Huda Al Husseini
Asharq Alawsat
There is a crisis taking place in Iran and confusion in the United States. Before the elections in Lebanon, the US administration sent US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Vice President Joe Biden to Beirut. The main focus, by necessity, was to not allow Syria’s allies to win as this would mean increasing the number of cards in Syria’s hands with which it could pressure others. Washington has learnt two lessons from the Palestinian experience; the first lesson was that Hamas’ victory in the elections handed Syria a winning card and the second lesson was related to Mahmoud Abbas’ loss of Gaza after Mohammed Dahlan’s allegations and the war with Israel, which weakened the Palestinians dramatically and increased the number of cards in Syria’s possession.
After the results of the Lebanese elections were announced, two schools of thought emerged in Washington with regards to how to deal with Syria. The first school of thought within the US Department of State believes that Syria must present tangible concessions regarding Lebanon, Iraq and Palestine before a US ambassador is sent to Damascus and that Syria must not get comfortable and continue to guess what steps the administration will take in its regard. The other school, the White House, feels that it needs Syria more than the State Department thinks. The White House is thinking more practically than the bureaucrats in the State Department.
A high-ranking American source talked to me about what was taking place, revealing that the White House is taking over the Syrian file. Three weeks ago, a source in the White House leaked news of Washington’s decision to reinstate its ambassador to Damascus. What is surprising about the matter is that US President Barack Obama usually follows the strategy of not leaking news. So why has this strategy not been followed this time, as the State Department is forcibly pushing for negotiations with Syria, whilst the White House believes that it needs Syria in a number of countries.
My source confirmed that there really is some of kind of tension between the White House and the State Department and that Hillary Clinton has begun to feel that she is being marginalized to the extent that whilst she was delivering a speech on US foreign policy at the Council of Foreign Relations in New York after a long absence, the US President was talking to the Americans about his plans for guaranteeing healthcare.
Disputes between the White House and US State Department have gone further than [the issue of] reinstating an American ambassador to Damascus. Dennis Ross leaked news that what prompted the American president to take Ross from the State Department to National Security was Obama’s feeling that the preparation for his trip to Saudi Arabia last month was insufficient. The White House denied this but sources from within the White House stated that Obama was hoping to convince Saudi officials to take some steps [regarding Israel] whilst Washington pressured Tel Aviv to stop the construction of settlements. The preparations for the trip did not include such proposals.
In her speech last Wednesday, Hillary Clinton said: “We know that progress toward peace cannot be the responsibility of the United States – or Israel – alone. Ending the conflict requires action on all sides….The Saudi peace proposal, supported by more than twenty nations, was a positive step. But we believe that more is needed.”
The high-ranking US source said, “This is where Syria comes in. As for Ross coming to the White House, that is because he has influence on AIPAC and Congress, and his task is to strengthen Obama’s position amongst Israel’s allies in Congress, especially as Ross does not criticize Israel.”
Obama’s priorities: the US economy, guaranteeing healthcare and then the Middle East. He believes that if he accomplishes a positive breakthrough, this would have an influence on the Middle East. If he is successful economically in the United States and shows that he is a strong president, even AIPAC will reduce the pressure it applies.
The US president aspires to sort out the Middle East and provide the right atmosphere for Syria to return to the Arab world and this requires a comprehensive solution beginning in Palestine.
The US president was told by some that according to the Israeli mindset, if you occupy land you must maintain it. The US position expects that Syria will not oppose Palestinian-Israeli activity because there is no solution without Hamas, but would later agree to pay the price, i.e. acknowledging “the roadmap” (accepting the two-state solution but in a diplomatic manner).
“If Hamas wants to be part of the solution then it needs Saudi Arabia (its Islamic cloak) and Syria,” my source said. With the roadmap, Obama opened the door to Hamas. At the time, Hillary Clinton said that Hamas was rejecting the two-state solution. The source added, “Tom Pickering, the former Under Secretary of State [for Political Affairs] met with Mahmoud Zahar (Hamas’ Foreign Minister).”
My source reminded me that the current Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is very much like the former Prime Minister Ariel Sharon. When Sharon was the head of government, he always said that the real problem was Iraq, and Sharon did not want to give anything to the Palestinians. Today, Netanyahu repeats that Iran is the problem and that he does not want a solution to the Palestinians. Did Netanyahu feel that there can be no military operation with regards to Iran and that’s why he resorted to defying the US administration by safeguarding the continuation of settlement construction in Eastern Jerusalem, and so harassment began in south Lebanon? The Obama administration, which does not want to deal with Hamas, wants the construction of settlements to stop and for Palestinian and Syrian progress to begin. Rather, and this is what’s important, it wants to strengthen Mahmoud Abbas and his Prime Minister Salam Fayyad. It believes that when they are made stronger and there is an Arab coalition then that is when it will be possible to pressure Hamas.
My source questioned whether Syrian President Bashar al Assad is prepared to build ties with the Americans to win their trust.
If he wants to improve his ties with the Americans he must take measures regarding Hamas and Iran; that is, not sever its ties with Tehran but he “must recalculate.” For this reason the Americans are negotiating on the issue of reinstating their ambassador. Washington announced that it intended to do so, but it wants tangible steps taken by Syria first. It admits that these steps have already begun with the Lebanese elections [but] then it didn’t take long before a game of tug-of-war between the countries intensified and this was clear in the difficulty of forming a government in Lebanon.
My source admitted that Syria wants two things: ties with the United States on the condition that it supports the idea of regaining the Golan Heights, which is to be followed by US and European economic openness.
“The Syrians know that the key is in America’s hands and this is its chance. It is in Syria’s interest that Obama wants a solution to the Palestinian cause but the administration still feels that Syria is disrupting matters,” added the source.
But what is it exactly that America wants from Syria? It wants to strengthen Mahmoud Abbas and for Syria to give the indication that it does not always side with Iran, especially as Iran does not feel comfortable with Washington’s contact with Damascus, which coincided with the US withdrawal from major Iraqi cities, which will lead to complete withdrawal. Iran has one strategic ally in the Middle East: Syria. The withdrawal from Iraq reduces opposition to America. Therefore, Syria must once and for all commit to not interfering in Lebanon, explained the source.
What about Iraq? My source stressed that this is linked to Saudi Arabia’s position, but Washington has started to see that Iraqi President Nuri al Maliki is better than others.
I asked, “Has he become America’s man in Iraq?” The source answered that events that occurred revealed that he is the least closest to Iran [in comparison to others]; he is the best of the worst. If he goes who will be the alternative? Now Washington is putting pressure on him in order to come to power in partnership with the Sunnis, knowing that the Americans were in touch with the Baathists, and this is at the advice of Dennis Blair, the Director of National Intelligence. Blair said, “We must talk to our enemies,” and also called for opening up to Hamas and Hezbollah in order to distance these movements from Iran. He alluded to Clinton’s last speech to the Taliban in which she said that if it is fighting Al Qaeda then the US is with it.
No matter how long it will take, it is inevitable that Iran will be reached. I understood from my source that Obama cannot launch a war against Iran until conditions stabilize. He cannot embark on a war without negotiating the issue. War is difficult and costly and senior officers in the American army against the war are asking how can we not live with a nuclear Iran if we can live with a nuclear Pakistan, which is less stable than Iran?
The high-ranking senior source states that if there is a war against Iran Obama’s presidency will be over and it will mean that there is no peace process. An American war on Iran would mean entering a twenty-year battle with the Islamic world starting from Afghanistan and Iraq to Iran.
The CIA Director Leon Panetta visited Israel two weeks ago asking to see documents in its possession that confirm that Iran is producing a nuclear weapon. He requested that they [Israelis] do not rush into anything. This was followed by a similar request from Michael Mullen, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
On July 27, US Secretary of State Robert Gates will head to Israel along with George Mitchell, the Special Envoy for the Middle East, for talks with Benjamin Netanyahu and Ehud Barak. Is it possible that one of them will talk about war and the other about peace?
There is no doubt that since the Iranian elections and the internal crisis that followed, (bearing in mind the possibility that this crisis might spill over beyond its borders), the US leadership and Israel, as well as Russia and Europe, will revise their policies towards Iran. With the continuation of this re-evaluation and the announcement that Israeli warships sailed through the Suez Canal recently, it is necessary to think about the fact that international policies review all the available options on the table in addition to their potential repercussions.
Monday, July 27, 2009
Reassessing our ties with US
Israel should reevaluate policy of heavy dependence on America
Yarden Gazit
YNET News
Barack Obama's demand that Israel freeze all settlement activity in Judea and Samaria, including east Jerusalem, created a rift between Washington and Jerusalem. Similar rifts existed in the past. Such temporary rifts do not undermine the close relationship between the two countries. They do, however, raise questions about its nature. Given that both countries' interests are not always aligned, Israel should reevaluate its policy of depending so heavily on American support. Similar issues are being debated in Washington, albeit from a different perspective. In think tanks and op-eds, on college campuses, and even within Obama's administration, many ask whether the current state of affairs best serves the American interest. Some argue that hostility towards the United States among Muslims results, at least partially, from America's support for Israel, and that scaling back aid to Israel will reduce that hostility. Others openly question whether the pro-Israel lobby is a positive factor in shaping American policy. Others still argue that the US must actively and aggressively pursue a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in order to improve its standing in the region. President Obama seems to be a member of the latter group.
In Jerusalem, on the other hand, the debate focuses on issues of less strategic importance. Should Netanyahu accept Obama's demand or reject it? Should Israel insist on natural growth? What about Jerusalem? Is there a creative formula that would please everyone? Such are the questions the media raise. Even those who say Netanyahu should oppose Obama's demand do not suggest a reevaluation of Israel's relationship with the United States.
It is easy to understand why. America's support is one of the most valuable strategic assets Israel has. The US gives it military and economic aid; it provides diplomatic support at the United Nations, often blocking resolutions that would jeopardize Israel’s interests; and it is an important trade partner. Furthermore, Israel shares many common values with the US. Israelis tend to view themselves as Westerners, so it is only natural for them to seek the support of the largest Western power.
What are the costs?
But Israel must also ask itself what are the costs of preserving its dependency on the US. An honest examination of the situation will reveal that the costs of allying so closely with America amount to much more than restricting settlement construction and periodically restraining the IDF.
Muslim countries’ hostility towards the US does not result from its support for Israel. (After all, it was the Ayatollah Khomeini who called Israel the “small Satan,” and America the “great Satan.”) Rather, their hostility towards Israel results, at least partially, from their perception of Israel as a state created and sustained by the West. Khomeini aside, many Muslims are hostile to the West not because of religious fanaticism, but because of the history of colonialism and American support for dictatorships in Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan and Iran (prior to 1979.) Recently, America's wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have only strengthened anti-American sentiment. As long as Israel is viewed as a client state foreign to the region, rather than an independent, indigenous one, it will never enjoy legitimacy in the eyes of the Arabs.
In other parts of the world, the US has a mixed record of supporting liberty and democracy, and, when other interests are at stake, of ignoring these values. Therefore, when Israel automatically supports the US on every foreign policy issue that does not directly concern Israeli interests (when it supports sanctions on Cuba, for example,) it does not win friends in the rest of the world.
When Israel attempts to build relationships with other, rising powers such as China, the US imposes restrictions. It even goes as far as intervening in appointments of Israeli civil servants, as was demonstrated when Amos Yaron resigned from his post as director general of the Defense Ministry due to American pressure.
It would be extremely naïve to assume that if Israel abandoned its ties to America, its problems would be resolved. Whether or not a less entangling alliance would serve it better, however, is a question that must be discussed. For ignoring the fact that Israel’s interests are not always aligned with America’s interests is irresponsible.
The debate must focus on the major issue – reevaluating Israel’s relationship with the US – and not on the settlers' right to build balconies in Shilo. Otherwise, when the debate in Washington is settled, Israel may find itself without America and without Shilo.
Yarden Gazit
YNET News
Barack Obama's demand that Israel freeze all settlement activity in Judea and Samaria, including east Jerusalem, created a rift between Washington and Jerusalem. Similar rifts existed in the past. Such temporary rifts do not undermine the close relationship between the two countries. They do, however, raise questions about its nature. Given that both countries' interests are not always aligned, Israel should reevaluate its policy of depending so heavily on American support. Similar issues are being debated in Washington, albeit from a different perspective. In think tanks and op-eds, on college campuses, and even within Obama's administration, many ask whether the current state of affairs best serves the American interest. Some argue that hostility towards the United States among Muslims results, at least partially, from America's support for Israel, and that scaling back aid to Israel will reduce that hostility. Others openly question whether the pro-Israel lobby is a positive factor in shaping American policy. Others still argue that the US must actively and aggressively pursue a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in order to improve its standing in the region. President Obama seems to be a member of the latter group.
In Jerusalem, on the other hand, the debate focuses on issues of less strategic importance. Should Netanyahu accept Obama's demand or reject it? Should Israel insist on natural growth? What about Jerusalem? Is there a creative formula that would please everyone? Such are the questions the media raise. Even those who say Netanyahu should oppose Obama's demand do not suggest a reevaluation of Israel's relationship with the United States.
It is easy to understand why. America's support is one of the most valuable strategic assets Israel has. The US gives it military and economic aid; it provides diplomatic support at the United Nations, often blocking resolutions that would jeopardize Israel’s interests; and it is an important trade partner. Furthermore, Israel shares many common values with the US. Israelis tend to view themselves as Westerners, so it is only natural for them to seek the support of the largest Western power.
What are the costs?
But Israel must also ask itself what are the costs of preserving its dependency on the US. An honest examination of the situation will reveal that the costs of allying so closely with America amount to much more than restricting settlement construction and periodically restraining the IDF.
Muslim countries’ hostility towards the US does not result from its support for Israel. (After all, it was the Ayatollah Khomeini who called Israel the “small Satan,” and America the “great Satan.”) Rather, their hostility towards Israel results, at least partially, from their perception of Israel as a state created and sustained by the West. Khomeini aside, many Muslims are hostile to the West not because of religious fanaticism, but because of the history of colonialism and American support for dictatorships in Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan and Iran (prior to 1979.) Recently, America's wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have only strengthened anti-American sentiment. As long as Israel is viewed as a client state foreign to the region, rather than an independent, indigenous one, it will never enjoy legitimacy in the eyes of the Arabs.
In other parts of the world, the US has a mixed record of supporting liberty and democracy, and, when other interests are at stake, of ignoring these values. Therefore, when Israel automatically supports the US on every foreign policy issue that does not directly concern Israeli interests (when it supports sanctions on Cuba, for example,) it does not win friends in the rest of the world.
When Israel attempts to build relationships with other, rising powers such as China, the US imposes restrictions. It even goes as far as intervening in appointments of Israeli civil servants, as was demonstrated when Amos Yaron resigned from his post as director general of the Defense Ministry due to American pressure.
It would be extremely naïve to assume that if Israel abandoned its ties to America, its problems would be resolved. Whether or not a less entangling alliance would serve it better, however, is a question that must be discussed. For ignoring the fact that Israel’s interests are not always aligned with America’s interests is irresponsible.
The debate must focus on the major issue – reevaluating Israel’s relationship with the US – and not on the settlers' right to build balconies in Shilo. Otherwise, when the debate in Washington is settled, Israel may find itself without America and without Shilo.
More lecturing of Israel from the Obama administration
Ed Lasky
American Thinker
Recently, Barack Obama lectured the Israelis to be more self-reflective when approaching their neighbors (the same neighbors who spread anti-Semitism around the world and make clear their most fervent desire is to annihilate them). Of course, this public hectoring is an insult to the most self-reflective people in the region: a nation with a rich, disputatious culture, one that guarantees the rights of other religions, has a flourishing democracy, has a host of world renowned universities and thinkers, has a number of Non-Governmental Organizations that are hyper-critical and self-reflective enough for all Israelis, and has a publishing industry that has always been a cornerstone of its society (contrast that with the comparably non-self-reflective societies around them).Now the one -two punch reaches its next stage. Hillary Clinton lectures the Israelis to be patient with America's approach towards the mad mullahs - one that is composed of overtures routinely rejected. No doubt this message is being delivered by the parade of American officials touring Israel now.
The Israelis have been paragons of patience when it comes to the Iranians, Hamas, and Palestinian and Hezbollah terror attacks. The Israelis have watched while the Europeans, the UN, the International Atomic Energy Agency, and America (including America under the "leadership" of Barack Obama) have spent years in fruitless negotiations with Iran. Meanwhile, Iran approaches the threshold of becoming a nuclear power.
Yet Hillary Clinton lectures the Israelis to be patient because somehow Barack Obama's talk therapy approach will disarm Iran. Trusting Barack Obama with their lives would be the height of chutzpah for the Israelis - considering his actions to date have made clear he has zero empathy for what they face: another Holocaust.
Beyond that, how has Obama's apology and appeasement focus worked so far? Our allies have completely ignored his entreaties to reduce greenhouse commissions, provide troops to Afghanistan, stimulate their economies, and a number of other requests by Obama they have just ignored. If our allies ignore Obama's wishes, how likely will the Iranians grant him his wishes, considering their quest for the nuclear bomb has become sacrosanct?
Maybe the Israelis should learn from America's other allies and foes: just ignore the man that so few of them trust anyway.
Page Printed from: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/07/more_lecturing_of_israel_from.html at July 27, 2009 - 11:21:35 AM EDT
American Thinker
Recently, Barack Obama lectured the Israelis to be more self-reflective when approaching their neighbors (the same neighbors who spread anti-Semitism around the world and make clear their most fervent desire is to annihilate them). Of course, this public hectoring is an insult to the most self-reflective people in the region: a nation with a rich, disputatious culture, one that guarantees the rights of other religions, has a flourishing democracy, has a host of world renowned universities and thinkers, has a number of Non-Governmental Organizations that are hyper-critical and self-reflective enough for all Israelis, and has a publishing industry that has always been a cornerstone of its society (contrast that with the comparably non-self-reflective societies around them).Now the one -two punch reaches its next stage. Hillary Clinton lectures the Israelis to be patient with America's approach towards the mad mullahs - one that is composed of overtures routinely rejected. No doubt this message is being delivered by the parade of American officials touring Israel now.
The Israelis have been paragons of patience when it comes to the Iranians, Hamas, and Palestinian and Hezbollah terror attacks. The Israelis have watched while the Europeans, the UN, the International Atomic Energy Agency, and America (including America under the "leadership" of Barack Obama) have spent years in fruitless negotiations with Iran. Meanwhile, Iran approaches the threshold of becoming a nuclear power.
Yet Hillary Clinton lectures the Israelis to be patient because somehow Barack Obama's talk therapy approach will disarm Iran. Trusting Barack Obama with their lives would be the height of chutzpah for the Israelis - considering his actions to date have made clear he has zero empathy for what they face: another Holocaust.
Beyond that, how has Obama's apology and appeasement focus worked so far? Our allies have completely ignored his entreaties to reduce greenhouse commissions, provide troops to Afghanistan, stimulate their economies, and a number of other requests by Obama they have just ignored. If our allies ignore Obama's wishes, how likely will the Iranians grant him his wishes, considering their quest for the nuclear bomb has become sacrosanct?
Maybe the Israelis should learn from America's other allies and foes: just ignore the man that so few of them trust anyway.
Page Printed from: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/07/more_lecturing_of_israel_from.html at July 27, 2009 - 11:21:35 AM EDT
Knesset Votes on Land Ownership in the Land of Israel
Hillel Fendel Knesset Votes on Land Sales
Two important and controversial laws are coming up for a Knesset vote this afternoon (Monday), on the matters of land sales and party splits. A court order is holding up the land-sale issue, no matter what the result of the Knesset vote, while opposition MKs say the "party splitting" bill supported by Netanyahu may very well boomerang against him.The land sale law is actually a reform of the entire issue of land ownership in the Land of Israel. It includes the replacement of the Israel Lands Authority with a body that is expected to be less bureaucratic, as well as the sale of 800 square kilometers (roughly 310 square miles) of land to private hands.
Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, who favors privatization in general, has long wanted to sell plots of land in Israel. He thus seeks both to remove bureaucratic obstacles for those who live on the plots – who currently lease the land for 49 or 99 years – and to raise cash for the State of Israel.
Opposition to the Bill
Widespread opposition to the bill stems from concern that the sale of land could violate the Biblical injunction not to sell the land “forever,” but rather only until the Jubilee year, as well as the Biblical ban on giving non-Jews a permanent stake in the Land. Environmentalists and others have also raised concerns that large business interests and/or foreigners will buy up land in Israel. Still others say that such an important law must follow not days of preparations and public debate, but months.
Netanyahu and the Likud suffered an embarrassing near-defeat last week when they asked to call off the Knesset vote on the bill even as it was proceeding, because it was suddenly discovered that they did not have a majority. Netanyahu has now imposed strict party discipline, and the bill is expected to pass this time.
Even if the bill is passed into law, however, it will not take effect for an undetermined period of time. This because of a Jerusalem District Court order issued by Judge Moshe Sobel on Sunday. Judge Sobel ruled that the agreement between the Jewish National Fund (JNF) and the Israel Lands Authority (ILA), by which the JNF would transfer lands to the ILA, must be suspended.
Sobel issued the ruling at the request of a Kadima party representative on the JNF board, who said that the board vote approving the deal was invalid. Kadima legal counsel Eitan Haberman explained, “This ruling means that even if the Knesset passes the land reform, it will not be able to take effect until a final ruling on the JNF case is issued.”
Voting on the "Break Up Kadima" Bill
A second important bill to be voted on in the Knesset as it winds up its current session – the recess begins this Wednesday afternoon – is a proposal known informally as the Mofaz bill. It is named after MK Sha’ul Mofaz of Kadima, who informally heads an internal opposition to Kadima party leader Tzipi Livni. Mofaz is said to want to split off, with several of his party colleagues, from Kadima and join the Likud. However, according to current law, a new faction can form only if it is made up of at least a third of the faction from which it wishes to separate. In the case of Kadima, which has 28 MKs, Mofaz would need nine other MKs. The bill to be voted on would make his life much easier, in that it would allow seven MKs to split off from any party and form their own, no matter how large the parent party is.
Kadima, of course, has attacked the Likud for advancing this bill, claiming the Likud is trying to intervene in its internal affairs and sabotage them.
Ketzaleh: It Will Backfire on Netanyahu
MK Yaakov Katz (Ketzaleh), of the National Union party, predicts that the bill will boomerang against Netanyahu: “You will see that soon, seven MKs of the Likud will rebel against Netanyahu’s anti-Land of Israel policies and will join the National Union. He wishes to harm Kadima, but in the end, it will harm him.”
Clinton says Israel should be patient on Iran
US secretary of state says she hopes Jewish state understands American attempts to talk to Islamic republic is a better approach than military strike, adds Tehran's nuclear pursuit is 'futile'
YNET News
US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said on Sunday that Iran would not be allowed to have a nuclear weapon and reiterated Washington's commitment to protect close ally Israel from any threat posed by Tehran. "Your (Iran's) pursuit is futile," she told NBC's "Meet the Press" program, adding that Iran did not have the right to develop a nuclear weapon.
"It is unacceptable for Iran to have nuclear weapons," she added.
Clinton annoyed ally Israel last week by saying the United States would cope with a nuclear Iran by arming its allies in the Gulf and extending a "defense umbrella" over the region.
She implicitly urged Israel to give US policy on Iran's nuclear ambitions a chance to work, saying that Washington remained ready for dialogue with Tehran on its nuclear program.
Clinton added that her country hoped the Jewish state understands American attempts to talk to Iran is a better approach than a military strike.
No interest in White House
During Sunday's interview, it appeared that there was no such thing as a simple yes or no when it comes to Clinton and questions about another run for the White House.
Clinton, 61, seemed to go further than she had previously in shutting the door to another presidential campaign, following her defeat for the Democratic nomination last year by Barack Obama.
"Well, you know, I say no, never, you know, not at all. I don't know what, what else to say," Clinton said after host David Gregory noted that she left some wiggle room in an interview last week in Thailand.
But then Gregory followed up by asking, "Are you saying you wouldn't entertain another run?"
Clinton's response was less clear: "I have absolutely no belief in my mind that that is going to happen, that I have any interest in it happening. You know, as I said, I, I am so focused on what I'm doing."
In the interview on Thai television, Clinton said, "I don't know, but I doubt very much that anything like that will ever be part of my life."
Diplomatic push
Asked for her views on a preemptive Israeli strike against Iran, Clinton reiterated Israel's right to defend itself and said it would not listen to other nations if it believed its survival were threatened.
But she stressed that pursuing intensive diplomacy with Iran was the best approach, a shift from the Bush administration which avoided engagement with Tehran and insisted that Tehran give up sensitive nuclear work first.
"We will continue to work with all of our allies, and most particularly Israel, to determine the best way forward to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear state," she said.
A senior Israeli official said the United States should focus on preventing Iran from getting a nuclear weapon rather than talking as if this may be a fait accompli.
"We are not talking in specifics, because that would come later if at all. My view is you hope for the best, plan for the worst," said Clinton on Sunday, defending the comments she made while in Thailand last week.
Several senior US officials, including Defense Secretary Robert Gates and national security advisor James Jones, will be in Israel this week, seeking to reassure the Jewish state.
"We have a long, durable relationship with Israel. We believe strongly that Israel's security must be protected," said Clinton when asked about her comments on the nuclear umbrella concept.
But she also stressed that Washington was committed to a "diplomatic path" with Iran, a shift from the Bush administration which avoided engagement with Tehran until it had given up sensitive nuclear work.
Major powers suspect that Iran is seeking to build a nuclear bomb. Iran says its nuclear work is to generate much-needed power and strongly rejects that it wants to build a weapon.
The Associated Press and Reuters contributed to this report
YNET News
US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said on Sunday that Iran would not be allowed to have a nuclear weapon and reiterated Washington's commitment to protect close ally Israel from any threat posed by Tehran. "Your (Iran's) pursuit is futile," she told NBC's "Meet the Press" program, adding that Iran did not have the right to develop a nuclear weapon.
"It is unacceptable for Iran to have nuclear weapons," she added.
Clinton annoyed ally Israel last week by saying the United States would cope with a nuclear Iran by arming its allies in the Gulf and extending a "defense umbrella" over the region.
She implicitly urged Israel to give US policy on Iran's nuclear ambitions a chance to work, saying that Washington remained ready for dialogue with Tehran on its nuclear program.
Clinton added that her country hoped the Jewish state understands American attempts to talk to Iran is a better approach than a military strike.
No interest in White House
During Sunday's interview, it appeared that there was no such thing as a simple yes or no when it comes to Clinton and questions about another run for the White House.
Clinton, 61, seemed to go further than she had previously in shutting the door to another presidential campaign, following her defeat for the Democratic nomination last year by Barack Obama.
"Well, you know, I say no, never, you know, not at all. I don't know what, what else to say," Clinton said after host David Gregory noted that she left some wiggle room in an interview last week in Thailand.
But then Gregory followed up by asking, "Are you saying you wouldn't entertain another run?"
Clinton's response was less clear: "I have absolutely no belief in my mind that that is going to happen, that I have any interest in it happening. You know, as I said, I, I am so focused on what I'm doing."
In the interview on Thai television, Clinton said, "I don't know, but I doubt very much that anything like that will ever be part of my life."
Diplomatic push
Asked for her views on a preemptive Israeli strike against Iran, Clinton reiterated Israel's right to defend itself and said it would not listen to other nations if it believed its survival were threatened.
But she stressed that pursuing intensive diplomacy with Iran was the best approach, a shift from the Bush administration which avoided engagement with Tehran and insisted that Tehran give up sensitive nuclear work first.
"We will continue to work with all of our allies, and most particularly Israel, to determine the best way forward to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear state," she said.
A senior Israeli official said the United States should focus on preventing Iran from getting a nuclear weapon rather than talking as if this may be a fait accompli.
"We are not talking in specifics, because that would come later if at all. My view is you hope for the best, plan for the worst," said Clinton on Sunday, defending the comments she made while in Thailand last week.
Several senior US officials, including Defense Secretary Robert Gates and national security advisor James Jones, will be in Israel this week, seeking to reassure the Jewish state.
"We have a long, durable relationship with Israel. We believe strongly that Israel's security must be protected," said Clinton when asked about her comments on the nuclear umbrella concept.
But she also stressed that Washington was committed to a "diplomatic path" with Iran, a shift from the Bush administration which avoided engagement with Tehran until it had given up sensitive nuclear work.
Major powers suspect that Iran is seeking to build a nuclear bomb. Iran says its nuclear work is to generate much-needed power and strongly rejects that it wants to build a weapon.
The Associated Press and Reuters contributed to this report
Sunday, July 26, 2009
Parade of US Officials Expected to Increase Pressure
Yehudah Lev Kay 4 US Officials Pressure Israel
A parade of four senior U.S. officials due in Israel this week are expected to increase pressure on Israel to agree to a construction freeze in Judea and Samaria and avoid any action against the Iranian nuclear threat.The special U.S. envoy to the Middle East, George Mitchell, lands in Israel Sunday after a short visit in Damascus. He will meet with Defense Minister Ehud Barak on Sunday and with Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu on Tuesday.
Mitchell has spearheaded U.S. President Barack Obama’s efforts to pressure Israel into a construction freeze in Judea and Samaria, but Netanyahu has so far maintained that building for ‘natural increase’ must be allowed. U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton reportedly told EU officials last week that Israel would soon agree to a freeze.
The U.S. State Department said Mitchell would continue to focus on the Israeli-Palestinian Authority conflict in his visit. “He wants to be clear that, you know, all sides are creating the conditions, putting themselves in position so that when we begin a formal negotiating process, we’ve put ourselves in the best position to have a successful outcome,” State department spokesman Phillip Crowley said.
On Monday, U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates is to land in Israel and will meet with Netanyahu. Aides said his visit would focus on Iran, and Gates is expected to tell the Israelis that Obama is serious on ending Iran’s nuclear program, and that his offer to Iran for negotiations is not open-ended.
Later in the week, U.S. National Security Advisor James Jones and White House Iranian affairs expert Dennis Ross will meet with Netanyahu. The White House said the two would “discuss the broad range of issues in our relationships with Israel and the Palestinian Authority [buildin on discussions special envoy Mitchell and Secretary Gates will have a few days earlier.”
Arrival of Four Officials Said to be "Coincidental"
American officials said the convergence of four senior officials on Israel in one week was “coincidental.”
Netanyahu also downplayed the significance of the visits on Sunday morning. “These visits are taking place as part of the ongoing relationship between Israel and the U.S.,” he said. “Even in friendly relationships there are different opinions. We want to reach understandings so we can achieve our common goals – peace, security, and development in the Middle East.”
'50 million US Christians back Israel'
Jul. 25, 2009
SAM GREENBERG, Jerusalem Post correspondent , THE JERUSALEM POST
WASHINGTON - Christian supporters of Israel who gathered in Washington last week did not just sit through policy briefings and lobbying sessions; they danced the hora, blew a shofar, sang Hatikva and celebrated all that they love about Israel. Whether repeatedly standing up to cheer for speakers or dancing to Israeli tunes, the over 4,000 animated attendees of the fourth annual Christians United for Israel (CUFI) Washington conference made their passion for the State of Israel absolutely clear.
For two days, the participants learned about Israel, its history, the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, how to effectively defend Israel, what America's government should do, how to deal with Iran and how to lobby elected officials. On Wednesday participants met with their elected officials in Congress to voice their support for Israel.
"We're here to tell you and the people of Israel that there are 50 million Christians in this nation who support you and the State of Israel," said CUFI founder John Hagee to Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, who joined the conference via satellite.
"Your unwavering friendship strengthens us," said Netanyahu, noting that CUFI is helping open a new chapter in Jewish-Christian relations.
Within the Jewish community, there has been disagreement over how to deal with this vocal support.
The most common concerns expressed are that CUFI supports Israel in order to bring about Jesus's "second coming"; that the organization is too right-wing politically and that allying with a group with controversial views on a range of other issues might hurt the community.
In response to The Israel Project's Jennifer Laszlo Mizrahi's decision to speak at the CUFI conference, left-wing Israel advocate J Street, on its blog, asked, "Does allying the pro-Israel community further with Pastor John Hagee by appearing at his conference hurt or help [Israel's cause]?"
Laszlo Mizrahi said that in her quest to form an effective Israel coalition, she does not rule out allies because of their views on other issues.
"The fact that I am speaking at a CUFI event doesn't mean that I endorse every thought all their leaders ever had," she said in an e-mail, echoing the sentiments of other Jewish organizations who cooperate with CUFI on Israel advocacy while setting aside other differences.
For their part, CUFI agrees that groups should join it in support of Israel, even of their views on other issues do not line up. Leaders did make clear, however, that CUFI has no conversion goals.
As for the "end of days" theory, Western Regional Coordinator Randy Neal said that while some people do believe that the second coming will occur when all the Jews inhabit the land of Israel, "That's not what drives us."
"What drives us is the biblical mandate to stand with Israel and the Jewish people," said Neal.
Speakers at the conference also acknowledged that the Jewish community is justified in being initially skeptical of Christians suddenly forming a strong coalition in support of Israel.
"Christians have brought it on themselves," said Florida Director Pastor Scott Thomas, referencing historical Christian violence towards Jews.
Founded in 2006, CUFI now claims over 220,000 followers throughout the US.
Recurring themes brought up by most of the conference speakers were the many aspects of Israel's right to exist and expand, a sense that the Obama administration was unfairly pressuring Israel to stop expanding and an urgent need to address Iran.
Malcolm Hoenlein, executive vice chairman of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, joined in criticizing Obama's Middle East policy. He said he did not believe in Obama's theory that sowing some discord between America and Israel will give America legitimacy to negotiate with Arab states.
While CUFI is still confident of its ability to advocate for Israel under the Obama administration and a heavily Democratic Congress, some experts and CUFI leaders expressed concerns that with the current political climate, advocating CUFI's position might become slightly more difficult. However, there was no doubt that Congress remains a strong ally of Israel.
"Support for Israel in America I think has been so strong largely because Americans have been so pro-Israel, and we dare not let that erode," CUFI Executive Director David Brog said.
To continue advocating for Israel, CUFI's newest frontiers are establishing CUFI chapters on college campuses and pioneering the first CUFI trip to Poland and Israel, to take place this year.
"We want to broaden our base in three ways: We want to broaden it theologically, demographically, and politically," Brog said.
At the Night to Honor Israel, Sen. Joseph Lieberman was given the Defender of Israel Award.
"This [convention] is a miracle," said Lieberman, who has previously spoken at the conference. "It is all of you... who are the most important defenders of Israel."
Ambassador to the US Michael Oren and Tourism Minister Stas Meseznikov expressed similar sentiments in their remarks.
Israel is also trying to reach out to the Christian community, establishing the Prime Minister's Task Force on Global Christian Relationships, on which Hagee will serve.
This article can also be read at http://www.jpost.com /servlet/Satellite?cid=1248277886711&pagename=JPArticle%2FShowFull
SAM GREENBERG, Jerusalem Post correspondent , THE JERUSALEM POST
WASHINGTON - Christian supporters of Israel who gathered in Washington last week did not just sit through policy briefings and lobbying sessions; they danced the hora, blew a shofar, sang Hatikva and celebrated all that they love about Israel. Whether repeatedly standing up to cheer for speakers or dancing to Israeli tunes, the over 4,000 animated attendees of the fourth annual Christians United for Israel (CUFI) Washington conference made their passion for the State of Israel absolutely clear.
For two days, the participants learned about Israel, its history, the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, how to effectively defend Israel, what America's government should do, how to deal with Iran and how to lobby elected officials. On Wednesday participants met with their elected officials in Congress to voice their support for Israel.
"We're here to tell you and the people of Israel that there are 50 million Christians in this nation who support you and the State of Israel," said CUFI founder John Hagee to Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, who joined the conference via satellite.
"Your unwavering friendship strengthens us," said Netanyahu, noting that CUFI is helping open a new chapter in Jewish-Christian relations.
Within the Jewish community, there has been disagreement over how to deal with this vocal support.
The most common concerns expressed are that CUFI supports Israel in order to bring about Jesus's "second coming"; that the organization is too right-wing politically and that allying with a group with controversial views on a range of other issues might hurt the community.
In response to The Israel Project's Jennifer Laszlo Mizrahi's decision to speak at the CUFI conference, left-wing Israel advocate J Street, on its blog, asked, "Does allying the pro-Israel community further with Pastor John Hagee by appearing at his conference hurt or help [Israel's cause]?"
Laszlo Mizrahi said that in her quest to form an effective Israel coalition, she does not rule out allies because of their views on other issues.
"The fact that I am speaking at a CUFI event doesn't mean that I endorse every thought all their leaders ever had," she said in an e-mail, echoing the sentiments of other Jewish organizations who cooperate with CUFI on Israel advocacy while setting aside other differences.
For their part, CUFI agrees that groups should join it in support of Israel, even of their views on other issues do not line up. Leaders did make clear, however, that CUFI has no conversion goals.
As for the "end of days" theory, Western Regional Coordinator Randy Neal said that while some people do believe that the second coming will occur when all the Jews inhabit the land of Israel, "That's not what drives us."
"What drives us is the biblical mandate to stand with Israel and the Jewish people," said Neal.
Speakers at the conference also acknowledged that the Jewish community is justified in being initially skeptical of Christians suddenly forming a strong coalition in support of Israel.
"Christians have brought it on themselves," said Florida Director Pastor Scott Thomas, referencing historical Christian violence towards Jews.
Founded in 2006, CUFI now claims over 220,000 followers throughout the US.
Recurring themes brought up by most of the conference speakers were the many aspects of Israel's right to exist and expand, a sense that the Obama administration was unfairly pressuring Israel to stop expanding and an urgent need to address Iran.
Malcolm Hoenlein, executive vice chairman of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, joined in criticizing Obama's Middle East policy. He said he did not believe in Obama's theory that sowing some discord between America and Israel will give America legitimacy to negotiate with Arab states.
While CUFI is still confident of its ability to advocate for Israel under the Obama administration and a heavily Democratic Congress, some experts and CUFI leaders expressed concerns that with the current political climate, advocating CUFI's position might become slightly more difficult. However, there was no doubt that Congress remains a strong ally of Israel.
"Support for Israel in America I think has been so strong largely because Americans have been so pro-Israel, and we dare not let that erode," CUFI Executive Director David Brog said.
To continue advocating for Israel, CUFI's newest frontiers are establishing CUFI chapters on college campuses and pioneering the first CUFI trip to Poland and Israel, to take place this year.
"We want to broaden our base in three ways: We want to broaden it theologically, demographically, and politically," Brog said.
At the Night to Honor Israel, Sen. Joseph Lieberman was given the Defender of Israel Award.
"This [convention] is a miracle," said Lieberman, who has previously spoken at the conference. "It is all of you... who are the most important defenders of Israel."
Ambassador to the US Michael Oren and Tourism Minister Stas Meseznikov expressed similar sentiments in their remarks.
Israel is also trying to reach out to the Christian community, establishing the Prime Minister's Task Force on Global Christian Relationships, on which Hagee will serve.
This article can also be read at http://www.jpost.com /servlet/Satellite?cid=1248277886711&pagename=JPArticle%2FShowFull
Saturday, July 25, 2009
Do Obama’s Jewish Backers Have Any Red Lines?
Jonathan Tobin
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/blogs/index.php/tobin/73742
The demand issued to the new Israeli ambassador (and former Commentary contributor) Michael Oren this past weekend spoke volumes about the changing nature of the U.S.-Israel alliance. For the past few months, Obama’s Jewish supporters have been saying that the dispute between the two countries over settlements is not about the United States trying to harm Israel but rather a case of Washington seeking to stop “illegal settlements” opposed by many Israelis and most American Jews. But the demand issued to Ambassador Oren was not about some illegal hilltop outpost somewhere deep in the West Bank, in territory that most Israelis concede would be part of a future Palestinian state. Instead, the houses going up are in a section of the capital, albeit a neighborhood that prior to June 1967 was occupied by Jordan and, therefore, off-limits to Jews from 1949 to 1967. The 20-unit housing complex is in Sheik Jarrah, a still predominantly Arab neighborhood but one that, as even the New York Times concedes, is also home to foreign consulates and Israeli government buildings.
To Israel’s credit, its reply was quick and to the point:
I would like to re-emphasize that united Jerusalem is the capital of the Jewish people and of the State of Israel,” Mr. Netanyahu said. “Our sovereignty over it cannot be challenged; this means — inter alia — that residents of Jerusalem may purchase apartments in all parts of the city.
The Times article goes on to note that Israeli intelligence has pointed out that Hamas is in the process of buying up property in Jerusalem and that the moderates of Fatah “had set up an intelligence network aimed at preventing Palestinians from selling their property to Israelis.” Earlier this year, a Palestinian was accused of selling real estate to Jews. He was sentenced to death by a Palestinian Authority court.
Anyone who has visited Jerusalem in recent years knows there has been a building boom in Arab neighborhoods. But no foreign government has protested the increase in Arab housing in Jerusalem. Nor does anyone think there is anything wrong about Arabs living in predominantly Jewish areas.
But the Obama administration apparently believes th at the prospect of a Jew building a house in his country’s capital is worthy of a diplomatic incident. Let’s be clear about this: It is one thing to oppose building new Jewish towns near Arab towns deep in the West Bank or to question the building of Jewish suburbs near Jerusalem. It is quite another to maintain that Jews may not build or live in parts of their city.
It is a sad fact that no U.S. government has ever formally recognized Israeli sovereignty over a united Jerusalem. But all of them understood that Jerusalem was a separate issue from the dispute over the West Bank and had to be treated delicately, if for no other reason than that the vast majority of Americans supported Israel’s rights in the city. By escalating the dispute over Jerusalem into a major point of disagreement with Israel, the Obama administration has raised the ante in its efforts to pressure Netanyahu’s government. In this case, Obama has overplayed his hand. While Bibi is prepared to bend on some points, no Israeli prime minister would accept such a U.S. fiat over Jerusalem.
This is yet another moment to ask not just the ubiquitous Alan Dershowitz but also the legion of Jews who raised money for Obama, vouched for his pro-Israel bona fides, and then gave him three quarters of the Jewish vote last November: Is this what you wanted? Did the majority of Jewish Democrats who are devoted friends of Israel expect that Obama would seek to create a rift between the U.S. and Israel — not about remote West Bank settlements but over Jewish rights in Jerusalem?
If a statement such as this, which is tantamount to a redivision of Jerusalem and a ban on Jewish life in the sections formally occupied by Jordan, is official U.S. policy, and if this policy is acceptable to such friends of Israel, you have to wonder, what is it that they would find unacceptable? Have they no red lines Obama may not tread over? Or is anything he does kosher by definition because he is a popular liberal Democrat whose good intentions toward the Jewish state may not be questioned?
The silence of Jewish Democrats can only hearten those who wish to blow up the U.S.-Israel alliance. The question is when will these friends of Israel find their voices.
Jonathan S. Tobin is executive editor of Commentary magazine. He can be reached via e-mail at: jtobin@commentarymagazine.com.
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/blogs/index.php/tobin/73742
The demand issued to the new Israeli ambassador (and former Commentary contributor) Michael Oren this past weekend spoke volumes about the changing nature of the U.S.-Israel alliance. For the past few months, Obama’s Jewish supporters have been saying that the dispute between the two countries over settlements is not about the United States trying to harm Israel but rather a case of Washington seeking to stop “illegal settlements” opposed by many Israelis and most American Jews. But the demand issued to Ambassador Oren was not about some illegal hilltop outpost somewhere deep in the West Bank, in territory that most Israelis concede would be part of a future Palestinian state. Instead, the houses going up are in a section of the capital, albeit a neighborhood that prior to June 1967 was occupied by Jordan and, therefore, off-limits to Jews from 1949 to 1967. The 20-unit housing complex is in Sheik Jarrah, a still predominantly Arab neighborhood but one that, as even the New York Times concedes, is also home to foreign consulates and Israeli government buildings.
To Israel’s credit, its reply was quick and to the point:
I would like to re-emphasize that united Jerusalem is the capital of the Jewish people and of the State of Israel,” Mr. Netanyahu said. “Our sovereignty over it cannot be challenged; this means — inter alia — that residents of Jerusalem may purchase apartments in all parts of the city.
The Times article goes on to note that Israeli intelligence has pointed out that Hamas is in the process of buying up property in Jerusalem and that the moderates of Fatah “had set up an intelligence network aimed at preventing Palestinians from selling their property to Israelis.” Earlier this year, a Palestinian was accused of selling real estate to Jews. He was sentenced to death by a Palestinian Authority court.
Anyone who has visited Jerusalem in recent years knows there has been a building boom in Arab neighborhoods. But no foreign government has protested the increase in Arab housing in Jerusalem. Nor does anyone think there is anything wrong about Arabs living in predominantly Jewish areas.
But the Obama administration apparently believes th at the prospect of a Jew building a house in his country’s capital is worthy of a diplomatic incident. Let’s be clear about this: It is one thing to oppose building new Jewish towns near Arab towns deep in the West Bank or to question the building of Jewish suburbs near Jerusalem. It is quite another to maintain that Jews may not build or live in parts of their city.
It is a sad fact that no U.S. government has ever formally recognized Israeli sovereignty over a united Jerusalem. But all of them understood that Jerusalem was a separate issue from the dispute over the West Bank and had to be treated delicately, if for no other reason than that the vast majority of Americans supported Israel’s rights in the city. By escalating the dispute over Jerusalem into a major point of disagreement with Israel, the Obama administration has raised the ante in its efforts to pressure Netanyahu’s government. In this case, Obama has overplayed his hand. While Bibi is prepared to bend on some points, no Israeli prime minister would accept such a U.S. fiat over Jerusalem.
This is yet another moment to ask not just the ubiquitous Alan Dershowitz but also the legion of Jews who raised money for Obama, vouched for his pro-Israel bona fides, and then gave him three quarters of the Jewish vote last November: Is this what you wanted? Did the majority of Jewish Democrats who are devoted friends of Israel expect that Obama would seek to create a rift between the U.S. and Israel — not about remote West Bank settlements but over Jewish rights in Jerusalem?
If a statement such as this, which is tantamount to a redivision of Jerusalem and a ban on Jewish life in the sections formally occupied by Jordan, is official U.S. policy, and if this policy is acceptable to such friends of Israel, you have to wonder, what is it that they would find unacceptable? Have they no red lines Obama may not tread over? Or is anything he does kosher by definition because he is a popular liberal Democrat whose good intentions toward the Jewish state may not be questioned?
The silence of Jewish Democrats can only hearten those who wish to blow up the U.S.-Israel alliance. The question is when will these friends of Israel find their voices.
Jonathan S. Tobin is executive editor of Commentary magazine. He can be reached via e-mail at: jtobin@commentarymagazine.com.
Dore Gold: J'lem sovereignty obviously not up for discussion
JPost.com Staff , THE JERUSALEM POST
Amid tensions with the US over east Jerusalem construction, former Israeli ambassador to Washington Dore Gold said Friday that "Israel's sovereignty of the Old City and the rest of Jerusalem is obviously not up for discussion." "Our hope is that we can lower tensions between Israel and the US created by headlines and various comments," he said in an interview with Israel Radio.
Gold, one of Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu's top foreign policy advisers, said there were currently important joint interests between Jerusalem and Washington, particularly the Iranian threat, and also stressed the importance of pursuing partnerships with Arab countries that felt threatened by the Islamic republic's nuclear aspirations.
Gold was circumspect regarding peace talks with Syria and expressed his opposition to withdrawing from the Golan Heights
"We don't know if Syria has decided to leave the terror axis," he said. "Syria doesn't only give refuge to Hamas and Hizbullah, but for many years, it has also given support to Al-Qaida-linked groups in Iraq acting against US and British forces."
"I believe the Golan is Israel's line of defense in the North and must be preserved," he added.
Gold emphasized that he was speaking in his own name, not that of the government.
"We don't ask other factions to recognize Israel because we in Fatah have never recognized Israel"
Will anyone listen? Will Obama abandon plans to create a Palestinian state? Will the oceans flow with Pepsi-Cola?
"'Fatah has never recognized Israel,'" by Khaled Abu Toameh for the Jerusalem Post, July 22 (thanks to Kristian):Fatah has never recognized Israel's right to exist and it has no intention of ever doing so, a veteran senior leader of the Western-backed faction said on Wednesday.
Rafik Natsheh, member of the Fatah Central Committee who also serves as chairman of the faction's disciplinary "court," is the second senior official in recent months to make similar statements regarding Israel.
Natsheh is also a former minister in the Palestinian Authority government who briefly served as Speaker of the Palestinian Legislative Council.
Earlier this year, Muhammad Dahlan, another top Fatah figure, said that Fatah had never recognized Israel's right to exist despite the fact that it is the largest faction in the PLO, which signed the Oslo Accords with Israel.
Natsheh's remarks came days before Fatah's general assembly that is slated to take place in Bethlehem on August 4.
The assembly, the first in two decades, is expected to bring some 1,500 Fatah delegates together to discuss ways of reforming the faction and holding internal elections.
One of the topics on the conference's agenda is whether Fatah should formally abandon the armed struggle and recognize Israel's right to exist.
"Fatah does not recognize Israel's right to exist," Natsheh said, "nor have we ever asked others to do so." His comments, which appeared in an interview with Al-Quds Al-Arabi, came in response to reports according to which Fatah had asked Hamas to recognize Israel as a precondition for the establishment of a Palestinian unity government.
"All these reports about recognizing Israel are false," Natsheh, who is closely associated with PA President Mahmoud Abbas, said. "It's all media nonsense. We don't ask other factions to recognize Israel because we in Fatah have never recognized Israel."
Asked about calls for dropping the reference to armed struggle from Fatah's charter, Natsheh said: "Let all the collaborators [with Israel] and those who are deluding themselves hear that this will never happen. We'll meet at the conference [in Bethlehem]."
Natsheh stressed that neither Fatah nor the Palestinians would ever relinquish the armed struggle against Israel "no matter how long the occupation continues." He said that Fatah, at the upcoming conference, would reiterate its adherence to the option of pursuing "all forms" of an armed struggle against Israel....
Thanks Jihad Watch
"'Fatah has never recognized Israel,'" by Khaled Abu Toameh for the Jerusalem Post, July 22 (thanks to Kristian):Fatah has never recognized Israel's right to exist and it has no intention of ever doing so, a veteran senior leader of the Western-backed faction said on Wednesday.
Rafik Natsheh, member of the Fatah Central Committee who also serves as chairman of the faction's disciplinary "court," is the second senior official in recent months to make similar statements regarding Israel.
Natsheh is also a former minister in the Palestinian Authority government who briefly served as Speaker of the Palestinian Legislative Council.
Earlier this year, Muhammad Dahlan, another top Fatah figure, said that Fatah had never recognized Israel's right to exist despite the fact that it is the largest faction in the PLO, which signed the Oslo Accords with Israel.
Natsheh's remarks came days before Fatah's general assembly that is slated to take place in Bethlehem on August 4.
The assembly, the first in two decades, is expected to bring some 1,500 Fatah delegates together to discuss ways of reforming the faction and holding internal elections.
One of the topics on the conference's agenda is whether Fatah should formally abandon the armed struggle and recognize Israel's right to exist.
"Fatah does not recognize Israel's right to exist," Natsheh said, "nor have we ever asked others to do so." His comments, which appeared in an interview with Al-Quds Al-Arabi, came in response to reports according to which Fatah had asked Hamas to recognize Israel as a precondition for the establishment of a Palestinian unity government.
"All these reports about recognizing Israel are false," Natsheh, who is closely associated with PA President Mahmoud Abbas, said. "It's all media nonsense. We don't ask other factions to recognize Israel because we in Fatah have never recognized Israel."
Asked about calls for dropping the reference to armed struggle from Fatah's charter, Natsheh said: "Let all the collaborators [with Israel] and those who are deluding themselves hear that this will never happen. We'll meet at the conference [in Bethlehem]."
Natsheh stressed that neither Fatah nor the Palestinians would ever relinquish the armed struggle against Israel "no matter how long the occupation continues." He said that Fatah, at the upcoming conference, would reiterate its adherence to the option of pursuing "all forms" of an armed struggle against Israel....
Thanks Jihad Watch
Friday, July 24, 2009
Dump the CEIRPP
Over the years, the United Nations has done its fair share to prolong and exacerbate the Arab-Israel conflict. The explanation for this lies not with the world body conceptually, and certainly not with the ethos of its founders. But the UN can't but reflect the values shared by the bulk of its members, the efforts of an enlightened minority notwithstanding. With the arguable exception of General Assembly Resolution 181, which in 1947 called for the establishment of independent Jewish and Arab states - and which the Arabs rejected out of hand - just about every subsequent UN/GA stand on the conflict has been to Israel's detriment. The most recent pertinent GA resolution, for instance, ES-10/18 of January 2009, basically regurgitated the Palestinian position on Operation Cast Lead, codifying it in international law.
There are now 192 member-states in the UN, most of which maintain diplomatic relations with both the Palestine Liberation Organization and Israel. In practice, however, the PLO has a built-in majority for just about any resolution it champions. Start with the 22-member Arab League and add (though allow for some overlap) the 57-member Organization of the Islamic Conference, then throw in "non-aligned" countries such as North Korea, Cuba and Venezuela. The result is that one would be hard pressed to come up with a single instance in which the General Assembly sided with Israel against the Arabs. Not once has the GA unequivocally reprimanded the PLO or Hamas for engaging in airline-hijackings, bus bombings and other forms of anti-civilian warfare. Israel, in contrast, is censured at every opportunity.
THE international body sank to its moral nadir on November 10, 1975, when the General Assembly passed the odious Resolution 3379, by a vote of 72 to 35 with 32 abstentions, labeling the national liberation movement of the Jewish people - Zionism - as a form of "racism." The fact that the resolution was revoked in 1991 by no means entirely removes the ethical stain with which the world body remains tarnished.
But perhaps the one single most damaging step the organization took to institutionalize its bias against the Jewish state came with the creation in 1975 of the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People (CEIRPP).
Unlike the Kurds, Roma, Copts, Uyghur, Tibetans, and others peoples' who plead for international support, only the Palestinian Arabs have a permanent UN-funded body which does nothing but agitate on their behalf.
As part of a revolving door of injustice, each year the GA meets to "discuss" the "Question of Palestine" and each year it passes the recommendations of the CEIRPP. The biases of the committee have metastasized throughout the UN system owing to its ability to poison attitudes toward Israel from within. It is the CEIRPP which came up with the charade known as the "International Solidarity Day with the Palestinian People," held annually on November 29, and which sponsors an array of meetings, seminars and conferences targeting Israel.
The committee - which convenes again today and tomorrow in Geneva - is comprised of Afghanistan, Belarus, Cuba, Cyprus, Guinea, Guyana, India, Indonesia, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Madagascar, Malaysia, Mali, Malta, Namibia, Nigeria, Pakistan, Senegal, Sierra Leone, South Africa, Tunisia, Turkey and Ukraine.
It will not question the Palestinian decision to reject former prime minister Ehud Olmert's magnanimous 2008 peace offer. It will not tell the Palestinians that Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu's seminal Bar-Ilan speech offers a way forward toward. It will not tell the Palestinians to end their boycott of the peace negotiations. The CEIRPP will never call on Hamas to recognize Israel, end terror and accept previous Palestinian commitments - as demanded by the Quartet.
Of course, the committee will do none of these things - because its raison d'etre is not peace but the vilification of Israel.
That is why this newspaper endorses a campaign initiated by the New York-based the Anti-Defamation League urging UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon to dismantle the committee on the grounds that it is the "single most prolific source of material bearing the official imprimatur of the UN which maligns and debases the Jewish state."
The CEIRPP is also an obstacle to peace - it needs to go.
There are now 192 member-states in the UN, most of which maintain diplomatic relations with both the Palestine Liberation Organization and Israel. In practice, however, the PLO has a built-in majority for just about any resolution it champions. Start with the 22-member Arab League and add (though allow for some overlap) the 57-member Organization of the Islamic Conference, then throw in "non-aligned" countries such as North Korea, Cuba and Venezuela. The result is that one would be hard pressed to come up with a single instance in which the General Assembly sided with Israel against the Arabs. Not once has the GA unequivocally reprimanded the PLO or Hamas for engaging in airline-hijackings, bus bombings and other forms of anti-civilian warfare. Israel, in contrast, is censured at every opportunity.
THE international body sank to its moral nadir on November 10, 1975, when the General Assembly passed the odious Resolution 3379, by a vote of 72 to 35 with 32 abstentions, labeling the national liberation movement of the Jewish people - Zionism - as a form of "racism." The fact that the resolution was revoked in 1991 by no means entirely removes the ethical stain with which the world body remains tarnished.
But perhaps the one single most damaging step the organization took to institutionalize its bias against the Jewish state came with the creation in 1975 of the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People (CEIRPP).
Unlike the Kurds, Roma, Copts, Uyghur, Tibetans, and others peoples' who plead for international support, only the Palestinian Arabs have a permanent UN-funded body which does nothing but agitate on their behalf.
As part of a revolving door of injustice, each year the GA meets to "discuss" the "Question of Palestine" and each year it passes the recommendations of the CEIRPP. The biases of the committee have metastasized throughout the UN system owing to its ability to poison attitudes toward Israel from within. It is the CEIRPP which came up with the charade known as the "International Solidarity Day with the Palestinian People," held annually on November 29, and which sponsors an array of meetings, seminars and conferences targeting Israel.
The committee - which convenes again today and tomorrow in Geneva - is comprised of Afghanistan, Belarus, Cuba, Cyprus, Guinea, Guyana, India, Indonesia, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Madagascar, Malaysia, Mali, Malta, Namibia, Nigeria, Pakistan, Senegal, Sierra Leone, South Africa, Tunisia, Turkey and Ukraine.
It will not question the Palestinian decision to reject former prime minister Ehud Olmert's magnanimous 2008 peace offer. It will not tell the Palestinians that Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu's seminal Bar-Ilan speech offers a way forward toward. It will not tell the Palestinians to end their boycott of the peace negotiations. The CEIRPP will never call on Hamas to recognize Israel, end terror and accept previous Palestinian commitments - as demanded by the Quartet.
Of course, the committee will do none of these things - because its raison d'etre is not peace but the vilification of Israel.
That is why this newspaper endorses a campaign initiated by the New York-based the Anti-Defamation League urging UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon to dismantle the committee on the grounds that it is the "single most prolific source of material bearing the official imprimatur of the UN which maligns and debases the Jewish state."
The CEIRPP is also an obstacle to peace - it needs to go.
Genocidal Linkage
Kenneth Levin
FrontPageMagazine.com
The world’s media have given scant coverage lately to the ongoing genocide in Darfur, and - despite extensive reporting on Israel and the Arab-Israeli conflict - they have likewise offered little on the continuing campaign of genocidal incitement against Israel by her enemies. While seeming very separate issues, the two campaigns, and the choice by media and world leaders largely to ignore both, are, in fact, connected.
On one level, of course, the connection is obvious. Israel-hatred is spearheaded by the Arab world; in virtually every Arab nation, demonizing and delegitimizing of Israel, and often of Jews, is a staple of government-controlled media, schools and mosques. This is true even of the Arab states with which Israel is formally at peace. At the same time, the Arab world is the chief support of fellow Arab leader Omar Hassan al-Bashir and his Sudanese regime's genocidal assault on the Muslim blacks of Darfur. Illustrative was the Arab League’s unanimous, effusive embrace and defense of al-Bashir at its meeting in Doha, Qatar, in March, shortly after his indictment by the International Criminal Court for war crimes and crimes against humanity.
Tunisian human rights activist Mohammed Bechri several years ago argued that to understand Arab support for the genocide in Darfur, one has to recognize the "twin fascisms" - Bechri’s term - that dominate the Arab world: Islamism and Pan-Arabism. The first rejects the legitimacy of any non-Muslim group within what the Arabs perceive as their proper domain; the latter takes the same view towards any non-Arab group. The genocidal rhetoric, and efforts at mass murder, directed at Israel, and the genocidal assault on the Muslim but non-Arab people of Darfur follow from this mindset. (Bechri’s "twin fascisms" also account for the besiegement of Christians across the Arab world and backing for Sudan’s murder of some two million Christian and animist blacks in the south of the country. They help explain as well broad Arab support for the mass murder of Kurds - a Muslim but non-Arab people - in Iraq by Saddam Hussein and for the besiegement of the Kurds of Syria and the Berbers - another non-Arab Muslim group - in Algeria.)
But the connection between animosity towards Israel and coldness towards the victims in Darfur extends beyond the Arab world. It embraces, for example, all those European leaders who bend their consciences to accommodate Arab power - in oil, money and strategic territories - and who may pay lip service to recognizing the murderous incitement and related threats faced by Israel or to deploring the crimes suffered by Darfur but refuse to take serious steps to curb either.
Nor are American leaders entirely free of similar predilections. President Bush (43) was certainly sympathetic to Israel’s predicament. But he sought to assuage Arab opinion by pushing for rapid movement towards a Palestinian state and endorsing Machmoud Abbas as Israel’s "peace" partner, even as Abbas refused to recognize the legitimacy of a Jewish state, consistently praised anti-Israel terror and stood fast in demanding a "right of return" that would turn Israel into yet another Arab-dominated entity. (On Darfur, the "moderate" Abbas responded to the ICC indictment by declaring, "We must also take a decisive stance of solidarity alongside fraternal Sudan and President Omar al-Bashir.") Regarding Darfur, President Bush led the way in condemning Sudan’s campaign of mass murder and rape and first calling it a genocide. But - already attacked for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan - he was not prepared to act aggressively against a third Muslim nation, even though doing so would have been aimed at saving hundreds of thousands of Muslim lives.
President Obama has adopted winning over Arab and broader Muslim opinion as a foreign policy priority and he has shown little interest in according more than verbal acknowledgment to the threats facing Israel. At the same time, those in the Muslim world whose good opinion he is most seeking to win are not the Muslims of Darfur but rather Darfur’s oppressors and their supporters. Some of President Obama’s ardent backers have expressed dismay, and have been openly critical of him, for what they see as his reneging on campaign pledges to put Darfur at the top of his agenda. (For example, Kirsten Powers, "Bam’s Darfur Sins," in the New York Post, May 11, 2009). But given his focus on appeasing Muslims hostile to America, his inaction on Darfur should not surprise.
In major Western media as well, deference to Arab opinion vis-a-vis Israel has generally been accompanied by silence on the central role of the Arab world in providing support for Sudan’s actions in Darfur. While the Arab League’s embrace in Doha of Sudanese President al-Bashir was widely reported, few major outlets offered editorial criticism of the Arab stance - The Washington Post being a notable exception. The New York Times, which for decades has used both "news stories" and editorials to argue that Israeli concessions are the key to peace and has refused to cover the genocidal incitement against Israel and Jews endemic in Palestinian and broader Arab media, mosques and schools, offered no editorial opinion on the Doha meeting.
Several years ago, the Times’ Nicholas Kristof won a Pulitzer Prize for his op-ed coverage of the slaughter in Darfur. Kristof is a constant critic of Israel and, like his bosses, avoids the issue of rejection of Israel’s legitimacy, and promotion of genocidal hatred towards the Jewish state, by its Arab neighbors. In a similar vein, for all his extensive writing on Darfur, he generally avoided the Arab role in supporting the genocide. In some forty op-eds on Darfur published between March, 2004, and April, 2006, shortly after he won the Pulitzer, Kristof devoted only five sentences to Arab backing of the Sudanese regime, and that in an article focused on China’s shameful complicity in Darfur.
But if all this not is very surprising, there are also more curious aspects to the convergence of animosity, often of murderous dimensions, towards Israel and sympathy for, or at least indulgence of, those who perpetrate the genocide in Darfur.
For example, while Egypt has not overtly broken with the unanimous Arab League support for al-Bashir, Egyptian President Mubarak chose not to attend the Doha conference, and he and some other Arab leaders have been worried about the Islamist Sudanese regime’s close ties to Iran and to Iran’s radical Arab allies, Syria, Hezbollah and Hamas. Yet a number of Western leaders, who advocate "dialogue" with Iran, Syria, Hezbollah and Hamas, prefer to ignore their genocidal agenda towards Israel and their leading role in aiding Sudan’s genocidal government - in effect, outpacing Egyptian backing of al-Bashir by soft-pedaling the role in Sudan of those most supportive of al-Bashir’s murderous regime.
Iran has long given extensive financial assistance to the Sudanese government, has provided its forces with weapons and training and has underwritten Chinese provision of arms to al-Bashir. Sudan, again with Iran serving as financier and mid-wife, has also been a training ground for Hamas, fostering as well an ongoing cross-fertilization between Hamas and the militias responsible for the Darfur genocide. Hezbollah and Syria have likewise been in the forefront of Sudan’s supporters and enablers.
Following the International Criminal Court’s action against al-Bashir, a delegation of his radical allies quickly arrived in Khartoum in a show of solidarity with their indicted brother. It included the speaker of Iran’s parliament, Ali Larijani, Hamas leader Moussa Abu Marzouk, Syrian parliament speaker Mahmoud al-Abrash and an official of Hezbollah. Hamas also sponsored a large pro-Sudan march in Gaza.
But inevitably, Khartoum’s allies’ contributions to the Darfur genocide, like their promotion of genocide vis-a-vis Israel, are ignored by those eager for diplomatic engagement with them.
Also in early March, around the time of the ICC indictment, the British Foreign Office, led by Foreign Secretary David Miliband, announced its agreement to talks with Hezbollah. More recently, European Union foreign policy chief Javier Solana and French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner have met with Hezbollah representatives. Hezbollah head Nasrallah’s commitment to the murder of all Jews - as in his 2002 statement that "if [the Jews] all gather in Israel, it will save us the trouble of going after them worldwide" (in the past Hezbollah has gone after them as far afield as in Argentina) - was hardly something Miliband and the Foreign Office, or the Quai D’Orsay, or Solana and the European Union, or those British and continental media sympathetic to Hezbollah, were about to note. Nor were they going to note Hezbollah’s support for Sudan’s policies in Darfur.
Similarly, those many European leaders promoting engagement with Hamas typically avoid acknowledging Hamas’s call in its charter for the slaughter of all Jews, its teaching Palestinian children - in its schools and on children’s television - that Jews are eternal enemies of Islam and must be annihilated, and its other purveying of genocidal Jew-hatred. In April, the Dutch Labor party demanded that the European Union sanction Israel if it refuses to accept Hamas as a negotiating partner. Dutch Labor party leaders and like-minded European politicians, in their efforts to push acceptance of Hamas, soft-pedal its aims regarding Israelis and Jews and likewise say little about Hamas’s support of and contributions to Sudan’s genocidal assault on the blacks of Darfur.
European media that are hostile to Israel also virtually ignore Hamas’s genocidal policies and actions regarding both Israel and Darfur. British news outlets such as The Guardian and The Independent, which had barely covered years of Hamas rocket and mortar attacks on Israeli communities, or Hamas use of civilians and civilian facilities as shields for its attacks, but excoriated Israel when it responded with its assault on Hamas beginning in December, 2008, are likewise essentially silent regarding Hamas’s promotion of mass murder in Israel and support for mass murder in Darfur. The same is true for myriad news outlets on the Continent.
Most American political leaders have shunned Hamas for its commitment - in words and deeds - to Israel’s destruction and for its genocidal agenda. (There are some notable exceptions such as Jimmy Carter, who has met with Hamas chief Khaled Meshaal and urged including Hamas in "peace" talks.) But many American media organizations, particularly those, like the New York Times, most committed to portraying Israeli policy as the major obstacle to peace, have followed their European counterparts in saying little of Hamas’s genocidal policies regarding Jews or of its support for Sudan’s genocidal policies in Darfur.
One might expect Western university campuses, often in the forefront of humanitarian activism, to take the lead in rallying opposition to the genocide in Darfur and in demanding intervention to stop the killing. But the current fashion on campuses both in Europe and the United States, driven by Muslim and far Left student organizations and their faculty sympathizers, is intense hostility to Israel, and this has served to preclude attention either to murderous Arab incitement against Jews or to broad Arab complicity - and more particularly that of organizations such as Hezbollah and Hamas - in the Darfur genocide. When campus political discourse favors standing truth on its head, as in the University of California-Irvine’s recent week-long program entitled, "Israel: The Politics of Genocide," which essentially entailed speaker after speaker accusing Israel of genocidal actions against the Palestinians, there is hardly inclination to challenge those, including Palestinian organizations, genuinely pursuing genocide, whether targeting Jews or the population of Darfur.
Even people whom one might expect to identify most closely with the victims of the Darfur genocide often do nothing, or limit their actions to words, or actually lend support to the perpetrators, in large part because of pro-Arab sympathies or hostility to Israel. Congress has one Muslim black representative, Minnesota’s Keith Ellison, and Ellison has at times spoken out against the Darfur genocide. In April, for example, he joined a protest at the Sudanese embassy in Washington and was arrested along with other demonstrators. But Ellison has consistently supported pro-Hamas groups in America. He also aggressively embraced the Hamas line in last winter’s Gaza War in terms of alleged civilian casualties and Israeli misdeeds while remaining silent on Hamas use of civilians and civilian facilities as shields for attacks on Israel. Ellison has likewise never publicly addressed Hamas’s alliance with Sudan and its backing of Sudanese policies in Darfur. Alignment with those arrayed against Israel seems to trump criticism of those arrayed against Darfur for the Minnesota congressman.
Pulitzer Prize-winning African-American writer Alice Walker, like Ellison, visited Gaza after the recent hostilities, followed the Hamas line on events there, and was silent on the thousands of Hamas rocket and mortar attacks against Israel as well as on the Islamist organization’s use of civilian shields as a strategic weapon in its war to destroy the Jewish state. Before arriving in Gaza, Walker pronounced, sanctimoniously and apparently without intended irony, that "I love children and I feel that the Palestinian child is just as precious as the African-American child, or the Jewish child." Neither while a guest of Hamas in Gaza nor at any other time has she publicly objected to the organization’s use of Palestinian children as human shields, or to its declared objective of killing all Jews, including Jewish children, or to its intentional targeting of children in terror attacks. Nor has she taken issue with Hamas’s support for Sudan’s mass murder of the children of Darfur.
No less perverse has been the stance of some Jewish organizations. In general, Jewish groups, and Jewish individuals, have taken to heart the injunction "never again" vis-a-vis any acts of genocide and have played a leading role in speaking out against the mass murder in Darfur and urging intervention to stop the slaughter. Their role has led Arab and other apologists for the Sudanese regime to complain that the claims of massacres in Darfur are a "Zionist plot."
But some far Left Jewish institutions and organizations, both in Israel and America, in their eagerness to promote the thesis that sufficient Israeli concessions will win peace, choose to ignore the indoctrination to Israel’s destruction and to genocide that pervades Palestinian and broader Arab media, mosques and schools. Whether they do so out of wishful thinking, not wanting to recognize the annihilationist agenda of Israel’s neighbors, or do so to ingratiate themselves with anti-Israel circles in the West, the refusal to address the genocidal intent of Israel’s enemies leads inevitably to these groups downplaying as well the role of Israel’s enemies in supporting Sudan’s crimes in Darfur.
For example, the editors of Israel’s far Left Haaretz, the newspaper of Israel’s elites, have repeatedly called for Israel to negotiate with Hamas and declared that Israel’s refusal to do so and make sufficient concessions is prolonging the Israeli-Arab conflict. In keeping with this line, Haaretz’s editors rarely address Hamas’s charter and downplay the organization’s other declarations calling for the extermination not only of Israel but of all Jews. Consistent with this whitewashing of Hamas, Haaretz’s editors have had little to say about its support for the genocide in Darfur. Indeed, consistent with its failure to address murderous delegitimization and demonization of Israel in the Arab world more broadly, Haaretz has also had little to say of Muslim Arabs’ targeting of other minorities living amongst them, including the Muslim blacks of Darfur.
The same perverse pattern can be seen among various left-leaning Jewish American groups and their followers. "J Street" was established by people who construe other Jewish American organizations as too hardline in their approach to the Israeli-Arab conflict. It advocates exclusive focus on negotiations, and it lobbies for greater American engagement in pushing for rapid agreement on a "peace" accord. During last winter's Gaza War, J Street's stance was one of even-handedness, emphasizing that "neither Israel nor Palestinians have a monopoly on right or wrong" and that there are "elements of truth on both sides." J Street's tack entails largely ignoring realities that run counter to its promotion of moral equivalence. It essentially ignores the incitement to Israel's destruction and mass murder of its people that is a fixture of Palestinian media, mosques and schools, and, more particularly, the agenda of a religious obligation to annihilate all Jews that is promoted by Gaza's Hamas government. Of course, J Street is likewise silent on Hamas's support for Sudan's genocidal assault on the people of Darfur.
Israel Policy Forum, which advocates positions similar to J Street's, has long called for including Hamas in the "peace" process. In an April, 2008, article entitled "Finding a Way to Bring Hamas In," IPF leaders Seymour Reich and Geoffrey Lewis argued that the fact of Hamas being "the most violent actor" renders all the more crucial its not being left out of negotiations. In April, 2009, IPF welcomed a softening of the American position on Hamas whereby the Obama administration is no longer requiring Hamas to recognize Israel, renounce violence and abide by previous agreements before it would deal with and extend aid to a joint PA-Hamas government. Israel Policy Forum, in its lobbying for engagement with Hamas, is another group that avoids noting Hamas's genocidal agenda vis-a-vis Israel and Jews generally, and predictably does the same vis-a-vis the organization's backing of Sudan's genocide in Darfur.
There is little reason to believe that the leaders and supporters of J Street, Israel Policy Forum and other Jewish organizations that share their political predilections are any less appalled by the genocide in Darfur than Jews generally, including those who have led efforts to spur intervention aimed at ending the suffering in Darfur. But it is a peculiar, rather unwholesome, reality of Jewish communal life that there are some Jewish organizations and their supporters that can be counted on to be outspoken in condemning genocidal policies promoted by any entity, whatever its targeted group, unless that entity happens also to promote genocidal assaults on Jews.
In any case, the delusion by some Jews that sufficient concessions will appease Israel's enemies and critics, and the consequent embrace of an unethical silence on the genocidal aims - whether in Israel or Darfur - of her enemies, can be added to the other factors noted as contributing to the same outcome. The major force driving genocidal agendas toward Israel and Darfur is, again, Arab supremacism. It is abetted in the wider world by power politics, as well as by, in many quarters, a twisted ideological allegiance whose credo requires that hostility to the Jewish state and consequent sympathy for, or prettifying of, those dedicated to her destruction trumps sympathy for Darfur and criticism of those participating in its people's annihilation. The overall result is that powerful links between murderous hatred towards Israel and support for, or at least accommodation of, genocide in Darfur are a fixture of today's geopolitics and go largely unchallenged.
Kenneth Levin is a psychiatrist and historian and author of The Oslo Syndrome: Delusions of a People under Siege (Smith and Kraus, 2005; paperback 2006).
FrontPageMagazine.com
The world’s media have given scant coverage lately to the ongoing genocide in Darfur, and - despite extensive reporting on Israel and the Arab-Israeli conflict - they have likewise offered little on the continuing campaign of genocidal incitement against Israel by her enemies. While seeming very separate issues, the two campaigns, and the choice by media and world leaders largely to ignore both, are, in fact, connected.
On one level, of course, the connection is obvious. Israel-hatred is spearheaded by the Arab world; in virtually every Arab nation, demonizing and delegitimizing of Israel, and often of Jews, is a staple of government-controlled media, schools and mosques. This is true even of the Arab states with which Israel is formally at peace. At the same time, the Arab world is the chief support of fellow Arab leader Omar Hassan al-Bashir and his Sudanese regime's genocidal assault on the Muslim blacks of Darfur. Illustrative was the Arab League’s unanimous, effusive embrace and defense of al-Bashir at its meeting in Doha, Qatar, in March, shortly after his indictment by the International Criminal Court for war crimes and crimes against humanity.
Tunisian human rights activist Mohammed Bechri several years ago argued that to understand Arab support for the genocide in Darfur, one has to recognize the "twin fascisms" - Bechri’s term - that dominate the Arab world: Islamism and Pan-Arabism. The first rejects the legitimacy of any non-Muslim group within what the Arabs perceive as their proper domain; the latter takes the same view towards any non-Arab group. The genocidal rhetoric, and efforts at mass murder, directed at Israel, and the genocidal assault on the Muslim but non-Arab people of Darfur follow from this mindset. (Bechri’s "twin fascisms" also account for the besiegement of Christians across the Arab world and backing for Sudan’s murder of some two million Christian and animist blacks in the south of the country. They help explain as well broad Arab support for the mass murder of Kurds - a Muslim but non-Arab people - in Iraq by Saddam Hussein and for the besiegement of the Kurds of Syria and the Berbers - another non-Arab Muslim group - in Algeria.)
But the connection between animosity towards Israel and coldness towards the victims in Darfur extends beyond the Arab world. It embraces, for example, all those European leaders who bend their consciences to accommodate Arab power - in oil, money and strategic territories - and who may pay lip service to recognizing the murderous incitement and related threats faced by Israel or to deploring the crimes suffered by Darfur but refuse to take serious steps to curb either.
Nor are American leaders entirely free of similar predilections. President Bush (43) was certainly sympathetic to Israel’s predicament. But he sought to assuage Arab opinion by pushing for rapid movement towards a Palestinian state and endorsing Machmoud Abbas as Israel’s "peace" partner, even as Abbas refused to recognize the legitimacy of a Jewish state, consistently praised anti-Israel terror and stood fast in demanding a "right of return" that would turn Israel into yet another Arab-dominated entity. (On Darfur, the "moderate" Abbas responded to the ICC indictment by declaring, "We must also take a decisive stance of solidarity alongside fraternal Sudan and President Omar al-Bashir.") Regarding Darfur, President Bush led the way in condemning Sudan’s campaign of mass murder and rape and first calling it a genocide. But - already attacked for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan - he was not prepared to act aggressively against a third Muslim nation, even though doing so would have been aimed at saving hundreds of thousands of Muslim lives.
President Obama has adopted winning over Arab and broader Muslim opinion as a foreign policy priority and he has shown little interest in according more than verbal acknowledgment to the threats facing Israel. At the same time, those in the Muslim world whose good opinion he is most seeking to win are not the Muslims of Darfur but rather Darfur’s oppressors and their supporters. Some of President Obama’s ardent backers have expressed dismay, and have been openly critical of him, for what they see as his reneging on campaign pledges to put Darfur at the top of his agenda. (For example, Kirsten Powers, "Bam’s Darfur Sins," in the New York Post, May 11, 2009). But given his focus on appeasing Muslims hostile to America, his inaction on Darfur should not surprise.
In major Western media as well, deference to Arab opinion vis-a-vis Israel has generally been accompanied by silence on the central role of the Arab world in providing support for Sudan’s actions in Darfur. While the Arab League’s embrace in Doha of Sudanese President al-Bashir was widely reported, few major outlets offered editorial criticism of the Arab stance - The Washington Post being a notable exception. The New York Times, which for decades has used both "news stories" and editorials to argue that Israeli concessions are the key to peace and has refused to cover the genocidal incitement against Israel and Jews endemic in Palestinian and broader Arab media, mosques and schools, offered no editorial opinion on the Doha meeting.
Several years ago, the Times’ Nicholas Kristof won a Pulitzer Prize for his op-ed coverage of the slaughter in Darfur. Kristof is a constant critic of Israel and, like his bosses, avoids the issue of rejection of Israel’s legitimacy, and promotion of genocidal hatred towards the Jewish state, by its Arab neighbors. In a similar vein, for all his extensive writing on Darfur, he generally avoided the Arab role in supporting the genocide. In some forty op-eds on Darfur published between March, 2004, and April, 2006, shortly after he won the Pulitzer, Kristof devoted only five sentences to Arab backing of the Sudanese regime, and that in an article focused on China’s shameful complicity in Darfur.
But if all this not is very surprising, there are also more curious aspects to the convergence of animosity, often of murderous dimensions, towards Israel and sympathy for, or at least indulgence of, those who perpetrate the genocide in Darfur.
For example, while Egypt has not overtly broken with the unanimous Arab League support for al-Bashir, Egyptian President Mubarak chose not to attend the Doha conference, and he and some other Arab leaders have been worried about the Islamist Sudanese regime’s close ties to Iran and to Iran’s radical Arab allies, Syria, Hezbollah and Hamas. Yet a number of Western leaders, who advocate "dialogue" with Iran, Syria, Hezbollah and Hamas, prefer to ignore their genocidal agenda towards Israel and their leading role in aiding Sudan’s genocidal government - in effect, outpacing Egyptian backing of al-Bashir by soft-pedaling the role in Sudan of those most supportive of al-Bashir’s murderous regime.
Iran has long given extensive financial assistance to the Sudanese government, has provided its forces with weapons and training and has underwritten Chinese provision of arms to al-Bashir. Sudan, again with Iran serving as financier and mid-wife, has also been a training ground for Hamas, fostering as well an ongoing cross-fertilization between Hamas and the militias responsible for the Darfur genocide. Hezbollah and Syria have likewise been in the forefront of Sudan’s supporters and enablers.
Following the International Criminal Court’s action against al-Bashir, a delegation of his radical allies quickly arrived in Khartoum in a show of solidarity with their indicted brother. It included the speaker of Iran’s parliament, Ali Larijani, Hamas leader Moussa Abu Marzouk, Syrian parliament speaker Mahmoud al-Abrash and an official of Hezbollah. Hamas also sponsored a large pro-Sudan march in Gaza.
But inevitably, Khartoum’s allies’ contributions to the Darfur genocide, like their promotion of genocide vis-a-vis Israel, are ignored by those eager for diplomatic engagement with them.
Also in early March, around the time of the ICC indictment, the British Foreign Office, led by Foreign Secretary David Miliband, announced its agreement to talks with Hezbollah. More recently, European Union foreign policy chief Javier Solana and French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner have met with Hezbollah representatives. Hezbollah head Nasrallah’s commitment to the murder of all Jews - as in his 2002 statement that "if [the Jews] all gather in Israel, it will save us the trouble of going after them worldwide" (in the past Hezbollah has gone after them as far afield as in Argentina) - was hardly something Miliband and the Foreign Office, or the Quai D’Orsay, or Solana and the European Union, or those British and continental media sympathetic to Hezbollah, were about to note. Nor were they going to note Hezbollah’s support for Sudan’s policies in Darfur.
Similarly, those many European leaders promoting engagement with Hamas typically avoid acknowledging Hamas’s call in its charter for the slaughter of all Jews, its teaching Palestinian children - in its schools and on children’s television - that Jews are eternal enemies of Islam and must be annihilated, and its other purveying of genocidal Jew-hatred. In April, the Dutch Labor party demanded that the European Union sanction Israel if it refuses to accept Hamas as a negotiating partner. Dutch Labor party leaders and like-minded European politicians, in their efforts to push acceptance of Hamas, soft-pedal its aims regarding Israelis and Jews and likewise say little about Hamas’s support of and contributions to Sudan’s genocidal assault on the blacks of Darfur.
European media that are hostile to Israel also virtually ignore Hamas’s genocidal policies and actions regarding both Israel and Darfur. British news outlets such as The Guardian and The Independent, which had barely covered years of Hamas rocket and mortar attacks on Israeli communities, or Hamas use of civilians and civilian facilities as shields for its attacks, but excoriated Israel when it responded with its assault on Hamas beginning in December, 2008, are likewise essentially silent regarding Hamas’s promotion of mass murder in Israel and support for mass murder in Darfur. The same is true for myriad news outlets on the Continent.
Most American political leaders have shunned Hamas for its commitment - in words and deeds - to Israel’s destruction and for its genocidal agenda. (There are some notable exceptions such as Jimmy Carter, who has met with Hamas chief Khaled Meshaal and urged including Hamas in "peace" talks.) But many American media organizations, particularly those, like the New York Times, most committed to portraying Israeli policy as the major obstacle to peace, have followed their European counterparts in saying little of Hamas’s genocidal policies regarding Jews or of its support for Sudan’s genocidal policies in Darfur.
One might expect Western university campuses, often in the forefront of humanitarian activism, to take the lead in rallying opposition to the genocide in Darfur and in demanding intervention to stop the killing. But the current fashion on campuses both in Europe and the United States, driven by Muslim and far Left student organizations and their faculty sympathizers, is intense hostility to Israel, and this has served to preclude attention either to murderous Arab incitement against Jews or to broad Arab complicity - and more particularly that of organizations such as Hezbollah and Hamas - in the Darfur genocide. When campus political discourse favors standing truth on its head, as in the University of California-Irvine’s recent week-long program entitled, "Israel: The Politics of Genocide," which essentially entailed speaker after speaker accusing Israel of genocidal actions against the Palestinians, there is hardly inclination to challenge those, including Palestinian organizations, genuinely pursuing genocide, whether targeting Jews or the population of Darfur.
Even people whom one might expect to identify most closely with the victims of the Darfur genocide often do nothing, or limit their actions to words, or actually lend support to the perpetrators, in large part because of pro-Arab sympathies or hostility to Israel. Congress has one Muslim black representative, Minnesota’s Keith Ellison, and Ellison has at times spoken out against the Darfur genocide. In April, for example, he joined a protest at the Sudanese embassy in Washington and was arrested along with other demonstrators. But Ellison has consistently supported pro-Hamas groups in America. He also aggressively embraced the Hamas line in last winter’s Gaza War in terms of alleged civilian casualties and Israeli misdeeds while remaining silent on Hamas use of civilians and civilian facilities as shields for attacks on Israel. Ellison has likewise never publicly addressed Hamas’s alliance with Sudan and its backing of Sudanese policies in Darfur. Alignment with those arrayed against Israel seems to trump criticism of those arrayed against Darfur for the Minnesota congressman.
Pulitzer Prize-winning African-American writer Alice Walker, like Ellison, visited Gaza after the recent hostilities, followed the Hamas line on events there, and was silent on the thousands of Hamas rocket and mortar attacks against Israel as well as on the Islamist organization’s use of civilian shields as a strategic weapon in its war to destroy the Jewish state. Before arriving in Gaza, Walker pronounced, sanctimoniously and apparently without intended irony, that "I love children and I feel that the Palestinian child is just as precious as the African-American child, or the Jewish child." Neither while a guest of Hamas in Gaza nor at any other time has she publicly objected to the organization’s use of Palestinian children as human shields, or to its declared objective of killing all Jews, including Jewish children, or to its intentional targeting of children in terror attacks. Nor has she taken issue with Hamas’s support for Sudan’s mass murder of the children of Darfur.
No less perverse has been the stance of some Jewish organizations. In general, Jewish groups, and Jewish individuals, have taken to heart the injunction "never again" vis-a-vis any acts of genocide and have played a leading role in speaking out against the mass murder in Darfur and urging intervention to stop the slaughter. Their role has led Arab and other apologists for the Sudanese regime to complain that the claims of massacres in Darfur are a "Zionist plot."
But some far Left Jewish institutions and organizations, both in Israel and America, in their eagerness to promote the thesis that sufficient Israeli concessions will win peace, choose to ignore the indoctrination to Israel’s destruction and to genocide that pervades Palestinian and broader Arab media, mosques and schools. Whether they do so out of wishful thinking, not wanting to recognize the annihilationist agenda of Israel’s neighbors, or do so to ingratiate themselves with anti-Israel circles in the West, the refusal to address the genocidal intent of Israel’s enemies leads inevitably to these groups downplaying as well the role of Israel’s enemies in supporting Sudan’s crimes in Darfur.
For example, the editors of Israel’s far Left Haaretz, the newspaper of Israel’s elites, have repeatedly called for Israel to negotiate with Hamas and declared that Israel’s refusal to do so and make sufficient concessions is prolonging the Israeli-Arab conflict. In keeping with this line, Haaretz’s editors rarely address Hamas’s charter and downplay the organization’s other declarations calling for the extermination not only of Israel but of all Jews. Consistent with this whitewashing of Hamas, Haaretz’s editors have had little to say about its support for the genocide in Darfur. Indeed, consistent with its failure to address murderous delegitimization and demonization of Israel in the Arab world more broadly, Haaretz has also had little to say of Muslim Arabs’ targeting of other minorities living amongst them, including the Muslim blacks of Darfur.
The same perverse pattern can be seen among various left-leaning Jewish American groups and their followers. "J Street" was established by people who construe other Jewish American organizations as too hardline in their approach to the Israeli-Arab conflict. It advocates exclusive focus on negotiations, and it lobbies for greater American engagement in pushing for rapid agreement on a "peace" accord. During last winter's Gaza War, J Street's stance was one of even-handedness, emphasizing that "neither Israel nor Palestinians have a monopoly on right or wrong" and that there are "elements of truth on both sides." J Street's tack entails largely ignoring realities that run counter to its promotion of moral equivalence. It essentially ignores the incitement to Israel's destruction and mass murder of its people that is a fixture of Palestinian media, mosques and schools, and, more particularly, the agenda of a religious obligation to annihilate all Jews that is promoted by Gaza's Hamas government. Of course, J Street is likewise silent on Hamas's support for Sudan's genocidal assault on the people of Darfur.
Israel Policy Forum, which advocates positions similar to J Street's, has long called for including Hamas in the "peace" process. In an April, 2008, article entitled "Finding a Way to Bring Hamas In," IPF leaders Seymour Reich and Geoffrey Lewis argued that the fact of Hamas being "the most violent actor" renders all the more crucial its not being left out of negotiations. In April, 2009, IPF welcomed a softening of the American position on Hamas whereby the Obama administration is no longer requiring Hamas to recognize Israel, renounce violence and abide by previous agreements before it would deal with and extend aid to a joint PA-Hamas government. Israel Policy Forum, in its lobbying for engagement with Hamas, is another group that avoids noting Hamas's genocidal agenda vis-a-vis Israel and Jews generally, and predictably does the same vis-a-vis the organization's backing of Sudan's genocide in Darfur.
There is little reason to believe that the leaders and supporters of J Street, Israel Policy Forum and other Jewish organizations that share their political predilections are any less appalled by the genocide in Darfur than Jews generally, including those who have led efforts to spur intervention aimed at ending the suffering in Darfur. But it is a peculiar, rather unwholesome, reality of Jewish communal life that there are some Jewish organizations and their supporters that can be counted on to be outspoken in condemning genocidal policies promoted by any entity, whatever its targeted group, unless that entity happens also to promote genocidal assaults on Jews.
In any case, the delusion by some Jews that sufficient concessions will appease Israel's enemies and critics, and the consequent embrace of an unethical silence on the genocidal aims - whether in Israel or Darfur - of her enemies, can be added to the other factors noted as contributing to the same outcome. The major force driving genocidal agendas toward Israel and Darfur is, again, Arab supremacism. It is abetted in the wider world by power politics, as well as by, in many quarters, a twisted ideological allegiance whose credo requires that hostility to the Jewish state and consequent sympathy for, or prettifying of, those dedicated to her destruction trumps sympathy for Darfur and criticism of those participating in its people's annihilation. The overall result is that powerful links between murderous hatred towards Israel and support for, or at least accommodation of, genocide in Darfur are a fixture of today's geopolitics and go largely unchallenged.
Kenneth Levin is a psychiatrist and historian and author of The Oslo Syndrome: Delusions of a People under Siege (Smith and Kraus, 2005; paperback 2006).
Zionist ship in danger
Number of citizens committed to original Zionist vision keeps on declining
Yaron London
YNET News
Recently, the decision was made to indict a dozen Shfaram residents over the killing of Jewish terrorist Natan Zada. They pushed away the police officers protecting the handcuffed man and killed him with stones and blows. The town of Shfaram was outraged. Arab public figures complained that the dozen would not be facing justice had the murderer been Arab and the avengers Jewish. The root of the controversy stems from a similar moral dilemma that emerged in the trial of Shai Dromi, the southern farmer who shot to death an Arab burglar: What rights does a person who killed an attacker have? In Shfaram, a murderer was killed, while Dromi fired at burglars who he felt endangered his life. It appears that the line of defense adopted by the accused from Shfaram is thinner, because the danger was long gone before they assaulted and killed the attacker.
Yet these nuances are of no interest to Arab community leaders. Dromi’s acquittal promoted them to utter the oh-so-predictable response: The court gave license to fire at Arab citizens.
This is the case in almost any controversial affair involving the State and Arab citizens. The confiscation of land for public purposes is immediately suspected as being the continuation of a land robbery tradition. The National Service initiative for Arabs is perceived as a ploy to make it easier for the Jews to kill Palestinians. The erection of a cellular antenna in an Arab village is meant to make its residents ill.
These claims are infuriating, but we should not be complaining that Israel’s Arab citizens doubt the motives of authorities; they have accumulated bitter experience.
On the other hand, the experience of another rebellious sector is incredibly positive – the ultra-Orthodox. The State does not discriminate against them and grants them an exemption from military service and educational autonomy. Yet their decent status does not tone down their suspicions. Their isolationism is entrenched in well-formulated ideology, and their boldness is much greater than the audacity of Arab citizens.
The haredi pamphlets charging the Zionists with ongoing efforts to exterminate the Jewish people are as grave as the Palestinian expressions about the “Nakba” and “genocide.”
Sandbanks are lying in wait
Yet while the claims made by Arab Israelis are not completely unfounded, the haredi claims are almost entirely pure inventions. Last week we saw their masses rioting in Jerusalem. They knew that if Arabs blocked the Wadi Ara area to traffic they would be met with bullets. Yet those who block major roads in Israel’s capital are met with water cannons.
The Arabs and Orthodox make up roughly one third of the country’s population. In addition to them, there is a significant group of citizens who are not parties to the vision of a democratic, secular, modern, liberal, and open republic with a Jewish majority.
In my view, only espousal of this vision will enable the state to exist, yet the number of those who support it is increasingly declining. It may have dropped below 50% of the population by now. There is no other stable country in the world whose spinal cord is so thin. The nation’s skeleton has not yet disintegrated and its internal organs have not yet spread out in all directions only because our enemies are pressing us on all sides.
History is now showing its sense of humor. Zionism is a bold enterprise initiated by individual members of the educated Jewish middle-class in Eastern Europe. Most Jews rejected this vision, yet the tiny minority was successful. The proud Zionist ship brought whoever wished to join it onboard and set sail through rough seas.
Yet years have passed and the nature of the passengers has changed. Each faction wishes to sail to a different destination. Meanwhile, the sandbanks are lying in wait.
Yaron London
YNET News
Recently, the decision was made to indict a dozen Shfaram residents over the killing of Jewish terrorist Natan Zada. They pushed away the police officers protecting the handcuffed man and killed him with stones and blows. The town of Shfaram was outraged. Arab public figures complained that the dozen would not be facing justice had the murderer been Arab and the avengers Jewish. The root of the controversy stems from a similar moral dilemma that emerged in the trial of Shai Dromi, the southern farmer who shot to death an Arab burglar: What rights does a person who killed an attacker have? In Shfaram, a murderer was killed, while Dromi fired at burglars who he felt endangered his life. It appears that the line of defense adopted by the accused from Shfaram is thinner, because the danger was long gone before they assaulted and killed the attacker.
Yet these nuances are of no interest to Arab community leaders. Dromi’s acquittal promoted them to utter the oh-so-predictable response: The court gave license to fire at Arab citizens.
This is the case in almost any controversial affair involving the State and Arab citizens. The confiscation of land for public purposes is immediately suspected as being the continuation of a land robbery tradition. The National Service initiative for Arabs is perceived as a ploy to make it easier for the Jews to kill Palestinians. The erection of a cellular antenna in an Arab village is meant to make its residents ill.
These claims are infuriating, but we should not be complaining that Israel’s Arab citizens doubt the motives of authorities; they have accumulated bitter experience.
On the other hand, the experience of another rebellious sector is incredibly positive – the ultra-Orthodox. The State does not discriminate against them and grants them an exemption from military service and educational autonomy. Yet their decent status does not tone down their suspicions. Their isolationism is entrenched in well-formulated ideology, and their boldness is much greater than the audacity of Arab citizens.
The haredi pamphlets charging the Zionists with ongoing efforts to exterminate the Jewish people are as grave as the Palestinian expressions about the “Nakba” and “genocide.”
Sandbanks are lying in wait
Yet while the claims made by Arab Israelis are not completely unfounded, the haredi claims are almost entirely pure inventions. Last week we saw their masses rioting in Jerusalem. They knew that if Arabs blocked the Wadi Ara area to traffic they would be met with bullets. Yet those who block major roads in Israel’s capital are met with water cannons.
The Arabs and Orthodox make up roughly one third of the country’s population. In addition to them, there is a significant group of citizens who are not parties to the vision of a democratic, secular, modern, liberal, and open republic with a Jewish majority.
In my view, only espousal of this vision will enable the state to exist, yet the number of those who support it is increasingly declining. It may have dropped below 50% of the population by now. There is no other stable country in the world whose spinal cord is so thin. The nation’s skeleton has not yet disintegrated and its internal organs have not yet spread out in all directions only because our enemies are pressing us on all sides.
History is now showing its sense of humor. Zionism is a bold enterprise initiated by individual members of the educated Jewish middle-class in Eastern Europe. Most Jews rejected this vision, yet the tiny minority was successful. The proud Zionist ship brought whoever wished to join it onboard and set sail through rough seas.
Yet years have passed and the nature of the passengers has changed. Each faction wishes to sail to a different destination. Meanwhile, the sandbanks are lying in wait.
PM Netanyahu’s Conference Call with the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations
Strengthening the connection of the Jewish communities around the world, especially in the United States, to Israel is something that is important both to my government and to me personally. It’s also important for the people of Israel. I look forward to working with all of you and also with Natan Sharansky. Natan is on the line, and will join us after I make a few remarks. I want to work with him and with the Conference of Presidents, with all of you, to advance our common goals. And these are broad, they encompass a lot. They encompass aliyah and Jewish education and the strengthening of Jewish identity, and the broader and pressing questions of peace and security. And I hope that this will be the first of many conversations that we’ll have in the months and years ahead. So, view this as a pioneering effort. Let’s do it often.Now, before I take your questions today, I wanted to focus on two pivotal issues: the situation with Iran and the question of peace with the Palestinians.
[Iranian threat]
First on Iran – very simply put, if the Iranian regime acquires nuclear weapons, I think this would be a hinge of history. It would present a grave threat to Israel, to the Middle East and to the world at large. The reason I say that is because the recent elections have unmasked the true character of this regime. This is a regime that brutally represses its own people; it sponsors terrorism – not only sponsors it, it supplies the terrorists, it directs them, it finances them, it gives them missiles, it gives them everything – and it’s also determined to acquire nuclear weapons.
Understand that a nuclear-armed Iran could provide a nuclear umbrella to terrorists, and it could possibly provide nuclear weapons to terrorists. I think for the sake of the peace of the world and the security of my own country and that of the United States, this must not be allowed to happen. It’s important for me to stress to you that the Iranian people are not our enemies. We remember a time when Israel and Iran had an excellent relationship, better than good, and we know that the Iranian people would like nothing better than to rid themselves of this horrible regime.
When I was in Washington a few months ago, President Obama and I had extensive discussions about this threat. The President has repeatedly stated that Iran must not be allowed to acquire nuclear weapons, and that all options must remain on the table in dealing with this threat. And of course this is a position that we support. I also think there’s an increasing international understanding about the true nature of this regime and I think there is a growing resolve to thwart the regime’s effort to attain a military nuclear capability. I think this is not merely an Israeli interest; I think it is now the stated interest not merely of our two countries, but I think this ought to be the interest and is the interest of anyone interested in preserving the peace of the world. Because a nuclear-armed Iran threatens the peace of us all.
[Peace with the Palestinians – 5 Principles]
The second point I wanted to raise is the quest for achieving peace with the Palestinians, a genuine peace. The simplest thing is to begin peace talks, unconditionally. I have offered that, I offer that again. In fact I say that to you tonight. We seek unconditional peace talks with the Palestinians. We’re prepared to begin those talks immediately, and I’m prepared to work with the Palestinians, and of course with President Obama, towards advancing peace with the Palestinians, and towards advancing the President’s idea of a broader peace in the region.
I think that we have to work on five principles that are not preconditions for beginning peace talks, but I think they are clear foundations for a successful completion of peace talks.
[Recognition]
The first principle is recognition. We are asked to recognize a nation-state for the Palestinian people. I think that it’s necessary and elementary that the Palestinians be asked to recognize the nation-state of the Jewish people. I think that the absence of the recognition of Israel’s right, or of the Jewish people’s right to a state of their own, was and remains the source, the root of this conflict. I don’t think we should be myopic about this. I think we have to be very, very clear. The Palestinians so far do not say simply, unequivocally and clearly that they recognize Israel as the Jewish state, a Jewish state not in the religious sense, but a Jewish state as the nation-state of the Jewish people. I think this is not a semantic insistence; it’s a substantive insistence of which there is an immediate derivative, which is the second principle – and that is that the problem of Palestinian refugees will be resolved outside the State of Israel.
[Refugees]
You cannot say that you are prepared to make peace with Israel when you don’t recognize Israel as the state of the Jews, and when you insist that this state will be flooded by Palestinian refugees. It just doesn’t make sense. So the first principle is recognition. The second principle is that the problem of the refugees will be resolved outside the State of Israel.
[Ending the conflict]
The third point ought to be obvious, too, but I make it here – it all relates to the question of ending the conflict. And that is that a peace treaty actually ends the conflict. It’s not an interim peace treaty from which the conflict is pursued from the Palestinian state that will be established. It’s the end of the conflict. That is, the Palestinians, upon the signing of a peace treaty, have to say unequivocally that they have no more claims – no more claims either on the question of refugees or on the question of borders or on the question of irredentist claims.
So the first three points that I raised relate to legitimacy, to Israel’s permanent legitimacy: recognition of a Jewish state, the resolution of the refugee problem outside the borders of the Jewish state and the end of claims, the finality of conflict.
[Demilitarization]
The other two points that I wanted to make relate to security. It’s clear that the Palestinian state established should be one that doesn’t threaten the State of Israel. The only way that that will be achieved is by effective demilitarization – this is the fourth point. We need effective measures of demilitarization. I’ll tell you what ineffective measures of demilitarization are: Gaza is an example; Lebanon is an example. There is no effective demilitarization in either place and, in fact, the arrangements that have been put in place, either in the Philadelphi Corridor or in South Lebanon, have produced a highly ineffective arrangement where these two places are used as a launching ground for thousands of missiles that have been hurled against us. Now, in South Lebanon, tens of thousands of missiles are in place, and in Gaza many, many missiles are being piled up and smuggled inside that area to be launched again. We want effective means of demilitarization. I think this is the fourth point – absolutely essential.
[International guarantees]
And the fifth point is that whatever arrangements are undertaken in a peace arrangement, in a peace treaty, have to be guaranteed by the international community, led by the United States. That is, we want to have clear demilitarization means and a clear commitment by the international community about the validity and the robustness of these security arrangements. And I don’t seek the international community to actually provide the means of demilitarization. I do seek the international community’s support for those arrangements that will be put on the ground – political support, that is.
So these are the five points: recognition, the question of refugees, the end of claims, effective demilitarization means and international political guarantees for those arrangements. These are the five points that have a vast consensus in Israel. And the reason they enjoy vast consensus – and I found this out after I spoke in Bar-Ilan; I knew they enjoyed support, but I didn’t understand they enjoyed such broad support – is because they’re fair and because they’re necessary. And because anybody who has a commonsense and decent approach to the question of peace understands that these are the five foundations, the five prerequisite foundations for completing a genuine peace treaty.
[The Element of Prosperity]
I would add one other which is not in the form of a condition that we put for ending the conflict, but one that I think, at least from experience, could help push along a solution and stabilize it – and that is prosperity. Up to now, I spoke about three conditions that relate to legitimacy: recognition, refugees and the end of claims; and two points that relate to security: demilitarization and international guarantees for demilitarization. But there is a third element, and that is what we can do to push forward the spread of prosperity. I’m not merely talking about us – we can do that, and we are doing that in our own economy – but advancing prosperity in the Palestinian economy. We’ve been doing that. We’ve taken steps that have begun to be recognized a bit in the international community, actually far-reaching steps of liberalizing movement and enabling movement in the West Bank; removing barriers and checkpoints. I’ve recently asked our security establishment to open up the Allenby Bridge so that it is opened for additional hours for movement. I personally head a ministerial committee to unblock several economic projects that have been held up that I think could advance the Palestinian economy. I think we can do an enormous amount to advance tourism and investments, and we’re prepared to do that.
This idea of advancing the economic peace is not a substitute for achieving the political peace that I discussed. It’s a way to facilitate it. It helps achieving the peace, and it’s something that we are moving along independently; whether or not the Palestinians collaborate on it is, of course, up to them. But if they do join with us and participate with us, we could move the West Bank economy way up very rapidly, and what this does is help peace. Because, obviously, if young Palestinians have a job, if investments are made in Ramallah, if restaurants open in Jenin, if businesses flourish in Hebron, this makes peace more possible and more worthwhile for the Palestinians, as opposed to the radical Islamist projection of misery and conflict. And so I think that prosperity is the other element.
[Legitimacy, Security and Prosperity]
So I advocate legitimacy, security and prosperity by advancing recognition of the Jewish state, the settlement of the refugees outside Israel, the end of claims and the end of conflict, effective demilitarization measures and political international guarantees for these matters; but in addition to that, also the advancement of prosperity and economic cooperation between Israel and the Palestinians with the support of the United States and others in the international community. I think there is overwhelming consensus in Israel for this, and I am sure that this is something that could be helped by you, all of you, and everyone else interested in achieving peace.
מח' מידע ואינטרנט – אגף תקשו
23.07.2009
[Iranian threat]
First on Iran – very simply put, if the Iranian regime acquires nuclear weapons, I think this would be a hinge of history. It would present a grave threat to Israel, to the Middle East and to the world at large. The reason I say that is because the recent elections have unmasked the true character of this regime. This is a regime that brutally represses its own people; it sponsors terrorism – not only sponsors it, it supplies the terrorists, it directs them, it finances them, it gives them missiles, it gives them everything – and it’s also determined to acquire nuclear weapons.
Understand that a nuclear-armed Iran could provide a nuclear umbrella to terrorists, and it could possibly provide nuclear weapons to terrorists. I think for the sake of the peace of the world and the security of my own country and that of the United States, this must not be allowed to happen. It’s important for me to stress to you that the Iranian people are not our enemies. We remember a time when Israel and Iran had an excellent relationship, better than good, and we know that the Iranian people would like nothing better than to rid themselves of this horrible regime.
When I was in Washington a few months ago, President Obama and I had extensive discussions about this threat. The President has repeatedly stated that Iran must not be allowed to acquire nuclear weapons, and that all options must remain on the table in dealing with this threat. And of course this is a position that we support. I also think there’s an increasing international understanding about the true nature of this regime and I think there is a growing resolve to thwart the regime’s effort to attain a military nuclear capability. I think this is not merely an Israeli interest; I think it is now the stated interest not merely of our two countries, but I think this ought to be the interest and is the interest of anyone interested in preserving the peace of the world. Because a nuclear-armed Iran threatens the peace of us all.
[Peace with the Palestinians – 5 Principles]
The second point I wanted to raise is the quest for achieving peace with the Palestinians, a genuine peace. The simplest thing is to begin peace talks, unconditionally. I have offered that, I offer that again. In fact I say that to you tonight. We seek unconditional peace talks with the Palestinians. We’re prepared to begin those talks immediately, and I’m prepared to work with the Palestinians, and of course with President Obama, towards advancing peace with the Palestinians, and towards advancing the President’s idea of a broader peace in the region.
I think that we have to work on five principles that are not preconditions for beginning peace talks, but I think they are clear foundations for a successful completion of peace talks.
[Recognition]
The first principle is recognition. We are asked to recognize a nation-state for the Palestinian people. I think that it’s necessary and elementary that the Palestinians be asked to recognize the nation-state of the Jewish people. I think that the absence of the recognition of Israel’s right, or of the Jewish people’s right to a state of their own, was and remains the source, the root of this conflict. I don’t think we should be myopic about this. I think we have to be very, very clear. The Palestinians so far do not say simply, unequivocally and clearly that they recognize Israel as the Jewish state, a Jewish state not in the religious sense, but a Jewish state as the nation-state of the Jewish people. I think this is not a semantic insistence; it’s a substantive insistence of which there is an immediate derivative, which is the second principle – and that is that the problem of Palestinian refugees will be resolved outside the State of Israel.
[Refugees]
You cannot say that you are prepared to make peace with Israel when you don’t recognize Israel as the state of the Jews, and when you insist that this state will be flooded by Palestinian refugees. It just doesn’t make sense. So the first principle is recognition. The second principle is that the problem of the refugees will be resolved outside the State of Israel.
[Ending the conflict]
The third point ought to be obvious, too, but I make it here – it all relates to the question of ending the conflict. And that is that a peace treaty actually ends the conflict. It’s not an interim peace treaty from which the conflict is pursued from the Palestinian state that will be established. It’s the end of the conflict. That is, the Palestinians, upon the signing of a peace treaty, have to say unequivocally that they have no more claims – no more claims either on the question of refugees or on the question of borders or on the question of irredentist claims.
So the first three points that I raised relate to legitimacy, to Israel’s permanent legitimacy: recognition of a Jewish state, the resolution of the refugee problem outside the borders of the Jewish state and the end of claims, the finality of conflict.
[Demilitarization]
The other two points that I wanted to make relate to security. It’s clear that the Palestinian state established should be one that doesn’t threaten the State of Israel. The only way that that will be achieved is by effective demilitarization – this is the fourth point. We need effective measures of demilitarization. I’ll tell you what ineffective measures of demilitarization are: Gaza is an example; Lebanon is an example. There is no effective demilitarization in either place and, in fact, the arrangements that have been put in place, either in the Philadelphi Corridor or in South Lebanon, have produced a highly ineffective arrangement where these two places are used as a launching ground for thousands of missiles that have been hurled against us. Now, in South Lebanon, tens of thousands of missiles are in place, and in Gaza many, many missiles are being piled up and smuggled inside that area to be launched again. We want effective means of demilitarization. I think this is the fourth point – absolutely essential.
[International guarantees]
And the fifth point is that whatever arrangements are undertaken in a peace arrangement, in a peace treaty, have to be guaranteed by the international community, led by the United States. That is, we want to have clear demilitarization means and a clear commitment by the international community about the validity and the robustness of these security arrangements. And I don’t seek the international community to actually provide the means of demilitarization. I do seek the international community’s support for those arrangements that will be put on the ground – political support, that is.
So these are the five points: recognition, the question of refugees, the end of claims, effective demilitarization means and international political guarantees for those arrangements. These are the five points that have a vast consensus in Israel. And the reason they enjoy vast consensus – and I found this out after I spoke in Bar-Ilan; I knew they enjoyed support, but I didn’t understand they enjoyed such broad support – is because they’re fair and because they’re necessary. And because anybody who has a commonsense and decent approach to the question of peace understands that these are the five foundations, the five prerequisite foundations for completing a genuine peace treaty.
[The Element of Prosperity]
I would add one other which is not in the form of a condition that we put for ending the conflict, but one that I think, at least from experience, could help push along a solution and stabilize it – and that is prosperity. Up to now, I spoke about three conditions that relate to legitimacy: recognition, refugees and the end of claims; and two points that relate to security: demilitarization and international guarantees for demilitarization. But there is a third element, and that is what we can do to push forward the spread of prosperity. I’m not merely talking about us – we can do that, and we are doing that in our own economy – but advancing prosperity in the Palestinian economy. We’ve been doing that. We’ve taken steps that have begun to be recognized a bit in the international community, actually far-reaching steps of liberalizing movement and enabling movement in the West Bank; removing barriers and checkpoints. I’ve recently asked our security establishment to open up the Allenby Bridge so that it is opened for additional hours for movement. I personally head a ministerial committee to unblock several economic projects that have been held up that I think could advance the Palestinian economy. I think we can do an enormous amount to advance tourism and investments, and we’re prepared to do that.
This idea of advancing the economic peace is not a substitute for achieving the political peace that I discussed. It’s a way to facilitate it. It helps achieving the peace, and it’s something that we are moving along independently; whether or not the Palestinians collaborate on it is, of course, up to them. But if they do join with us and participate with us, we could move the West Bank economy way up very rapidly, and what this does is help peace. Because, obviously, if young Palestinians have a job, if investments are made in Ramallah, if restaurants open in Jenin, if businesses flourish in Hebron, this makes peace more possible and more worthwhile for the Palestinians, as opposed to the radical Islamist projection of misery and conflict. And so I think that prosperity is the other element.
[Legitimacy, Security and Prosperity]
So I advocate legitimacy, security and prosperity by advancing recognition of the Jewish state, the settlement of the refugees outside Israel, the end of claims and the end of conflict, effective demilitarization measures and political international guarantees for these matters; but in addition to that, also the advancement of prosperity and economic cooperation between Israel and the Palestinians with the support of the United States and others in the international community. I think there is overwhelming consensus in Israel for this, and I am sure that this is something that could be helped by you, all of you, and everyone else interested in achieving peace.
מח' מידע ואינטרנט – אגף תקשו
23.07.2009
Thursday, July 23, 2009
Obama Boomerang: Demand for Building Freeze Spurs Rush to Buy
Tzvi Ben Gedalyahu 'Obama Buying Boom' in Israel
U.S. President Barack Obama’s attempt to freeze building for Jews in Judea and Samaria appears to be backfiring as real estate agency report a boom in new home sales in Maaleh Adumim, located several minutes east of Jerusalem.The result is a further increase in the number of Jews living in Judea and Samaria, countering the intentions of the new American government.
The price of a three-bedroom apartment in Maaleh Adumin was $215,000 before President Obama’s campaign against Israel. The price for the same unit now is $244,000.
The city’s mayor Benny Kashriel said that all 450 apartment that are under construction, with previous government approval, are almost sold out. He vowed that Israel will not bow to American pressure against continued development. He told the American National Public Radio that “280,000 people in Judea and Samaria will be together against him, will demonstrate together and will not let our government compromise with him.”
Maaleh Adumim resident and American native Beth Gordon, who has been discussing buying property for her children, laughed at President Obama’s description of the city as a settlement.
“I ask people in the States, 'What do you think a settlement is?' And they say, 'I picture a caravan [mobile home without wheel on a hill.' And I say, 'You have to come to Maaleh Adumim and visit us!' “she told NPR. Her desire for her children to live nearby is part of the “natural growth” that U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has decried.
The bottom line for most people is money. The cost of housing in Maaleh Adumim and other communities in Judea and Samaria is far less than in Jerusalem, where the housing market is way beyond the reach of the average Israeli.
Real estate agent Ayalon Cohen told NPR the he is selling six to 10 units a month, comparable to the fastest-growing areas in Israel. "There's a lot of
Obama's Assistant Attorney General Tells Senate: Terrorists Captured on Battlefield Have Constitutional Rights
Penny Starr, Senior Staff Writer
(CNSNews.com) – At a Senate hearing Tuesday on the use of military commissions to prosecute terrorists being held at Guantanamo Bay, some members of the Armed Services Committee took offense at the Obama administration’s view that the detainees should have the same legal protections under the Constitution as U.S. citizensRanking member Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) questioned Assistant Attorney General David Kris about his remarks on the appropriateness of administering the Miranda warning to terrorist suspects captured abroad. "It is the administration's view that there is a serious risk that courts would hold that admission of involuntary statements of the accused in military commission proceedings is unconstitutional," Kris said in his opening statement.
“Does that infer that these individuals have constitutional rights?” McCain asked Kris.
“Ah, yes,” Kris answered.
“What are those constitutional rights of people who are not citizens of the United States of America, who were captured on a battlefield committing acts of war against the United States?” McCain asked.
“Our analysis, Senator, is that the due process clause applies to military commissions and imposes a constitutional floor on the procedures that the government sets on such commissions …” Kris said.
“So you are saying that these people who are at Guantanamo, who were part of 9/11, who committed acts of war against the United States, have constitutional rights under the Constitution of the United States of America?” McCain asked.
“Within the framework I just described, the answer is yes, the due process clause guarantees and imposes some requirements on the conduct of (military) commissions,” Kris said.
“The fact is they are entitled to protections under the Geneva Convention, which apply to the rules of war,” McCain said. “I do not know of a time in American history where enemy combatants were given rights under the United States Constitution.”
Jeh C. Johnson, general counsel, Department of Defense (CNSNews.com/Penny Starr)
Kris and Jeh C. Johnson, general counsel for the Department of Defense, said that military commissions were a viable “alternative” but that prosecuting terror suspects as criminals in U.S. federal courts was preferable – a position Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) took issue with at the hearing.
“Why would anyone prefer to try people apprehended for violations of the law of war?” Lieberman asked. “The fact is that from the beginning of our country, from the Revolutionary War, we’ve used military tribunals to try war criminals, or people we have apprehended, captured for violations of the law of war.
“Again, I think the unique circumstances of this war on terrorists, against the people who attacked us on 9/11, have taken us down, including the Supreme Court, some roads that are not only to me ultimately unjust but inconsistent with the long history of military commissions,” Lieberman said.
“Why would you say the administration prefers to bring before our federal court system instead of military commissions that are really today’s version of the tribunals that we’ve used throughout our history to deal in a just way with prisoners of war?” Lieberman asked.
“I applaud this committee’s initiative to reform the military commission act. I think the military commission should be a viable ready alternative for national security reasons to deal with those who violate the laws of war, and I’m glad we’re having this discussion right now, and I thank the committee,” Johnson said.
“When you’re dealing with terrorists whose, and I’m going to say this on behalf of the administration, one of their fundamental aims is to kill innocent civilians, and so it is the administration’s view that direct violence on innocent civilians, let’s say in the continental United States, it might be appropriate that that person be brought to justice in a civilian public forum in the continental United States,” Johnson said.
“Because the act of violence that was committed here was a violation of Title 18 (federal criminal law), as well as the law of war, so we feel strongly that both alternatives should exist,” Johnson added.
Sen. Joe Lieberman (D-Conn.) (CNSNews.com/Penny Starr)
“Well, I respectfully disagree,” Lieberman said. “These are people we believe are war criminals; that’s why we captured them. The greater legal protections of the terrorists because they have chosen to do something that pretty much has not been done before in our history to attack Americans, to kill people here in America, as they did on 9/11, civilians, innocents, it doesn’t matter, and to do it outside of uniform.
“So it puts us in a very odd position, giving these terrorists greater protections in our federal courts than we’ve given war criminals in any other time throughout our history, even though, in my opinion, they are at least as brutal and inhumane, probably more brutal and inhumane than any war criminals,” Lieberman said.
“Yes, it might also be an act of murder that killed people who were in the Trade Towers on 9/11, but it was an act of war,” Lieberman said. “And the people who did that do not deserve the same constitutional protections of those accused of murder in New York City.”
The hearing focused on the military commissions portion of the National Defense Authorization Bill for Fiscal Year 2010, which includes changes to the Military Commission Act of 2006.
Committee Chairman Carl Levin (D-Mich.) summarized the changes in his opening statement.
* Relative to the admissibility of coerced testimony, the provision in our bill would eliminate the double standard in existing law, under which coerced statements are admissible if they were obtained prior to Dec. 30, 2005.
* Relative to the use of hearsay evidence, the provision in our bill would eliminate the extraordinary language in the existing law which places the burden on detainees to prove that hearsay evidence introduced against them is not reliable and probative.
* Relative to the issue of access to classified evidence and exculpatory evidence, the provision in our bill would eliminate the unique procedures and requirements which have hampered the ability of defense teams to obtain information and led to so much litigation.
We would substitute more established procedures based on the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), with modest changes to ensure that the government cannot be required to disclose classified information to unauthorized persons.
“Of great importance, the provision in our bill would reverse the existing presumption in the Military Commissions Act of 2006 that rules and procedures applicable to trials by courts martial would not apply,” Levin said.
“Our new language says, by contrast, that ‘Except as otherwise provided ... the procedures and rules of evidence applicable in trials by general courts-martial of the United States shall apply in trials by military commission under this chapter.’ The exceptions to this rule are, as suggested by the Supreme Court, carefully tailored to the unique circumstances of the conduct of military and intelligence operations during hostilities.”
Despite the ongoing debate, on June 25 the committee voted unanimously to send the bill to the full Senate for consideration. Staff at the Armed Services Committee press office could not say when the Senate will take up the bill.
(CNSNews.com) – At a Senate hearing Tuesday on the use of military commissions to prosecute terrorists being held at Guantanamo Bay, some members of the Armed Services Committee took offense at the Obama administration’s view that the detainees should have the same legal protections under the Constitution as U.S. citizensRanking member Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) questioned Assistant Attorney General David Kris about his remarks on the appropriateness of administering the Miranda warning to terrorist suspects captured abroad. "It is the administration's view that there is a serious risk that courts would hold that admission of involuntary statements of the accused in military commission proceedings is unconstitutional," Kris said in his opening statement.
“Does that infer that these individuals have constitutional rights?” McCain asked Kris.
“Ah, yes,” Kris answered.
“What are those constitutional rights of people who are not citizens of the United States of America, who were captured on a battlefield committing acts of war against the United States?” McCain asked.
“Our analysis, Senator, is that the due process clause applies to military commissions and imposes a constitutional floor on the procedures that the government sets on such commissions …” Kris said.
“So you are saying that these people who are at Guantanamo, who were part of 9/11, who committed acts of war against the United States, have constitutional rights under the Constitution of the United States of America?” McCain asked.
“Within the framework I just described, the answer is yes, the due process clause guarantees and imposes some requirements on the conduct of (military) commissions,” Kris said.
“The fact is they are entitled to protections under the Geneva Convention, which apply to the rules of war,” McCain said. “I do not know of a time in American history where enemy combatants were given rights under the United States Constitution.”
Jeh C. Johnson, general counsel, Department of Defense (CNSNews.com/Penny Starr)
Kris and Jeh C. Johnson, general counsel for the Department of Defense, said that military commissions were a viable “alternative” but that prosecuting terror suspects as criminals in U.S. federal courts was preferable – a position Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) took issue with at the hearing.
“Why would anyone prefer to try people apprehended for violations of the law of war?” Lieberman asked. “The fact is that from the beginning of our country, from the Revolutionary War, we’ve used military tribunals to try war criminals, or people we have apprehended, captured for violations of the law of war.
“Again, I think the unique circumstances of this war on terrorists, against the people who attacked us on 9/11, have taken us down, including the Supreme Court, some roads that are not only to me ultimately unjust but inconsistent with the long history of military commissions,” Lieberman said.
“Why would you say the administration prefers to bring before our federal court system instead of military commissions that are really today’s version of the tribunals that we’ve used throughout our history to deal in a just way with prisoners of war?” Lieberman asked.
“I applaud this committee’s initiative to reform the military commission act. I think the military commission should be a viable ready alternative for national security reasons to deal with those who violate the laws of war, and I’m glad we’re having this discussion right now, and I thank the committee,” Johnson said.
“When you’re dealing with terrorists whose, and I’m going to say this on behalf of the administration, one of their fundamental aims is to kill innocent civilians, and so it is the administration’s view that direct violence on innocent civilians, let’s say in the continental United States, it might be appropriate that that person be brought to justice in a civilian public forum in the continental United States,” Johnson said.
“Because the act of violence that was committed here was a violation of Title 18 (federal criminal law), as well as the law of war, so we feel strongly that both alternatives should exist,” Johnson added.
Sen. Joe Lieberman (D-Conn.) (CNSNews.com/Penny Starr)
“Well, I respectfully disagree,” Lieberman said. “These are people we believe are war criminals; that’s why we captured them. The greater legal protections of the terrorists because they have chosen to do something that pretty much has not been done before in our history to attack Americans, to kill people here in America, as they did on 9/11, civilians, innocents, it doesn’t matter, and to do it outside of uniform.
“So it puts us in a very odd position, giving these terrorists greater protections in our federal courts than we’ve given war criminals in any other time throughout our history, even though, in my opinion, they are at least as brutal and inhumane, probably more brutal and inhumane than any war criminals,” Lieberman said.
“Yes, it might also be an act of murder that killed people who were in the Trade Towers on 9/11, but it was an act of war,” Lieberman said. “And the people who did that do not deserve the same constitutional protections of those accused of murder in New York City.”
The hearing focused on the military commissions portion of the National Defense Authorization Bill for Fiscal Year 2010, which includes changes to the Military Commission Act of 2006.
Committee Chairman Carl Levin (D-Mich.) summarized the changes in his opening statement.
* Relative to the admissibility of coerced testimony, the provision in our bill would eliminate the double standard in existing law, under which coerced statements are admissible if they were obtained prior to Dec. 30, 2005.
* Relative to the use of hearsay evidence, the provision in our bill would eliminate the extraordinary language in the existing law which places the burden on detainees to prove that hearsay evidence introduced against them is not reliable and probative.
* Relative to the issue of access to classified evidence and exculpatory evidence, the provision in our bill would eliminate the unique procedures and requirements which have hampered the ability of defense teams to obtain information and led to so much litigation.
We would substitute more established procedures based on the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), with modest changes to ensure that the government cannot be required to disclose classified information to unauthorized persons.
“Of great importance, the provision in our bill would reverse the existing presumption in the Military Commissions Act of 2006 that rules and procedures applicable to trials by courts martial would not apply,” Levin said.
“Our new language says, by contrast, that ‘Except as otherwise provided ... the procedures and rules of evidence applicable in trials by general courts-martial of the United States shall apply in trials by military commission under this chapter.’ The exceptions to this rule are, as suggested by the Supreme Court, carefully tailored to the unique circumstances of the conduct of military and intelligence operations during hostilities.”
Despite the ongoing debate, on June 25 the committee voted unanimously to send the bill to the full Senate for consideration. Staff at the Armed Services Committee press office could not say when the Senate will take up the bill.
PM Netanyahu’s Conference Call with the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations
Prime Minister’s Opening Statement
Strengthening the connection of the Jewish communities around the world, especially in the United States, to Israel is something that is important both to my government and to me personally. It’s also important for the people of Israel. I look forward to working with all of you and also with Natan Sharansky. Natan is on the line, and will join us after I make a few remarks. I want to work with him and with the Conference of Presidents, with all of you, to advance our common goals. And these are broad, they encompass a lot. They encompass Aliyah and Jewish education and the strengthening of Jewish identity – to the broader and pressing questions of peace and security. And I hope that this will be the first of many conversations that we’ll have in the months and years ahead. So, view this as a pioneering effort. Let’s do it often.
Now, before I take your questions today, I wanted to focus on two pivotal issues: the situation with Iran and the question of peace with the Palestinians. First on Iran – very simply put, if the Iranian regime acquires nuclear weapons, I think this would be a hinge of history. It would present a grave threat to Israel, to the Middle East and to the world at large. The reason I say that is because the recent elections have unmasked the true character of this regime. This is a regime that brutally represses its own people; it sponsors terrorism – not only sponsors it, it supplies the terrorists, it directs them, it finances them, it gives them missiles, it gives them everything – and it’s also determined to acquire nuclear weapons. Understand that a nuclear-armed Iran could provide a nuclear umbrella to terrorists, and it could possibly provide nuclear weapons to terrorists. I think for the sake of the peace of the world and the security of my own country and that of the United States, this must not be allowed to happen. It’s important for me to stress to you that the Iranian people are not our enemies. We remember a time when Israel and Iran had an excellent relationship, better than good, and we know that the Iranian people would like nothing better than to rid themselves of this horrible regime.
When I was in Washington a few months ago, President Obama and I had extensive discussions about this threat. The President has repeatedly stated that Iran must not be allowed to acquire nuclear weapons, and that all options must remain on the table in dealing with this threat. And of course this is a position that we support. I also think there’s an increasing international understanding about the true nature of this regime and I think there is a growing resolve to thwart the regime’s effort to attain a military nuclear capability. I think this is not merely an Israeli interest; I think it is now the stated interest not merely of our two countries, but I think this is ought to be the interest and is the interest of anyone interested in preserving the peace of the world. Because a nuclear armed Iran threatens the peace of us all.
The second point I wanted to raise is the quest for achieving peace with the Palestinians, a genuine peace. The simplest thing is to begin peace talks, unconditionally. I have offered that, I offer that again. In fact I say that to you tonight. We seek unconditional peace talks with the Palestinians. We’re prepared to begin those talks immediately, and I’m prepared to work with the Palestinians, and of course with President Obama, towards advancing peace with the Palestinians, and towards advancing the President’s idea of a broader peace in the region.
I think that we have to work on five principles that are not preconditions for beginning peace talks, but I think they are clear foundations for a successful completion of peace talks. The first principle is recognition. We are asked to recognize a nation-state for the Palestinian people. I think that it’s necessary and elementary that the Palestinians be asked to recognize the nation-state of the Jewish people. I think that the absence of the recognition of Israel’s right or of the Jewish people’s right to a state of their own was and remains the source, the root of this conflict. I don’t think we should be myopic about this. I think we have to be very, very clear. The Palestinians so far do not say simply, unequivocally and clearly that they recognize Israel as the Jewish state, a Jewish state not in the religious sense, but a Jewish state as the nation-state of the Jewish people. I think this is not a semantic insistence; it’s a substantive insistence of which there is an immediate derivative, which is the second principle – and that is that the problem of Palestinian refugees will be resolved outside the State of Israel.
You cannot say that you are prepared to make peace with Israel when you don’t recognize Israel as the state of the Jews, and when you insist that this state will be flooded by Palestinian refugees. It just doesn’t make sense. So the first principle is recognition. The second principle is that the problem of the refugees will be resolved outside the State of Israel.
The third point ought to be obvious too, but I make it here too – it all relates to the question of ending the conflict. And that is that a peace treaty actually ends the conflict. It’s not an interim peace treaty from which the conflict is pursued from the Palestinian state that will be established. It’s the end of the conflict. That is, the Palestinians upon the signing of a peace treaty have to say unequivocally that they have no more claims – no more claims either on the question of refugees or on the question of borders or on the question of irredentist claims.
So the first three points that I raised relate to legitimacy, to Israel’s permanent legitimacy: recognition of a Jewish state, the resolution of the refugee problem outside the borders of the Jewish state and the end of claims, the finality of conflict.
The other two points that I wanted to make relate to security. It’s clear that the Palestinian state established should be one that doesn’t threaten the State of Israel. The only way that that will be achieved is by effective demilitarization – this is the fourth point. We need effective measures of demilitarization. I’ll tell you what ineffective measures of demilitarization are: Gaza is an example; Lebanon is an example. There is no effective demilitarization in either place, and in fact, the arrangements that have been put in place, either in the Philadelphi Corridor or in South Lebanon have produced a highly ineffective arrangement where these two places are used as a launching ground for thousands of missiles that have been hurled against us – now in South Lebanon, tens of thousands of missiles are in place, and in Gaza many, many missiles that are being piled up and smuggled inside that area to be launched again. We want effective means of demilitarization. I think this is the fourth point – absolutely essential.
And the fifth point is that whatever arrangements are undertaken in a peace arrangement, in a peace treaty, have to be guaranteed by the international community, led by the United States. That is, we want to have clear demilitarization means and a clear commitment by the international community about the validity and the robustness of these security arrangements. And I don’t seek the international community to actually provide the means of demilitarization. I do seek the international community’s support for those arrangements that will be put on the ground, political support that is.
So these are the five points: recognition, the question of refugees, the end of claims, effective demilitarization means and international political guarantees for those arrangements. These are the five points that have a vast consensus in Israel, not broad consensus, not the majority – vast consensus. And the reason they enjoy vast consensus, and I found this out after I spoke in Bar-Ilan – I knew they enjoyed support, but I didn’t understand they enjoyed such broad support – is because they’re fair and because they’re necessary. And because anybody who has a commonsense and decent approach to the question of peace understands that these are the five foundations, the five prerequisite foundations for completing a genuine peace treaty.
I would add one other which is not in the form of a condition that we put for the end of the conflict, for ending the conflict, but one that I think, at least from experience, could help push along a solution and stabilize it – and that is prosperity. Up to now, I spoke about three conditions that relate to legitimacy: recognition, refugees and the end of claims; and two points that relate to security: demilitarization and international guarantees for demilitarization. But there is a third element, and that is what we can do to push forward the spread of prosperity. I’m not merely talking about us. We can do that, and we are doing that in our own economy, but advancing prosperity in the Palestinian economy. We’ve been doing that. We’ve taken steps that have begun to be recognized a bit in the international community, actually far-reaching steps of liberalizing movement and enabling movement in the West Bank; removing barriers and checkpoints. I’ve recently asked our security establishment to open up the Allenby Bridge so that it is opened for additional hours for movement. I personally head a ministerial committee to unblock several economic projects that have been held up that I think could advance the Palestinian economy. I think we can do an enormous amount to advance tourism and investments, and we’re prepared to do that. This idea of advancing the economic peace is not a substitute for achieving the political peace that I discussed. It’s a way to facilitate it. It helps achieving the peace, and it’s something that we are moving along independently, whether or not the Palestinians collaborate on it is, of course, up to them. But if they do join with us and participate with us, we could move the West Bank economy way up very rapidly, and what this does is help peace. Because obviously if young Palestinians have a job, if investments are made in Ramallah, if restaurants open in Jenin, if businesses flourish in Hebron, this makes peace more possible and more worthwhile for the Palestinians, as opposed to the radical Islamist projection of misery and conflict. And so I think that prosperity is the other element.
So I advocate legitimacy, security and prosperity by advancing recognition of the Jewish state, the settlement of the refugees outside Israel, the end of claims and the end of conflict, effective demilitarization measures and political international guarantees for these matters; but in addition to that, also the advancement of prosperity and economic cooperation between Israel and the Palestinians with the support of the United States and others in the international community. I think there is overwhelming consensus in Israel for this, and I am sure that this is something that could be helped by you, all of you, and everyone else interested in achieving peace.
http://www.pmo.gov.il/PMOEng/Communication/PMSpeaks/speechjeworga210709.htm
Strengthening the connection of the Jewish communities around the world, especially in the United States, to Israel is something that is important both to my government and to me personally. It’s also important for the people of Israel. I look forward to working with all of you and also with Natan Sharansky. Natan is on the line, and will join us after I make a few remarks. I want to work with him and with the Conference of Presidents, with all of you, to advance our common goals. And these are broad, they encompass a lot. They encompass Aliyah and Jewish education and the strengthening of Jewish identity – to the broader and pressing questions of peace and security. And I hope that this will be the first of many conversations that we’ll have in the months and years ahead. So, view this as a pioneering effort. Let’s do it often.
Now, before I take your questions today, I wanted to focus on two pivotal issues: the situation with Iran and the question of peace with the Palestinians. First on Iran – very simply put, if the Iranian regime acquires nuclear weapons, I think this would be a hinge of history. It would present a grave threat to Israel, to the Middle East and to the world at large. The reason I say that is because the recent elections have unmasked the true character of this regime. This is a regime that brutally represses its own people; it sponsors terrorism – not only sponsors it, it supplies the terrorists, it directs them, it finances them, it gives them missiles, it gives them everything – and it’s also determined to acquire nuclear weapons. Understand that a nuclear-armed Iran could provide a nuclear umbrella to terrorists, and it could possibly provide nuclear weapons to terrorists. I think for the sake of the peace of the world and the security of my own country and that of the United States, this must not be allowed to happen. It’s important for me to stress to you that the Iranian people are not our enemies. We remember a time when Israel and Iran had an excellent relationship, better than good, and we know that the Iranian people would like nothing better than to rid themselves of this horrible regime.
When I was in Washington a few months ago, President Obama and I had extensive discussions about this threat. The President has repeatedly stated that Iran must not be allowed to acquire nuclear weapons, and that all options must remain on the table in dealing with this threat. And of course this is a position that we support. I also think there’s an increasing international understanding about the true nature of this regime and I think there is a growing resolve to thwart the regime’s effort to attain a military nuclear capability. I think this is not merely an Israeli interest; I think it is now the stated interest not merely of our two countries, but I think this is ought to be the interest and is the interest of anyone interested in preserving the peace of the world. Because a nuclear armed Iran threatens the peace of us all.
The second point I wanted to raise is the quest for achieving peace with the Palestinians, a genuine peace. The simplest thing is to begin peace talks, unconditionally. I have offered that, I offer that again. In fact I say that to you tonight. We seek unconditional peace talks with the Palestinians. We’re prepared to begin those talks immediately, and I’m prepared to work with the Palestinians, and of course with President Obama, towards advancing peace with the Palestinians, and towards advancing the President’s idea of a broader peace in the region.
I think that we have to work on five principles that are not preconditions for beginning peace talks, but I think they are clear foundations for a successful completion of peace talks. The first principle is recognition. We are asked to recognize a nation-state for the Palestinian people. I think that it’s necessary and elementary that the Palestinians be asked to recognize the nation-state of the Jewish people. I think that the absence of the recognition of Israel’s right or of the Jewish people’s right to a state of their own was and remains the source, the root of this conflict. I don’t think we should be myopic about this. I think we have to be very, very clear. The Palestinians so far do not say simply, unequivocally and clearly that they recognize Israel as the Jewish state, a Jewish state not in the religious sense, but a Jewish state as the nation-state of the Jewish people. I think this is not a semantic insistence; it’s a substantive insistence of which there is an immediate derivative, which is the second principle – and that is that the problem of Palestinian refugees will be resolved outside the State of Israel.
You cannot say that you are prepared to make peace with Israel when you don’t recognize Israel as the state of the Jews, and when you insist that this state will be flooded by Palestinian refugees. It just doesn’t make sense. So the first principle is recognition. The second principle is that the problem of the refugees will be resolved outside the State of Israel.
The third point ought to be obvious too, but I make it here too – it all relates to the question of ending the conflict. And that is that a peace treaty actually ends the conflict. It’s not an interim peace treaty from which the conflict is pursued from the Palestinian state that will be established. It’s the end of the conflict. That is, the Palestinians upon the signing of a peace treaty have to say unequivocally that they have no more claims – no more claims either on the question of refugees or on the question of borders or on the question of irredentist claims.
So the first three points that I raised relate to legitimacy, to Israel’s permanent legitimacy: recognition of a Jewish state, the resolution of the refugee problem outside the borders of the Jewish state and the end of claims, the finality of conflict.
The other two points that I wanted to make relate to security. It’s clear that the Palestinian state established should be one that doesn’t threaten the State of Israel. The only way that that will be achieved is by effective demilitarization – this is the fourth point. We need effective measures of demilitarization. I’ll tell you what ineffective measures of demilitarization are: Gaza is an example; Lebanon is an example. There is no effective demilitarization in either place, and in fact, the arrangements that have been put in place, either in the Philadelphi Corridor or in South Lebanon have produced a highly ineffective arrangement where these two places are used as a launching ground for thousands of missiles that have been hurled against us – now in South Lebanon, tens of thousands of missiles are in place, and in Gaza many, many missiles that are being piled up and smuggled inside that area to be launched again. We want effective means of demilitarization. I think this is the fourth point – absolutely essential.
And the fifth point is that whatever arrangements are undertaken in a peace arrangement, in a peace treaty, have to be guaranteed by the international community, led by the United States. That is, we want to have clear demilitarization means and a clear commitment by the international community about the validity and the robustness of these security arrangements. And I don’t seek the international community to actually provide the means of demilitarization. I do seek the international community’s support for those arrangements that will be put on the ground, political support that is.
So these are the five points: recognition, the question of refugees, the end of claims, effective demilitarization means and international political guarantees for those arrangements. These are the five points that have a vast consensus in Israel, not broad consensus, not the majority – vast consensus. And the reason they enjoy vast consensus, and I found this out after I spoke in Bar-Ilan – I knew they enjoyed support, but I didn’t understand they enjoyed such broad support – is because they’re fair and because they’re necessary. And because anybody who has a commonsense and decent approach to the question of peace understands that these are the five foundations, the five prerequisite foundations for completing a genuine peace treaty.
I would add one other which is not in the form of a condition that we put for the end of the conflict, for ending the conflict, but one that I think, at least from experience, could help push along a solution and stabilize it – and that is prosperity. Up to now, I spoke about three conditions that relate to legitimacy: recognition, refugees and the end of claims; and two points that relate to security: demilitarization and international guarantees for demilitarization. But there is a third element, and that is what we can do to push forward the spread of prosperity. I’m not merely talking about us. We can do that, and we are doing that in our own economy, but advancing prosperity in the Palestinian economy. We’ve been doing that. We’ve taken steps that have begun to be recognized a bit in the international community, actually far-reaching steps of liberalizing movement and enabling movement in the West Bank; removing barriers and checkpoints. I’ve recently asked our security establishment to open up the Allenby Bridge so that it is opened for additional hours for movement. I personally head a ministerial committee to unblock several economic projects that have been held up that I think could advance the Palestinian economy. I think we can do an enormous amount to advance tourism and investments, and we’re prepared to do that. This idea of advancing the economic peace is not a substitute for achieving the political peace that I discussed. It’s a way to facilitate it. It helps achieving the peace, and it’s something that we are moving along independently, whether or not the Palestinians collaborate on it is, of course, up to them. But if they do join with us and participate with us, we could move the West Bank economy way up very rapidly, and what this does is help peace. Because obviously if young Palestinians have a job, if investments are made in Ramallah, if restaurants open in Jenin, if businesses flourish in Hebron, this makes peace more possible and more worthwhile for the Palestinians, as opposed to the radical Islamist projection of misery and conflict. And so I think that prosperity is the other element.
So I advocate legitimacy, security and prosperity by advancing recognition of the Jewish state, the settlement of the refugees outside Israel, the end of claims and the end of conflict, effective demilitarization measures and political international guarantees for these matters; but in addition to that, also the advancement of prosperity and economic cooperation between Israel and the Palestinians with the support of the United States and others in the international community. I think there is overwhelming consensus in Israel for this, and I am sure that this is something that could be helped by you, all of you, and everyone else interested in achieving peace.
http://www.pmo.gov.il/PMOEng/Communication/PMSpeaks/speechjeworga210709.htm
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)