Ted Belman
Laura: Leftist “peace” and “human rights” NGO’s receive foreign funding, lie, invent statistics to falsely accuse the IDF of deliberately targeting Arab civilians and collaborate with “palestinians” to stage incidents framing “settlers” for violent attacks against Arabs and their property. All of this is done in order to damage Israel’s image and undermine her cause on the world stage. Why aren’t these groups considered enemies of the state?
When Israeli leftists turn against their country with horrendous lies, the world media is only happy to disseminate them
By Caroline B. Glick, Jewish World Review
A recap of recent claims by “human rights” groups and exposing of their proven lies
http://www.JewishWorldReview.com | On Sunday December 19, the self-proclaimed “Israeli human rights” group B’tselem disseminated a shocking story to the local and international media. B’tselem claimed that the previous day Palestinian shepherd Samir Bani Fadel was peacefully herding his sheep when he was set upon by a mob of Israeli settlers. He alleged that these kippah-clad Israelis drove up in a car and chased him away. Then they torched the pasture and burned 12 pregnant ewes alive and badly burned five others. B’tselem furnished reporters with graphic photos of the dead sheep. While the media published the account without a shred of suspicion, the police found Fadel’s account hard to believe. Observant Jews neither drive nor light fires on Saturdays.
And indeed, when questioned by police investigators, Fadel admitted he made the whole attack up. He accidentally killed his herd himself when he set fire to a pile of bramble. Too embarrassed to admit his mistake, he decided to blame the Jews and become a local hero. B’tselem was only too happy to spread his lies.
On January 3, Channel 2 aired a video produced by B’tselem. The video purported to show residents of Yitzhar — a community in Samaria — throwing rocks at Palestinians from the neighboring village Bureen for no reason whatsoever. Channel 2 presented the footage as further proof — if anyone needed it — that the Israelis who live in Judea, Samaria and eastern Jerusalem are a bunch of lawless, hate-filled, violent fanatics.
Unfortunately for B’tselem and Channel 2, Yitzhar residents also own a video camera. And they also filmed the event. The Samaria Regional Council released the video to the media on Tuesday.
The Yitzhar video exposes the B’tselem video as a complete fraud. As it happened, on Monday afternoon a group of Palestinians joined by Israelis and/or foreigners descended on Yitzhar and attacked its residents with bricks and rocks of all sizes. Among the assailants was the cameraman who shot the footage presented on Channel 2. Not only did the videographer — who has blond hair — participate in the violent assault on Yitzhar. He staged the incident by alternately throwing rocks, filming, and directing his fellow attackers where to throw their rocks.
The Jews of Yitzhar only began throwing rocks to fend off their attackers.
This past Saturday the Palestinians’ invented what has all the trappings of a new blood libel against Israel
To read more click here
Saturday, January 08, 2011
Friday, January 07, 2011
Mubarak Warns Netanyahu: No New Gaza Incursion
Gil Ronen
A7 News
Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak warned Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu on Thursday against "any new assault" on Gaza, CNN quoted state-run Nile TV as reporting. Mubarak and Netanyahu met in Sharm el-Sheikh to discuss the negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian Authority. Egypt's state press said that Mubarak emphasized to Netanyahu "the necessity for Israel to reconsider its position and policies, and to take the initiative and conduct procedures that will build trust with the national Palestinian authorities."
A statement on the Prime Minister's website said that "Netanyahu reiterated that he believes that a peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinians is possible provided that the latter are willing to end the conflict." Netanyahu "asked President Mubarak to act to persuade the Palestinians to move to direct, intensive and serious negotiations -- in which all core issues will be raised -- forthwith."
The PM's Office added that "Netanyahu said that Israel is committed to aggressively fighting terrorist elements in Gaza that endanger its security and peace."
A7 News
Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak warned Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu on Thursday against "any new assault" on Gaza, CNN quoted state-run Nile TV as reporting. Mubarak and Netanyahu met in Sharm el-Sheikh to discuss the negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian Authority. Egypt's state press said that Mubarak emphasized to Netanyahu "the necessity for Israel to reconsider its position and policies, and to take the initiative and conduct procedures that will build trust with the national Palestinian authorities."
A statement on the Prime Minister's website said that "Netanyahu reiterated that he believes that a peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinians is possible provided that the latter are willing to end the conflict." Netanyahu "asked President Mubarak to act to persuade the Palestinians to move to direct, intensive and serious negotiations -- in which all core issues will be raised -- forthwith."
The PM's Office added that "Netanyahu said that Israel is committed to aggressively fighting terrorist elements in Gaza that endanger its security and peace."
Congressman Allen West Joins Armed Services Committee; Understands Sharia Threat
Andrew G. Bostom
A previous blog of mine featured Allen West’s candid remarks about the living legacy of jihad during a forum in early 2010. Below are extracts from an interview West gave with Frank Gaffney, subsequently, after his election to Congress, this past November 2, 2010. These statements demonstrate that the Congressman-elect clearly understands the full ideological spectrum of the jihadist threat we face—non-violent as well as violent—rooted in the Sharia. West’s reality-based understanding far transcends that of many conservative see-no-Sharia voices. Allen West’s appointment to the Armed Services Committee bodes well for an honest re-evaluation of our current delusional policies. West has indicated his desire, specifically, to review our self-destructive COIN-based rules of engagement—which ignore the jihadist enemy’s Sharia-based threat doctrine. Perhaps that conversation will now extend to the domestic threat as well, under the aegis of Congressman Peter King, who claims to want to examine the sources of “Muslim radicalization” in America. Hope springs eternal!
ALLEN WEST: So there are many different ways we need to understand this 21st century battlefield, how we can leverage all elements of our nation’s power against — and like I said we need to get away from this nation building focus. I think that is economically hurting us.
GAFFNEY: In terms of understanding our enemy, and I think you’ve done as much as any congressional candidate to help expand the awareness for not only your constituents but others. I count on you to be carrying that on in your new capacity. What is your sense of the willingness of this new Congress to take on Sharia as the enemy threat doctrine?
WEST: Well, I haven’t had the opportunity to sit down with all of the new members, giving all the new members of the freshmen class a phone call to talk to them. I think one of the critical things that we must come together is that there is an infiltration of the Sharia practice into all of our operating systems in our country as well as across Western civilization. So we must be willing to recognize that enemy. We cannot have a national security strategy that does not recognize it in specific and understand its goals and objectives. So once again, we can tailor you know our internal goals and objectives as far as our security systems, our political systems, economic systems, our cultural and educational systems, so that we can thwart this. And it comes back to one of those strategic goals that you mentioned, reducing the sphere of influence of this Sharia you know ideology that is tied into Islam. But I think that is our most threatening part, is the Sharia philosophy.
A previous blog of mine featured Allen West’s candid remarks about the living legacy of jihad during a forum in early 2010. Below are extracts from an interview West gave with Frank Gaffney, subsequently, after his election to Congress, this past November 2, 2010. These statements demonstrate that the Congressman-elect clearly understands the full ideological spectrum of the jihadist threat we face—non-violent as well as violent—rooted in the Sharia. West’s reality-based understanding far transcends that of many conservative see-no-Sharia voices. Allen West’s appointment to the Armed Services Committee bodes well for an honest re-evaluation of our current delusional policies. West has indicated his desire, specifically, to review our self-destructive COIN-based rules of engagement—which ignore the jihadist enemy’s Sharia-based threat doctrine. Perhaps that conversation will now extend to the domestic threat as well, under the aegis of Congressman Peter King, who claims to want to examine the sources of “Muslim radicalization” in America. Hope springs eternal!
ALLEN WEST: So there are many different ways we need to understand this 21st century battlefield, how we can leverage all elements of our nation’s power against — and like I said we need to get away from this nation building focus. I think that is economically hurting us.
GAFFNEY: In terms of understanding our enemy, and I think you’ve done as much as any congressional candidate to help expand the awareness for not only your constituents but others. I count on you to be carrying that on in your new capacity. What is your sense of the willingness of this new Congress to take on Sharia as the enemy threat doctrine?
WEST: Well, I haven’t had the opportunity to sit down with all of the new members, giving all the new members of the freshmen class a phone call to talk to them. I think one of the critical things that we must come together is that there is an infiltration of the Sharia practice into all of our operating systems in our country as well as across Western civilization. So we must be willing to recognize that enemy. We cannot have a national security strategy that does not recognize it in specific and understand its goals and objectives. So once again, we can tailor you know our internal goals and objectives as far as our security systems, our political systems, economic systems, our cultural and educational systems, so that we can thwart this. And it comes back to one of those strategic goals that you mentioned, reducing the sphere of influence of this Sharia you know ideology that is tied into Islam. But I think that is our most threatening part, is the Sharia philosophy.
Thursday, January 06, 2011
Jonathan Spyer's The Transforming Fire: The Best Book on Israel in Thirty Years
Barry Rubin
In my opinion, this is probably the best book on Israel to be published in 30 years. But it is even more than that, since it is also the story of the rise of revolutionary Islamism--and the struggle against it--as the most important issue in the Middle East and very possibly the world.
Dr. Spyer's participation in the 2006 war with Hizballah as a tank driver, intimate experience with Israeli society, role as a researcher, and participation in international diplomacy has given him a viewpoint unmatched by any other analyst.
Trust me on this one--as several friends already have and agreed with my assessment--this is a book you will want to read and be better for having read.
Published by Continuum (ISBN: 9781441166630), 240 Pages, hardcover $29.95
For a time, the Arab-Israeli conflict seemed a fight over real-estate and recognition, but in recent years it has transformed into an existential battle between Israel and radical Islamism. Today, Israel faces a rising force that is committed to its demise. Spyer provides a vivid account of what can now be called the Israel-Islamist conflict, outlining the issues at stake and gauging each side’s relative strengths and weaknesses. Israel faces not one united Islamist movement, but an array of states and organizations that share a wish to destroy Jewish sovereignty. Combining narrative and argument, Spyer uses first-person accounts of key moments in the conflict to highlight the human impact of this battle of wills. A thought-provoking, balanced work, The Transforming
Fire provides a new understanding of a particular aspect of the larger conflict between radical Islam and the West, which may well become the key foreign policy challenge of the 21st century.
Table of Contents
Prologue. "Not all of us will be coming back"
1. History's Resurrection
2. Muqawama: Islamism's rise
3. A New Jerusalem
4. The Middle East Cold War
5. Conversations in the Season of Remembrance
6. Broken Borders
7. A Grave Missed Opportunity
8. The Verdict of Deir Mimas
9. The Transforming Fire
Jonathan Spyer immigrated to Israel from Britain in 1991. He is a senior research fellow at the Global Research in International Affairs Center in Herzliya, Israel, and a columnist at the Jerusalem Post newspaper. Spyer holds a PhD in International Relations from the London School of Economics and a Masters' Degree in Middle East Politics from the School of Oriental and African Studies in London. He served in a front-line unit of the Israel Defense Forces in 1992-3, and fought in the war in Lebanon in summer 2006. Between
1996 and 2000, Spyer was an employee of the Israel Prime Minister's Office. His articles have also appeared in the Guardian, Haaretz, London Times, Washington Times,Toronto Globe and Mail, the Australian, British Journal of Middle East Studies, Israel Affairs and Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal.
In my opinion, this is probably the best book on Israel to be published in 30 years. But it is even more than that, since it is also the story of the rise of revolutionary Islamism--and the struggle against it--as the most important issue in the Middle East and very possibly the world.
Dr. Spyer's participation in the 2006 war with Hizballah as a tank driver, intimate experience with Israeli society, role as a researcher, and participation in international diplomacy has given him a viewpoint unmatched by any other analyst.
Trust me on this one--as several friends already have and agreed with my assessment--this is a book you will want to read and be better for having read.
Published by Continuum (ISBN: 9781441166630), 240 Pages, hardcover $29.95
For a time, the Arab-Israeli conflict seemed a fight over real-estate and recognition, but in recent years it has transformed into an existential battle between Israel and radical Islamism. Today, Israel faces a rising force that is committed to its demise. Spyer provides a vivid account of what can now be called the Israel-Islamist conflict, outlining the issues at stake and gauging each side’s relative strengths and weaknesses. Israel faces not one united Islamist movement, but an array of states and organizations that share a wish to destroy Jewish sovereignty. Combining narrative and argument, Spyer uses first-person accounts of key moments in the conflict to highlight the human impact of this battle of wills. A thought-provoking, balanced work, The Transforming
Fire provides a new understanding of a particular aspect of the larger conflict between radical Islam and the West, which may well become the key foreign policy challenge of the 21st century.
Table of Contents
Prologue. "Not all of us will be coming back"
1. History's Resurrection
2. Muqawama: Islamism's rise
3. A New Jerusalem
4. The Middle East Cold War
5. Conversations in the Season of Remembrance
6. Broken Borders
7. A Grave Missed Opportunity
8. The Verdict of Deir Mimas
9. The Transforming Fire
Jonathan Spyer immigrated to Israel from Britain in 1991. He is a senior research fellow at the Global Research in International Affairs Center in Herzliya, Israel, and a columnist at the Jerusalem Post newspaper. Spyer holds a PhD in International Relations from the London School of Economics and a Masters' Degree in Middle East Politics from the School of Oriental and African Studies in London. He served in a front-line unit of the Israel Defense Forces in 1992-3, and fought in the war in Lebanon in summer 2006. Between
1996 and 2000, Spyer was an employee of the Israel Prime Minister's Office. His articles have also appeared in the Guardian, Haaretz, London Times, Washington Times,Toronto Globe and Mail, the Australian, British Journal of Middle East Studies, Israel Affairs and Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal.
"West Bank, "Settlers", "Territorial Dispute" - Sound Familiar?
My Right Word
This story has it all: "settlers", "west bank", "land", "militia", "dispute", "colony", "pioneers", "territory", "hostilities", "territorial dispute" but it's not about Zionism.
When Gov. Benning Wentworth of New Hampshire chartered the nine Bennington County towns that will mark their 250th anniversaries in 2011, he was busily creating a dispute that could only be resolved by the king of England.
The nine towns he chartered in 1761 are Arlington, Sunderland, Manchester, Sandgate, Dorset, Glastenbury, Shaftsbury, Rupert, and Peru.
Wentworth had been appointed governor of the colony of New Hampshire by the king, but so had Gov. George Clinton of the royal colony of New York, whose eastern boundary was set at the west bank of the Connecticut River. So when pioneers began to arrive on land they had purchased in good faith from the governor of New Hampshire, they were treading on the same territory that was claimed by New York.
Ultimately, this was the reason the Green Mountain Boys formed as an informal militia unit, led by Ethan Allen, to protect the farms they had purchased. A different economic philosophy was at stake as well. Settlers on the New Hampshire Grants farmed their own plots of land, whereas farmers in New York generally rented from large baronial land owners.
After chartering Bennington in 1749 as the first town in "the Grants," Wentworth went on to charter Halifax in 1750; Wilmington and Marlborough in 1751; Westminster and Rockingham in 1752; Stamford, Woodford, Townshend, Newfane, Brattleboro, Fulham (later Dummerston), and Putney in 1753; and Chester, Guilford, and Tomlinson (Grafton) in 1754. Then he waited a few years until the end of hostilities that had resumed between England and France, and then the fall of Montreal, to return to his profitable project. He chartered Pownal in 1760 and soon discovered the benefits of mass production during 1761, the year of interest here.
Because Wentworth realized that only the king of England could resolve the territorial dispute he had created, he took actions which, if adjudicated, would be likely to tip the balance in his favor. Known for enjoying schemes that combined patriotism, religion, expanded jurisdiction, and monetary gain, Wentworth made sure each town he chartered in the Grants had acreage set aside for the so-called Society for the Propagation of the Gospel, for the first settled minister, plus plenty of land for himself.
To give proper attention to politics, he carefully named each town for a prominent political figure who was favored by the king...
It's about America.
This story has it all: "settlers", "west bank", "land", "militia", "dispute", "colony", "pioneers", "territory", "hostilities", "territorial dispute" but it's not about Zionism.
When Gov. Benning Wentworth of New Hampshire chartered the nine Bennington County towns that will mark their 250th anniversaries in 2011, he was busily creating a dispute that could only be resolved by the king of England.
The nine towns he chartered in 1761 are Arlington, Sunderland, Manchester, Sandgate, Dorset, Glastenbury, Shaftsbury, Rupert, and Peru.
Wentworth had been appointed governor of the colony of New Hampshire by the king, but so had Gov. George Clinton of the royal colony of New York, whose eastern boundary was set at the west bank of the Connecticut River. So when pioneers began to arrive on land they had purchased in good faith from the governor of New Hampshire, they were treading on the same territory that was claimed by New York.
Ultimately, this was the reason the Green Mountain Boys formed as an informal militia unit, led by Ethan Allen, to protect the farms they had purchased. A different economic philosophy was at stake as well. Settlers on the New Hampshire Grants farmed their own plots of land, whereas farmers in New York generally rented from large baronial land owners.
After chartering Bennington in 1749 as the first town in "the Grants," Wentworth went on to charter Halifax in 1750; Wilmington and Marlborough in 1751; Westminster and Rockingham in 1752; Stamford, Woodford, Townshend, Newfane, Brattleboro, Fulham (later Dummerston), and Putney in 1753; and Chester, Guilford, and Tomlinson (Grafton) in 1754. Then he waited a few years until the end of hostilities that had resumed between England and France, and then the fall of Montreal, to return to his profitable project. He chartered Pownal in 1760 and soon discovered the benefits of mass production during 1761, the year of interest here.
Because Wentworth realized that only the king of England could resolve the territorial dispute he had created, he took actions which, if adjudicated, would be likely to tip the balance in his favor. Known for enjoying schemes that combined patriotism, religion, expanded jurisdiction, and monetary gain, Wentworth made sure each town he chartered in the Grants had acreage set aside for the so-called Society for the Propagation of the Gospel, for the first settled minister, plus plenty of land for himself.
To give proper attention to politics, he carefully named each town for a prominent political figure who was favored by the king...
It's about America.
UN Nixes Lebanese Attempt to Stop Israeli Offshore Drilling
Chana Ya'ar
A7 News
The United Nations has rejected an attempt by Lebanon to stop Israel from drilling for oil and natural gas in the Mediterranean.
U.N. Spokesman Martin Nesirky said Wednesday that the mandate of the U.N. Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) “does not include delineating maritime lines. We are talking about two different things: coastal waters and a disputed boundary.” Nesirky added that the U.N. position was “what UNIFIL said.” Lebanon submitted its request to U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon in the wake of last week's news that confirmed preliminary estimates of gas reserves in the massive energy field discovered beneath the Jewish State's northern coastal waters.
Lebanese Foreign Minister Ali Shami sent a letter Tuesday, asking Ban to “do everything possible to ensure Israel does not exploit Lebanon's hydrocarbon resources, which fall within Lebanon's economic zone and delineated in the maps the foreign ministry submitted to the United Nations in 2010,” Shami wrote.
Shami added that Israel's exploration for energy in the Mediterranean “is a flagrant violation of international law and an attack on Lebanese sovereignty.” Lebanon and Hizbullah claim that the fields extend into waters off the Lebanese coast.
Last week, the U.S.-based Noble Energy firm announced the Leviathan gas field, located northwest off the Haifa shoreline, holds some 16 trillion cubic feet (450 billion cubic meters) of natural gas.
The discovery far surpasses an earlier find, the Tamar gas field, also located off Haifa's northern port, and positions the Jewish State to become an exporter of the natural resource.
Confirmation of the estimated reserves in the Leviathan gas field and several other newly-discovered gas and oil fields in the Mediterranean in recent years has raised new tensions between the two nations as Lebanon accuses Israel of encroaching upon its territory.
Israel for its part has asserted that the discoveries of this and several previous gas fields were made well within its borders and has warned it will do what it must to protect its natural resources.
Since no formally-marked maritime borders exist between the two nations, Lebanese Energy Minister Gebran Bassil told the AFP news agency Tuesday that Beirut plans to map what it considers to be its sea borders. The country will then auction off the rights to explore its potential natural gas and oil reserves sometime in 2012, he said.
There was no mention of any negotiation process with Israel over the maritime borders.
The Lebanese government plans to submit its claim under the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), according to energy expert Roudi Baroudi.
He told The Daily Star that Lebanon must turn to the U.N. to delineate any offshore exclusive economic zone, adding that Lebanon has been party to UNCLOS since 1995. Israel is not a member.
“Diplomacy offers the most logical solutions for any potential problems in this area, and we should exhaust this option before considering any other options,” he said, adding that the Leviathan field “could well straddle our maritime borders with Israel – and possibly Cyprus too.
“Disputes over oil and gas fields are not new; they exist all around the globe, and there will be more disputes to come... we should use every diplomatic tool at our disposal, assisted by our major allies in the Arab world, in Europe, and even the United States to define our maritime boundary and to force the Israelis to respect UNCLOS even if they aren't members of it.”
Wednesday, January 05, 2011
As in, "Does it ever end?"
Arlene Kushner
The Shin Bet released information on Sunday regarding plans by two Jerusalem Arabs to fire an anti-tank missile into Jerusalem's main stadium -- Teddy Stadium, which has a capacity of 21,000 -- during the course of a soccer game.
Two friends, Nusa Hamada, possessing Jerusalem residency papers and living in the Sur Baher neighborhood, and Bassem Omed, a full Israeli citizen living in Beit Safafa, had visited a number of nearby hilltops to determine the best launching site for the attack. They had bought several handguns and attempted to secure other weapons (or, according to one source, had secured them for others involved). Hamada had visited Saudi Arabia several times in recent years, where he met with representatives of the Muslim Brotherhood. He was provided with money for weapons and asked to gather intelligence on Jerusalem's strategic sites.
Ultimately, the plan to bomb the stadium was dropped because it was "too complicated."
~~~~~~~~~~
Sur Baher was in the news today for another -- not unrelated -- reason that makes it clear that Hamada's terrorist inclinations hardly arose in a vacuum.
On December 10, 2010, Palestinian Media Watch picked up a documentary broadcast on Al-Aqsa TV, run by Hamas. This documentary, entitled "The Shahid's (Martyr's) Wedding," showed how children in Sur Baher's Islamic Riyad (Gardens of) Al-Aqsa School were taught to sing:
"May the glory of our religion return, and may our blood be shed."
As well as, "How precious is the land of Al-Aqsa. I shall give up my life for its sake."
You can see it here: http://palwatch.org/main.aspx?fi=472&fld_id=473&doc_id=4090
Fine and good to say Arab schools in eastern Jerusalem can teach Arab culture. But that monitoring is so non-existent -- or indifference so great -- that this can go on inside our city? Some hard questions must be asked.
~~~~~~~~~~
At the same time that the stadium plot was revealed, the Shin Bet released information on a growing Hamas presence in Jerusalem: Hamas, which is attempting to establish a foothold on Har Habayit (the Temple Mount), is funding maintenance in the Islamic complex there and sponsoring school trips.
~~~~~~~~~~
It must be mentioned, as well, that both Jerusalem Arabs were employees at the UK consulate in eastern Jerusalem. Although as maintenance men they did not have security clearance, this does raise questions about the vetting procedure at the consulate.
~~~~~~~~~~
While visiting an army base in the south today, Defense Minister Barak said Israel has an obligation to do everything in its power to "reignite" the "peace process."
This definitely merits a "sigh" for its foolish approach. Barak puts the onus on Israel for something that is impossible.
And what does he say? "The international community tends to adopt the Palestinian point of view..."
Well, good morning!
~~~~~~~~~~
Meanwhile, Netanyahu and Abbas have been at it, in an exchange of accusations regarding who is at fault for the lack of negotiations. Another sigh.
On Saturday, Abbas gave an interview on Palestinian TV in which he said that a peace treaty could be signed in two months if Netanyahu showed "good will."
To which Netanyahu replied on Sunday that "I'm willing to immediately sit privately for direct, continuous negotiations with,,,[Abbas] until white smoke emerges." (The white smoke is an allusion to the process for selecting a new pope.) "...we will know very quickly if it is possible to reach an agreement."
Needless to say, Abbas did not take Netanyahu up on his offer. And so, by yesterday, in addressing the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee, our prime minister referred to the Palestinian Arabs' new "three nos": no to recognition of Israel as the Jewish state; no to dropping the demand for "right of return;" and no to agreed-upon security arrangements. (This is a reference to the infamous Khartoum declaration of the Arab League in 1967, regarding "no peace with Israel; no recognition of Israel; and no negotiations with Israel.")
All of which leaves us nowhere with nothing -- except for a bunch of words and some historical allusions.
~~~~~~~~~~
Bil'in is an Arab village not far from Ramallah, where PA headquarters are located; with many employed by the PA living there, it has been described as an "ideological stronghold" of Fatah. It sits adjacent to the Israeli security fence (with Modi'in Illit not far away on the other side). For five and one-half years now, the people of Bil'in -- assisted by activists from such exploitive and reprehensible groups as the International Solidarity Movement -- have held weekly anti-security fence demonstrations.
One such demonstration was held this past Friday. As was not uncommon, the demonstration was accompanied by some crowd violence at the fence, and utilization of tear gas by the IDF.
Subsequently, the PA announced that one demonstrator, Jawaher Abu Rahma, 35, had died from "respiratory failure after gas inhalation."
According to Jawaher's mother, Subhiye, she complained of chest pains and difficulty in breathing at the demonstration. She allegedly left, but collapsed on the way home and was taken by ambulance to the hospital. Yet in spite of intensive care treatment, she then died.
The PA, however, at first refused to turn the medical records over to the IDF, and declined to cooperate with the IDF on an investigation. That was the first sign that something was amiss.
Said Subhiye: "It is painful, but we are continuing on this road to have freedom for all our lands and to get rid of the wall from all our lands."
"We hope to have peace," she maintained, but admitted she didn't see how this was possible when Israel was killing Palestinians and taking their land.
~~~~~~~~~~
By yesterday, the IDF had secured Jawaher's medical records, which did not definitively state a cause of death. The closer the Israelis looked, the more they confronted inconsistencies. There had been no post mortem performed and burial was accomplished with unusual haste. Her brother Samir said that she had had dizzy spells and headaches for several weeks, and had undergone a brain scan just four days before she died. But this was not mentioned in the medical records given to the IDF.
At this point, not only is it not clear that she died of inhalation of tear gas from the demonstration, it is not even a certainty that she was actually at the demonstration. Needless to say, the statements of activists there may be lacking in necessary veracity.
This would hardly be the first instance in which the death of an Arab from causes quite separate from Israeli involvement was subsequently blamed on Israel.
~~~~~~~~~~
And here we have another sigh.
MK Ahmad Tibi (United Arab List-Ta'al) said about Jawaher Abu Rahma's death: "She was killed by the poisonous gases of the racism military.
"Resisting the occupation is not only the right of people under an occupation, but also their duty. Popular resistance is a must and Bil'in is a symbol of the resistance that we all salute."
I know, I know...free speech and all that. But I would love to see this member of the Knesset shipped to the other side of the security fence, where he rightly belongs.
~~~~~~~~~~
With all this, it's possible to end with promising news. We've been waiting for a couple of weeks:
Tonight, Prime Minister Netanyahu, who was in the Knesset for a debate on his administration, informed those present that he had received a letter from Jonathan Pollard requesting that he intervene publicly with the president, and seek his release.
After detailing the efforts made for Pollard over time, he said:
"After 25 years that Jonathan has spent in jail and after 15 years of failed efforts to release him, I have decided to grant this request and I do this openly, here, from the Knesset podium in a step that represents and unites all the people of Israel."
Then he read the letter that has been sent to President Obama. In short order I imagine the entire text of the letter will be available, but what I present here is a summary:
Netanyahu accepted Israeli culpability for what transpired with regard to Pollard, and expressed on-going regret. He said he had discussed the situation with US officials and many support Pollard's release.
Pollard has served more time in prison than any other person convicted in the US on charges of passing classified information to an ally, Netanyahu wrote, and he is currently in very poor health.
"Since Jonathan Pollard has now spent 25 years in prison, I believe that a new request for clemency is highly appropriate. I know that the United States is a country based on fairness, justice and mercy. For all these reasons, I respectfully ask that you favorably consider this request for clemency. The people of Israel will be eternally grateful."
~~~~~~~~~~
Word via a French news agency is that senior US administration officials have said that Obama will review the letter. There is some reason to assume that Netanyahu would not have gone this route, had he not received some assurances that there is reasonable likelihood that it might be successful.
It is not only possible, but very likely, that Netanyahu worked with experts in protocol and the fine points of diplomatic language with regard to the drafting of this letter. We must assume that every point -- the admission of culpability, the expression of regret -- was honed for maximum effectiveness. The allusion to the US as a nation of fairness, justice and mercy strikes a positive tone, as well.
Perhaps, too, an expression of eternal gratitude on the part of Israel was thought to be necessary. Cynic (or realist?) that I am, however, I cannot help but wonder if Obama will expect to call in a quid pro quo, should he release Pollard. And, what is more, if the expression of eternal gratitude was Netanyahu's veiled way of offering that quid pro quo.
There is nothing to do at this point but pray that the letter is positively received. Then we'll see what comes down the road and handle it as we must.
~~~~~~~~~~
© Arlene Kushner. This material is produced by Arlene Kushner, functioning as an independent journalist. Permission is granted for it to be reproduced only with proper attribution .
see my website www.ArlenefromIsrael.info
The Shin Bet released information on Sunday regarding plans by two Jerusalem Arabs to fire an anti-tank missile into Jerusalem's main stadium -- Teddy Stadium, which has a capacity of 21,000 -- during the course of a soccer game.
Two friends, Nusa Hamada, possessing Jerusalem residency papers and living in the Sur Baher neighborhood, and Bassem Omed, a full Israeli citizen living in Beit Safafa, had visited a number of nearby hilltops to determine the best launching site for the attack. They had bought several handguns and attempted to secure other weapons (or, according to one source, had secured them for others involved). Hamada had visited Saudi Arabia several times in recent years, where he met with representatives of the Muslim Brotherhood. He was provided with money for weapons and asked to gather intelligence on Jerusalem's strategic sites.
Ultimately, the plan to bomb the stadium was dropped because it was "too complicated."
~~~~~~~~~~
Sur Baher was in the news today for another -- not unrelated -- reason that makes it clear that Hamada's terrorist inclinations hardly arose in a vacuum.
On December 10, 2010, Palestinian Media Watch picked up a documentary broadcast on Al-Aqsa TV, run by Hamas. This documentary, entitled "The Shahid's (Martyr's) Wedding," showed how children in Sur Baher's Islamic Riyad (Gardens of) Al-Aqsa School were taught to sing:
"May the glory of our religion return, and may our blood be shed."
As well as, "How precious is the land of Al-Aqsa. I shall give up my life for its sake."
You can see it here: http://palwatch.org/main.aspx?fi=472&fld_id=473&doc_id=4090
Fine and good to say Arab schools in eastern Jerusalem can teach Arab culture. But that monitoring is so non-existent -- or indifference so great -- that this can go on inside our city? Some hard questions must be asked.
~~~~~~~~~~
At the same time that the stadium plot was revealed, the Shin Bet released information on a growing Hamas presence in Jerusalem: Hamas, which is attempting to establish a foothold on Har Habayit (the Temple Mount), is funding maintenance in the Islamic complex there and sponsoring school trips.
~~~~~~~~~~
It must be mentioned, as well, that both Jerusalem Arabs were employees at the UK consulate in eastern Jerusalem. Although as maintenance men they did not have security clearance, this does raise questions about the vetting procedure at the consulate.
~~~~~~~~~~
While visiting an army base in the south today, Defense Minister Barak said Israel has an obligation to do everything in its power to "reignite" the "peace process."
This definitely merits a "sigh" for its foolish approach. Barak puts the onus on Israel for something that is impossible.
And what does he say? "The international community tends to adopt the Palestinian point of view..."
Well, good morning!
~~~~~~~~~~
Meanwhile, Netanyahu and Abbas have been at it, in an exchange of accusations regarding who is at fault for the lack of negotiations. Another sigh.
On Saturday, Abbas gave an interview on Palestinian TV in which he said that a peace treaty could be signed in two months if Netanyahu showed "good will."
To which Netanyahu replied on Sunday that "I'm willing to immediately sit privately for direct, continuous negotiations with,,,[Abbas] until white smoke emerges." (The white smoke is an allusion to the process for selecting a new pope.) "...we will know very quickly if it is possible to reach an agreement."
Needless to say, Abbas did not take Netanyahu up on his offer. And so, by yesterday, in addressing the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee, our prime minister referred to the Palestinian Arabs' new "three nos": no to recognition of Israel as the Jewish state; no to dropping the demand for "right of return;" and no to agreed-upon security arrangements. (This is a reference to the infamous Khartoum declaration of the Arab League in 1967, regarding "no peace with Israel; no recognition of Israel; and no negotiations with Israel.")
All of which leaves us nowhere with nothing -- except for a bunch of words and some historical allusions.
~~~~~~~~~~
Bil'in is an Arab village not far from Ramallah, where PA headquarters are located; with many employed by the PA living there, it has been described as an "ideological stronghold" of Fatah. It sits adjacent to the Israeli security fence (with Modi'in Illit not far away on the other side). For five and one-half years now, the people of Bil'in -- assisted by activists from such exploitive and reprehensible groups as the International Solidarity Movement -- have held weekly anti-security fence demonstrations.
One such demonstration was held this past Friday. As was not uncommon, the demonstration was accompanied by some crowd violence at the fence, and utilization of tear gas by the IDF.
Subsequently, the PA announced that one demonstrator, Jawaher Abu Rahma, 35, had died from "respiratory failure after gas inhalation."
According to Jawaher's mother, Subhiye, she complained of chest pains and difficulty in breathing at the demonstration. She allegedly left, but collapsed on the way home and was taken by ambulance to the hospital. Yet in spite of intensive care treatment, she then died.
The PA, however, at first refused to turn the medical records over to the IDF, and declined to cooperate with the IDF on an investigation. That was the first sign that something was amiss.
Said Subhiye: "It is painful, but we are continuing on this road to have freedom for all our lands and to get rid of the wall from all our lands."
"We hope to have peace," she maintained, but admitted she didn't see how this was possible when Israel was killing Palestinians and taking their land.
~~~~~~~~~~
By yesterday, the IDF had secured Jawaher's medical records, which did not definitively state a cause of death. The closer the Israelis looked, the more they confronted inconsistencies. There had been no post mortem performed and burial was accomplished with unusual haste. Her brother Samir said that she had had dizzy spells and headaches for several weeks, and had undergone a brain scan just four days before she died. But this was not mentioned in the medical records given to the IDF.
At this point, not only is it not clear that she died of inhalation of tear gas from the demonstration, it is not even a certainty that she was actually at the demonstration. Needless to say, the statements of activists there may be lacking in necessary veracity.
This would hardly be the first instance in which the death of an Arab from causes quite separate from Israeli involvement was subsequently blamed on Israel.
~~~~~~~~~~
And here we have another sigh.
MK Ahmad Tibi (United Arab List-Ta'al) said about Jawaher Abu Rahma's death: "She was killed by the poisonous gases of the racism military.
"Resisting the occupation is not only the right of people under an occupation, but also their duty. Popular resistance is a must and Bil'in is a symbol of the resistance that we all salute."
I know, I know...free speech and all that. But I would love to see this member of the Knesset shipped to the other side of the security fence, where he rightly belongs.
~~~~~~~~~~
With all this, it's possible to end with promising news. We've been waiting for a couple of weeks:
Tonight, Prime Minister Netanyahu, who was in the Knesset for a debate on his administration, informed those present that he had received a letter from Jonathan Pollard requesting that he intervene publicly with the president, and seek his release.
After detailing the efforts made for Pollard over time, he said:
"After 25 years that Jonathan has spent in jail and after 15 years of failed efforts to release him, I have decided to grant this request and I do this openly, here, from the Knesset podium in a step that represents and unites all the people of Israel."
Then he read the letter that has been sent to President Obama. In short order I imagine the entire text of the letter will be available, but what I present here is a summary:
Netanyahu accepted Israeli culpability for what transpired with regard to Pollard, and expressed on-going regret. He said he had discussed the situation with US officials and many support Pollard's release.
Pollard has served more time in prison than any other person convicted in the US on charges of passing classified information to an ally, Netanyahu wrote, and he is currently in very poor health.
"Since Jonathan Pollard has now spent 25 years in prison, I believe that a new request for clemency is highly appropriate. I know that the United States is a country based on fairness, justice and mercy. For all these reasons, I respectfully ask that you favorably consider this request for clemency. The people of Israel will be eternally grateful."
~~~~~~~~~~
Word via a French news agency is that senior US administration officials have said that Obama will review the letter. There is some reason to assume that Netanyahu would not have gone this route, had he not received some assurances that there is reasonable likelihood that it might be successful.
It is not only possible, but very likely, that Netanyahu worked with experts in protocol and the fine points of diplomatic language with regard to the drafting of this letter. We must assume that every point -- the admission of culpability, the expression of regret -- was honed for maximum effectiveness. The allusion to the US as a nation of fairness, justice and mercy strikes a positive tone, as well.
Perhaps, too, an expression of eternal gratitude on the part of Israel was thought to be necessary. Cynic (or realist?) that I am, however, I cannot help but wonder if Obama will expect to call in a quid pro quo, should he release Pollard. And, what is more, if the expression of eternal gratitude was Netanyahu's veiled way of offering that quid pro quo.
There is nothing to do at this point but pray that the letter is positively received. Then we'll see what comes down the road and handle it as we must.
~~~~~~~~~~
© Arlene Kushner. This material is produced by Arlene Kushner, functioning as an independent journalist. Permission is granted for it to be reproduced only with proper attribution .
see my website www.ArlenefromIsrael.info
Tuesday, January 04, 2011
Disney Theme Park Coming to Israel!
The Muqata
NIS 600m Disney theme park planned for Israel!
Globes Reports:
New Lineo Cinemas (2006) Ltd., owned by the Edery family and Walt Disney Company (NYSE: DIS) investment arm Shamrock Holdings, will build a NIS 600 million 25-screen multiplex and Disney amusement park at the Check Post exit from the Carmel Tunnel in Haifa. New Lineo owns the Cinema City Ltd. multiplexes in Ramat Hasharon and Rishon LeZion.
The entertainment complex will be built on an 80-dunam (20-acre) site and will include 50,000 square meters of cinemas and shops and a 30,000-square meter Disney amusement park. The land is owned by a local family.
The new complex will be near the Cinemall, which has stores and a 23-screen Yes Planet multiplex.
Haifa Mayor Yona Yahav said, "This plan expresses confidence in our plans to turn Haifa Bay in a thriving business area. The plan began with the municipality's assistance in the building of Cinemall and the upgrade of the mall, previously known as the Lev Hamifratz Mall, and the building of the transport hub for the cable car, which carries passengers up to the Technion and Haifa University."
WOW!
I wonder if Israeli Arabs will visit -- in light of the Fatwa against Mickey Mouse.
YNET reported this 2 years ago...
In an interview with Al-Majd Television, sheikh Muhammad Al-Munajid, a former diplomat who once served in the Saudi embassy in Washington, condemned cartoons that endear rodents to their viewers.
Islamic law, he said, sees the mouse as "a repulsive, corrupting creature" while children today see mice as loveable and "awesome" because of animated shows like Tom and Jerry, and Disney staple Mickey Mouse.
"Mickey Mouse has become an awesome character, even though according to Islamic law, Mickey Mouse should be killed in all cases," Al-Munajid tells the interviewer.
"The shari'a refers to the mouse as 'little corrupter,' and says it is permissible to kill it in all cases. It says that mice set fire to the house, and are steered by Satan. The mouse is one of Satan's soldiers," he goes on to say.
J Street AND Ground Zero Mosque Corrupt? Imagine That!
Barry Rubin
Hey, boys and girls! Notice how we keep finding out more and more about the corruption of the Ground Zero mosque project and its chief sponsors? Well, now we discover that the whole thing received a lot of secret help from NY City's mayor and government to ensure it was approved even though--on purely legal and financial grounds--that was a questionable decision.
The mayor's office says that the project received only normal help. Wow, I'll bet a lot of New York developers would be amazed at that statement. But let's never forget that this project, budgeted at far over $100 million, has no serious money raised!
I have a totally different view on this issue that is drenched with irony. The first irony is that the mayor's office and other city agencies pushed for a project that would never otherwise have been approved (given zoning issues, the bad record of the promoters, the fact that they didn't even own the property, etc). This brought the second irony: the city government's leaning over double-backwards to show extra-special privileges for an Islamic institution--supposedly to fight "Islamophobia" and to prove how "tolerant" they are--raised antagonisms and set off a huge national controversy that otherwise never would have happened!
How can people keep debating this issue without noting that whether they are for or against it the odds of this mosque/community center ever being built is low? Again, even if no voice had ever been raised against this community center/mosque plan, it is never going to exist. And if people had not been so blinded by fear of being thought "Islamophobic" that they would ignore ever other completely non-political factor involved, no one would ever have heard of the Ground Zero Mosque at all.
By the way, while we are on the subject of New York, that state just released its hate crimes report for 2009 (hey, it's a government so it isn't very efficient). They found 683 such events including 251 hate crimes against Jews; 11 against Muslims. But, of course, reportedly 242 mosques have already been built in New York state without a single significant protest against any of them. So much for rampant "Islamophobia."
Back to corruption and lying. We discover two more new examples of it on the part of J Street.
First, veteran anti-Israel lobbyist (pretending to be a pro-Israel lobbyist) Jeremy Ben-Ami founded a consulting firm that received tens of thousands of dollars of J Street money. Ben-Ami claims he did not benefit financially but merely chose the best-qualified company.
Since he and his colleagues have already lied about so much I suspect there is more to discover here.
J Street is a truly amazing phenomenon. The smallest amount of serious research reveals that it is an anti-Israel organization; it has lied about funding; it has undertaken no pro-Israel actions virtually ever; its leader was an anti-Israel lobbyist, and yet since the mass media and even much of the Jewish media don’t publish this material there are many people totally unaware of this information.
Second, J Street has opened an office in Israel headed by someone named Drew Cohen. But in the age of the Internet an intrepid researcher has dug out his record which includes Cohen:
--Explaining that he can’t be comfortable unless he’s “with people who I am certain do not espouse Zionism or any form of oppression.”
--Describing Israel’s handling of the Gaza flotilla confrontation as “a heinous brutality” and saying that Gaza is only a “mythic threat” to Israel.
--Calling Operation Cast Lead (remember that one? How Israel defended itself when that "mythic threat" started firing hundreds of mortar shells and rockets at its civilians?) as an “unjust and even criminal” act.
Truly the right man to head J Street’s Jerusalem office! How many J Street supporters will ever hear about these things? For full documentation and also here's more:
But guess what! In a recent speech in Pittsburgh, when someone asked Ben-Ami about Drew Cohen, the anti-Israel activist claimed that Cohen was just an intern. Funny, a few hours earlier J Street had issued a press release trumpeting what a great guy he is and how he is the head of J Street's new Israel office. (Perhaps the office should be located in the Gaza Strip so that Drew doesn't have to come into contact with those evil Zionists.)
When will people who still support this group wake up and understand (as almost all members of Congress already do) that it is NOT a dovish, constructively critical group led by friends of Israel but a front group whose mission is to destroy American Jewish support for Israel?
Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. His latest books are The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan). The website of the GLORIA Center is at http://www.gloria-center.org and of his blog, Rubin Reports, http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com.
Hey, boys and girls! Notice how we keep finding out more and more about the corruption of the Ground Zero mosque project and its chief sponsors? Well, now we discover that the whole thing received a lot of secret help from NY City's mayor and government to ensure it was approved even though--on purely legal and financial grounds--that was a questionable decision.
The mayor's office says that the project received only normal help. Wow, I'll bet a lot of New York developers would be amazed at that statement. But let's never forget that this project, budgeted at far over $100 million, has no serious money raised!
I have a totally different view on this issue that is drenched with irony. The first irony is that the mayor's office and other city agencies pushed for a project that would never otherwise have been approved (given zoning issues, the bad record of the promoters, the fact that they didn't even own the property, etc). This brought the second irony: the city government's leaning over double-backwards to show extra-special privileges for an Islamic institution--supposedly to fight "Islamophobia" and to prove how "tolerant" they are--raised antagonisms and set off a huge national controversy that otherwise never would have happened!
How can people keep debating this issue without noting that whether they are for or against it the odds of this mosque/community center ever being built is low? Again, even if no voice had ever been raised against this community center/mosque plan, it is never going to exist. And if people had not been so blinded by fear of being thought "Islamophobic" that they would ignore ever other completely non-political factor involved, no one would ever have heard of the Ground Zero Mosque at all.
By the way, while we are on the subject of New York, that state just released its hate crimes report for 2009 (hey, it's a government so it isn't very efficient). They found 683 such events including 251 hate crimes against Jews; 11 against Muslims. But, of course, reportedly 242 mosques have already been built in New York state without a single significant protest against any of them. So much for rampant "Islamophobia."
Back to corruption and lying. We discover two more new examples of it on the part of J Street.
First, veteran anti-Israel lobbyist (pretending to be a pro-Israel lobbyist) Jeremy Ben-Ami founded a consulting firm that received tens of thousands of dollars of J Street money. Ben-Ami claims he did not benefit financially but merely chose the best-qualified company.
Since he and his colleagues have already lied about so much I suspect there is more to discover here.
J Street is a truly amazing phenomenon. The smallest amount of serious research reveals that it is an anti-Israel organization; it has lied about funding; it has undertaken no pro-Israel actions virtually ever; its leader was an anti-Israel lobbyist, and yet since the mass media and even much of the Jewish media don’t publish this material there are many people totally unaware of this information.
Second, J Street has opened an office in Israel headed by someone named Drew Cohen. But in the age of the Internet an intrepid researcher has dug out his record which includes Cohen:
--Explaining that he can’t be comfortable unless he’s “with people who I am certain do not espouse Zionism or any form of oppression.”
--Describing Israel’s handling of the Gaza flotilla confrontation as “a heinous brutality” and saying that Gaza is only a “mythic threat” to Israel.
--Calling Operation Cast Lead (remember that one? How Israel defended itself when that "mythic threat" started firing hundreds of mortar shells and rockets at its civilians?) as an “unjust and even criminal” act.
Truly the right man to head J Street’s Jerusalem office! How many J Street supporters will ever hear about these things? For full documentation and also here's more:
But guess what! In a recent speech in Pittsburgh, when someone asked Ben-Ami about Drew Cohen, the anti-Israel activist claimed that Cohen was just an intern. Funny, a few hours earlier J Street had issued a press release trumpeting what a great guy he is and how he is the head of J Street's new Israel office. (Perhaps the office should be located in the Gaza Strip so that Drew doesn't have to come into contact with those evil Zionists.)
When will people who still support this group wake up and understand (as almost all members of Congress already do) that it is NOT a dovish, constructively critical group led by friends of Israel but a front group whose mission is to destroy American Jewish support for Israel?
Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. His latest books are The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan). The website of the GLORIA Center is at http://www.gloria-center.org and of his blog, Rubin Reports, http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com.
Monday, January 03, 2011
The Palestinian Authority is like Europe says visiting journalist from Dubai on PA TV
Itamar Marcus and Nan Jacques Zilberdik
"I felt like I was in Europe," said a news reader from Dubai to PA TV, describing her surprise at the quality of life during her visit to the Palestinian Authority city of Ramallah. She explained that her incorrect impressions were because the news reporting likes to focus on bad news: "Bad news is good news," for the media, and "if someone dies, or something is destroyed, then that's newsworthy," she said. Having been witness to only negative reporting about life in the Palestinian areas, the Palestinian journalist who has been living in Dubai added: "I didn't expect to find you alive." But she found life in the PA to be different from the media image and felt as if in Europe. Maisun Azzam, a journalist from Al-Arabiya TV in Dubai, was interviewed on the PA TV talk show, Palestine this morning.
The following is an excerpt from the interview:
PA TV host asks Maisun Azzam: "What is your picture of Palestine?"
Azzam: "Look, the main picture is the picture we see on TV since, unfortunately, in the media bad news is good news for us [journalists]."
PA TV Host: "That's the prominent news."
Azzam: "Yes, the prominent, main news, because if there's different news, we say it's not newsworthy. But if someone dies, or something is destroyed, then that's newsworthy. So, as a Palestinian, I didn't expect to get here, I didn't expect to find you alive, and I said that [also] at Bir-Zeit University. I looked and said, 'You're alive!' I went to the Stones restaurant [in Ramallah] to do an advertising campaign for our director, Nadal Hassan; I felt like I was in Europe."
[PA TV (Fatah), Nov. 29, 2010]
"I felt like I was in Europe," said a news reader from Dubai to PA TV, describing her surprise at the quality of life during her visit to the Palestinian Authority city of Ramallah. She explained that her incorrect impressions were because the news reporting likes to focus on bad news: "Bad news is good news," for the media, and "if someone dies, or something is destroyed, then that's newsworthy," she said. Having been witness to only negative reporting about life in the Palestinian areas, the Palestinian journalist who has been living in Dubai added: "I didn't expect to find you alive." But she found life in the PA to be different from the media image and felt as if in Europe. Maisun Azzam, a journalist from Al-Arabiya TV in Dubai, was interviewed on the PA TV talk show, Palestine this morning.
The following is an excerpt from the interview:
PA TV host asks Maisun Azzam: "What is your picture of Palestine?"
Azzam: "Look, the main picture is the picture we see on TV since, unfortunately, in the media bad news is good news for us [journalists]."
PA TV Host: "That's the prominent news."
Azzam: "Yes, the prominent, main news, because if there's different news, we say it's not newsworthy. But if someone dies, or something is destroyed, then that's newsworthy. So, as a Palestinian, I didn't expect to get here, I didn't expect to find you alive, and I said that [also] at Bir-Zeit University. I looked and said, 'You're alive!' I went to the Stones restaurant [in Ramallah] to do an advertising campaign for our director, Nadal Hassan; I felt like I was in Europe."
[PA TV (Fatah), Nov. 29, 2010]
"The Rise of the Islamic-Israel Conflict"
Arlene Kushner
This was the title of the talk delivered by Dr. Jonathan Spyer -- Senior Research Fellow at the Global Research in International Affairs Center -- at the Great Synagogue here in Jerusalem, on Motzei Shabbat (Saturday night). He provided a very cogent and insightful overview of the current situation and today I want to share highlights.
~~~~~~~~~~
The "peace process" -- going back more than 30 years-- was the product of US hegemony in the Middle East:
Camp David Accords with Egypt were possible because Sadat made the decision to move from the Soviet to the US side. US domination was even more obvious with the Oslo Accords, which was made possible after the collapse of the Soviet Union. People during this period believed that a period of peace and liberalization was inevitable.
Oslo ran aground in the late 1990s, however, when it became apparent that what Israel could offer was less than the Palestinian Arabs wanted. War (incorrectly referred to as the second intifada) followed.
~~~~~~~~~~
Today US influence in the area is under challenge by:
-- The elite that has arisen in Iran
-- Islamization of the regional conflict
This is THE central challenge to the region and to Israel.
~~~~~~~~~~
In Iran, Ahmadinejad represents a particular generational group whose formative experiences were the Iranian revolution and the Iran-Iraq war. Now they are at the pinnacle of the revolution they helped create and they see it as a failure: The regime is massively unpopular, corrupt and ineffectual.
They want to revive the original fire of the 1979 revolution. This is bound to fail, but the effort can do a great deal of damage.
The regime is not going to fall as a result of challenge from the street because they are willing to go to the limit in utilizing violence to stay in control.
~~~~~~~~~~
This represents a problem for the entire region because Iran wants to be the hegemonic power of the Middle East.
To that end, they are drawing on Iranian patriotism and utilizing their foreign policy.
Their major problem is that they are neither Arab (they are Persian) nor Sunni (they are Shia), as are most Muslim states.
To move past these problems, Iran wants to grab the banner of the Palestinian cause and to promote Islamization of Middle East politics.
The entire region has now become so Islamicized that if elections were held across the region, Islamic parties would win. This is true even in Jordan and Egypt.
The Israeli-Arab conflict had actually been winding down. It's been a quarter of a century since Israel has been arrayed against Arab forces. But the Islamization of the region is partially revising this process and firing the conflict.
There are two hot fronts: Gaza and Lebanon. Both receive Iranian and popular Islamic support.
~~~~~~~~~~
Hezbollah is a direct creation of Iran.
In 1982, Iranian revolutionary offices were opened in the Bekka valley of Lebanon to develop forces to take on Israel. This is the hottest front of the Israeli-Arab conflict. Lebanon is essentially a colony of Iran.
Hamas is Sunni, with financial roots in Saudi Arabia. But Gaza, its major asset, is maintained via Iranian money, support and guns.
~~~~~~~~~~
Iran and the Islamist bloc believe in the end they will prevail. They have a strategic conception, and are convinced that over decades they will achieve victory.
Their conceptualization is of Israel as an artificial country that may appear strong but is internally weak and can ultimately be defeated. The plan is to maintain pressure on Israel at all levels -- demonstrating to Jews that peace is impossible and encouraging them to leave.
~~~~~~~~~~
With all of this, there is what Spyer refers to as the Silver Lining:
Weakening of Israel is merely a tactical approach for the Islamists. Their geo-strategic goals include the entire Gulf area: The US (which has a Gulf presence) and its allies, especially Jordan and Egypt, and the Arabic-speaking world more generally.
Now, for the first time, Israel is on the same side as the majority of Arab states:
During Cast Lead (our operation in Gaza, at the end of 2008 and beginning of 2009), Egypt kept the southern exit from Gaza shut, so there could be no massive fleeing into the Sinai. This was done because Hamas represents a threat to Egypt, not because Egypt wants to help Israel. But the net result was that this assisted Israel in achieving a major victory in Gaza.
(Spyer says that while the PR may have been a disaster, the military victory was considerable. After all of Hamas's considerable pre-war bravado, they lost some 700 fighters to about 14 that we lost.)
There are reports, as well (which you've read about here), regarding Saudi willingness to open its air space to Israel if Israel decides to strike Iran. Saudi Arabia is the most anti-Semitic of countries, but it is terrified of Iran.
~~~~~~~~~~
This entire situation is transforming Israel. The Israeli left is "obliterated" as dreams of the peace process have failed. (Note: polls show that Labor would go way down if there were an election today.) The Israeli polity, and the Israeli right, are re-adjusting to this new political situation.
Spyer believes that we are likely to move beyond an ideological cold war to a new hot conflict. But the anti-Iranian alliance, as varied as it is, will win in the end. While the Islamists promote violence and call on the service of their young men, they will not be able to achieve sustained battle victories. (This is not to say that we won't incur damage to our populace during a war that will be waged at least partially on our turf.)
~~~~~~~~~~
Perhaps even more significantly, the Islamists severely underestimate the strength of Israel society, which to a considerable degree shares basic values. The Iranian ideology is thin and does not promote viable societies.
(Whether we count the PA as being fully within the Islamic sphere or not, this critique applies to them, as well: The Palestinians are more interested in Israel's destruction -- e.g., via ugly incitement and insistence on "return" of refugees -- than on building the positive values of a constructive society.)
Says Spyer, Arab nationalism faded and Islamism will do the same.
There is evidence that the Iranian society is being undermined in a variety of way, such as via the assistance to Iranian Kurds -- who are quick to sabotage the Iranian regime as they can, in the service of a Kurdish state.
~~~~~~~~~~
There are several comments I would like to make here before closing:
First, is the whole issue of the need for American strength in the Middle East in light of the current dynamic. I've written about it often enough, but always seek to reinforce the message. If Iran seeks hegemony in the Middle East, a weak America that seeks to appease and be "friends" with Iran simply feeds the Islamist goal. American muscle-flexing and demonstration of deterrent strength is badly needed, and very lacking.
I do not expect Obama to reverse his policy, but my hope is that more and more the American polity will understand the destructive folly of his approach. A stronger US might have kept King Abdullah from reaching out to Iran, and might have discouraged the Syrian tilt towards Iran.
~~~~~~~~~~
Then there is the whole matter of the "peace process." When this broader context is understood, it becomes clear why the very notion of trying to reach an accord with the PLO/PA now is nonsense. Even if Abbas were inclined to engage in negotiations and make compromises for peace (he's not), he would find it impossible in the current political climate. Hamas sets the tone of Palestinian Arab political discourse, and to be less "tough" than the Islamists is to invite charges of betrayal, and worse (like having your throat slit). Spyer said it: ME politics have been Islamicized.
The PA was once referred to as a nationalist secular movement. Now, more and more there is Islamist influence within. In that sense the Islamists are co-opting the PA. Hamas is also waiting to physically take over the PA, and will miss no opportunity to do so. (Withdrawal of the IDF as part of "peace" would provide such an opportunity.)
So it's futile, futile, futile. All this nonsensical time spent discussing about whether Israel should build Jewish homes in Judea and Samaria -- as if this were the key to the matter. All the talk about the specific parameters of a Palestinian state.
If only the US would table its promotion of a negotiated accord and focus exclusively on taking on the Islamist influence in the Middle East.
It's crazy talk, and nothing less, to say that a Palestinian-Israeli accord would help bring peace to the entire region and help the US take on Iran. In point of fact, just the opposite is true. Only when Islamist ideology is defeated will peace be possible here. (Movement towards a peace agreement only motivates the Islamists to be more disruptive.)
If a peace process was possible thirty years ago because of US hegemony in the region, that necessary condition certainly also holds today.
~~~~~~~~~~
© Arlene Kushner. This material is produced by Arlene Kushner, functioning as an independent journalist. Permission is granted for it to be reproduced only with proper attribution .
see my website www.ArlenefromIsrael.info
This was the title of the talk delivered by Dr. Jonathan Spyer -- Senior Research Fellow at the Global Research in International Affairs Center -- at the Great Synagogue here in Jerusalem, on Motzei Shabbat (Saturday night). He provided a very cogent and insightful overview of the current situation and today I want to share highlights.
~~~~~~~~~~
The "peace process" -- going back more than 30 years-- was the product of US hegemony in the Middle East:
Camp David Accords with Egypt were possible because Sadat made the decision to move from the Soviet to the US side. US domination was even more obvious with the Oslo Accords, which was made possible after the collapse of the Soviet Union. People during this period believed that a period of peace and liberalization was inevitable.
Oslo ran aground in the late 1990s, however, when it became apparent that what Israel could offer was less than the Palestinian Arabs wanted. War (incorrectly referred to as the second intifada) followed.
~~~~~~~~~~
Today US influence in the area is under challenge by:
-- The elite that has arisen in Iran
-- Islamization of the regional conflict
This is THE central challenge to the region and to Israel.
~~~~~~~~~~
In Iran, Ahmadinejad represents a particular generational group whose formative experiences were the Iranian revolution and the Iran-Iraq war. Now they are at the pinnacle of the revolution they helped create and they see it as a failure: The regime is massively unpopular, corrupt and ineffectual.
They want to revive the original fire of the 1979 revolution. This is bound to fail, but the effort can do a great deal of damage.
The regime is not going to fall as a result of challenge from the street because they are willing to go to the limit in utilizing violence to stay in control.
~~~~~~~~~~
This represents a problem for the entire region because Iran wants to be the hegemonic power of the Middle East.
To that end, they are drawing on Iranian patriotism and utilizing their foreign policy.
Their major problem is that they are neither Arab (they are Persian) nor Sunni (they are Shia), as are most Muslim states.
To move past these problems, Iran wants to grab the banner of the Palestinian cause and to promote Islamization of Middle East politics.
The entire region has now become so Islamicized that if elections were held across the region, Islamic parties would win. This is true even in Jordan and Egypt.
The Israeli-Arab conflict had actually been winding down. It's been a quarter of a century since Israel has been arrayed against Arab forces. But the Islamization of the region is partially revising this process and firing the conflict.
There are two hot fronts: Gaza and Lebanon. Both receive Iranian and popular Islamic support.
~~~~~~~~~~
Hezbollah is a direct creation of Iran.
In 1982, Iranian revolutionary offices were opened in the Bekka valley of Lebanon to develop forces to take on Israel. This is the hottest front of the Israeli-Arab conflict. Lebanon is essentially a colony of Iran.
Hamas is Sunni, with financial roots in Saudi Arabia. But Gaza, its major asset, is maintained via Iranian money, support and guns.
~~~~~~~~~~
Iran and the Islamist bloc believe in the end they will prevail. They have a strategic conception, and are convinced that over decades they will achieve victory.
Their conceptualization is of Israel as an artificial country that may appear strong but is internally weak and can ultimately be defeated. The plan is to maintain pressure on Israel at all levels -- demonstrating to Jews that peace is impossible and encouraging them to leave.
~~~~~~~~~~
With all of this, there is what Spyer refers to as the Silver Lining:
Weakening of Israel is merely a tactical approach for the Islamists. Their geo-strategic goals include the entire Gulf area: The US (which has a Gulf presence) and its allies, especially Jordan and Egypt, and the Arabic-speaking world more generally.
Now, for the first time, Israel is on the same side as the majority of Arab states:
During Cast Lead (our operation in Gaza, at the end of 2008 and beginning of 2009), Egypt kept the southern exit from Gaza shut, so there could be no massive fleeing into the Sinai. This was done because Hamas represents a threat to Egypt, not because Egypt wants to help Israel. But the net result was that this assisted Israel in achieving a major victory in Gaza.
(Spyer says that while the PR may have been a disaster, the military victory was considerable. After all of Hamas's considerable pre-war bravado, they lost some 700 fighters to about 14 that we lost.)
There are reports, as well (which you've read about here), regarding Saudi willingness to open its air space to Israel if Israel decides to strike Iran. Saudi Arabia is the most anti-Semitic of countries, but it is terrified of Iran.
~~~~~~~~~~
This entire situation is transforming Israel. The Israeli left is "obliterated" as dreams of the peace process have failed. (Note: polls show that Labor would go way down if there were an election today.) The Israeli polity, and the Israeli right, are re-adjusting to this new political situation.
Spyer believes that we are likely to move beyond an ideological cold war to a new hot conflict. But the anti-Iranian alliance, as varied as it is, will win in the end. While the Islamists promote violence and call on the service of their young men, they will not be able to achieve sustained battle victories. (This is not to say that we won't incur damage to our populace during a war that will be waged at least partially on our turf.)
~~~~~~~~~~
Perhaps even more significantly, the Islamists severely underestimate the strength of Israel society, which to a considerable degree shares basic values. The Iranian ideology is thin and does not promote viable societies.
(Whether we count the PA as being fully within the Islamic sphere or not, this critique applies to them, as well: The Palestinians are more interested in Israel's destruction -- e.g., via ugly incitement and insistence on "return" of refugees -- than on building the positive values of a constructive society.)
Says Spyer, Arab nationalism faded and Islamism will do the same.
There is evidence that the Iranian society is being undermined in a variety of way, such as via the assistance to Iranian Kurds -- who are quick to sabotage the Iranian regime as they can, in the service of a Kurdish state.
~~~~~~~~~~
There are several comments I would like to make here before closing:
First, is the whole issue of the need for American strength in the Middle East in light of the current dynamic. I've written about it often enough, but always seek to reinforce the message. If Iran seeks hegemony in the Middle East, a weak America that seeks to appease and be "friends" with Iran simply feeds the Islamist goal. American muscle-flexing and demonstration of deterrent strength is badly needed, and very lacking.
I do not expect Obama to reverse his policy, but my hope is that more and more the American polity will understand the destructive folly of his approach. A stronger US might have kept King Abdullah from reaching out to Iran, and might have discouraged the Syrian tilt towards Iran.
~~~~~~~~~~
Then there is the whole matter of the "peace process." When this broader context is understood, it becomes clear why the very notion of trying to reach an accord with the PLO/PA now is nonsense. Even if Abbas were inclined to engage in negotiations and make compromises for peace (he's not), he would find it impossible in the current political climate. Hamas sets the tone of Palestinian Arab political discourse, and to be less "tough" than the Islamists is to invite charges of betrayal, and worse (like having your throat slit). Spyer said it: ME politics have been Islamicized.
The PA was once referred to as a nationalist secular movement. Now, more and more there is Islamist influence within. In that sense the Islamists are co-opting the PA. Hamas is also waiting to physically take over the PA, and will miss no opportunity to do so. (Withdrawal of the IDF as part of "peace" would provide such an opportunity.)
So it's futile, futile, futile. All this nonsensical time spent discussing about whether Israel should build Jewish homes in Judea and Samaria -- as if this were the key to the matter. All the talk about the specific parameters of a Palestinian state.
If only the US would table its promotion of a negotiated accord and focus exclusively on taking on the Islamist influence in the Middle East.
It's crazy talk, and nothing less, to say that a Palestinian-Israeli accord would help bring peace to the entire region and help the US take on Iran. In point of fact, just the opposite is true. Only when Islamist ideology is defeated will peace be possible here. (Movement towards a peace agreement only motivates the Islamists to be more disruptive.)
If a peace process was possible thirty years ago because of US hegemony in the region, that necessary condition certainly also holds today.
~~~~~~~~~~
© Arlene Kushner. This material is produced by Arlene Kushner, functioning as an independent journalist. Permission is granted for it to be reproduced only with proper attribution .
see my website www.ArlenefromIsrael.info
Sunday, January 02, 2011
Watch Your Step At J Street
My Right Word
You never know what can happen to you if you go to J Street:-
SACRAMENTO (CBS13) – A teen fell to his death just before ringing in the New Year after slipping off a bridge, according to authorities.
The 19-year-old victim was walking with his family to the Old Sacramento fireworks show when he tried to hop from the I Street Bridge to the J Street off ramp near southbound Interstate 5 just before midnight. he man apparently did not see the gap between the two bridges and fell between the roadways, falling all the way to the ground.
“There doesn’t seem to be any alcohol involved,” said Lt. Mike Bray of the Sacramento Police Department.
The man was pronounced dead at the scene.
If he had been Jewish, the story permutations could have been endless.
You never know what can happen to you if you go to J Street:-
SACRAMENTO (CBS13) – A teen fell to his death just before ringing in the New Year after slipping off a bridge, according to authorities.
The 19-year-old victim was walking with his family to the Old Sacramento fireworks show when he tried to hop from the I Street Bridge to the J Street off ramp near southbound Interstate 5 just before midnight. he man apparently did not see the gap between the two bridges and fell between the roadways, falling all the way to the ground.
“There doesn’t seem to be any alcohol involved,” said Lt. Mike Bray of the Sacramento Police Department.
The man was pronounced dead at the scene.
If he had been Jewish, the story permutations could have been endless.
Saturday, January 01, 2011
Appeasement
Ira Sharkansky
While I do not claim expertise in the history or politics of Great Britain, my impression is that the Munich Agreement of 1938, involving Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain and Hitler (" . . . peace with honour. I believe it is peace for our time.") is an icon of shame in that country. It represented great power pressure on the weak government of Czechoslovakia, and traded away part of another country's territory for the empty hope of peace. You find reference to the event under "appeasement" in the Oxford English Dictionary. "Freely used in political contexts in the 20th century, and since 1938 often used disparagingly with allusion to the attempts at conciliation by concession made by Mr. Neville Chamberlain, the British Prime Minister, before the outbreak of war with Germany in 1939; by extension, any such policy of pacification by concession to an enemy."
The Economist is part of my Friday morning routine. I view it as the best news magazine in the English language. I usually excuse its tilt against Israel as not overly extreme, insofar as it is generally balanced with a reasonable assessment of Israel's options.
An article put on its website on December 29th, dealing with Israel, the Palestinians, and Barack Obama fell outside my parameters of tolerance. The Economist on this occasion is closer to the spirit of Neville Chamberlain than to that of Winston Churchill. http://www.economist.com/node/17800151
Fair enough is its warning that the failure of Obama's peace efforts has produced a fragile condition of no war and no peace. It is also fair to note that supplies of armaments to Hizbollah and Hamas add to the dangers, and raise the prospect of a regional war involving Syria and Iran, along with significant civilian casualties in Israel and elsewhere.
The item is fair to note that any peace achieved between Israel and the Palestinians will be incomplete.
"Iran, Hizbullah and sometimes Hamas say that they will never accept a Jewish state in the Middle East."
It is the next sentence that urges appeasement.
"it is the unending Israeli occupation that gives these rejectionists their oxygen. Give the Palestinians a state on the West Bank and it will become very much harder for the rejectionists to justify going to war."
The theme continues
"if Mr Obama fails, because the Palestinians have shown time and again that they will not fall silent while their rights are denied. The longer Israel keeps them stateless under military occupation, the lonelier it becomes—and the more it undermines its own identity as a liberal democracy."
The Economist accepts an outline of an agreement that is widely shared, including by many in the center of Israel's political spectrum.
"The outlines of such an agreement have been clear since Bill Clinton set out his “parameters” after the failure of the Camp David summit a decade ago. The border between Israel and a new Palestine would follow the pre-1967 line, with adjustments to accommodate some of the bigger border-hugging Israeli settlements in the West Bank, and land-swaps to compensate the Palestinians for those adjustments."
It also recognizes what has frustrated agreement.
". . . there is also much difficult detail to be filled in: how to make Jerusalem into a shared capital, settle the fate of the refugees and ensure that the West Bank will not become, as Gaza did, an advance base for war against Israel after Israeli forces withdraw."
Where is Palestinian responsibility in the copybook of The Economist?
The sensitivities of Palestinians and Israelis on the issues of Jerusalem (especially the Temple Mount) and refugees may be the hard kernels that prevent agreement. For The Economists and others to put the onus on Israel and what is said to be a settlement-obsessed government is to reinforce the Palestinian narrative that gives them a monopoly of suffering and justice. Prime Ministers Ehud Barak and Ehud Olmert racked up Palestinian refusals in response to far reaching efforts to reach agreement along the lines spelled out by President Clinton.
Demanding more from Israel without demanding flexibility from Palestinian may not be equivalent to Chamberlain's deal with Hitler, but it is appeasement.
With all of this, it is too early to give up entirely on The Economist. Another article from the same date gives high marks and a positive projection to Israel's economy. 'Beyond the start-up nation': http://www.economist.com/node/17796932
Yet another provides a decent review of American blunders, frustrations, and limitations in the Middle East. 'Great sacrifices, small rewards' Has America’s obsession with this region been worth it? http://www.economist.com/node/17797714. This item does bash Israel and ignores the need to press Palestinians, but it is impressive in touching the wide range of elements affecting the region, and those who worry about it.
--
Ira Sharkansky (Emeritus)
Department of Political Science
Hebrew University of Jerusalem
---
http://www.economist.com/node/17800151
The United States, Israel and the Arabs
Please, not again
Without boldness from Barack Obama there is a real risk of war in the Middle East
Dec 29th 2010 |
NO WAR, no peace, is the usual state of affairs between Israel and its neighbours in the Middle East. But every time an attempt at Arab-Israeli peacemaking fails, as Barack Obama’s did shortly before Christmas, the peace becomes a little more fragile and the danger of war increases. Sadly, there is reason to believe that unless remedial action is taken, 2011 might see the most destructive such war for many years.
One much-discussed way in which war might arise stems from the apparent desire of Iran to acquire nuclear weapons at any cost, and Israel’s apparent desire to stop Iran at any cost. But fear of Iran’s nuclear programme is only one of the fuses that could detonate an explosion at any moment. Another is the frantic arms race that has been under way since the inconclusive war in 2006 between Israel and Hizbullah, Iran’s ally in Lebanon. Both sides have been intensively preparing for what each says will be a “decisive” second round.
Such a war would bear little resemblance to the previous clashes between Israel and its neighbours. For all their many horrors, the Lebanon war of 2006 and the Gaza war of 2009 were limited affairs. On the Israeli side, in particular, civilian casualties were light. Since 2006, however, Iran and Syria have provided Hizbullah with an arsenal of perhaps 50,000 missiles and rockets, many with ranges and payloads well beyond what Hizbullah had last time. This marks an extraordinary change in the balance of power. For the first time a radical non-state actor has the power to kill thousands of civilians in Israel’s cities more or less at the press of a button.
In that event, says Israel, it will strike back with double force. A war of this sort could easily draw in Syria, and perhaps Iran. For the moment, deterrence keeps the peace. But a peace maintained by deterrence alone is a frail thing. The shipment to Hizbullah of a balance-tipping new weapon, a skirmish on the Lebanese or increasingly volatile Gaza border—any number of miscalculations could ignite a conflagration.
From peace process to war process
All of this should give new urgency to Arab-Israeli peacemaking. To start with, at least, peace will be incomplete: Iran, Hizbullah and sometimes Hamas say that they will never accept a Jewish state in the Middle East. But it is the unending Israeli occupation that gives these rejectionists their oxygen. Give the Palestinians a state on the West Bank and it will become very much harder for the rejectionists to justify going to war.
Easy enough to say. The question is whether peacemaking can succeed. After striving for almost two years to shepherd Israeli and Palestinian leaders into direct talks, only for this effort to collapse over the issue of settlements, Mr Obama is in danger of concluding like many presidents before him that Arab-Israeli diplomacy is a Sisyphean distraction. But giving up would be a tragic mistake, as bad for America and Israel as for the Palestinians. The instant the peace process ends, the war process begins, and wars in this energy-rich corner of the world usually suck in America, one way or another. Israel will suffer too if Mr Obama fails, because the Palestinians have shown time and again that they will not fall silent while their rights are denied. The longer Israel keeps them stateless under military occupation, the lonelier it becomes—and the more it undermines its own identity as a liberal democracy.
Don’t mediate. Legislate
Instead of giving up, Mr Obama needs to change his angle of attack. America has clung too long to the dogma that direct talks between Israel and the Palestinians are the way forward. James Baker, a former secretary of state, once said that America could not want peace more than the local parties did. This is no longer true. The recent history proves that the extremists on each side are too strong for timid local leaders to make the necessary compromises alone. It is time for the world to agree on a settlement and impose it on the feuding parties.
The outlines of such an agreement have been clear since Bill Clinton set out his “parameters” after the failure of the Camp David summit a decade ago. The border between Israel and a new Palestine would follow the pre-1967 line, with adjustments to accommodate some of the bigger border-hugging Israeli settlements in the West Bank, and land-swaps to compensate the Palestinians for those adjustments. But there is also much difficult detail to be filled in: how to make Jerusalem into a shared capital, settle the fate of the refugees and ensure that the West Bank will not become, as Gaza did, an advance base for war against Israel after Israeli forces withdraw.
Mr Clinton unveiled his blueprint at the end of a negotiation that had failed. Mr Obama should set out his own map and make this a new starting point. He should gather international support for it, either through the United Nations or by means of an international conference of the kind the first President Bush held in Madrid in 1991. But instead of leaving the parties to talk on their own after the conference ends, as Mr Bush did after Madrid, America must ride herd, providing reassurance and exerting pressure on both sides as required.
The pressure part of this equation is crucial. In his first round of peacemaking, Mr Obama picked a fight with Israel over settlements and then backed down, thereby making America look weak in a region where too many people already believe that its power is waning (see article). This is a misperception the president needs to correct. For all its economic worries at home and military woes in Iraq and Afghanistan, America is far from weak in the Levant, where both Israel and the nascent Palestine in the West Bank continue to depend on it in countless vital ways.
The Palestinians have flirted lately with the idea of bypassing America and taking their cause directly to the UN. Going to the UN is well and good. But the fact remains that without the sort of tough love that America alone can bestow, Israel will probably never be able to overcome its settler movement and make the deal that could win it acceptance in the Arab world. Mr Obama has shown in battles as different as health reform and the New START nuclear treaty with Russia that he has the quality of persistence. He should persist in Palestine, too.
While I do not claim expertise in the history or politics of Great Britain, my impression is that the Munich Agreement of 1938, involving Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain and Hitler (" . . . peace with honour. I believe it is peace for our time.") is an icon of shame in that country. It represented great power pressure on the weak government of Czechoslovakia, and traded away part of another country's territory for the empty hope of peace. You find reference to the event under "appeasement" in the Oxford English Dictionary. "Freely used in political contexts in the 20th century, and since 1938 often used disparagingly with allusion to the attempts at conciliation by concession made by Mr. Neville Chamberlain, the British Prime Minister, before the outbreak of war with Germany in 1939; by extension, any such policy of pacification by concession to an enemy."
The Economist is part of my Friday morning routine. I view it as the best news magazine in the English language. I usually excuse its tilt against Israel as not overly extreme, insofar as it is generally balanced with a reasonable assessment of Israel's options.
An article put on its website on December 29th, dealing with Israel, the Palestinians, and Barack Obama fell outside my parameters of tolerance. The Economist on this occasion is closer to the spirit of Neville Chamberlain than to that of Winston Churchill. http://www.economist.com/node/17800151
Fair enough is its warning that the failure of Obama's peace efforts has produced a fragile condition of no war and no peace. It is also fair to note that supplies of armaments to Hizbollah and Hamas add to the dangers, and raise the prospect of a regional war involving Syria and Iran, along with significant civilian casualties in Israel and elsewhere.
The item is fair to note that any peace achieved between Israel and the Palestinians will be incomplete.
"Iran, Hizbullah and sometimes Hamas say that they will never accept a Jewish state in the Middle East."
It is the next sentence that urges appeasement.
"it is the unending Israeli occupation that gives these rejectionists their oxygen. Give the Palestinians a state on the West Bank and it will become very much harder for the rejectionists to justify going to war."
The theme continues
"if Mr Obama fails, because the Palestinians have shown time and again that they will not fall silent while their rights are denied. The longer Israel keeps them stateless under military occupation, the lonelier it becomes—and the more it undermines its own identity as a liberal democracy."
The Economist accepts an outline of an agreement that is widely shared, including by many in the center of Israel's political spectrum.
"The outlines of such an agreement have been clear since Bill Clinton set out his “parameters” after the failure of the Camp David summit a decade ago. The border between Israel and a new Palestine would follow the pre-1967 line, with adjustments to accommodate some of the bigger border-hugging Israeli settlements in the West Bank, and land-swaps to compensate the Palestinians for those adjustments."
It also recognizes what has frustrated agreement.
". . . there is also much difficult detail to be filled in: how to make Jerusalem into a shared capital, settle the fate of the refugees and ensure that the West Bank will not become, as Gaza did, an advance base for war against Israel after Israeli forces withdraw."
Where is Palestinian responsibility in the copybook of The Economist?
The sensitivities of Palestinians and Israelis on the issues of Jerusalem (especially the Temple Mount) and refugees may be the hard kernels that prevent agreement. For The Economists and others to put the onus on Israel and what is said to be a settlement-obsessed government is to reinforce the Palestinian narrative that gives them a monopoly of suffering and justice. Prime Ministers Ehud Barak and Ehud Olmert racked up Palestinian refusals in response to far reaching efforts to reach agreement along the lines spelled out by President Clinton.
Demanding more from Israel without demanding flexibility from Palestinian may not be equivalent to Chamberlain's deal with Hitler, but it is appeasement.
With all of this, it is too early to give up entirely on The Economist. Another article from the same date gives high marks and a positive projection to Israel's economy. 'Beyond the start-up nation': http://www.economist.com/node/17796932
Yet another provides a decent review of American blunders, frustrations, and limitations in the Middle East. 'Great sacrifices, small rewards' Has America’s obsession with this region been worth it? http://www.economist.com/node/17797714. This item does bash Israel and ignores the need to press Palestinians, but it is impressive in touching the wide range of elements affecting the region, and those who worry about it.
--
Ira Sharkansky (Emeritus)
Department of Political Science
Hebrew University of Jerusalem
---
http://www.economist.com/node/17800151
The United States, Israel and the Arabs
Please, not again
Without boldness from Barack Obama there is a real risk of war in the Middle East
Dec 29th 2010 |
NO WAR, no peace, is the usual state of affairs between Israel and its neighbours in the Middle East. But every time an attempt at Arab-Israeli peacemaking fails, as Barack Obama’s did shortly before Christmas, the peace becomes a little more fragile and the danger of war increases. Sadly, there is reason to believe that unless remedial action is taken, 2011 might see the most destructive such war for many years.
One much-discussed way in which war might arise stems from the apparent desire of Iran to acquire nuclear weapons at any cost, and Israel’s apparent desire to stop Iran at any cost. But fear of Iran’s nuclear programme is only one of the fuses that could detonate an explosion at any moment. Another is the frantic arms race that has been under way since the inconclusive war in 2006 between Israel and Hizbullah, Iran’s ally in Lebanon. Both sides have been intensively preparing for what each says will be a “decisive” second round.
Such a war would bear little resemblance to the previous clashes between Israel and its neighbours. For all their many horrors, the Lebanon war of 2006 and the Gaza war of 2009 were limited affairs. On the Israeli side, in particular, civilian casualties were light. Since 2006, however, Iran and Syria have provided Hizbullah with an arsenal of perhaps 50,000 missiles and rockets, many with ranges and payloads well beyond what Hizbullah had last time. This marks an extraordinary change in the balance of power. For the first time a radical non-state actor has the power to kill thousands of civilians in Israel’s cities more or less at the press of a button.
In that event, says Israel, it will strike back with double force. A war of this sort could easily draw in Syria, and perhaps Iran. For the moment, deterrence keeps the peace. But a peace maintained by deterrence alone is a frail thing. The shipment to Hizbullah of a balance-tipping new weapon, a skirmish on the Lebanese or increasingly volatile Gaza border—any number of miscalculations could ignite a conflagration.
From peace process to war process
All of this should give new urgency to Arab-Israeli peacemaking. To start with, at least, peace will be incomplete: Iran, Hizbullah and sometimes Hamas say that they will never accept a Jewish state in the Middle East. But it is the unending Israeli occupation that gives these rejectionists their oxygen. Give the Palestinians a state on the West Bank and it will become very much harder for the rejectionists to justify going to war.
Easy enough to say. The question is whether peacemaking can succeed. After striving for almost two years to shepherd Israeli and Palestinian leaders into direct talks, only for this effort to collapse over the issue of settlements, Mr Obama is in danger of concluding like many presidents before him that Arab-Israeli diplomacy is a Sisyphean distraction. But giving up would be a tragic mistake, as bad for America and Israel as for the Palestinians. The instant the peace process ends, the war process begins, and wars in this energy-rich corner of the world usually suck in America, one way or another. Israel will suffer too if Mr Obama fails, because the Palestinians have shown time and again that they will not fall silent while their rights are denied. The longer Israel keeps them stateless under military occupation, the lonelier it becomes—and the more it undermines its own identity as a liberal democracy.
Don’t mediate. Legislate
Instead of giving up, Mr Obama needs to change his angle of attack. America has clung too long to the dogma that direct talks between Israel and the Palestinians are the way forward. James Baker, a former secretary of state, once said that America could not want peace more than the local parties did. This is no longer true. The recent history proves that the extremists on each side are too strong for timid local leaders to make the necessary compromises alone. It is time for the world to agree on a settlement and impose it on the feuding parties.
The outlines of such an agreement have been clear since Bill Clinton set out his “parameters” after the failure of the Camp David summit a decade ago. The border between Israel and a new Palestine would follow the pre-1967 line, with adjustments to accommodate some of the bigger border-hugging Israeli settlements in the West Bank, and land-swaps to compensate the Palestinians for those adjustments. But there is also much difficult detail to be filled in: how to make Jerusalem into a shared capital, settle the fate of the refugees and ensure that the West Bank will not become, as Gaza did, an advance base for war against Israel after Israeli forces withdraw.
Mr Clinton unveiled his blueprint at the end of a negotiation that had failed. Mr Obama should set out his own map and make this a new starting point. He should gather international support for it, either through the United Nations or by means of an international conference of the kind the first President Bush held in Madrid in 1991. But instead of leaving the parties to talk on their own after the conference ends, as Mr Bush did after Madrid, America must ride herd, providing reassurance and exerting pressure on both sides as required.
The pressure part of this equation is crucial. In his first round of peacemaking, Mr Obama picked a fight with Israel over settlements and then backed down, thereby making America look weak in a region where too many people already believe that its power is waning (see article). This is a misperception the president needs to correct. For all its economic worries at home and military woes in Iraq and Afghanistan, America is far from weak in the Levant, where both Israel and the nascent Palestine in the West Bank continue to depend on it in countless vital ways.
The Palestinians have flirted lately with the idea of bypassing America and taking their cause directly to the UN. Going to the UN is well and good. But the fact remains that without the sort of tough love that America alone can bestow, Israel will probably never be able to overcome its settler movement and make the deal that could win it acceptance in the Arab world. Mr Obama has shown in battles as different as health reform and the New START nuclear treaty with Russia that he has the quality of persistence. He should persist in Palestine, too.
Friday, December 31, 2010
'PA arrests Hamas man at no. 1 on 'most wanted' list'
JPOST.COM STAFF
12/31/2010
Palestinian sources say IDF have also tried to catch in the past al-Kawasma, who was arrested in Hebron; al-Kawasma has been on Palestinian Authorities' wanted list since 1998.
Palestinian security forces have arrested a wanted Hamas official in the West Bank. Al-Kawasma has been described as number one the Palestinian Authorities' "most wanted" list since 1998.
Security forces told Ma'an news agency that the man was arrested Thursday in the Hebron area. According to the reports, the IDF has also tried to arrest the man in the past. The arrest comes after the Palestinian Authority threatened to deport 50 Hamas leaders from the West Bank, according to a claim by the Islamist movement on Sunday.
The unprecedented threat was seen as yet another sign of mounting tensions between the Fatah-dominated PA in the West Bank and the Hamas government in the Gaza Strip.
It’s not clear to where the Hamas leaders would be deported. The PA security forces would not be able to carry out such a step without coordinating with Israel.
A senior PA security official in Ramallah told The Jerusalem Post that he was unaware of any decision to deport Hamas members. The official accused the Hamas leadership of “lies and fabrications.”
Since Saturday, scores of Hamas officials and activists have been summoned to the headquarters of the PA’s General Intelligence Service in Ramallah, where they were reportedly informed that they may be deported.
Khaled Abu Toameh contributed to this report
Interview with Melanie Phillips on "World Turned Upside Down"
Roger Aronoff
Has Western civilization now reached a point where it has stopped trying to survive? That is one of many questions raised by British journalist and author Melanie Phillips in her recent book, The World Turned Upside Down: The Global Battle Over God, Truth, and Power. In an exclusive interview with Accuracy in Media, she was very critical of the role the media have played in creating this upside down world, as she sees it. She said that “The British media are worse than your American media. At least in America you have Fox News, you have talk radio, which can challenge the otherwise unchallenged worldview of the Left represented in organizations like CNN, ABC, and so on—and our BBC. But the fact is, most journalists are on the Left, and most journalists, I think, are acting as fifth columnists in the war against the West, a war waged both from within and from without.” Melanie Phillips worked for a decade for the left-wing British newspaper, The Guardian, as a correspondent, editor and columnist, starting in 1977. From there she went to The Observer (which had been bought by The Guardian), The Sunday Times and later The Daily Mail, and has written several books along the way, including the widely acclaimed Londonistan. She also currently writes for The Spectator.
Among the issues most important to Ms. Phillips, are the breakdown of the family, the obsession with multiculturalism, the phenomenon of radical Islam coming into Britain and not being dealt with properly, and Israel, of which she is a passionate supporter. She explained that she decided to write The World Turned Upside Down when she realized that the above-mentioned issues, and others such as how the war in Iraq was reported, had something in common: “They were all issues on which it was not possible, any longer, to have a proper discussion or debate; they were all issues on which the progressive side of politics took the view that it wasn’t simply that they believed that people who dissented from their point of view were wrong, they believed that they shouldn’t be allowed to speak at all.”
What these issues have in common, she concludes, is that “They were all linked by the fact that they were all ideologies—that is to say, they were all governed by ideologies such as a whole range of -isms: Feminism, anti-Americanism, environmentalism, anti-Zionism, moral and cultural relativism, and so on. And all these ideologies, because they’re ideologies, basically, they start with the belief that the idea is not only correct, but can’t be challenged, whatever that idea is, and then they force evidence to fit the idea.”
Below, in italics, are excerpts from the interview. You can listen to the entire two-part interview or read the transcript here.
The higher up the social and educational scale you go, particularly people who have been educated in universities in the last decade or two, you find that they are people who are much more likely to have a highly ideological view of the world, to be anti-America, anti-West, anti-capitalism, and to have—most importantly—no idea what truth and objectivity actually are. They disdain the whole notion of truth and objectivity, and they’re the people who are the most vicious and venomous towards Israel, a subject I care about very deeply. I am, myself, a Jew, but I also believe that Israel should be supported not simply in its own right, but because I believe Israel is a kind of paradigm issue of our time, that as far as Britain and Europe are concerned, it’s where the most irrational and bigoted views coalesce under the umbrella of “being rational” and “progressive.” It’s a kind of symbol, if you like, of where we’ve lost the plot over a whole range of issues.
So all these ideologies—look at environmentalism, look at anti-Zionism, anti-Americanism—we may think that some of them, or all of them, are horrible and destructive, but from the point of view of people who believe in them, they are all ways in which they think the world can be perfected.
So it is extraordinary that the Left literally march on the streets of London, literally march shoulder to shoulder with the Islamists. I think there are a number of reasons. The most obvious reason is that they are both revolutionary movements wanting to overturn Western society and its culture, and replace it by something else. Now, it’s perfectly true that the Islamists want something radically different from the Left, in terms of what they want to replace it by, but they are happy to use each other as troops in the common cause of defeating the West. So that’s the first thing. The second thing is that they are all Utopian creeds...
You have the same problem developing very fast in America. You’re quite behind us in Britain because we’re so far in advance because of our demographic situation, but, unfortunately, you’re going down exactly the same route, because you’re too frightened, collectively—as we are in Britain, collectively—to acknowledge that this thing we’re facing is not simply a problem of terrorism, it’s also a problem of cultural takeover which is rooted in religious fanaticism. Now, how we should be dealing with it, in my view, is this: We should be expecting Muslims who live in Britain and America to adhere to exactly the same standards as every other minority.
...in Britain, we’ve given a lot of ground to sharia law. We’re turning a blind eye to it. So we are tolerating, in Britain, for example, polygamy. We are giving welfare benefits to polygamous households. We are tolerating, and even tolerating, sharia courts. Now, sharia courts, they are courts which do not recognize a superior law of the land, and, consequently, we have the terrible phenomenon developing in Britain of parallel jurisdictions in which British Muslim women, who are British citizens, are effectively being forced to live under a rule of law administered informally within their communities which makes them into second-class citizens. One cannot have that.
In the Islamic world, symbols are very, very important. Consequently, to erect near or very near the site, which is a graveyard, of a terrorist attack—conducted under the aegis of Islamic jihad—a mosque which is particularly large is very, very significant in the Islamic world, because the symbol, the signal, that gives to the Islamic world is that on the site where the Islamic world attacked America, it has kind of planted a flag in triumph. That’s what that [Ground Zero] mosque symbolizes to the Islamic world.
But it struck me that The Guardian had taken a much more strategic decision, which in a way is quite comical, and it’s this: Assange [founder of WikiLeaks] embodies, as it were, two articles of politically correct faith...On the one hand, they support Julian Assange as a hero of the century because of the harm he is doing to America. On the other hand, there is this inconvenient—for them—set of claims that he has committed rape and sexual assault.
But it seems to me that the real fault here [WikiLeaks] is with the American authorities. I mean, it is absolutely staggering that all this material could be downloaded so easily. I don’t know whether this Bradley Manning fellow was the guy who leaked all this—we’ve been told he was...but whoever it was clearly was able to get a hold of this stuff very easily. It almost defies belief—it does defy belief—that America can be so sloppy in leaving this stuff so unprotected, in the sense that it didn’t take much to download all this. I mean, given the number of people who we’re told had access to it all, it’s astonishing that this hasn’t leaked before... It’s just incredibly incompetent.
The trouble is that our media in America and in Britain don’t report this. They are so incredibly biased and prejudiced against Israel and against America—but, in this respect, against Israel—that they dwell obsessively and viciously on Israel, and they produce this incredibly distorted picture which puts Israel at the center of the problem, whereas, in fact, it is not—it is Iran that is the problem. It is Iran that is the strategic menace to the region, and to the free world. The media simply refuse to report that. So it’s been rather amusing—the WikiLeaks leaks have come as a bolt from the blue for the Left, for whom this is a really inconvenient truth. But to the rest of us, who actually have seen through all the propaganda, it wasn’t a shock at all.
And that is what the WikiLeaks leaks have thrown into such very stark relief, that President Obama’s administration has been acting in bad faith. It has been telling everybody that if you can solve Israel/Palestine, then you have a much better chance of getting all these countries, like Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states, on one side against Iran. This was always patently ridiculous. But now, it has been shown to be absolutely true that it was ridiculous, because now we can see that it was a lie, that Obama’s whole approach has been based on a lie, a very cynical lie—because he knew perfectly well. He was being told by these countries, “What we want you to do is take out Iran.” They weren’t even bothered about Israel. So he knew that, and yet he told the world a lie.
I think that Obama is set upon using Israel as the scapegoat in the region for a whole variety of reasons. He had a setback, because his strategy over the settlements has run into the ground, but he will find other ways of hurting Israel. This is a very, very anti-Israel President. He is hurting the West’s major strategic ally—only strategic ally, only unambiguous, strategic ally—in the Middle East, he’s weakening the West as a result, and he’s dumping on the victims of genocidal terror. It is absolutely obscene. What’s going to happen, I don’t know. I mean, Obama clearly has been weakened by the midterms, but he still has power, as we know, over foreign policy. I don’t know whether Congress could rein him in if it wanted to... I don’t think the American media is telling the American public the extent of the perfidy that is going on here, which is almost unbelievable, the extent to which he’s putting the thumbscrews on Israel, and he’s simply finding new ways of doing so.
These things that are being said—“genocide,” “apartheid,” “ethnic cleansing”—are obscenities. They are absolute obscenities. First of all, they are completely, and demonstrably, untrue... There is no apartheid. Israeli Arabs have full civil rights. There are Israeli Arabs who are members of the courts. They are lawyers. They are judges. They are politicians. They are members of the Knesset. There is no apartheid at all. These are the most wicked lies, and the Western intelligentsia has been consumed by these lies.
You talk about “ethnic cleansing”—no Arabs have been ethnically cleansed from Israel, but the Jews were ethnically cleansed after 1948, when they were driven out of Arab countries. A future state of Palestine, according to the Palestinians, must have not one Jew in it. That is apartheid. That is ethnic cleansing. That is racism. So this is why I think it really is a world turned upside down, where you have people who are the victims of these terrible things—apartheid, ethnic cleansing, genocide—who are accused of perpetrating it. The appalling thing is that the West can’t see this for what it is.
FamilySecurityMatters.org Contributing Editor Roger Aronoff is a media analyst with Accuracy in Media, and is the writer/director of the award-winning documentary "Confronting Iraq: Conflict and Hope." He can be contacted at roger.aronoff@aim.org.
Thursday, December 30, 2010
"Netanyahu's Coalition"
Arlene Kushner
How stable is it? That's the question these days.
At one and the same time, the coalition embraces Labor, with Ehud Barak as Defense Minister, and Yisrael Beitenu (Israel Our Home) with Avigdor Lieberman as Foreign Minister. And each, in his turn, has voiced an opinion on "peace" consistent with his party's position. Needless to say, there is no unanimity in these positions.
The question has been raised many times as to whether these ministers are "loose cannons," or are floating trial balloons -- saying things unofficially that Netanyahu wants said. I myself have pondered this from time to time. But the two positions are so at odds that they cannot at one and the same time both represent covert opinions of Netanyahu. (And I'm not even mentioning Shas and Eli Yishai as Interior Minister here.) In the last several days, Avigdor Lieberman has been in the media spotlight. At a meeting Sunday of Israel's ambassadors and counsels-general, Lieberman, who is their boss, said that because of current diplomatic and political realities, there is no chance of reaching a comprehensive agreement with the Palestinian Arabs. At least in part, he said, this is because the PA government is illegitimate [having postponed elections so that terms for the president and the legislature have expired].
"I don't think we can reach a comprehensive agreement that solves all questions of security, territory and end of conflict. I think this impossible under present conditions."
Said Lieberman, it is a mistake to create false expectations by implying that a final peace can be achieved in one to two years (which is what Netanyahu has said repeatedly): it is time to work for an interim agreement instead.
His recommendation was that there be cooperation in areas of security and economics, with core issues such as Jerusalem, refugees, and borders tabled.
~~~~~~~~~~
I will note here that I am not in total agreement with Lieberman, who espouses the idea that reducing the economic gap between Israel and the PA would significantly help to resolve the conflict. This is myth. Ideology trumps economics -- this has repeatedly been demonstrated. Additionally I wish he had said that there should be no further discussion on Jerusalem, which is Israel's eternal, united capital. But, nonetheless... he comes closer to espousing a reasonable position than anyone else in the government.
~~~~~~~~~~
Netanyahu quickly responded that only he speaks for the government and that government positions are determined via Cabinet decisions. Lieberman's words "represent his personal assessments and positions, just as other ministers in the government have different positions from each other."
On Monday evening, in a TV interview, the prime minister said that if conditions were right, "no coalition considerations would stop me" from pursuing an historic peace agreement. The right conditions? According to Netanyahu, these are recognizing the legitimacy of Israel as a Jewish state, giving up on the right of return, and then additionally arriving at satisfactory terms on security.
"But up until now they are just trying to run away from negotiations...If they...accept those two basic conditions to reaching an agreement, I will not hesitate."
~~~~~~~~~~
Netanyahu is playing word games, telling the world, "see we are not the stumbling block, look how eager we are to proceed. Don't pay attention to Lieberman, who suggests we reduce our efforts." But of course Lieberman is correct. There is not a snowball's chance in hell that the Palestinian Arabs will renounce the "right of return" and acknowledge that Israel is the Jewish state.
But neither is there the remotest possibility that Netanyahu, even as he plays these games, really believes in what he is saying. For, on Monday, along with his statement above, he also offered this:
"There could be a situation in which talks with the Palestinians hit a brick wall over the issues of Jerusalem and the right of return, and in that case the result would be an interim agreement.
"It certainly is a possibility."
(Is this, or is it not, a back-handed acknowledgement of the correctness of what Lieberman said?)
~~~~~~~~~~
Both Labor, inside the coalition, and Kadima, in the opposition, expressed horror at Lieberman's words. "The government of Israel, headed by Netanyahu, has committed itself to the vision of two states for two peoples," read a (delusional) statement put out by Labor.
In spite of this protest and his own alleged anger with Lieberman, however, Netanyahu declined to discipline him for speaking his mind.
Thus followed a flurry of public and media statements -- including a JPost editorial calling for Netanyahu to remove Lieberman from his position. The concern is that there is no coherent Israeli policy with these "wildcat" statements being advanced, and that this makes it impossible for Netanyahu to govern effectively.
That concern has some legitimacy.
Lieberman himself addressed it: "Can Israel put out a clear plan?" he asked. "That is...a good question in the political reality. With the current system of government and coalition contradictions, I don't think you can reach a common model, a common denominator..."
~~~~~~~~~~
There are predictions that internal dissension within the government will tear it apart. But it is premature to predict this. Netanyahu is, first, an astute and tough-minded politician, guarding his own power base. He trades off one thing for another to keep his coalition intact. This is, indeed, built into the nature of coalition politics, but Netanyahu is particularly adept at manipulating the system.
That this weakens him and interferes with his ability to chart a clear course is obviously the case. In the end, as has happened so often before, we'll be saved by the Palestinian Arabs who are so totally intransigent that Netanyahu can hold tight even without that clear course.
~~~~~~~~~~
And what are the Palestinian Arabs doing these days?
For starters, they immediately let it be known that they would not accept any interim agreement. Chief negotiator Saeb Erakat declared: "interim solutions are rejected part and parcel."
~~~~~~~~~~
Then there are serious tensions between Mahmoud Abbas and Muhammad Dahlan, former security commander in Gaza, and until the present an active member of Fatah. Now the Fatah Central Committee has voted unanimously to suspend his membership pending an inquiry into allegations that he was planning a coup against PA leadership. I cannot speak for the authenticity of these allegations, but it is clear that the figurative crown rests uneasily on the head of Abbas, who indeed tends to be paranoid. Abbas has shut down a radio station Dahlan ran in Ramallah.
Dahlan, at not quite 50, is considered a possible successor to Abbas -- he is a "Young Turk," part of the generation that rose up in the party from local roots -- in his case in Khan Yunis in Gaza -- as compared to the older Arafat associates such as Abbas who came here from Tunis. He will be coming to Ramallah from Cairo, where he lives, to face the charges.
Let me emphasize that there are no good guys to root for here, they are all bums. Dahlan has documented links to terrorism, and was connected to the Karine-A weapons ship. Either way, internal dissension further weakens the ability of Fatah and the PA to function. One story has it that Abbas is angry at Dahlan for insulting his sons, saying they became rich by utilizing Abbas's influence.
~~~~~~~~~~
By the way, George Canawati of Radio Bethlehem was detained for five days by Palestinian security forces because he broadcast a news item regarding friction within Fatah party.
What is it the US says, regarding a democratic Palestinian state?
~~~~~~~~~~
Most significantly, the PA is now preparing to bring a resolution to the UN Security Council declaring our "settlements" illegal.
There are still several unknowns regarding the precise wording of such a resolution and what the ramifications would be. It is exceedingly unlikely that it would be brought under Chapter 7, which would give the UN enforceability, and the expectation is that the US would oppose the settlement resolution.
While not specifically committing the US to a veto of such a resolution, State Department spokesman Mark Toner declared: "We have consistently opposed taking these kinds of issues to the UN Security Council.
"Final-status issues can only be resolved" through direct negotiations, he declared.
~~~~~~~~~~
At the same time, Erekat is saying there are no plans in the near future to ask the SC to recognize a Palestinian state.
~~~~~~~~~~
Yesterday, President Obama appointed Robert Ford, a career diplomat, as the first US ambassador to Syria since 2005. He utilized a recess appointment (i.e., appointment while the Senate is in recess) to bypass opposition from Senate Republicans. They are not amused. Ford can serve only until the end of the next session of Congress.
This is a bad move by Obama, as it rewards Syria for the wrong things. But how typically "Obama" it is.
~~~~~~~~~~
"The Good News Corner"
There is actually -- Baruch HaShem -- lots of good news.
Moshe Ya'alon, Deputy Prime Minister and Strategic Affairs Minister, gave an interview to Israel Radio yesterday. Among the things he said:
-- As a result of the technological damage done to its computers by the cyberworm, Iran has no capability to create a nuclear weapon now. He estimates it will take three years to develop that capacity again. (Although the US is reportedly worried about the installation of more effective centrifuges that might shorten that time.)
-- The US and Europe are "straying away" from the idea of a unilaterally established Palestinian state.
_______
An offshore natural gas reserve of great size was discovered about 129 km. northwest of the coast of Haifa about a year ago. The Leviathan, located 1,650 km into the water, has been evaluated over a period of several months, and has now been declared the largest find of it kind discovered in the world in the last decade. "It has the potential to position Israel as a natural gas exporting nation." And this, understand, is some 47 km. south of another somewhat smaller gas reserve, called "Tamar," that is said to worth $15 billion.
_______
Israel's gross domestic product increased by 4.5% this past year, a rate of growth larger than had been anticipated. We are faring better than many countries in the OECD
_______
A record number of tourists visited Israel this year, and Tourist Minister Stas Meseznikov hopes to see four million visitors annually by 2013.
_______
We are witnessing a growth in aliyah, as well. More than 10,000 people moved to Israel in 2010, many from free and democratic Western nations. I.e., people are coming because of a positive connection with Israel and not because they are fleeing persecution. The average age of new olim (immigrants) is just under 30.
~~~~~~~~~~
I confess, the secular new year passes me by with little note. Particularly here in Israel, and most especially because it falls on Shabbat this year.
For all those readers who will be taking note of this event, or celebrating, I most certainly extend wishes for a happy and healthy new year!
For those observing Shabbat tomorrow night, Shabbat Shalom.
~~~~~~~~~~
© Arlene Kushner. This material is produced by Arlene Kushner, functioning as an independent journalist. Permission is granted for it to be reproduced only with proper attribution
see my website www.ArlenefromIsrael.info
see my website www.ArlenefromIsrael.info
How stable is it? That's the question these days.
At one and the same time, the coalition embraces Labor, with Ehud Barak as Defense Minister, and Yisrael Beitenu (Israel Our Home) with Avigdor Lieberman as Foreign Minister. And each, in his turn, has voiced an opinion on "peace" consistent with his party's position. Needless to say, there is no unanimity in these positions.
The question has been raised many times as to whether these ministers are "loose cannons," or are floating trial balloons -- saying things unofficially that Netanyahu wants said. I myself have pondered this from time to time. But the two positions are so at odds that they cannot at one and the same time both represent covert opinions of Netanyahu. (And I'm not even mentioning Shas and Eli Yishai as Interior Minister here.) In the last several days, Avigdor Lieberman has been in the media spotlight. At a meeting Sunday of Israel's ambassadors and counsels-general, Lieberman, who is their boss, said that because of current diplomatic and political realities, there is no chance of reaching a comprehensive agreement with the Palestinian Arabs. At least in part, he said, this is because the PA government is illegitimate [having postponed elections so that terms for the president and the legislature have expired].
"I don't think we can reach a comprehensive agreement that solves all questions of security, territory and end of conflict. I think this impossible under present conditions."
Said Lieberman, it is a mistake to create false expectations by implying that a final peace can be achieved in one to two years (which is what Netanyahu has said repeatedly): it is time to work for an interim agreement instead.
His recommendation was that there be cooperation in areas of security and economics, with core issues such as Jerusalem, refugees, and borders tabled.
~~~~~~~~~~
I will note here that I am not in total agreement with Lieberman, who espouses the idea that reducing the economic gap between Israel and the PA would significantly help to resolve the conflict. This is myth. Ideology trumps economics -- this has repeatedly been demonstrated. Additionally I wish he had said that there should be no further discussion on Jerusalem, which is Israel's eternal, united capital. But, nonetheless... he comes closer to espousing a reasonable position than anyone else in the government.
~~~~~~~~~~
Netanyahu quickly responded that only he speaks for the government and that government positions are determined via Cabinet decisions. Lieberman's words "represent his personal assessments and positions, just as other ministers in the government have different positions from each other."
On Monday evening, in a TV interview, the prime minister said that if conditions were right, "no coalition considerations would stop me" from pursuing an historic peace agreement. The right conditions? According to Netanyahu, these are recognizing the legitimacy of Israel as a Jewish state, giving up on the right of return, and then additionally arriving at satisfactory terms on security.
"But up until now they are just trying to run away from negotiations...If they...accept those two basic conditions to reaching an agreement, I will not hesitate."
~~~~~~~~~~
Netanyahu is playing word games, telling the world, "see we are not the stumbling block, look how eager we are to proceed. Don't pay attention to Lieberman, who suggests we reduce our efforts." But of course Lieberman is correct. There is not a snowball's chance in hell that the Palestinian Arabs will renounce the "right of return" and acknowledge that Israel is the Jewish state.
But neither is there the remotest possibility that Netanyahu, even as he plays these games, really believes in what he is saying. For, on Monday, along with his statement above, he also offered this:
"There could be a situation in which talks with the Palestinians hit a brick wall over the issues of Jerusalem and the right of return, and in that case the result would be an interim agreement.
"It certainly is a possibility."
(Is this, or is it not, a back-handed acknowledgement of the correctness of what Lieberman said?)
~~~~~~~~~~
Both Labor, inside the coalition, and Kadima, in the opposition, expressed horror at Lieberman's words. "The government of Israel, headed by Netanyahu, has committed itself to the vision of two states for two peoples," read a (delusional) statement put out by Labor.
In spite of this protest and his own alleged anger with Lieberman, however, Netanyahu declined to discipline him for speaking his mind.
Thus followed a flurry of public and media statements -- including a JPost editorial calling for Netanyahu to remove Lieberman from his position. The concern is that there is no coherent Israeli policy with these "wildcat" statements being advanced, and that this makes it impossible for Netanyahu to govern effectively.
That concern has some legitimacy.
Lieberman himself addressed it: "Can Israel put out a clear plan?" he asked. "That is...a good question in the political reality. With the current system of government and coalition contradictions, I don't think you can reach a common model, a common denominator..."
~~~~~~~~~~
There are predictions that internal dissension within the government will tear it apart. But it is premature to predict this. Netanyahu is, first, an astute and tough-minded politician, guarding his own power base. He trades off one thing for another to keep his coalition intact. This is, indeed, built into the nature of coalition politics, but Netanyahu is particularly adept at manipulating the system.
That this weakens him and interferes with his ability to chart a clear course is obviously the case. In the end, as has happened so often before, we'll be saved by the Palestinian Arabs who are so totally intransigent that Netanyahu can hold tight even without that clear course.
~~~~~~~~~~
And what are the Palestinian Arabs doing these days?
For starters, they immediately let it be known that they would not accept any interim agreement. Chief negotiator Saeb Erakat declared: "interim solutions are rejected part and parcel."
~~~~~~~~~~
Then there are serious tensions between Mahmoud Abbas and Muhammad Dahlan, former security commander in Gaza, and until the present an active member of Fatah. Now the Fatah Central Committee has voted unanimously to suspend his membership pending an inquiry into allegations that he was planning a coup against PA leadership. I cannot speak for the authenticity of these allegations, but it is clear that the figurative crown rests uneasily on the head of Abbas, who indeed tends to be paranoid. Abbas has shut down a radio station Dahlan ran in Ramallah.
Dahlan, at not quite 50, is considered a possible successor to Abbas -- he is a "Young Turk," part of the generation that rose up in the party from local roots -- in his case in Khan Yunis in Gaza -- as compared to the older Arafat associates such as Abbas who came here from Tunis. He will be coming to Ramallah from Cairo, where he lives, to face the charges.
Let me emphasize that there are no good guys to root for here, they are all bums. Dahlan has documented links to terrorism, and was connected to the Karine-A weapons ship. Either way, internal dissension further weakens the ability of Fatah and the PA to function. One story has it that Abbas is angry at Dahlan for insulting his sons, saying they became rich by utilizing Abbas's influence.
~~~~~~~~~~
By the way, George Canawati of Radio Bethlehem was detained for five days by Palestinian security forces because he broadcast a news item regarding friction within Fatah party.
What is it the US says, regarding a democratic Palestinian state?
~~~~~~~~~~
Most significantly, the PA is now preparing to bring a resolution to the UN Security Council declaring our "settlements" illegal.
There are still several unknowns regarding the precise wording of such a resolution and what the ramifications would be. It is exceedingly unlikely that it would be brought under Chapter 7, which would give the UN enforceability, and the expectation is that the US would oppose the settlement resolution.
While not specifically committing the US to a veto of such a resolution, State Department spokesman Mark Toner declared: "We have consistently opposed taking these kinds of issues to the UN Security Council.
"Final-status issues can only be resolved" through direct negotiations, he declared.
~~~~~~~~~~
At the same time, Erekat is saying there are no plans in the near future to ask the SC to recognize a Palestinian state.
~~~~~~~~~~
Yesterday, President Obama appointed Robert Ford, a career diplomat, as the first US ambassador to Syria since 2005. He utilized a recess appointment (i.e., appointment while the Senate is in recess) to bypass opposition from Senate Republicans. They are not amused. Ford can serve only until the end of the next session of Congress.
This is a bad move by Obama, as it rewards Syria for the wrong things. But how typically "Obama" it is.
~~~~~~~~~~
"The Good News Corner"
There is actually -- Baruch HaShem -- lots of good news.
Moshe Ya'alon, Deputy Prime Minister and Strategic Affairs Minister, gave an interview to Israel Radio yesterday. Among the things he said:
-- As a result of the technological damage done to its computers by the cyberworm, Iran has no capability to create a nuclear weapon now. He estimates it will take three years to develop that capacity again. (Although the US is reportedly worried about the installation of more effective centrifuges that might shorten that time.)
-- The US and Europe are "straying away" from the idea of a unilaterally established Palestinian state.
_______
An offshore natural gas reserve of great size was discovered about 129 km. northwest of the coast of Haifa about a year ago. The Leviathan, located 1,650 km into the water, has been evaluated over a period of several months, and has now been declared the largest find of it kind discovered in the world in the last decade. "It has the potential to position Israel as a natural gas exporting nation." And this, understand, is some 47 km. south of another somewhat smaller gas reserve, called "Tamar," that is said to worth $15 billion.
_______
Israel's gross domestic product increased by 4.5% this past year, a rate of growth larger than had been anticipated. We are faring better than many countries in the OECD
_______
A record number of tourists visited Israel this year, and Tourist Minister Stas Meseznikov hopes to see four million visitors annually by 2013.
_______
We are witnessing a growth in aliyah, as well. More than 10,000 people moved to Israel in 2010, many from free and democratic Western nations. I.e., people are coming because of a positive connection with Israel and not because they are fleeing persecution. The average age of new olim (immigrants) is just under 30.
~~~~~~~~~~
I confess, the secular new year passes me by with little note. Particularly here in Israel, and most especially because it falls on Shabbat this year.
For all those readers who will be taking note of this event, or celebrating, I most certainly extend wishes for a happy and healthy new year!
For those observing Shabbat tomorrow night, Shabbat Shalom.
~~~~~~~~~~
© Arlene Kushner. This material is produced by Arlene Kushner, functioning as an independent journalist. Permission is granted for it to be reproduced only with proper attribution
see my website www.ArlenefromIsrael.info
see my website www.ArlenefromIsrael.info
Fayyad: No 'Facebook State' for the PA
Chana Ya'ar
A7 News
Palestinian Authority Prime Minister Salam Fayyad is not looking for a “Facebook State” – and moreover, he is convinced he isn't building one.
Fayyad told the Reuters news agency Wednesday he expects more countries around the world will fall into line and announce formal recognition of the PA as a new country, which is the way the PA would prefer to create its state with no peace, no recognition of Israel as the home of the Jewish people, no agreement on the "refugee" issue and no negotiated final status agreement with Israel.
Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon last week wrote in his personal blog that the “state of Facebook is more real than the state of Palestine.” He compared recognition of such an entity with clicking on the “Like” button on the social networking site. Such an entity would lack designated borders, and would carry no authority or sovereignty.
“Irresponsible governments are quick to 'Like' the Palestinian state without actually checking out its profile: an authority without sovereignty, with no borders or territorial continuity, no economic ability or democratic culture... The State of Facebook is more real than the Palestinian state which would be created unilaterally without negotiation with the elected government in Jerusalem,” Ayalon wrote.
Seventeen years of talks failed to deliver his hoped-for state, Fayyad told reporters, adding that it was "unlikely" that the current Israeli administration "could be trusted" to do so.
Formal recognition of the PA as an independent country by numerous other nations, he said, could “enshrine” such a state in all of Judea, Samaria and Gaza.
The international campaign to persuade various nations to recognize the PA as an independent country has picked up steam over the past several months. At least five Latin American countries announced they would grant the PA diplomatic status as a new nation, even without formal recognition by the United Nations and without any specific borders or sovereignty.
Brazil, Argentina, Ecuador, Uruguay and Paraguay all said they would recognize the entity as a new country along Israel's 1949 Armistice Line with Jordan and Egypt, which they referred to as the “1967 borders.” Much of the international community uses the term, since that was Israel's demarcation line prior to the 1967 Six Day War. That indefensible line did not include the Golan Heights from which Syrian artillery peppered the Jewish communities along the Sea of Galilee. Judea, Samaria, Gaza and part of Jerusalem were restored to the Jewish State in the 1967 defensive war fought against the attacking neighboring Arab states.
Fayyad has long planned for the unilateral declaration of an independent PA country within Israel's current borders. He announced last year in a speech delivered in Arabic that he would unilaterally declare the State of Palestine in August 2011 if no final status agreement with Israel was complete by that deadline.
“I am not looking for a “Facebook State” – or as I call it myself, a Mickey Mouse State,” Fayyad stated Wednesday. “If it doesn't matter, why did [Ayalon] bother to write a comment on it?”
Israel: Best Economy in the West
Hillel Fendel
A7 News
Israel’s economy is the fastest-growing in the West, the Central Bureau of Statistics (CBS) reports.
Israel's Gross National Product grew by 4.5% in the year 2010, according to CBS data and estimates – 0.5% more than had been expected. This compares with only 2.7% in the other 33 countries of the Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD). Israel became an OECD member state this past September.
In 2009, despite the great worldwide economic crash, Israel’s economy grew by 0.8% - and by 4.2% in 2008. The GNP per capita grew by 2.7% this year, compared with a drop of 1.1% the year before. In the OECD as a whole, this year’s per capita GNP grew by 2.3%.
Israel is also doing better in the employment arena than the rest of the OECD, with a 6.7% unemployment rate, compared with 8.3% in the other countries.
The CBS notes three notable developments in Israel's economy during 2010: Exports slowed during the third quarter, following the growth spurt in the second half of 2009; rapid growth of private consumption began to slow down; and investments in residential buildings and the like continued to grow.
Unite on defensible borders
Isi Leibler
December 30, 2010
Over the past two years, there have been repeated pleas for our politicians to recognize the gravity of the global and domestic challenges facing us, suspend conventional party politics, and work in unison to advance the national interest.
In recent months, the situation has deteriorated, and we are now confronted by an avalanche of global hostility. Irrespective of the rights or wrongs, realpolitik has led to automatic condemnation and demonization. We are generally regarded as a rogue state, responsible for global instability, thus effectively assuming the role of Jews in the Middle Ages, who were blamed for all the woes of mankind. The UN and its appallingly misnamed offspring, the Human Rights Council, are poised to carry a new wave of resolutions condemning, demonizing and launching boycotts against us.
The Durban anti- Semitic hate fest will be reconvened next year. More importantly, there is a campaign supported by the majority of nations to unilaterally recognize a Palestinian state, taking no account of our legitimate security needs.
The Obama administration is aware that the American people support Israel and thus, in all probability, will veto the most hostile onesided resolutions at the UN Security Council. But we should be under no illusions. Despite the recent congressional elections, foreign policy is largely controlled by the White House, and there is no evidence of a change in Obama's ongoing determination to "engage" or appease the Islamic world, even if that means distancing the US from this country.
The greatest threat is the intensification of global initiatives in which our security needs are ignored and attempts made to force us to withdraw to the indefensible 1949 armistice lines, which were never regarded as borders. There is a real concern that in the not-too-distant future, while purporting to be acting in "an evenhanded manner," the Obama administration may itself move in that direction.
TODAY, THE vast majority of our leaders and people would willingly accept a two-state solution. Ironically, it is the Palestinian Authority, no less than Hamas, whose true objective remains the elimination of Jewish sovereignty rather than independence. And of course, we have the additional threat of a nuclear Iran committed to wiping us off the face of the earth.
No other state is challenged to justify its very existence, and surrounded by so much hatred. The security threats we face today are no less severe than those we confronted in 1948, 1967 and 1973.
During former times of national crisis, our leaders set aside partisan political aspirations and devoted themselves to working in concert in defense of their homeland. It may indeed be impossible to create a national unity government, but surely today's crisis is sufficiently acute for mainstream politicians to suspend their political differences and face up to their national responsibilities by displaying a willingness to show the world a consensus that the country must under no circumstances further compromise its key security interests.
There may indeed be differences over the determination of final borders and some settlements. But Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, Kadima leader Tzipi Livni, Avigdor Lieberman of Israel Beiteinu and Ehud Barak of Labor surely all recognize that it is crucial to retain defensible borders and the major settlement blocs. They surely also concur that prior to making further concessions, there must be a clear formula to ensure that a future Palestinian state will be demilitarized, and would not merely become a platform from which Iran can launch new attacks. There should be affirmation by all mainstream parties to stand firm on these issues.
Livni should follow the example of Netanyahu when he was leader of the opposition. When travelling abroad, he avoided publicly condemning government policy. During the Second Lebanon War and Operation Cast Lead, he even provided his services to the government to promote the country's case to the global community.
The current situation is appalling. Instead of behaving responsibly, Livni continues to indulge in the most partisan political infighting.
When Netanyahu introduced the settlement freeze, she bitterly condemned him. Yet when he refused to extend the settlement freeze, she castigated him for undermining the US-Israel relationship. At the recent Saban Forum in the US, in the presence of PA representatives, she condemned her prime minister for lacking the will or desire to reach a peaceful accommodation.
From within the cabinet, both Lieberman and Barak criticize the policies of their own government to curry favor with voters.
Setting aside the merits of much of his argument, the outburst by Foreign Minister Lieberman publicly repudiating the policies of his prime minister made the government look like an unruly soccer team, and if repeated will bring about the downfall of the coalition.
US critics of Netanyahu try to rationalize the distancing of the Obama administration by alleging that the current coalition is right-wing and intransigent. However the reality is that, with only minor exceptions on the far Left and extreme Right, all MKs affiliated to the mainstream parties endorse a two-state solution, have no desire to rule over Arabs, and are willing to make territorial concessions - provided that basic security requirements are not compromised.
Furthermore, based on the political outlook of most Kadima members, aside from minor nuances, even a Kadima-led government would not deviate significantly from the current policies of the Likud, which enjoy the support of most Israelis. Livni should also be aware that her attacks on the government have not increased her popularity. To the contrary, the public is far more likely to reward the opposition if it exercised restraint and displayed bipartisanship on critical issues.
Despite American public support and the fact that President Barack Obama has taken a few steps backward, we face extraordinarily difficult days. The US need only stand aside and give a wink to the Europeans and others to proceed with an imposed solution, which would almost certainly deny us our basic security requirements and pave the way for our enemies to embark on renewed aggression.
There is a real threat by our adversaries to impose a "peace" upon us which would have chilling parallels to Munich and the "peace" imposed on Czechoslovakia. We should be clearly aware that the Europeans have been sending clear signals suggesting they would not be averse to repeating the same perfidious behavior.
If mainstream political leaders display solidarity on the core issues, in addition to neutralizing the campaigns against us, this would enable us to expose the intransigence of our impotent and duplicitous "peace partner." Furthermore, it would provide a dramatic morale booster, creating an atmosphere of optimism for the future and leading to a host of other beneficial consequences.
We are entitled to expect and demand that our political leaders suspend their differences and act in the national interest before it is too late.
ileibler@netvision.net.il
This column was originally published in the Jerusalem Post
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)