the two sides sign an agreement, the conflict ends, and everybody lives pretty happily thereafter. Palestine exists in peace alongside Israel. The lion lies down with the lamb, except only the lion ever gets up again.
It is really pretty much a variation of a song called “Last Night I had the Strangest Dream,” in which papers are signed saying “They’d never fight again,” everyone dances, while swords, guns and uniforms are thrown away.
Now back to the real world. Here, Israel has to worry about:
--A radical Palestinian state ruled by Fatah, a Fatah-Hamas coalition, or taken over by Hamas which is tied to Iran and Syria.
--Creating a Palestine in which all schools, mosques, and media teach Palestinians that all Israel is theirs and they must conquer it, a Palestine full of incitement to violence inspiring hundreds to become terrorists, thousands to help them, and hundreds of thousands to support them. In some respects, this describes the Palestinian Authority (PA) today, despite its real efforts to limit cross-border attacks.
--In any of the above circumstances, extending the conflict another generation by using the state as base for a “second stage” to finish off Israel. While they would almost certainly fail, such an outcome would reduce the benefits of such a”peace” agreement for Israel to close to zero.
.
--Leaving the Gaza Strip in Hamas’s hands which means, in effect, a three-state solution. Short of a U.S.-led multinational invasion force—rather unlikely—there’s no way Gaza can be included in a peace agreement with Israel. Talking about a two-state solution while the PA doesn’t even control Gaza is unconnected to reality.
--Setting off a new cross-border war, with Palestine’s government and security forces either looking the other way or actively assisting terrorists.
--Creating a Palestine that invites in Iranian, Syrian, or other armies, or obtains missiles from them targeted at Israeli cities.
All of the above are very realistic assessments. The best-case outcome would be a Palestine in which a shaky regime held on, kept “moderate” by Israeli pressure and covert operations, Western management of aid funds, and some assistance by Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Jordan to avoid new crises. Yet this is not a solution but a new day-to-day series of crises and sporadic bloodshed.
Even this is unlikely given the PA’s refusal to make the most minimal concessions, including agreeing to resettle Palestinian refugees in their “national homeland” of Palestine.
And we’re supposed to believe that what’s holding up the new golden age is that some settlers might decide to build another room onto their apartments or even a new building inside the perimeter fence of an existing settlement?
Get real.
A two-state solution with Israel and Palestine living side by side in peace? I’m for it. But mindlessly repeating that slogan solves nothing. Answer these questions or don’t expect any progress:
--What incentives you’re offering Israel in exchange for more concessions and risks when all your past promises and claims have proven wrong.
--How you’re going to deal with the Hamas in Gaza problem.
--When will the PA agree that a two-state solution would permanently end the conflict and insist all refugees be resettled in Palestine?
--When will the PA agree in a diplomatic solution to recognize Israel as a Jewish state since the Palestine Israel’s being told to recognize is defined in its constitution as an Arab and Muslim state.
--Prove why anyone should possibly believe a stable solution would emerge from your plan.
Speaking more broadly about peace and negotiations, there’s nothing like standing next to the Israel-Syria ceasefire line for contemplating the meaning of peace, both real and fabled.
Before 1967, the Syrians sat atop the Golan Heights, like a balcony overlooking flat Israel below stretching straight to the Mediterranean coast. The Syrians periodically shelled the area and in the event of full-scale war initiated by a surprise attack could well have swept down like the wolf on the fold, as one of their predecessor states did in Biblical times.
Today, while the Israeli-ruled Golan Heights has army bases aplenty, it’s been transformed into tremendously productive use as wineries, orchards, artist colonies, and tourist destinations.
What would happen if there was “peace” with Syria as that country is at present? The Syrian army would return, declare the territory a closed military area, and again point weapons down at Israel. Would there be conciliation, cultural exchanges, any end to Syrian backing for Hamas and Hizballah, or a termination of attacks from Lebanon? Forget it.
But even this is won’t happen. As long as the current radical regime is in power in Damascus, there won’t be any negotiated peace even of the most superficial variety because the conflict is indispensible to the Syrian dictatorship. And the most probably type of change in Syria—though its likelihood is still low—to a radical Islamist regime would make any such peace even less likely.
Since Syria would give nothing in return for the return of the Golan Heights, what advantage would it give Israel for all intents and purposes to return to the pre-1967 situation with Syria?
Meanwhile, Palestinian Authority (PA) leader Mahmoud Abbas met the potentially most pro-Palestinian president in U.S. history and threw away a great opportunity to win favor.
There’s no question that if any real solution might end the conflict, that would be a two-state solution. But that’s certainly not the same as saying that any two-state solution would meet that need.
That’s because despite ip-service toward Israel security needs, when a Western leader says “two-state solution” he’s not thinking very hard about what this would mean.
Partly, this is due to the Western conception of a successful end to the peace process. It goes, without much exaggeration, like this: the two sides sign an agreement, the conflict ends, and everybody lives pretty happily thereafter. Palestine exists in peace alongside Israel. The lion lies down with the lamb, except only the lion ever gets up again.
It is really pretty much a variation of a song called “Last Night I had the Strangest Dream,” in which papers are signed saying “They’d never fight again,” everyone dances, while swords, guns and uniforms are thrown away.
Now back to the real world. Here, Israel has to worry about:
--A radical Palestinian state ruled by Fatah, a Fatah-Hamas coalition, or taken over by Hamas which is tied to Iran and Syria.
--Creating a Palestine in which all schools, mosques, and media teach Palestinians that all Israel is theirs and they must conquer it, a Palestine full of incitement to violence inspiring hundreds to become terrorists, thousands to help them, and hundreds of thousands to support them. In some respects, this describes the Palestinian Authority (PA) today, despite its real efforts to limit cross-border attacks.
--In any of the above circumstances, extending the conflict another generation by using the state as base for a “second stage” to finish off Israel. While they would almost certainly fail, such an outcome would reduce the benefits of such a”peace” agreement for Israel to close to zero.
.
--Leaving the Gaza Strip in Hamas’s hands which means, in effect, a three-state solution. Short of a U.S.-led multinational invasion force—rather unlikely—there’s no way Gaza can be included in a peace agreement with Israel. Talking about a two-state solution while the PA doesn’t even control Gaza is unconnected to reality.
--Setting off a new cross-border war, with Palestine’s government and security forces either looking the other way or actively assisting terrorists.
--Creating a Palestine that invites in Iranian, Syrian, or other armies, or obtains missiles from them targeted at Israeli cities.
All of the above are very realistic assessments. The best-case outcome would be a Palestine in which a shaky regime held on, kept “moderate” by Israeli pressure and covert operations, Western management of aid funds, and some assistance by Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Jordan to avoid new crises. Yet this is not a solution but a new day-to-day series of crises and sporadic bloodshed.
Even this is unlikely given the PA’s refusal to make the most minimal concessions, including agreeing to resettle Palestinian refugees in their “national homeland” of Palestine.
And we’re supposed to believe that what’s holding up the new golden age is that some settlers might decide to build another room onto their apartments or even a new building inside the perimeter fence of an existing settlement?
Get real.
A two-state solution with Israel and Palestine living side by side in peace? I’m for it. But mindlessly repeating that slogan solves nothing. Answer these questions or don’t expect any progress:
--What incentives you’re offering Israel in exchange for more concessions and risks when all your past promises and claims have proven wrong.
--How you’re going to deal with the Hamas in Gaza problem.
--When will the PA agree that a two-state solution would permanently end the conflict and insist all refugees be resettled in Palestine?
--When will the PA agree in a diplomatic solution to recognize Israel as a Jewish state since the Palestine Israel’s being told to recognize is defined in its constitution as an Arab and Muslim state.
--Prove why anyone should possibly believe a stable solution would emerge from your plan.
Barry Rubin
Bustan-Ha-Golan, Golan Heights
President Barack Obama has said that if Israel examines its long-term interests, it will realize that a two-state solution is in the interests of Israelis and Palestinians alike.
What he doesn’t understand is: that depends on what kind of two-state solution we are talking about. Speaking more broadly about peace and negotiations, there’s nothing like standing next to the Israel-Syria ceasefire line for contemplating the meaning of peace, both real and fabled.
Before 1967, the Syrians sat atop the Golan Heights, like a balcony overlooking flat Israel below stretching straight to the Mediterranean coast. The Syrians periodically shelled the area and in the event of full-scale war initiated by a surprise attack could well have swept down like the wolf on the fold, as one of their predecessor states did in Biblical times.
Today, while the Israeli-ruled Golan Heights has army bases aplenty, it’s been transformed into tremendously productive use as wineries, orchards, artist colonies, and tourist destinations.
What would happen if there was “peace” with Syria as that country is at present? The Syrian army would return, declare the territory a closed military area, and again point weapons down at Israel. Would there be conciliation, cultural exchanges, any end to Syrian backing for Hamas and Hizballah, or a termination of attacks from Lebanon? Forget it.
But even this is won’t happen. As long as the current radical regime is in power in Damascus, there won’t be any negotiated peace even of the most superficial variety because the conflict is indispensible to the Syrian dictatorship. And the most probably type of change in Syria—though its likelihood is still low—to a radical Islamist regime would make any such peace even less likely.
Since Syria would give nothing in return for the return of the Golan Heights, what advantage would it give Israel for all intents and purposes to return to the pre-1967 situation with Syria?
Meanwhile, Palestinian Authority (PA) leader Mahmoud Abbas met the potentially most pro-Palestinian president in U.S. history and threw away a great opportunity to win favor.
There’s no question that if any real solution might end the conflict, that would be a two-state solution. But that’s certainly not the same as saying that any two-state solution would meet that need.
That’s because despite ip-service toward Israel security needs, when a Western leader says “two-state solution” he’s not thinking very hard about what this would mean.
Partly, this is due to the Western conception of a successful end to the peace process. It goes, without much exaggeration, like this: the two sides sign an agreement, the conflict ends, and everybody lives pretty happily thereafter. Palestine exists in peace alongside Israel. The lion lies down with the lamb, except only the lion ever gets up again.
It is really pretty much a variation of a song called “Last Night I had the Strangest Dream,” in which papers are signed saying “They’d never fight again,” everyone dances, while swords, guns and uniforms are thrown away.
Now back to the real world. Here, Israel has to worry about:
--A radical Palestinian state ruled by Fatah, a Fatah-Hamas coalition, or taken over by Hamas which is tied to Iran and Syria.
--Creating a Palestine in which all schools, mosques, and media teach Palestinians that all Israel is theirs and they must conquer it, a Palestine full of incitement to violence inspiring hundreds to become terrorists, thousands to help them, and hundreds of thousands to support them. In some respects, this describes the Palestinian Authority (PA) today, despite its real efforts to limit cross-border attacks.
--In any of the above circumstances, extending the conflict another generation by using the state as base for a “second stage” to finish off Israel. While they would almost certainly fail, such an outcome would reduce the benefits of such a”peace” agreement for Israel to close to zero.
.
--Leaving the Gaza Strip in Hamas’s hands which means, in effect, a three-state solution. Short of a U.S.-led multinational invasion force—rather unlikely—there’s no way Gaza can be included in a peace agreement with Israel. Talking about a two-state solution while the PA doesn’t even control Gaza is unconnected to reality.
--Setting off a new cross-border war, with Palestine’s government and security forces either looking the other way or actively assisting terrorists.
--Creating a Palestine that invites in Iranian, Syrian, or other armies, or obtains missiles from them targeted at Israeli cities.
All of the above are very realistic assessments. The best-case outcome would be a Palestine in which a shaky regime held on, kept “moderate” by Israeli pressure and covert operations, Western management of aid funds, and some assistance by Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Jordan to avoid new crises. Yet this is not a solution but a new day-to-day series of crises and sporadic bloodshed.
Even this is unlikely given the PA’s refusal to make the most minimal concessions, including agreeing to resettle Palestinian refugees in their “national homeland” of Palestine.
And we’re supposed to believe that what’s holding up the new golden age is that some settlers might decide to build another room onto their apartments or even a new building inside the perimeter fence of an existing settlement?
Get real.
A two-state solution with Israel and Palestine living side by side in peace? I’m for it. But mindlessly repeating that slogan solves nothing. Answer these questions or don’t expect any progress:
--What incentives you’re offering Israel in exchange for more concessions and risks when all your past promises and claims have proven wrong.
--How you’re going to deal with the Hamas in Gaza problem.
--When will the PA agree that a two-state solution would permanently end the conflict and insist all refugees be resettled in Palestine?
--When will the PA agree in a diplomatic solution to recognize Israel as a Jewish state since the Palestine Israel’s being told to recognize is defined in its constitution as an Arab and Muslim state.
--Prove why anyone should possibly believe a stable solution would emerge from your plan.
'Obama wants ME breakthrough in 2 yrs'
May. 31, 2009
JPost.com Staff , THE JERUSALEM POST
US President Barack Obama has given himself two years to reach a diplomatic breakthrough on a two-state solution for Israel and the Palestinians, White House officials say privately, despite Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu's opposition to America's demand for a freeze on all building in the West Bank, The Sunday Times reported.
According to White House advisers, in his speech in the Egyptian capital this week, Obama will "take on the tough issues" including the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and offer to bridge gaps with Muslims based on "mutual interests and mutual respect", the British newspaper said on Sunday.
Obama's Middle East visit will begin with a meeting with King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia in Riyadh on Wednesday to discuss the Arab peace initiative and Iran, following which he will arrive in Egypt the next day.
The vision of two states existing side by side, with Jerusalem's holy sites under international jurisdiction, is expected to receive a new push by Obama.
"Some of the things that you will hear in the speech are returning to proven and effective policies and initiatives that have . . . served the national interest well in the past," said Denis McDonough, Obama's foreign policy adviser.
Obama has set out to strengthen the alliance between America and moderate Arab states against Iran and radical Islamic groups and to revive the Middle East peace process.
Of the "range of political actors" invited to Cairo University for Obama's speech, White House officials emphasized the strategic importance of America's alliance with Egypt's President Hosni Mubarak, the paper said.
This article can also be read at http://www.jpost.com /servlet/Satellite?cid=1243346509266&pagename=JPArticle%2FShowFull
JPost.com Staff , THE JERUSALEM POST
US President Barack Obama has given himself two years to reach a diplomatic breakthrough on a two-state solution for Israel and the Palestinians, White House officials say privately, despite Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu's opposition to America's demand for a freeze on all building in the West Bank, The Sunday Times reported.
According to White House advisers, in his speech in the Egyptian capital this week, Obama will "take on the tough issues" including the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and offer to bridge gaps with Muslims based on "mutual interests and mutual respect", the British newspaper said on Sunday.
Obama's Middle East visit will begin with a meeting with King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia in Riyadh on Wednesday to discuss the Arab peace initiative and Iran, following which he will arrive in Egypt the next day.
The vision of two states existing side by side, with Jerusalem's holy sites under international jurisdiction, is expected to receive a new push by Obama.
"Some of the things that you will hear in the speech are returning to proven and effective policies and initiatives that have . . . served the national interest well in the past," said Denis McDonough, Obama's foreign policy adviser.
Obama has set out to strengthen the alliance between America and moderate Arab states against Iran and radical Islamic groups and to revive the Middle East peace process.
Of the "range of political actors" invited to Cairo University for Obama's speech, White House officials emphasized the strategic importance of America's alliance with Egypt's President Hosni Mubarak, the paper said.
This article can also be read at http://www.jpost.com /servlet/Satellite?cid=1243346509266&pagename=JPArticle%2FShowFull
TED H TULCHINSKY, ELIHU D RICHTER, STEVEN M.ALBERT AND ELLIOT M BERRY: HEALTH IN THE OCCUPIED PALESTINIAN TERRITORIES
Steven M. Albert • Elihu D. Richter, MD MPH Ted H Tulchinsky, Elliot M Berry
Published in: www.thelancet.com Vol 373 May 30, 2009 May 30, 2009
Rita Giacaman and colleagues (March 7, p 837)[1] misrepresent trends in public health and health services for Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza in 1967-94, before the Palestinian National Authority assumed leadership. Population health improved sub stantially under the Israeli Civil Administration.
Major sanitation and disease-control projects included eff orts to bring chlorinated running water to homes, which increased from 24% (1972-74) to 79% (1992) in the West Bank, and from 14% to 93% in Gaza. In the 1970s, oral rehydration campaigns reduced morbidity, hospital admission, and mortality from diarrhoeal diseases. Israeli Civil Administration health priorities included the full spectrum of primary prevention, screening, and workforce development.[2] Vaccine coverage was more than 95% and reached the smallest villages; polio and measles were eradicated.[3],[4] Routine vitamin K for neonates was introduced, along with screening for phenylketonuria and congenital hypothyroidism, and routine vitamin A, D, and iron supplements were provided for infants and pregnant women.
The gains from this period persist. UNICEF data (2009)[5] show that immunisation coverage in the “occupied Palestinian territories” is 99%, above Israeli and Jordanian rates; the proportion of Palestinian infants with low birthweight is 7%, compared with 6% in Lebanon, 7% in Kuwait, 12% in Jordan, and 11% in Saudi Arabia. The Palestinian mortality rate among children younger than 5 years fell from 38 per 1000 livebirths in 1990 to 27 in 2007. Life expectancy at birth rose from 54 years in 1970 to 68 years in 1990 and 73 years in 2007.
The commitment of the Hamas government in Gaza to the destruction of the State of Israel has made cooperation between health establishments very diffi cult. Yet past successes in public health offer a model of the potential of cooperation, mutual benefit, and hope for the future.
*****
THT served with the Israeli Ministry of Health as Coordinator for Health in the West Bank and Gaza from 1980 until 1994 and continues cooperative projects with Palestinian academics in public health to the present time. SMA chairs the Public Health and Medicine Task Force for Scholars for Peace in the Middle East. The other authors declare that they have no confl icts of interest.
Ted H Tulchinsky, Elihu D Richter, Braun School of Public Health (THT, EDR)
Steven M Albert, smalbert@pitt.edu (Graduate School of Public Health, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA 15232, USA
Elliot M Berry Faculty of Medicine (EMB), Hebrew University-Hadassah, Ein Karem, Jerusalem, Israel;
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[1] Giacaman R, Khatib R, Shabanay L, et al. Health status and health services in the occupied Palestinian territory. Lancet 2009; 373: 837-47.
[2] Ministry of Health. Health in Judaea and Samaria and Gaza 1967-1994. Jerusalem: Israel Ministry of Health, 1994.
[3] Tulchinsky TH, Abed A, Shaheen S, et al. A ten year experience in control of poliomyelitis through a combination of live and killed vaccines in two developing areas. Am J Public Health 1989; 79: 1648-55.
[4] Tulchinsky TH, Ginsberg GM, Abed Y, Angeles MT, Akukwe C, Bonn J. Measles control in developing and developed countries: the case for a two-dose policy. Bull World Health Organ 1993; 71: 93-103.
[5] UNICEF. State of the World’s Children 2009. http://www.unicef.org/infobycountry/oPt. html (accessed March 20, 2009).
Comment: Although a most unfortunate title, it plays inadvertently into our enemies hands, the atricle is well written and designed to counter incorrect charges. I have written the authors suggesting concern with their title.
Published in: www.thelancet.com Vol 373 May 30, 2009 May 30, 2009
Rita Giacaman and colleagues (March 7, p 837)[1] misrepresent trends in public health and health services for Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza in 1967-94, before the Palestinian National Authority assumed leadership. Population health improved sub stantially under the Israeli Civil Administration.
Major sanitation and disease-control projects included eff orts to bring chlorinated running water to homes, which increased from 24% (1972-74) to 79% (1992) in the West Bank, and from 14% to 93% in Gaza. In the 1970s, oral rehydration campaigns reduced morbidity, hospital admission, and mortality from diarrhoeal diseases. Israeli Civil Administration health priorities included the full spectrum of primary prevention, screening, and workforce development.[2] Vaccine coverage was more than 95% and reached the smallest villages; polio and measles were eradicated.[3],[4] Routine vitamin K for neonates was introduced, along with screening for phenylketonuria and congenital hypothyroidism, and routine vitamin A, D, and iron supplements were provided for infants and pregnant women.
The gains from this period persist. UNICEF data (2009)[5] show that immunisation coverage in the “occupied Palestinian territories” is 99%, above Israeli and Jordanian rates; the proportion of Palestinian infants with low birthweight is 7%, compared with 6% in Lebanon, 7% in Kuwait, 12% in Jordan, and 11% in Saudi Arabia. The Palestinian mortality rate among children younger than 5 years fell from 38 per 1000 livebirths in 1990 to 27 in 2007. Life expectancy at birth rose from 54 years in 1970 to 68 years in 1990 and 73 years in 2007.
The commitment of the Hamas government in Gaza to the destruction of the State of Israel has made cooperation between health establishments very diffi cult. Yet past successes in public health offer a model of the potential of cooperation, mutual benefit, and hope for the future.
*****
THT served with the Israeli Ministry of Health as Coordinator for Health in the West Bank and Gaza from 1980 until 1994 and continues cooperative projects with Palestinian academics in public health to the present time. SMA chairs the Public Health and Medicine Task Force for Scholars for Peace in the Middle East. The other authors declare that they have no confl icts of interest.
Ted H Tulchinsky, Elihu D Richter, Braun School of Public Health (THT, EDR)
Steven M Albert, smalbert@pitt.edu (Graduate School of Public Health, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA 15232, USA
Elliot M Berry Faculty of Medicine (EMB), Hebrew University-Hadassah, Ein Karem, Jerusalem, Israel;
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[1] Giacaman R, Khatib R, Shabanay L, et al. Health status and health services in the occupied Palestinian territory. Lancet 2009; 373: 837-47.
[2] Ministry of Health. Health in Judaea and Samaria and Gaza 1967-1994. Jerusalem: Israel Ministry of Health, 1994.
[3] Tulchinsky TH, Abed A, Shaheen S, et al. A ten year experience in control of poliomyelitis through a combination of live and killed vaccines in two developing areas. Am J Public Health 1989; 79: 1648-55.
[4] Tulchinsky TH, Ginsberg GM, Abed Y, Angeles MT, Akukwe C, Bonn J. Measles control in developing and developed countries: the case for a two-dose policy. Bull World Health Organ 1993; 71: 93-103.
[5] UNICEF. State of the World’s Children 2009. http://www.unicef.org/infobycountry/oPt. html (accessed March 20, 2009).
Comment: Although a most unfortunate title, it plays inadvertently into our enemies hands, the atricle is well written and designed to counter incorrect charges. I have written the authors suggesting concern with their title.
Saturday, May 30, 2009
Hamas says disappointed with Abbas-Obama meeting
Spokesman for Islamist group says implementation of Road Map for peace plan will turn PA into Israeli armed wing, result in annihilation of resistance groups'; Washington Post says Palestinians will 'wait for Netanyahu coalition to collapse amid US pressure to freeze settlement construction'
Israel News
YNET News
Hamas on Friday expressed its disappointment with the results of the recent meeting between US President Barack Obama and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas in Washington, saying "nothing new came of it."
Spokesman Fawzi Barhoum said the Islamist group was particularly discouraged by the fact that during the meeting Abbas gave his consent to the implementation of the US-backed Road Map for peace, which according to the spokesman was "rejected by the Palestinian factions."
Barhoum said Abbas is working against the interests of the Palestinians and is "committed to the Road Map, which will turn the Palestinian Authority into an armed wing of Israel that will eventually annihilate the resistance groups and perpetuate the internal Palestinian rift."
The Hamas spokesman added that Obama's commitment to Mideast peace was "futile and insufficient in light of the continuation of Israel's targeted killings, arrests, land appropriation and siege on Gaza."
Barhoum continued to say that Abbas' actions, including "political arrests and the establishment of an illegitimate government in the West Bank" have stifled the reconciliation talks with Hamas, adding that the Palestinian president "cannot be trusted when it comes to the interests of the Palestinians."
Chief PA negotiator Saeb Erekat, for his part, said earlier that the Palestinians are encouraged by Obama's vision.
"The Americans and Palestinians have a shared interest…the same vision of peace based on the two-state solution," Erekat said in the wake of Thursday's meeting between Obama and Abbas.
Meanwhile, a Washington Post editorial said Abbas "will wait for the Obama administration to force a recalcitrant (Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin) Netanyahu to freeze Israeli settlement construction and publicly accept the two-state formula," before he agrees to resume negotiations.
"Abbas and his team fully expect that Netanyahu will never agree to the full settlement freeze - if he did, his center-right coalition would almost certainly collapse. So they plan to sit back and watch while US pressure slowly squeezes the Israeli prime minister from office," claimed Jackson Diehl, the Post's deputy editorial page editor, who then quoted an American official as saying, "It will take a couple of years."
Diehl said that while interviewing Abbas, the PA leader acknowledged that former Israeli PM Ehud Olmert had shown him a map proposing a Palestinian state on 97 percent of the West Bank – "though he complained that the Israeli leader refused to give him a copy of the plan."
Diehl said Abbas confirmed that Olmert accepted the principle of the "right of return" of Palestinian refugees – "something no previous Israeli prime minister had done - and offered to resettle thousands in Israel." .
Friday, May 29, 2009
Obama in Cairo: Another Step toward Rapprochement?
David Schenker
May 29, 2009
PolicyWatch #1523 is the second in a two-part series on President Obama's trip to Egypt on June 4 and examines the likely impact of the visit on U.S.-Egyptian relations. Part one focused on the president's much-anticipated speech to the "Muslim world."
On June 4, President Barack Obama will deliver his much-anticipated address to the "Muslim world" from Cairo. The administration's choice of Egypt as the venue for this important speech -- and the fact that Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak had, until a family tragedy, planned to visit Washington on May 26 for the first time in six years -- highlights the change in trajectory of the U.S.-Egyptian relationship
During the Bush administration, U.S.-Egyptian relations reached their nadir; today, Washington and Cairo are on the verge of rapprochement. Improved ties come as Washington is seeking better coordination with its Arab allies in countering Iranian nuclear and regional ambitions, and as Cairo nears its first political transition since 1981.
Background
During the Reagan, George H.W. Bush, and Clinton administrations, President Mubarak was a regular fixture in Washington, typically visiting once if not twice a year. This pattern continued in the first years of the Bush administration, but after the September 11 attacks and the onset of Bush's Freedom Agenda, bilateral relations deteriorated.
Differences emerged early over the 2000 arrest, conviction, and incarceration of Saad Eddin Ibrahim, a dual U.S.-Egyptian citizen and democracy advocate, for "defaming Egypt." In 2003, the Bush administration conditioned $130 million in U.S. assistance on Ibrahim's release. Under pressure, Mubarak released Ibrahim from jail but has not visited Washington since. In August 2008, Ibrahim was again convicted of damaging Egypt's reputation, this time in absentia. Another point of contention was the January 2005 arrest of presidential candidate and Mubarak critic, Ayman Nour. Following his arrest, then secretary of state Condoleezza Rice postponed a planned visit to Egypt. When she did eventually visit Cairo in June 2005, she gave a "major policy speech" on democracy.
The end of the Bush administration changed the atmosphere. In an apparent goodwill gesture toward the Obama administration, in February 2009 Egypt released Nour from prison two years early. The White House reciprocated this gesture by inviting Mubarak to Washington and announcing on May 8 that Obama would deliver his address in Cairo. Then, last week, an Egyptian court overturned Ibrahim's 2008 conviction, clearing the way for his return to Egypt.
Growing Coincidence of Interest
The timing of the rapprochement reflects the convergence of interest on several issues of importance to both Cairo and Washington.
Iran. Tehran's progress toward a nuclear weapon and its provision of materiel and ideological support for moqawama, or resistance, across the region is of grave concern to Washington and its moderate Arab allies, specifically Egypt. Cairo has had problems with Tehran since the 1979 Islamic Revolution, but tensions have spiked of late. During the Israeli military campaign in Gaza in January 2009 -- when Egypt refused to open its border with Gaza to relieve pressure on Hamas -- an organization associated with the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps put a $1.5 million bounty on Mubarak's head, a threat posted on the Iranian government's Fars news agency website.
More recently, in April, Egypt announced the arrest in November 2008 of dozens of Iranian-backed Hizballah operatives in the Sinai. Cairo accused the operatives of channeling weapons to Hamas, targeting Israeli tourists, and planning operations against Suez Canal shipping.
While Washington and Cairo share an assessment of the Iranian threat, they differ on strategy. The administration has been silent on Egypt and Morocco's bold responses to Iranian subversion, heightening Arab concerns about the U.S. approach. Washington's Arab allies likely see this as a missed opportunity to rally support in Europe, China, and Russia for a tougher policy.
Hamas. Washington and Cairo share a common concern about the Palestinian terrorist organization Hamas. The Obama administration has stated that it wants to revitalize Israeli-Palestinian negotiations, a goal undermined by Hamas's control of Gaza. Although a Palestinian national unity government might jump-start these negotiations, it could also set the stage for Hamas's electoral victory over the more-moderate Fatah next January.
For its part, Cairo views the Iranian-backed Hamas on its border as a significant threat, not only to the peace process but also to Egyptian stability. Cairo's concern is similar to Jordan's in that the violent ideology espoused by Hamas -- a Palestinian wing of the Muslim Brotherhood (MB) -- might spread to the Egyptian branch of the organization, which years ago foreswore violence. In the aftermath of the Hizballah arrests, Egyptian MB statements of sympathy for and identification with the Shiite terrorist organization have proven especially troubling to Cairo.
Egyptian succession. Mubarak is eighty-one and said to be in good health, but uncertainty about succession is a preoccupation in Egypt. Indeed, in March 2008, a Cairo court sentenced the editor of al-Dustour newspaper to six months in prison for "publishing false information and rumors" about Mubarak's health. Should the Egyptian president anoint his son, National Democratic Party (NDP) deputy secretary general Gamal Mubarak, as his successor, it could be problematic. Given current regional challenges, both the United States and Egypt have an interest in seeing a smooth and, if possible, transparent transition of power in Cairo.
Ongoing Governance Issues
While prospects for the bilateral relationship appear promising, the governance problems in Egypt that underpinned the Bush-era deterioration remain. Recently, much of the condemnation has been focused on the controversial government decision to destroy some 400,000 pigs as a preventative measure against swine flu. The step was criticized by the UN World Health Organization as unproductive and condemned by Egypt's long-suffering Coptic community, which derives its livelihood from the hogs, as yet another act of government-sponsored persecution.
Despite the release of Ayman Nour, and issues of government competence and religious freedom aside, Egypt continues to be a rather repressive environment. Government harassment and interference with registration procedures for the April 2008 municipal elections were so severe that the MB, which had intended to field 10,000 candidates for 53,000 seats, boycotted the contest. At the same time, the government took further steps in parliament in 2008 to limit press freedom and enhance the government's ability to sanction media outlets by withdrawing licenses.
Meanwhile, and perhaps predictably, during his three-year incarceration, Nour's pro-reform al-Ghad party fell into disarray; as a result of his conviction, he himself was disbarred and is no longer eligible to hold public office. By discrediting and marginalizing Nour, the Mubarak regime effectively removed its only secular democratic political rival.
One bright spot in this otherwise bleak landscape was the unexpected conviction on May 21 of Hesham Talaat Moustafa in a Cairo criminal court. Moustafa, one of the richest men in Egypt, was accused of murdering his Lebanese paramour, Suzane Tamim. His trial was watched closely in Egypt and throughout the Arab world, not only because of its salacious, tabloidlike quality, but as a result of its political and legal implications. Moustafa was a member of Egypt's Shura Council -- the upper house of Parliament appointed by Mubarak -- and is a leading member of the NDP, serving on its policies secretariat.
Conclusion
Governance issues have been assigned a lower profile -- if not priority -- in the Obama administration's dealings with Cairo. No doubt, the administration has taken a less confrontational approach. When Secretary of State Hillary Clinton visited Egypt in March -- less than a month after her department's annual Human Rights Report characterized Egypt's respect for human rights as "poor" -- she avoided public mention of the issue. At the same time, however, the administration has taken the very real and substantive decision to reduce funding for democracy promotion in Egypt by 70 percent.
By not adopting Bush's Freedom Agenda, the Obama administration has paved the way to a return to Washington's traditional relationship with Cairo. Given the need for an Egyptian leadership role in the Arab opposition to Iranian nuclear ambitions, at least in the short term, Washington's decision would seem to make sense. As a long-term policy, however, the downgrading of governance issues on the U.S.-Egyptian bilateral agenda has some potentially serious consequences, not least of which would be a crisis of confidence among Arab democrats in Washington's commitment to promoting democratic values. More ominously, should the trend of bad governance continue in Egypt, it would likely be accompanied by a corresponding increase in the popularity of Islamists.
When Obama gives his June 4 address in Cairo, it will be difficult to avoid the topic of democracy. But Washington will approach the topic cautiously. The administration neither wants to risk derailing the nascent improvement of bilateral relations nor to pressure Egypt as it approaches it first period of political transition in nearly three decades. The challenge for Washington will be how to balance the critical need for robust U.S.-Egyptian coordination on Iran and Hamas with the longstanding U.S. support for democratic development.
David Schenker is the Aufzien fellow and director of the Program on Arab Politics at the Washington Institute.
View this PolicyWatch on our website.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Receiving this PolicyWatch by fax?
To receive future Washington Institute communications via email, please contact Beverly Sprewer.
To unsubscribe, simply send a blank email to unsubscribe@washingtoninstitute.org
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Washington Institute for Near East Policy · 1828 L Street NW Suite 1050, Washington DC 20036
Tel: 202-452-0650 · Fax: 202-223-5364 · www.washingtoninstitute.org · © 2009 All rights reserved
.
May 29, 2009
PolicyWatch #1523 is the second in a two-part series on President Obama's trip to Egypt on June 4 and examines the likely impact of the visit on U.S.-Egyptian relations. Part one focused on the president's much-anticipated speech to the "Muslim world."
On June 4, President Barack Obama will deliver his much-anticipated address to the "Muslim world" from Cairo. The administration's choice of Egypt as the venue for this important speech -- and the fact that Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak had, until a family tragedy, planned to visit Washington on May 26 for the first time in six years -- highlights the change in trajectory of the U.S.-Egyptian relationship
During the Bush administration, U.S.-Egyptian relations reached their nadir; today, Washington and Cairo are on the verge of rapprochement. Improved ties come as Washington is seeking better coordination with its Arab allies in countering Iranian nuclear and regional ambitions, and as Cairo nears its first political transition since 1981.
Background
During the Reagan, George H.W. Bush, and Clinton administrations, President Mubarak was a regular fixture in Washington, typically visiting once if not twice a year. This pattern continued in the first years of the Bush administration, but after the September 11 attacks and the onset of Bush's Freedom Agenda, bilateral relations deteriorated.
Differences emerged early over the 2000 arrest, conviction, and incarceration of Saad Eddin Ibrahim, a dual U.S.-Egyptian citizen and democracy advocate, for "defaming Egypt." In 2003, the Bush administration conditioned $130 million in U.S. assistance on Ibrahim's release. Under pressure, Mubarak released Ibrahim from jail but has not visited Washington since. In August 2008, Ibrahim was again convicted of damaging Egypt's reputation, this time in absentia. Another point of contention was the January 2005 arrest of presidential candidate and Mubarak critic, Ayman Nour. Following his arrest, then secretary of state Condoleezza Rice postponed a planned visit to Egypt. When she did eventually visit Cairo in June 2005, she gave a "major policy speech" on democracy.
The end of the Bush administration changed the atmosphere. In an apparent goodwill gesture toward the Obama administration, in February 2009 Egypt released Nour from prison two years early. The White House reciprocated this gesture by inviting Mubarak to Washington and announcing on May 8 that Obama would deliver his address in Cairo. Then, last week, an Egyptian court overturned Ibrahim's 2008 conviction, clearing the way for his return to Egypt.
Growing Coincidence of Interest
The timing of the rapprochement reflects the convergence of interest on several issues of importance to both Cairo and Washington.
Iran. Tehran's progress toward a nuclear weapon and its provision of materiel and ideological support for moqawama, or resistance, across the region is of grave concern to Washington and its moderate Arab allies, specifically Egypt. Cairo has had problems with Tehran since the 1979 Islamic Revolution, but tensions have spiked of late. During the Israeli military campaign in Gaza in January 2009 -- when Egypt refused to open its border with Gaza to relieve pressure on Hamas -- an organization associated with the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps put a $1.5 million bounty on Mubarak's head, a threat posted on the Iranian government's Fars news agency website.
More recently, in April, Egypt announced the arrest in November 2008 of dozens of Iranian-backed Hizballah operatives in the Sinai. Cairo accused the operatives of channeling weapons to Hamas, targeting Israeli tourists, and planning operations against Suez Canal shipping.
While Washington and Cairo share an assessment of the Iranian threat, they differ on strategy. The administration has been silent on Egypt and Morocco's bold responses to Iranian subversion, heightening Arab concerns about the U.S. approach. Washington's Arab allies likely see this as a missed opportunity to rally support in Europe, China, and Russia for a tougher policy.
Hamas. Washington and Cairo share a common concern about the Palestinian terrorist organization Hamas. The Obama administration has stated that it wants to revitalize Israeli-Palestinian negotiations, a goal undermined by Hamas's control of Gaza. Although a Palestinian national unity government might jump-start these negotiations, it could also set the stage for Hamas's electoral victory over the more-moderate Fatah next January.
For its part, Cairo views the Iranian-backed Hamas on its border as a significant threat, not only to the peace process but also to Egyptian stability. Cairo's concern is similar to Jordan's in that the violent ideology espoused by Hamas -- a Palestinian wing of the Muslim Brotherhood (MB) -- might spread to the Egyptian branch of the organization, which years ago foreswore violence. In the aftermath of the Hizballah arrests, Egyptian MB statements of sympathy for and identification with the Shiite terrorist organization have proven especially troubling to Cairo.
Egyptian succession. Mubarak is eighty-one and said to be in good health, but uncertainty about succession is a preoccupation in Egypt. Indeed, in March 2008, a Cairo court sentenced the editor of al-Dustour newspaper to six months in prison for "publishing false information and rumors" about Mubarak's health. Should the Egyptian president anoint his son, National Democratic Party (NDP) deputy secretary general Gamal Mubarak, as his successor, it could be problematic. Given current regional challenges, both the United States and Egypt have an interest in seeing a smooth and, if possible, transparent transition of power in Cairo.
Ongoing Governance Issues
While prospects for the bilateral relationship appear promising, the governance problems in Egypt that underpinned the Bush-era deterioration remain. Recently, much of the condemnation has been focused on the controversial government decision to destroy some 400,000 pigs as a preventative measure against swine flu. The step was criticized by the UN World Health Organization as unproductive and condemned by Egypt's long-suffering Coptic community, which derives its livelihood from the hogs, as yet another act of government-sponsored persecution.
Despite the release of Ayman Nour, and issues of government competence and religious freedom aside, Egypt continues to be a rather repressive environment. Government harassment and interference with registration procedures for the April 2008 municipal elections were so severe that the MB, which had intended to field 10,000 candidates for 53,000 seats, boycotted the contest. At the same time, the government took further steps in parliament in 2008 to limit press freedom and enhance the government's ability to sanction media outlets by withdrawing licenses.
Meanwhile, and perhaps predictably, during his three-year incarceration, Nour's pro-reform al-Ghad party fell into disarray; as a result of his conviction, he himself was disbarred and is no longer eligible to hold public office. By discrediting and marginalizing Nour, the Mubarak regime effectively removed its only secular democratic political rival.
One bright spot in this otherwise bleak landscape was the unexpected conviction on May 21 of Hesham Talaat Moustafa in a Cairo criminal court. Moustafa, one of the richest men in Egypt, was accused of murdering his Lebanese paramour, Suzane Tamim. His trial was watched closely in Egypt and throughout the Arab world, not only because of its salacious, tabloidlike quality, but as a result of its political and legal implications. Moustafa was a member of Egypt's Shura Council -- the upper house of Parliament appointed by Mubarak -- and is a leading member of the NDP, serving on its policies secretariat.
Conclusion
Governance issues have been assigned a lower profile -- if not priority -- in the Obama administration's dealings with Cairo. No doubt, the administration has taken a less confrontational approach. When Secretary of State Hillary Clinton visited Egypt in March -- less than a month after her department's annual Human Rights Report characterized Egypt's respect for human rights as "poor" -- she avoided public mention of the issue. At the same time, however, the administration has taken the very real and substantive decision to reduce funding for democracy promotion in Egypt by 70 percent.
By not adopting Bush's Freedom Agenda, the Obama administration has paved the way to a return to Washington's traditional relationship with Cairo. Given the need for an Egyptian leadership role in the Arab opposition to Iranian nuclear ambitions, at least in the short term, Washington's decision would seem to make sense. As a long-term policy, however, the downgrading of governance issues on the U.S.-Egyptian bilateral agenda has some potentially serious consequences, not least of which would be a crisis of confidence among Arab democrats in Washington's commitment to promoting democratic values. More ominously, should the trend of bad governance continue in Egypt, it would likely be accompanied by a corresponding increase in the popularity of Islamists.
When Obama gives his June 4 address in Cairo, it will be difficult to avoid the topic of democracy. But Washington will approach the topic cautiously. The administration neither wants to risk derailing the nascent improvement of bilateral relations nor to pressure Egypt as it approaches it first period of political transition in nearly three decades. The challenge for Washington will be how to balance the critical need for robust U.S.-Egyptian coordination on Iran and Hamas with the longstanding U.S. support for democratic development.
David Schenker is the Aufzien fellow and director of the Program on Arab Politics at the Washington Institute.
View this PolicyWatch on our website.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Receiving this PolicyWatch by fax?
To receive future Washington Institute communications via email, please contact Beverly Sprewer.
To unsubscribe, simply send a blank email to unsubscribe@washingtoninstitute.org
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Washington Institute for Near East Policy · 1828 L Street NW Suite 1050, Washington DC 20036
Tel: 202-452-0650 · Fax: 202-223-5364 · www.washingtoninstitute.org · © 2009 All rights reserved
.
`The Emperor Has No Clothes`
Jan Willem van der Hoeven, Director - May 28, 2009
International Christian Zionist Center
They dress the wound of my people as though it were not serious.
"Peace, peace," they say, when there is no peace.
(Jeremiah 8:11)
Apart from all the other horrendous costs involved, the forceful evacuation of the nearly 300,000 Israelis living today in their own, God-given Judea and Samaria, will cost enormous amounts of money - even if just $250,000 in compensation is paid for each house evacuated. Who will pay this enormous sum? The US with all her own financial upheavals? The Arabs? Who? But even if a financial solution was to be found, which seems very unlikely indeed, the evacuation will not lead to peace. It will result in the destruction of Israel as Palestinian spokesmen from all factions - from Hamas to the Fatah - have made abundantly clear:
"[Hamas says] that Fatah has asked them to recognize Israel`s right to exist and this is a big deception. For the one thousandth time, I want to reaffirm that we are not asking Hamas to recognize Israel`s right to exist. Rather, we are asking Hamas not to do so because Fatah never recognized Israel`s right to exist."
"We acknowledge that the PLO did recognize Israel`s right to exist, but we are not bound by it as a resistance faction," (Mohammed Dahlan, PLO representative, The Jerusalem Post, 18/3/2009)
On May 14, 2009, under the headline "Palestinian Ambassador to Lebanon Abbas Zaki: Two-State Solution Will Lead to the Collapse of Israel," MEMRI (www.memri.org) quoted PLO Ambassador Abbas Zaki as saying:
"They talk about a two-state solution, and when that is achieved... Even Ahmadinejad, leader of the rejectionists throughout the region, said he supports a two-state solution. Nobody fools anybody.
"With the two-state solution, in my opinion, Israel will collapse, because if they get out of Jerusalem, what will become of all the talk about the Promised Land and the Chosen People? What will become of all the sacrifices they made - just to be told to leave? They consider Jerusalem to have a spiritual status. The Jews consider Judea and Samaria to be their historic dream. If the Jews leave those places, the Zionist idea will begin to collapse. It will regress of its own accord. Then we will move forward."
"The PLO proceeds through phases, without changing its strategy. Let me tell you, when the ideology of Israel collapses, and we take, at least, Jerusalem, the Israeli ideology will collapse in its entirety, and we will begin to progress with our own ideology, Allah willing, and drive them out of all of Palestine." (Excerpts from an interview with PLO Ambassador to Lebanon Abbas Zaki, which aired on ANB TV on May 7, 2009.)
PLO and Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmud Abbas recently said:
"A Jewish State, what is that supposed to mean? You call yourselves as you like, but I don`t accept it, and I say so publicly."
Hamas covenant, Article Eight:
Allah is its target, the Prophet is its model, the Koran its constitution: Jihad is its path and death for the sake of Allah is the loftiest of its wishes.
The Islamic Resistance Movement believes that the land of Palestine is an Islamic Waqf consecrated for future Moslem generations until Judgment Day. It, or any part of it, should not be squandered: it, or any part of it, should not be given up. Neither a single Arab country nor all Arab countries, neither any king or president, nor all the kings and presidents, neither any organization nor all of them, be they Palestinian or Arab, possess the right to do that. Palestine is an Islamic Waqf land consecrated for Moslem generations until Judgment Day. This being so, who could claim to have the right to represent Moslem generations till Judgment Day?
This is the law governing the land of Palestine in the Islamic Sharia (law) and the same goes for any land the Moslems have conquered by force, because during the times of (Islamic) conquests, the Moslems consecrated these lands to Moslem generations till the Day of Judgment.
Furthermore Yuval Diskin, head of Israel`s General Security, the Shabak, has recently stated before the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee as reported by The Jerusalem Post, 20 May 2009:
"Hamas control over the Gaza Strip will prevent any effective peace process from coming into fruition"
Diskin warned that there was a good chance that the situation could become more dire if Hamas emerges victorious in a West Bank election.
"If ballots were cast in the West Bank today, there is a chance that Hamas would win," he warned.
He warned that a victory for Hamas would "be seen as a second victory for Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood in this area, and thus would have a dangerous impact on the whole region, including in neighboring countries."
Therefore, because `the other side,` both so-called moderates and extremists, will only use the full withdrawal of Israel from all "occupied territories" - including Jerusalem - as a phase en route to destroying the hated Zionist State, Israel is not engaged in peace negotiations but in negotiating piece by piece her own imminent destruction.
Why, then, do Israeli politicians and commentators who must know these things still spout such self-destructive nonsense? Rather than speak the truth that is so obvious to all who still have the courage to think for themselves, they prefer to be politically correct in this sick and distorted world. They are afraid to stand apart from the PC crowd and to shout, like the courageous child of old about an emperor praised by all: "But the Emperor has no clothes, he is NAKED!"
So is this peace process! Not just naked and void of content, but mortally dangerous for little Israel.
By refusing to deal forcefully with Iran, the United States and Europe have, themselves, cut off any hope for true peace in the Middle East. Yet they simultaneously hold Israel back, forbidding her from taking care of the Iranian threat herself- though it would benefit all: the moderate Arab regimes, Europe and United States.
The argument put forward by both US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and President Obama that the eight years the Bush administration refused to talk to Iran produced no result, is utterly false and misleading.
The fact is that whatever Europe and the United States have done so far - and European leaders did engage Iran in dialogue, and even employed veiled threats - all has produced nothing. It was all too weak and halfhearted, proving not that we need more of these futile engagements, but that we need a firm and definite response before it is too late!
For too late it soon will be!
International Christian Zionist Center
They dress the wound of my people as though it were not serious.
"Peace, peace," they say, when there is no peace.
(Jeremiah 8:11)
Apart from all the other horrendous costs involved, the forceful evacuation of the nearly 300,000 Israelis living today in their own, God-given Judea and Samaria, will cost enormous amounts of money - even if just $250,000 in compensation is paid for each house evacuated. Who will pay this enormous sum? The US with all her own financial upheavals? The Arabs? Who? But even if a financial solution was to be found, which seems very unlikely indeed, the evacuation will not lead to peace. It will result in the destruction of Israel as Palestinian spokesmen from all factions - from Hamas to the Fatah - have made abundantly clear:
"[Hamas says] that Fatah has asked them to recognize Israel`s right to exist and this is a big deception. For the one thousandth time, I want to reaffirm that we are not asking Hamas to recognize Israel`s right to exist. Rather, we are asking Hamas not to do so because Fatah never recognized Israel`s right to exist."
"We acknowledge that the PLO did recognize Israel`s right to exist, but we are not bound by it as a resistance faction," (Mohammed Dahlan, PLO representative, The Jerusalem Post, 18/3/2009)
On May 14, 2009, under the headline "Palestinian Ambassador to Lebanon Abbas Zaki: Two-State Solution Will Lead to the Collapse of Israel," MEMRI (www.memri.org) quoted PLO Ambassador Abbas Zaki as saying:
"They talk about a two-state solution, and when that is achieved... Even Ahmadinejad, leader of the rejectionists throughout the region, said he supports a two-state solution. Nobody fools anybody.
"With the two-state solution, in my opinion, Israel will collapse, because if they get out of Jerusalem, what will become of all the talk about the Promised Land and the Chosen People? What will become of all the sacrifices they made - just to be told to leave? They consider Jerusalem to have a spiritual status. The Jews consider Judea and Samaria to be their historic dream. If the Jews leave those places, the Zionist idea will begin to collapse. It will regress of its own accord. Then we will move forward."
"The PLO proceeds through phases, without changing its strategy. Let me tell you, when the ideology of Israel collapses, and we take, at least, Jerusalem, the Israeli ideology will collapse in its entirety, and we will begin to progress with our own ideology, Allah willing, and drive them out of all of Palestine." (Excerpts from an interview with PLO Ambassador to Lebanon Abbas Zaki, which aired on ANB TV on May 7, 2009.)
PLO and Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmud Abbas recently said:
"A Jewish State, what is that supposed to mean? You call yourselves as you like, but I don`t accept it, and I say so publicly."
Hamas covenant, Article Eight:
Allah is its target, the Prophet is its model, the Koran its constitution: Jihad is its path and death for the sake of Allah is the loftiest of its wishes.
The Islamic Resistance Movement believes that the land of Palestine is an Islamic Waqf consecrated for future Moslem generations until Judgment Day. It, or any part of it, should not be squandered: it, or any part of it, should not be given up. Neither a single Arab country nor all Arab countries, neither any king or president, nor all the kings and presidents, neither any organization nor all of them, be they Palestinian or Arab, possess the right to do that. Palestine is an Islamic Waqf land consecrated for Moslem generations until Judgment Day. This being so, who could claim to have the right to represent Moslem generations till Judgment Day?
This is the law governing the land of Palestine in the Islamic Sharia (law) and the same goes for any land the Moslems have conquered by force, because during the times of (Islamic) conquests, the Moslems consecrated these lands to Moslem generations till the Day of Judgment.
Furthermore Yuval Diskin, head of Israel`s General Security, the Shabak, has recently stated before the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee as reported by The Jerusalem Post, 20 May 2009:
"Hamas control over the Gaza Strip will prevent any effective peace process from coming into fruition"
Diskin warned that there was a good chance that the situation could become more dire if Hamas emerges victorious in a West Bank election.
"If ballots were cast in the West Bank today, there is a chance that Hamas would win," he warned.
He warned that a victory for Hamas would "be seen as a second victory for Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood in this area, and thus would have a dangerous impact on the whole region, including in neighboring countries."
Therefore, because `the other side,` both so-called moderates and extremists, will only use the full withdrawal of Israel from all "occupied territories" - including Jerusalem - as a phase en route to destroying the hated Zionist State, Israel is not engaged in peace negotiations but in negotiating piece by piece her own imminent destruction.
Why, then, do Israeli politicians and commentators who must know these things still spout such self-destructive nonsense? Rather than speak the truth that is so obvious to all who still have the courage to think for themselves, they prefer to be politically correct in this sick and distorted world. They are afraid to stand apart from the PC crowd and to shout, like the courageous child of old about an emperor praised by all: "But the Emperor has no clothes, he is NAKED!"
So is this peace process! Not just naked and void of content, but mortally dangerous for little Israel.
By refusing to deal forcefully with Iran, the United States and Europe have, themselves, cut off any hope for true peace in the Middle East. Yet they simultaneously hold Israel back, forbidding her from taking care of the Iranian threat herself- though it would benefit all: the moderate Arab regimes, Europe and United States.
The argument put forward by both US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and President Obama that the eight years the Bush administration refused to talk to Iran produced no result, is utterly false and misleading.
The fact is that whatever Europe and the United States have done so far - and European leaders did engage Iran in dialogue, and even employed veiled threats - all has produced nothing. It was all too weak and halfhearted, proving not that we need more of these futile engagements, but that we need a firm and definite response before it is too late!
For too late it soon will be!
Politics: Two-state alternatives
Gil Hoffman , THE JERUSALEM POST
Standing only 1.64 meters in her trademark long skirt, 31-year-old freshman Likud MK Tzipi Hotovely does not look like a rebel, and she doesn't intend to become one either.
That's why she emphasized at the start of Tuesday's diplomatic conference she organized at the Knesset that it was intended to boost Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and not undermine him. She hopes Netanyahu will toe the party line and resist pressure from Washington to take steps toward creating a Palestinian state.
"This is not a conference of mordim or hishukaim [rebels] but of strengtheners," Hotovely said in her introductory remarks, recalling the groups of right-wing Likud MKs who pressured Ariel Sharon and Yitzhak Shamir in the past. "This is intended to strengthen the prime minister, who stood up for his principles in Washington."
Entitled "Alternatives to the Two-State Outlook," the three-hour conference gave a forum to several politicians and thinkers who believe that the Right must have its own diplomatic plan to enable a Likud prime minister to defy world leaders who are insistent on creating a Palestinian state.
The event was purposely timed to coincide with the aftermath of the Netanyahu-Obama meeting, and the speculation ahead of US President Barack Obama's key speeches to the Muslim world and the Quartet next month. But the timing proved to be even more significant, when Netanyahu showed his first signs of giving in to US pressure the day before.
AT a meeting of the Likud faction, Netanyahu appeared to accept Obama's linkage of West Bank-building to the Iranian threat, when he said that removing unauthorized outposts was necessary to persuade America to stop Iran. While Netanyahu has not given in to Obama's requests to stop the construction in settlements needed for natural growth, he did surrender the outposts in hopes of appeasing Obama.
"We are not in regular times," Netanyahu said. "The danger is approaching, and the most dangerous thing for a live organism is to not recognize the danger on the way. My job is to ensure Israel's future, and that comes before anything else. Our relations with the US are important. We need to put our real national needs atop our priorities."
Netanyahu's statement surprised Likud MKs who said they felt déjà vu, especially when he used Sharon's line about leaders having to make difficult decisions. They expressed concern that the prime minister was advancing on the slippery slope of concessions to the US - a process that history has proven hard to stop.
HAD NETANYAHU or Obama attended the conference, they would have heard about four possible alternatives to the creation of a Palestinian state, which all the speakers at the event agreed would guarantee Israel's destruction. The options discussed included a Palestinian confederation with Jordan, maintaining the current situation in the West Bank, annexing all of Judea and Samaria and delaying dealing with the problem until better circumstances arise.
Vice Premier Moshe Ya'alon gave practical reasons why a Palestinian state could not sustain itself, and could not be prevented from attacking Israel. He suggested that, rather than attempting to solve the conflict via Israeli concessions and throwing money at Palestinian leaders, the world instead should try to manage the conflict.
He outlined educational, economic, political, police and military reforms for the Palestinian Authority, and lamented that the only reforms taking place were the military ones under the auspices of American Gen. Keith Dayton. Ya'alon said that all five reforms had to take place first for the PA to become a partner.
Shas chairman Eli Yishai outlined a plan for reporters outside the conference, calling for five years of cooperation with the PA on a municipal and economic level as a prerequisite for diplomatic talks on a Palestinian entity.
Israel Beiteinu MK Robert Ilatov explained his party's plan for exchanging territory and populations with the PA.
Many speakers pushed the idea of a Palestinian-Jordanian confederation, on a day in which Jordan protested the advancement of National Union MK Arye Eldad's bill that calls for the solution to the Palestinian problem to take place in Jordan and not Israel.
Maj.-Gen. (res.) Giora Eiland, who headed the National Security Council under Sharon, said the idea had started to be raised seriously among the Jordanians and Palestinians since Hamas took over Gaza. He said he believed both the Jordanians and Palestinians would eventually agree to it, if it became clear that the only other alternative was a Hamas state in the West Bank.
Eiland also called for expanding the Gaza Strip into the Egyptian-controlled Sinai, to allow cities and a port to be built for the Palestinian people. He said that Israel could compensate Egypt for the loss of territory with land in the Negev.
Adi Mintz, a former chairman of the Council of Jewish communities in Judea, Samaria and the Gaza Strip, outlined his "Shalom Ba'aretz" [peace in Israel] plan, which takes Eiland's ideas further. Mintz's plan calls for first defeating terror, and establishing a separate system of streets and bridges, so Palestinians can go from one town to another without checkpoints.
Mintz would annex some 62 percent of the West Bank, including expanded settlement blocs, the Jordan Valley and the Judean Desert. He said this would only add some 300,000 Arabs to the Israeli population. In the plan's final stage, some 1 million people living in the remaining 38% of the West Bank would become Jordanian citizens and Israeli residents, and would administer themselves.
By contrast, former National Union leader Benny Elon's Israel Initiative, which was also outlined at the conference, would not divide the West Bank at all. But the Arabs living there would come under Jordanian civil control, while remaining under Israeli military control.
Former defense minister Moshe Arens criticized all the plans involving Jordan, calling them unrealistic.
THE MOST surprising speaker at the conference was Netanyahu's former bureau chief, Uri Elitzur, who said that the best possible option was the annexation of the entire West Bank, making all the Palestinians living there Israeli citizens. He said he recognized the danger of Israel's eventually becoming a binational state, but it was preferable to withdrawing from Judea and Samaria, or continuing the current situation.
But after the conference ended, the participants agreed that the most likely scenario still remained that Obama would pursue the creation of a Palestinian state with full force, while adding the prospect of Arab countries recognizing the Jewish state in an attempt to make it easier to swallow. Netanyahu will try to improve the plan via his talks with the Obama administration, rather than give a firm no and attempt to stop it completely.
They predicted that, as has happened every time a president decided he could solve the Middle East conflict, the Arabs would prevent the plan from being implemented by refusing to compromise. They noted that the election of Hamas at the beginning of next year could also derail Obama's efforts.
Faced with that prospect, the conference's organizers said the ideas raised there would be waiting for Netanyahu and Obama after yet another Middle East peace process proved unsuccessful.
This article can also be read at http://www.jpost.com /servlet/Satellite?cid=1243346491959&pagename=JPArticle%2FShowFull
.
Standing only 1.64 meters in her trademark long skirt, 31-year-old freshman Likud MK Tzipi Hotovely does not look like a rebel, and she doesn't intend to become one either.
That's why she emphasized at the start of Tuesday's diplomatic conference she organized at the Knesset that it was intended to boost Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and not undermine him. She hopes Netanyahu will toe the party line and resist pressure from Washington to take steps toward creating a Palestinian state.
"This is not a conference of mordim or hishukaim [rebels] but of strengtheners," Hotovely said in her introductory remarks, recalling the groups of right-wing Likud MKs who pressured Ariel Sharon and Yitzhak Shamir in the past. "This is intended to strengthen the prime minister, who stood up for his principles in Washington."
Entitled "Alternatives to the Two-State Outlook," the three-hour conference gave a forum to several politicians and thinkers who believe that the Right must have its own diplomatic plan to enable a Likud prime minister to defy world leaders who are insistent on creating a Palestinian state.
The event was purposely timed to coincide with the aftermath of the Netanyahu-Obama meeting, and the speculation ahead of US President Barack Obama's key speeches to the Muslim world and the Quartet next month. But the timing proved to be even more significant, when Netanyahu showed his first signs of giving in to US pressure the day before.
AT a meeting of the Likud faction, Netanyahu appeared to accept Obama's linkage of West Bank-building to the Iranian threat, when he said that removing unauthorized outposts was necessary to persuade America to stop Iran. While Netanyahu has not given in to Obama's requests to stop the construction in settlements needed for natural growth, he did surrender the outposts in hopes of appeasing Obama.
"We are not in regular times," Netanyahu said. "The danger is approaching, and the most dangerous thing for a live organism is to not recognize the danger on the way. My job is to ensure Israel's future, and that comes before anything else. Our relations with the US are important. We need to put our real national needs atop our priorities."
Netanyahu's statement surprised Likud MKs who said they felt déjà vu, especially when he used Sharon's line about leaders having to make difficult decisions. They expressed concern that the prime minister was advancing on the slippery slope of concessions to the US - a process that history has proven hard to stop.
HAD NETANYAHU or Obama attended the conference, they would have heard about four possible alternatives to the creation of a Palestinian state, which all the speakers at the event agreed would guarantee Israel's destruction. The options discussed included a Palestinian confederation with Jordan, maintaining the current situation in the West Bank, annexing all of Judea and Samaria and delaying dealing with the problem until better circumstances arise.
Vice Premier Moshe Ya'alon gave practical reasons why a Palestinian state could not sustain itself, and could not be prevented from attacking Israel. He suggested that, rather than attempting to solve the conflict via Israeli concessions and throwing money at Palestinian leaders, the world instead should try to manage the conflict.
He outlined educational, economic, political, police and military reforms for the Palestinian Authority, and lamented that the only reforms taking place were the military ones under the auspices of American Gen. Keith Dayton. Ya'alon said that all five reforms had to take place first for the PA to become a partner.
Shas chairman Eli Yishai outlined a plan for reporters outside the conference, calling for five years of cooperation with the PA on a municipal and economic level as a prerequisite for diplomatic talks on a Palestinian entity.
Israel Beiteinu MK Robert Ilatov explained his party's plan for exchanging territory and populations with the PA.
Many speakers pushed the idea of a Palestinian-Jordanian confederation, on a day in which Jordan protested the advancement of National Union MK Arye Eldad's bill that calls for the solution to the Palestinian problem to take place in Jordan and not Israel.
Maj.-Gen. (res.) Giora Eiland, who headed the National Security Council under Sharon, said the idea had started to be raised seriously among the Jordanians and Palestinians since Hamas took over Gaza. He said he believed both the Jordanians and Palestinians would eventually agree to it, if it became clear that the only other alternative was a Hamas state in the West Bank.
Eiland also called for expanding the Gaza Strip into the Egyptian-controlled Sinai, to allow cities and a port to be built for the Palestinian people. He said that Israel could compensate Egypt for the loss of territory with land in the Negev.
Adi Mintz, a former chairman of the Council of Jewish communities in Judea, Samaria and the Gaza Strip, outlined his "Shalom Ba'aretz" [peace in Israel] plan, which takes Eiland's ideas further. Mintz's plan calls for first defeating terror, and establishing a separate system of streets and bridges, so Palestinians can go from one town to another without checkpoints.
Mintz would annex some 62 percent of the West Bank, including expanded settlement blocs, the Jordan Valley and the Judean Desert. He said this would only add some 300,000 Arabs to the Israeli population. In the plan's final stage, some 1 million people living in the remaining 38% of the West Bank would become Jordanian citizens and Israeli residents, and would administer themselves.
By contrast, former National Union leader Benny Elon's Israel Initiative, which was also outlined at the conference, would not divide the West Bank at all. But the Arabs living there would come under Jordanian civil control, while remaining under Israeli military control.
Former defense minister Moshe Arens criticized all the plans involving Jordan, calling them unrealistic.
THE MOST surprising speaker at the conference was Netanyahu's former bureau chief, Uri Elitzur, who said that the best possible option was the annexation of the entire West Bank, making all the Palestinians living there Israeli citizens. He said he recognized the danger of Israel's eventually becoming a binational state, but it was preferable to withdrawing from Judea and Samaria, or continuing the current situation.
But after the conference ended, the participants agreed that the most likely scenario still remained that Obama would pursue the creation of a Palestinian state with full force, while adding the prospect of Arab countries recognizing the Jewish state in an attempt to make it easier to swallow. Netanyahu will try to improve the plan via his talks with the Obama administration, rather than give a firm no and attempt to stop it completely.
They predicted that, as has happened every time a president decided he could solve the Middle East conflict, the Arabs would prevent the plan from being implemented by refusing to compromise. They noted that the election of Hamas at the beginning of next year could also derail Obama's efforts.
Faced with that prospect, the conference's organizers said the ideas raised there would be waiting for Netanyahu and Obama after yet another Middle East peace process proved unsuccessful.
This article can also be read at http://www.jpost.com /servlet/Satellite?cid=1243346491959&pagename=JPArticle%2FShowFull
.
Obama says Israel must stop settlement construction
Associated Press , THE JERUSALEM POST
Gingerly trying to advance Mideast peace, US President Barack Obama on Thursday challenged Israel to stop settlement construction in the West Bank on the same day the Israelis rejected that demand. Obama pushed Palestinians for progress, too, deepening his personal involvement.
"I am confident that we can move this process forward," Obama said after meeting with Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas at the White House. The president said that means both sides must "meet the obligations that they've already committed to" - an element of the peace effort that has proved elusive for years.
Abbas told The Associated Press after the session with Obama that no meetings with Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu are on the horizon. He said there are no preconditions for such a meeting but "obligations" on Israel through the so-called road map for ending the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Abbas said he is meeting his commitments under the road map and that Israel should do the same. He cited continued settlement construction as a commitment Israel is not meeting.
Earlier in the day, Israel rejected blunt US requests to freeze Jewish settlement construction in the West Bank, a territory that would make up the Palestinian state, along with the Gaza Strip, as part of a broader peace deal.
In strong language, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton had said Wednesday that Obama wants a halt to all settlement construction, including "natural growth." Israel uses that term for new housing and other construction that it says will accommodate the growth of families living in existing settlements.
Government spokesman Mark Regev responded Thursday by saying some construction would go on.
"Normal life in those communities must be allowed to continue," he said, noting Israel has already agreed not to build new settlements and to remove some tiny, unauthorized settler outposts. Regev said the fate of the settlements would be determined in peace negotiations with the Palestinians.
With that as a backdrop, Obama said part of Israel's obligations include "stopping settlements." But he also struck a hopeful tone.
He said he had pressed Netanyahu on the settlement matter just last week at the White House, and that the prime minister needs to work through the issue with his own government.
"I think it's important not to assume the worst, but to assume the best," Obama said.
The president also pushed Palestinians to hold up their end, including increased security in the West Bank to give Israelis confidence in their safety.
Obama said he told Abbas the Palestinians must find a way to halt the incitement of anti-Israeli sentiments that are sometimes expressed in schools, mosques and public arenas. "All those things are impediments to peace," Obama said.
The Palestinian leader said "we are fully committed to all of our obligations" under the road map. Doing so, Abbas said, is "the only way to achieve the durable, comprehensive and just peace that we need and desire in the Middle East."
Obama, like predecessor George W. Bush, embraces a multifaceted Mideast peace plan that calls for a Palestinian state alongside Israel.
The president refused to set a timetable for such a nation but also noted he has not been slow to get involved in meeting with both sides and pushing the international community for help.
"We can't continue with the drift, with the increased fear and resentment on both sides, the sense of hopelessness around the situation that we've seen for many years now," Obama said. "We need to get this thing back on track."
Abbas is working to repackage a 2002 Saudi Arabian plan that called for Israel to give up land it has occupied since the 1967 war in exchange for normalized relations with Arab countries. Abbas gave Obama a document that would keep intact that requirement and also offer a way to monitor a required Israeli freeze on all settlement activity, a timetable for Israeli withdrawal and a realization of a two-state solution.
"The main purpose of presenting this document to President Obama is to help him in finding a mechanism to implement the Arab peace initiative," Abbas told the AP.
Asked about his impression of the meeting with Obama, Abbas said: "It was a serious and open meeting and President Obama seems determined on what he has said to us and to Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu about the necessity of implementing the road map, and we have agreed to continue our communications."
Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat said Obama affirmed to Abbas that Israel has an obligation to freeze settlement expansions, including natural growth.
Now more than 120 settlements dot the West Bank, and Palestinian officials say their growth makes it increasingly impossible to realize their dream of independence. More than 280,000 Israelis live in the settlements, in addition to more than 2 million Palestinians in the West Bank. An additional 180,000 Israelis live in east Jerusalem, where the Palestinians hope to establish their capital.
Israelis will be anxiously watching Obama's June 4 speech in Cairo, where he will deliver a message to the Muslim world to try to repair relations that frayed badly under the Bush administration. Obama will also visit Saudi Arabia before he goes to Egypt.
"I want to use the occasion to deliver a broader message about how the United States can change for the better its relationship with the Muslim world," Obama said of his Egypt speech. "That will require, I think, a recognition on both the part of the United States as well as many majority Muslim countries about each other, a better sense of understanding, and I think possibilities to achieve common ground."
This article can also be read at http://www.jpost.com /servlet/Satellite?cid=1243346500378&pagename=JPArticle%2FShowFull
Comment: Allow me to indicate that Abbas' statement they are honoring the Road Map is not true-at all. I suggest individuals read and study the Road Map and then examine his culture and society today. Hold up their behavior to the standards identified in the Road Map. Good thing Abbas is not made out of wood, his nose would be longer the the Golden Gate Bridge he has fabricated so many lies. Unless you know the facts you might believe him-the media knows better but never challenges any lie he tells-you see, they want access to him and cannot afford to upset him. This is the state of the world today.
Gingerly trying to advance Mideast peace, US President Barack Obama on Thursday challenged Israel to stop settlement construction in the West Bank on the same day the Israelis rejected that demand. Obama pushed Palestinians for progress, too, deepening his personal involvement.
"I am confident that we can move this process forward," Obama said after meeting with Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas at the White House. The president said that means both sides must "meet the obligations that they've already committed to" - an element of the peace effort that has proved elusive for years.
Abbas told The Associated Press after the session with Obama that no meetings with Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu are on the horizon. He said there are no preconditions for such a meeting but "obligations" on Israel through the so-called road map for ending the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Abbas said he is meeting his commitments under the road map and that Israel should do the same. He cited continued settlement construction as a commitment Israel is not meeting.
Earlier in the day, Israel rejected blunt US requests to freeze Jewish settlement construction in the West Bank, a territory that would make up the Palestinian state, along with the Gaza Strip, as part of a broader peace deal.
In strong language, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton had said Wednesday that Obama wants a halt to all settlement construction, including "natural growth." Israel uses that term for new housing and other construction that it says will accommodate the growth of families living in existing settlements.
Government spokesman Mark Regev responded Thursday by saying some construction would go on.
"Normal life in those communities must be allowed to continue," he said, noting Israel has already agreed not to build new settlements and to remove some tiny, unauthorized settler outposts. Regev said the fate of the settlements would be determined in peace negotiations with the Palestinians.
With that as a backdrop, Obama said part of Israel's obligations include "stopping settlements." But he also struck a hopeful tone.
He said he had pressed Netanyahu on the settlement matter just last week at the White House, and that the prime minister needs to work through the issue with his own government.
"I think it's important not to assume the worst, but to assume the best," Obama said.
The president also pushed Palestinians to hold up their end, including increased security in the West Bank to give Israelis confidence in their safety.
Obama said he told Abbas the Palestinians must find a way to halt the incitement of anti-Israeli sentiments that are sometimes expressed in schools, mosques and public arenas. "All those things are impediments to peace," Obama said.
The Palestinian leader said "we are fully committed to all of our obligations" under the road map. Doing so, Abbas said, is "the only way to achieve the durable, comprehensive and just peace that we need and desire in the Middle East."
Obama, like predecessor George W. Bush, embraces a multifaceted Mideast peace plan that calls for a Palestinian state alongside Israel.
The president refused to set a timetable for such a nation but also noted he has not been slow to get involved in meeting with both sides and pushing the international community for help.
"We can't continue with the drift, with the increased fear and resentment on both sides, the sense of hopelessness around the situation that we've seen for many years now," Obama said. "We need to get this thing back on track."
Abbas is working to repackage a 2002 Saudi Arabian plan that called for Israel to give up land it has occupied since the 1967 war in exchange for normalized relations with Arab countries. Abbas gave Obama a document that would keep intact that requirement and also offer a way to monitor a required Israeli freeze on all settlement activity, a timetable for Israeli withdrawal and a realization of a two-state solution.
"The main purpose of presenting this document to President Obama is to help him in finding a mechanism to implement the Arab peace initiative," Abbas told the AP.
Asked about his impression of the meeting with Obama, Abbas said: "It was a serious and open meeting and President Obama seems determined on what he has said to us and to Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu about the necessity of implementing the road map, and we have agreed to continue our communications."
Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat said Obama affirmed to Abbas that Israel has an obligation to freeze settlement expansions, including natural growth.
Now more than 120 settlements dot the West Bank, and Palestinian officials say their growth makes it increasingly impossible to realize their dream of independence. More than 280,000 Israelis live in the settlements, in addition to more than 2 million Palestinians in the West Bank. An additional 180,000 Israelis live in east Jerusalem, where the Palestinians hope to establish their capital.
Israelis will be anxiously watching Obama's June 4 speech in Cairo, where he will deliver a message to the Muslim world to try to repair relations that frayed badly under the Bush administration. Obama will also visit Saudi Arabia before he goes to Egypt.
"I want to use the occasion to deliver a broader message about how the United States can change for the better its relationship with the Muslim world," Obama said of his Egypt speech. "That will require, I think, a recognition on both the part of the United States as well as many majority Muslim countries about each other, a better sense of understanding, and I think possibilities to achieve common ground."
This article can also be read at http://www.jpost.com /servlet/Satellite?cid=1243346500378&pagename=JPArticle%2FShowFull
Comment: Allow me to indicate that Abbas' statement they are honoring the Road Map is not true-at all. I suggest individuals read and study the Road Map and then examine his culture and society today. Hold up their behavior to the standards identified in the Road Map. Good thing Abbas is not made out of wood, his nose would be longer the the Golden Gate Bridge he has fabricated so many lies. Unless you know the facts you might believe him-the media knows better but never challenges any lie he tells-you see, they want access to him and cannot afford to upset him. This is the state of the world today.
Thursday, May 28, 2009
DISMANTLEMENT TO PEACEFUL NON-EXISTENCE
Diana West
Moaz Esther, an Israeli outpost was demolished by Israeli security forces at the behest, media say, of Barack Obama.
This, apparently, is only the first of many. As Haaretz (of May 22) reports: Ministers, including those from Likud, said Wednesday that Netanyahu probably promised United States President Barack Obama in their meeting that Israel would dismantle outposts soon. Evacuating illegal outposts in the West Bank is expected to be the Netanyahu government's first gesture toward Obama and the Palestinian Authority.
What next? Self-immolation?
This is part of the "price" Netanyahu paid Obama in exchange for the latter's statements about Iran's nuclearization, the sources said. Outposts for statements? Netanyahu was suckered.
Sources close to Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak said Wednesday that the first outposts are expected to be evacuated within a few weeks—-either with the settlers' agreement or by force. Gaza all over again—one of the stunning strategic and moral blunders of all time.
Before going to Washington, Netanyahu and chief of policy planning Ron Dermer drafted the new government's policy principles. The document, which Netanyahu issued for distribution only after meeting Obama, says Israel is ready to evacuate the illegal outposts. As for stopping construction in the settlements the document was more cagey, saying the settlements were not an obstacle to peace and that the evacuation of settlements in Gaza only led to the establishment of a Hamas terror base in the Gaza Strip. Confusion and weakness. Why evacuate more if recent history—as in day before yesterday—shows evacuation leads to massively more violence not less?
During the meeting, held at the minister's bureau in Tel Aviv, Barak went on to say, "We can't compromise on law enforcement. A sovereign country that seeks life must enforce its laws and implement the state's authority over its citizens."
How deeply twisted. In Barak's eyes, sovereignty here is the legal right to destroy his country.
He said the new Israeli government would take action against the outposts, not because it was told to do so by the United States, but because Israel "is a state of law."
How do you say "denial" in Hebrew?
Barak added that the illegal outposts cause extensive damage to Israel in the international arena, and even weaken the settler movement. Therefore, he said, the problem of the unauthorized outposts should be addressed first and foremost.
"Damage in the international arena"—sounds like Gitmo. Israelis living lives on historic homelands they reclaimed in Arab-jihadist wars of attempted extinguishment does "damage in the international arena" just as Americans attempting to thwart jihadists from attacking does "damage in the international arena."
Hmmm. Sounds like we should both forget about the "international arena" if we want to survive. Big, alas, if. Meanwhile, notice how rocketing civilians—as opposed to living on a mountain in a tin can—causes no damage in the same international arena to the Palestinians.
The meeting, called by the Yesha Council, included several settler demands. The council asked that the construction in the West Bank settlements be unfrozen, that Jewish communities in the West Bank be afforded conditions for a normal lifestyle and that certain security concerns be addressed.
Maoz Esther resident Avraham Sandak said 40 people had been living at the hilltop site northeast of Ramallah and they would start work immediately to replace the demolished buildings.
"We hope to sleep here tonight and we hope, with God's help, to rebuild it, not like before but bigger," he said.
Diana West is a nationally syndicated columnist and author of the book The Death Of The Grown-Up.
Moaz Esther, an Israeli outpost was demolished by Israeli security forces at the behest, media say, of Barack Obama.
This, apparently, is only the first of many. As Haaretz (of May 22) reports: Ministers, including those from Likud, said Wednesday that Netanyahu probably promised United States President Barack Obama in their meeting that Israel would dismantle outposts soon. Evacuating illegal outposts in the West Bank is expected to be the Netanyahu government's first gesture toward Obama and the Palestinian Authority.
What next? Self-immolation?
This is part of the "price" Netanyahu paid Obama in exchange for the latter's statements about Iran's nuclearization, the sources said. Outposts for statements? Netanyahu was suckered.
Sources close to Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak said Wednesday that the first outposts are expected to be evacuated within a few weeks—-either with the settlers' agreement or by force. Gaza all over again—one of the stunning strategic and moral blunders of all time.
Before going to Washington, Netanyahu and chief of policy planning Ron Dermer drafted the new government's policy principles. The document, which Netanyahu issued for distribution only after meeting Obama, says Israel is ready to evacuate the illegal outposts. As for stopping construction in the settlements the document was more cagey, saying the settlements were not an obstacle to peace and that the evacuation of settlements in Gaza only led to the establishment of a Hamas terror base in the Gaza Strip. Confusion and weakness. Why evacuate more if recent history—as in day before yesterday—shows evacuation leads to massively more violence not less?
During the meeting, held at the minister's bureau in Tel Aviv, Barak went on to say, "We can't compromise on law enforcement. A sovereign country that seeks life must enforce its laws and implement the state's authority over its citizens."
How deeply twisted. In Barak's eyes, sovereignty here is the legal right to destroy his country.
He said the new Israeli government would take action against the outposts, not because it was told to do so by the United States, but because Israel "is a state of law."
How do you say "denial" in Hebrew?
Barak added that the illegal outposts cause extensive damage to Israel in the international arena, and even weaken the settler movement. Therefore, he said, the problem of the unauthorized outposts should be addressed first and foremost.
"Damage in the international arena"—sounds like Gitmo. Israelis living lives on historic homelands they reclaimed in Arab-jihadist wars of attempted extinguishment does "damage in the international arena" just as Americans attempting to thwart jihadists from attacking does "damage in the international arena."
Hmmm. Sounds like we should both forget about the "international arena" if we want to survive. Big, alas, if. Meanwhile, notice how rocketing civilians—as opposed to living on a mountain in a tin can—causes no damage in the same international arena to the Palestinians.
The meeting, called by the Yesha Council, included several settler demands. The council asked that the construction in the West Bank settlements be unfrozen, that Jewish communities in the West Bank be afforded conditions for a normal lifestyle and that certain security concerns be addressed.
Maoz Esther resident Avraham Sandak said 40 people had been living at the hilltop site northeast of Ramallah and they would start work immediately to replace the demolished buildings.
"We hope to sleep here tonight and we hope, with God's help, to rebuild it, not like before but bigger," he said.
Diana West is a nationally syndicated columnist and author of the book The Death Of The Grown-Up.
Is Obama looking for a fight over 'natural growth'?
May. 28, 2009
Herb Keinon , THE JERUSALEM POST
"A 'settlement freeze' would not help Palestinians face today's problems or prepare for tomorrow's challenges," Elliott Abrams, the deputy national security adviser under former US president George Bush, wrote in April in The Washington Post.
"The demand for a freeze would have only one quick effect: to create immediate tension between the United States and Israel's new government," he wrote. "That may be precisely why some propose it, but it is also why the Obama administration should reject it."
The demand for a freeze would have only one quick effect: to create immediate tension between the United States and Israel's new government," he wrote. "That may be precisely why some propose it, but it is also why the Obama administration should reject it."
Abrams proved prophetic: the issue has indeed created immediate tension with the US, not over illegal outposts - Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu has made it clear he will remove them - but over "natural growth" in the settlements.
The question is why the US is looking for this fight, and why Obama has not heeded Abrams's advice and rejected those pushing him in a confrontation over the matter.
Truth be told, comments by Obama himself on the subject have not pointed to a looming battle. After his meeting with Netanyahu in the White House last week, Obama spoke - much as Bush spoke before him - in rather general terms about a need for Israel to stop settlement construction.
"There is a clear understanding that we have to make progress on settlements, that settlements have to be stopped in order for us to move forward," he said, using language heard often in the past.
The indication that a fight was brewing came when US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said in an Al-Jazeera interview - an interview whose transcript was circulated last Wednesday by the State Department - that a freeze is just that: a complete and total freeze, even for "natural growth."
That position, as was made abundantly clear at Sunday's cabinet meeting in Jerusalem, is not acceptable to the current Netanyahu government. Even Defense Minister Ehud Barak, representing the left flank of the government, said it was illogical to accept a principle whereby a family could not add on to their 45-meter house to accommodate more children, or whereby veterans of IDF units couldn't return - with their wives - to the settlements of their birth to live near their parents.
So a clash is in the making, though coming to some kind of agreement on this issue was one of the main objectives that Intelligence Services Minister Dan Meridor, National Security Advisor Uzi Arad and Yitzhak Molcho, Netanyahu's envoy on the Palestinian issue, took with them to London this week for their meeting with US Middle East envoy George Mitchell.
Israel's position, or its hope, is that this issue can be finessed, just as it was finessed under the previous government. Or, as Netanyahu told a visiting Congressional delegation on Wednesday, there is a need to find a way with the US administration to enable "normal life" in the settlements to continue. If Obama says no settlements, but doesn't mention natural growth, leaving Clinton to do that, does that mean there is wiggle room? Nobody knows yet.
Not too long ago, Clinton's predecessor Condoleezza Rice caused consternation in Jerusalem when she began referring to Israeli neighborhoods in east Jerusalem as settlements.
But then Jerusalem was able to say, "Hey, that's only Rice. Bush doesn't feel that way." The problem is that no one quite knows the dynamics yet on these issues inside the Obama administration.
Israeli officials are confident - perhaps overly confident - that if they "line up" with the US administration on the "right side of the fence" on most settlement issues, they could find a formula to work regarding natural growth.
This means that if, as the Olmert government declared, the Netanyahu government says it will uproot illegal outposts, not set up new settlements, not give incentives to move to the settlements, and not expropriate any additional Palestinian lands, then the conventional wisdom in the current government is that the US would permit - as it has in the past - natural growth construction as long as it does not go beyond the existing construction lines.
But what if Obama, as some maintain, is actually looking for a public fight with Israel on this issue in order to win credit with the Arab world, and legitimacy among the Europeans as a leader who is willing to take Israel on when necessary?
That could be a tricky tactic, because if the US president picks a fight with Israel over the natural growth issue at a time when Israel has declared it won't build new settlements, expropriate land or give incentives to move there, then it could be perceived among some Obama supporters in Congress as being unfairly tough on Israel, especially since various verbal understandings were made over the years that Israel interpreted as a green light for natural growth.
Indeed, what is lacking is clarity, not about where Israel stands on the issue at this point, but where Obama stands, and how far he will push. Clinton's position is clear - but is she also speaking for the president?
As Abrams wrote in April, "for the past five years, Israel's government has largely adhered to guidelines that were discussed with the United States but never formally adopted: that there would be no new settlements, no financial incentives for Israelis to move to settlements and no new construction except in already built-up areas. The clear purpose of the guidelines? To allow for settlement growth in ways that minimized the impact on Palestinians."
The new Netanyahu government has made clear it will abide by those guidelines, and even go further, by taking down illegal outposts. What remains to be seen, what has to be clarified, is whether the Obama administration feels bound by these same guidelines.
If it doesn't, then a clash over the issue is all but inevitable.•
This article can also be read at http://www.jpost.com /servlet/Satellite?cid=1243346492983&pagename=JPArticle%2FShowFull
.
Herb Keinon , THE JERUSALEM POST
"A 'settlement freeze' would not help Palestinians face today's problems or prepare for tomorrow's challenges," Elliott Abrams, the deputy national security adviser under former US president George Bush, wrote in April in The Washington Post.
"The demand for a freeze would have only one quick effect: to create immediate tension between the United States and Israel's new government," he wrote. "That may be precisely why some propose it, but it is also why the Obama administration should reject it."
The demand for a freeze would have only one quick effect: to create immediate tension between the United States and Israel's new government," he wrote. "That may be precisely why some propose it, but it is also why the Obama administration should reject it."
Abrams proved prophetic: the issue has indeed created immediate tension with the US, not over illegal outposts - Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu has made it clear he will remove them - but over "natural growth" in the settlements.
The question is why the US is looking for this fight, and why Obama has not heeded Abrams's advice and rejected those pushing him in a confrontation over the matter.
Truth be told, comments by Obama himself on the subject have not pointed to a looming battle. After his meeting with Netanyahu in the White House last week, Obama spoke - much as Bush spoke before him - in rather general terms about a need for Israel to stop settlement construction.
"There is a clear understanding that we have to make progress on settlements, that settlements have to be stopped in order for us to move forward," he said, using language heard often in the past.
The indication that a fight was brewing came when US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said in an Al-Jazeera interview - an interview whose transcript was circulated last Wednesday by the State Department - that a freeze is just that: a complete and total freeze, even for "natural growth."
That position, as was made abundantly clear at Sunday's cabinet meeting in Jerusalem, is not acceptable to the current Netanyahu government. Even Defense Minister Ehud Barak, representing the left flank of the government, said it was illogical to accept a principle whereby a family could not add on to their 45-meter house to accommodate more children, or whereby veterans of IDF units couldn't return - with their wives - to the settlements of their birth to live near their parents.
So a clash is in the making, though coming to some kind of agreement on this issue was one of the main objectives that Intelligence Services Minister Dan Meridor, National Security Advisor Uzi Arad and Yitzhak Molcho, Netanyahu's envoy on the Palestinian issue, took with them to London this week for their meeting with US Middle East envoy George Mitchell.
Israel's position, or its hope, is that this issue can be finessed, just as it was finessed under the previous government. Or, as Netanyahu told a visiting Congressional delegation on Wednesday, there is a need to find a way with the US administration to enable "normal life" in the settlements to continue. If Obama says no settlements, but doesn't mention natural growth, leaving Clinton to do that, does that mean there is wiggle room? Nobody knows yet.
Not too long ago, Clinton's predecessor Condoleezza Rice caused consternation in Jerusalem when she began referring to Israeli neighborhoods in east Jerusalem as settlements.
But then Jerusalem was able to say, "Hey, that's only Rice. Bush doesn't feel that way." The problem is that no one quite knows the dynamics yet on these issues inside the Obama administration.
Israeli officials are confident - perhaps overly confident - that if they "line up" with the US administration on the "right side of the fence" on most settlement issues, they could find a formula to work regarding natural growth.
This means that if, as the Olmert government declared, the Netanyahu government says it will uproot illegal outposts, not set up new settlements, not give incentives to move to the settlements, and not expropriate any additional Palestinian lands, then the conventional wisdom in the current government is that the US would permit - as it has in the past - natural growth construction as long as it does not go beyond the existing construction lines.
But what if Obama, as some maintain, is actually looking for a public fight with Israel on this issue in order to win credit with the Arab world, and legitimacy among the Europeans as a leader who is willing to take Israel on when necessary?
That could be a tricky tactic, because if the US president picks a fight with Israel over the natural growth issue at a time when Israel has declared it won't build new settlements, expropriate land or give incentives to move there, then it could be perceived among some Obama supporters in Congress as being unfairly tough on Israel, especially since various verbal understandings were made over the years that Israel interpreted as a green light for natural growth.
Indeed, what is lacking is clarity, not about where Israel stands on the issue at this point, but where Obama stands, and how far he will push. Clinton's position is clear - but is she also speaking for the president?
As Abrams wrote in April, "for the past five years, Israel's government has largely adhered to guidelines that were discussed with the United States but never formally adopted: that there would be no new settlements, no financial incentives for Israelis to move to settlements and no new construction except in already built-up areas. The clear purpose of the guidelines? To allow for settlement growth in ways that minimized the impact on Palestinians."
The new Netanyahu government has made clear it will abide by those guidelines, and even go further, by taking down illegal outposts. What remains to be seen, what has to be clarified, is whether the Obama administration feels bound by these same guidelines.
If it doesn't, then a clash over the issue is all but inevitable.•
This article can also be read at http://www.jpost.com /servlet/Satellite?cid=1243346492983&pagename=JPArticle%2FShowFull
.
"First Things First"
Arlene Kushner
And the first order of business is Shavuot, which begins tomorrow night. This holiday, the culmination of our counting of the Omer for seven weeks, marks Matan Torah -- our receiving of the Torah. The counting from Pesach until now -- which has significance in many ways -- tells us that there is a spiritual progression from the Exodus to Sinai. We traditionally celebrate this Festival by studying through the night.
It is unlikely that there will be another posting after this one until after Shabbat.
Chag Shavuot Sameach!
~~~~~~~~~~
Well, the delegation headed by Minister of Intelligence Dan Meridor has gone to London to discuss matters with US officials there, prior to Barak's visit in Washington, and it's being reported that both Iran and settlements are on the agenda.
As to Iran, it truly is wait and see how Obama will respond to what Barak brings him.
But we cannot escape the link with the enormously threatening and worrisome way in which North Korea is currently behaving. US response will be watched carefully by the world, and one must hope (and pray!) that the American president will be jarred into waking up before it is too late.
Guess what? Being nice guys with a renegade regime simply does not work. Not in North Korea and not in Iran. What is more, it's a lot easier (safer for the world) to deal with stopping such a regime from going nuclear than to confront one that already is nuclear.
Barack Hussein Obama -- do you get the picture yet?
~~~~~~~~~~
Here in Israel there is concern about nuclear proliferation and nuclear material getting into the hands of ME terrorists. But there is also the hope that alarm over Korea internationally may spur a stronger stance with regard to Iran. There is, for example, Russia, which has cut Iran a great deal of slack, but is now alarmed about North Korea.
~~~~~~~~~~
As to settlements: Two other illegal -- or more properly, unauthorized -- outposts outside of Kiryat Arba were taken down last night. One is at the Federman farm, which was demolished last year. There had been some activity reported regarding re-establishment of the property, but when police went there last night all they actually found was a tent filled with equipment. The other is at Hill 18, otherwise called Givat Avichai, which had been founded by yeshiva students from Kiryat Arba. There authorities found two shacks and some electrical equipment. The handful of yeshiva students present put up no resistance.
On the one hand, it seems altogether ludicrous, that authorities are taking the time to dismantle tents and shacks. But there is another way of looking at this. While they may end up doing bigger things, we must remember that as of now it's been mostly a show. Wow! Two unauthorized outposts taken down. They're tough. You think Barak will report to Obama on what he's done so far?
~~~~~~~~~~
A reader (thanks, Don S.) has asked me to elaborate on the different statuses that outposts or settlements can have. And I'd like to devote space to that here, as this is an important issue.
The whole business of legal vs. illegal settlements is both complicated and political. Most settlements have had some interaction with some government departments or agencies. They've hooked up water lines, or electric lines, or paved a road, or whatever. There is sanction somewhere along the way. And sometimes that sanction is considerable. But if final papers are not in place, then the settlement can be called "illegal" or "unauthorized."
The region comprised of Judea and Samaria is not governed by Israeli civil law -- civil law was never extended to this area as it was to the Golan and to eastern Jerusalem. (Note: this is not a case of annexing it, but extending the law of Israel to apply.) The region is administered separately under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Defense, and it is the office of the Defense Minister that must sign off on a settlement. Thus Barak's involvement here.
There are instances in which "illegal" settlements have been later declared legal, and there is hope that this might happen now in a handful of instances at least. That can particularly be the case when so-called outposts are really outlying neighborhoods of recognized settlements.
But it can happen in other instances as well. And actually it was explained to me by a lawyer some time ago that many settlements considered authorized today moved through a process this way.
~~~~~~~~~~
There are some charges being made -- by far left groups such as Peace Now and Yesh G'vul -- that some of the settlements are on private Palestinian land. While these charges are not necessarily accurate, where this might be a problem, shifting of the settlement to other land, rather than demolishing it, is a possible resolution.
~~~~~~~~~~
Several political issues complicate this whole matter. The Obama administration is saying that we have certain obligations with regard to settlements stemming from the Road Map for Peace. Introduced by the US, with Quartet sponsorship, in the spring of 2003, it presented a phased plan, with a timeline, for achieving a two-state solution.
You can see the full text here;
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2989783.stm
In the proposed first phase, it says the Government of Israel must "immediately dismantle settlement outposts erected since March 2001" and "freeze all settlement activity (including natural growth of settlements)."
We may not like it. We may hate it. But it says it.
~~~~~~~~~~
But -- wait! -- it's not nearly as simple as Obama would have it.
First there is the question of whether it still applies, as it was envisioned as resulting in a Palestinian state by 2005. Has a post-2005 situation superseded this document?
Unfortunately, our new foreign minister, Avigdor Lieberman, has made it more difficult to make this case, as he declared early on that we should scrap Annapolis and go back to the Road Map. It was clear why he did this: Annapolis was trying to jump past the phased program and get to the end result of a Palestinian state at the beginning. Lieberman was undoubtedly reasoning that under the Road Map the PA had obligations it would not honor and thus we'd not get to that end result.
~~~~~~~~~~
Then there is the very important issue of reciprocity (which Netanyahu has made much of) and the need for the Palestinian Authority to simultaneously fulfill its obligations. We cannot be the only party that "walks the walk."
According to this same Road Map, the Palestinians must "declare an unequivocal end to violence and terrorism and undertake visible efforts on the ground to arrest, disrupt, and restrain individuals and groups conducting and planning violent attacks on Israelis anywhere."
Never mind that Fatah is not exactly clean itself, what about Hamas terrorism, with rockets and mortars still launched (170 since the end of our war in Gaza)? What action will the PA take with regard to this? This is a joke. The PA, which has this obligation, cannot do it.
And there's more: "All official Palestinian institutions [must] end incitement against Israel." This is an even bigger joke than the terrorism issue. Anyone who has seen an analysis of the textbooks produced and utilized by the PA understands what a huge joke it really is.
See my article, "Texts of Hate," for some mind-blowing examples of what PA school kids are taught.
http://www.frontpagemag.com/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=30231
To comply with this requirement, the PA would have to publish a whole set of adjusted texts. And there's no thought of doing so. Not a glimmer of a suggestion that they must do so.
But WE have to stop building in the settlements? The Road Map calls for "reciprocal steps by the two parties."
It seems to me a very public campaign has to be launched focusing on the inequities of what is demanded of us and of the PA. Most of the world knows about the settlements as an "impediment to peace." Time they knew that there can't be peace when the Palestinian kids are taught to hate us, but that the PA, which is bound to do so under the Road Map, is taking no action in this regard. The PA is always yapping about how we don't want peace because we keep building. Where is the voice of our government saying that clearly the PA doesn't want peace if its youngsters are taught Jihad and Palestine from the river to the sea?
~~~~~~~~~~
And this is not the end to the problems surrounding the demands made of us.
The Sharon government of 2003 did not simply accept the Road Map as is. A set of "14 reservations" was attached and given to the Bush government. It was only after the US government committed to "fully and seriously address[ing]" the issues raised by Israel that the Israeli Cabinet voted to accept the Road Map. Unfortunately, this was naive, for a commitment to address the issues is not a promise that they will ultimately be incorporated into arrangements.
But the government of Israel is on record as having reservations. Some of those reservations:
"...during the process, and as a condition to its continuance. calm will be maintained. The Palestinians will dismantle the existing security organizations and implement security reforms during the course of which new organizations will be formed and act to combat terror, violence and incitement (incitement must cease immediately and the Palestinian Authority must educate for peace). (emphasis added)
"In the first phase of the plan and as a condition for progress to the second phase, the Palestinians will complete the dismantling of terrorist organizations (Hamas. Islamic Jihad. the Popular Front, the Democratic Front Al-Aqsa Brigades and other apparatuses) and their infrastructure... (emphasis added)
"...declared references must be made to Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state and to the waiver of any right of return for Palestinian refugees to the State of Israel."
Additionally, PM Sharon is on record as having objected to the call for a freeze on settlements. It was "impossible," he said to Secretary of State Colin Powell.
"Our finest youth live there. They are already the third generation, contributing to the state and serving in elite army units. They return home and get married, so then they can't build a house and have children?
"What do you want, for a pregnant woman to have an abortion just because she is a settler?"
(You can find this quote here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3020335.stm)
Unfortunately, bewilderingly, this objection, this perception that a freeze is impossible, was not written into the reservations.
~~~~~~~~~~
And one last factor in helping you understand the complexities of this situation:
In April of 2004, PM Sharon met with President Bush and they exchanged letters in the context of the Road Map and the forthcoming "Disengagement." President Bush's letter contained the phrase:
"In light of new realities on the ground, including already existing major Israeli populations centers, it is unrealistic to expect that the outcome of final status negotiations will be a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949..."
This was broadly understood as an acknowledgement by the US that in any final agreement with the Palestinians we would retain major settlement blocs. Dore Gold, head of the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, called it a "significant shift in US policy."
Netanyahu is currently using this to make the case that it had become informal US policy to acknowledge that we will be retaining settlement blocs in any event, and that there is thus no reason for the US to demand that we be restricted in building within those settlements. (Gold, by the way, is a Netanyahu advisor.)
From what I've read, this letter of Bush's is a stumbling block to Obama's demands, a frustration to him as he seeks to move on pressuring us.
~~~~~~~~~~
The good news for today: I've received some off-the-record information coming ultimately from an impeccable source, regarding Netanyahu's sincere resistance to a "two-state solution." We'll keep watching...
~~~~~~~~~~
see my website www.ArlenefromIsrael.info
And the first order of business is Shavuot, which begins tomorrow night. This holiday, the culmination of our counting of the Omer for seven weeks, marks Matan Torah -- our receiving of the Torah. The counting from Pesach until now -- which has significance in many ways -- tells us that there is a spiritual progression from the Exodus to Sinai. We traditionally celebrate this Festival by studying through the night.
It is unlikely that there will be another posting after this one until after Shabbat.
Chag Shavuot Sameach!
~~~~~~~~~~
Well, the delegation headed by Minister of Intelligence Dan Meridor has gone to London to discuss matters with US officials there, prior to Barak's visit in Washington, and it's being reported that both Iran and settlements are on the agenda.
As to Iran, it truly is wait and see how Obama will respond to what Barak brings him.
But we cannot escape the link with the enormously threatening and worrisome way in which North Korea is currently behaving. US response will be watched carefully by the world, and one must hope (and pray!) that the American president will be jarred into waking up before it is too late.
Guess what? Being nice guys with a renegade regime simply does not work. Not in North Korea and not in Iran. What is more, it's a lot easier (safer for the world) to deal with stopping such a regime from going nuclear than to confront one that already is nuclear.
Barack Hussein Obama -- do you get the picture yet?
~~~~~~~~~~
Here in Israel there is concern about nuclear proliferation and nuclear material getting into the hands of ME terrorists. But there is also the hope that alarm over Korea internationally may spur a stronger stance with regard to Iran. There is, for example, Russia, which has cut Iran a great deal of slack, but is now alarmed about North Korea.
~~~~~~~~~~
As to settlements: Two other illegal -- or more properly, unauthorized -- outposts outside of Kiryat Arba were taken down last night. One is at the Federman farm, which was demolished last year. There had been some activity reported regarding re-establishment of the property, but when police went there last night all they actually found was a tent filled with equipment. The other is at Hill 18, otherwise called Givat Avichai, which had been founded by yeshiva students from Kiryat Arba. There authorities found two shacks and some electrical equipment. The handful of yeshiva students present put up no resistance.
On the one hand, it seems altogether ludicrous, that authorities are taking the time to dismantle tents and shacks. But there is another way of looking at this. While they may end up doing bigger things, we must remember that as of now it's been mostly a show. Wow! Two unauthorized outposts taken down. They're tough. You think Barak will report to Obama on what he's done so far?
~~~~~~~~~~
A reader (thanks, Don S.) has asked me to elaborate on the different statuses that outposts or settlements can have. And I'd like to devote space to that here, as this is an important issue.
The whole business of legal vs. illegal settlements is both complicated and political. Most settlements have had some interaction with some government departments or agencies. They've hooked up water lines, or electric lines, or paved a road, or whatever. There is sanction somewhere along the way. And sometimes that sanction is considerable. But if final papers are not in place, then the settlement can be called "illegal" or "unauthorized."
The region comprised of Judea and Samaria is not governed by Israeli civil law -- civil law was never extended to this area as it was to the Golan and to eastern Jerusalem. (Note: this is not a case of annexing it, but extending the law of Israel to apply.) The region is administered separately under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Defense, and it is the office of the Defense Minister that must sign off on a settlement. Thus Barak's involvement here.
There are instances in which "illegal" settlements have been later declared legal, and there is hope that this might happen now in a handful of instances at least. That can particularly be the case when so-called outposts are really outlying neighborhoods of recognized settlements.
But it can happen in other instances as well. And actually it was explained to me by a lawyer some time ago that many settlements considered authorized today moved through a process this way.
~~~~~~~~~~
There are some charges being made -- by far left groups such as Peace Now and Yesh G'vul -- that some of the settlements are on private Palestinian land. While these charges are not necessarily accurate, where this might be a problem, shifting of the settlement to other land, rather than demolishing it, is a possible resolution.
~~~~~~~~~~
Several political issues complicate this whole matter. The Obama administration is saying that we have certain obligations with regard to settlements stemming from the Road Map for Peace. Introduced by the US, with Quartet sponsorship, in the spring of 2003, it presented a phased plan, with a timeline, for achieving a two-state solution.
You can see the full text here;
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2989783.stm
In the proposed first phase, it says the Government of Israel must "immediately dismantle settlement outposts erected since March 2001" and "freeze all settlement activity (including natural growth of settlements)."
We may not like it. We may hate it. But it says it.
~~~~~~~~~~
But -- wait! -- it's not nearly as simple as Obama would have it.
First there is the question of whether it still applies, as it was envisioned as resulting in a Palestinian state by 2005. Has a post-2005 situation superseded this document?
Unfortunately, our new foreign minister, Avigdor Lieberman, has made it more difficult to make this case, as he declared early on that we should scrap Annapolis and go back to the Road Map. It was clear why he did this: Annapolis was trying to jump past the phased program and get to the end result of a Palestinian state at the beginning. Lieberman was undoubtedly reasoning that under the Road Map the PA had obligations it would not honor and thus we'd not get to that end result.
~~~~~~~~~~
Then there is the very important issue of reciprocity (which Netanyahu has made much of) and the need for the Palestinian Authority to simultaneously fulfill its obligations. We cannot be the only party that "walks the walk."
According to this same Road Map, the Palestinians must "declare an unequivocal end to violence and terrorism and undertake visible efforts on the ground to arrest, disrupt, and restrain individuals and groups conducting and planning violent attacks on Israelis anywhere."
Never mind that Fatah is not exactly clean itself, what about Hamas terrorism, with rockets and mortars still launched (170 since the end of our war in Gaza)? What action will the PA take with regard to this? This is a joke. The PA, which has this obligation, cannot do it.
And there's more: "All official Palestinian institutions [must] end incitement against Israel." This is an even bigger joke than the terrorism issue. Anyone who has seen an analysis of the textbooks produced and utilized by the PA understands what a huge joke it really is.
See my article, "Texts of Hate," for some mind-blowing examples of what PA school kids are taught.
http://www.frontpagemag.com/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=30231
To comply with this requirement, the PA would have to publish a whole set of adjusted texts. And there's no thought of doing so. Not a glimmer of a suggestion that they must do so.
But WE have to stop building in the settlements? The Road Map calls for "reciprocal steps by the two parties."
It seems to me a very public campaign has to be launched focusing on the inequities of what is demanded of us and of the PA. Most of the world knows about the settlements as an "impediment to peace." Time they knew that there can't be peace when the Palestinian kids are taught to hate us, but that the PA, which is bound to do so under the Road Map, is taking no action in this regard. The PA is always yapping about how we don't want peace because we keep building. Where is the voice of our government saying that clearly the PA doesn't want peace if its youngsters are taught Jihad and Palestine from the river to the sea?
~~~~~~~~~~
And this is not the end to the problems surrounding the demands made of us.
The Sharon government of 2003 did not simply accept the Road Map as is. A set of "14 reservations" was attached and given to the Bush government. It was only after the US government committed to "fully and seriously address[ing]" the issues raised by Israel that the Israeli Cabinet voted to accept the Road Map. Unfortunately, this was naive, for a commitment to address the issues is not a promise that they will ultimately be incorporated into arrangements.
But the government of Israel is on record as having reservations. Some of those reservations:
"...during the process, and as a condition to its continuance. calm will be maintained. The Palestinians will dismantle the existing security organizations and implement security reforms during the course of which new organizations will be formed and act to combat terror, violence and incitement (incitement must cease immediately and the Palestinian Authority must educate for peace). (emphasis added)
"In the first phase of the plan and as a condition for progress to the second phase, the Palestinians will complete the dismantling of terrorist organizations (Hamas. Islamic Jihad. the Popular Front, the Democratic Front Al-Aqsa Brigades and other apparatuses) and their infrastructure... (emphasis added)
"...declared references must be made to Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state and to the waiver of any right of return for Palestinian refugees to the State of Israel."
Additionally, PM Sharon is on record as having objected to the call for a freeze on settlements. It was "impossible," he said to Secretary of State Colin Powell.
"Our finest youth live there. They are already the third generation, contributing to the state and serving in elite army units. They return home and get married, so then they can't build a house and have children?
"What do you want, for a pregnant woman to have an abortion just because she is a settler?"
(You can find this quote here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3020335.stm)
Unfortunately, bewilderingly, this objection, this perception that a freeze is impossible, was not written into the reservations.
~~~~~~~~~~
And one last factor in helping you understand the complexities of this situation:
In April of 2004, PM Sharon met with President Bush and they exchanged letters in the context of the Road Map and the forthcoming "Disengagement." President Bush's letter contained the phrase:
"In light of new realities on the ground, including already existing major Israeli populations centers, it is unrealistic to expect that the outcome of final status negotiations will be a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949..."
This was broadly understood as an acknowledgement by the US that in any final agreement with the Palestinians we would retain major settlement blocs. Dore Gold, head of the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, called it a "significant shift in US policy."
Netanyahu is currently using this to make the case that it had become informal US policy to acknowledge that we will be retaining settlement blocs in any event, and that there is thus no reason for the US to demand that we be restricted in building within those settlements. (Gold, by the way, is a Netanyahu advisor.)
From what I've read, this letter of Bush's is a stumbling block to Obama's demands, a frustration to him as he seeks to move on pressuring us.
~~~~~~~~~~
The good news for today: I've received some off-the-record information coming ultimately from an impeccable source, regarding Netanyahu's sincere resistance to a "two-state solution." We'll keep watching...
~~~~~~~~~~
see my website www.ArlenefromIsrael.info
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)