Israeli Peace Efforts Continue Despite Increased Attacks In the past few months, the Israeli government has advanced a peace agenda aimed at promoting an international gathering to establish a framework to make progress on fundamental issues of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
The government’s good faith efforts have included releasing 783 Palestinian prisoners this year [1] as well as granting amnesty to 178 wanted terrorists. [2] Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert also promised that Israel would not build any new settlements in the West Bank and dismantle illegal outposts, in line with the country’s commitments described in the first stage of the Road Map. [3]
Meanwhile, 1,839 Qassam rockets and mortars have been fired at Israeli towns in the western Negev region this year. [4] More than 112 tons of explosives have been smuggled into Gaza since 2005 and 150 rocket-propelled grenade launchers were smuggled into Gaza during the month of August alone. [5]
By the numbers: Attacks on Israel by Palestinians as Israel works for peace
* 2,586 rockets and mortar bombs have been fired from Gaza at Israeli communities since Israel’s complete withdrawal from Gaza in August 2005. [6]
* In 2007, 1,839 Qassam rockets and mortar bombs have been launched at Israeli civilians. On average, that amounts to 1 rocket every 4 hours for the past 11 months. [7]
* Since January 2001, 7,191 rockets and mortar bombs have been fired at Israeli civilians. [8]
* Since Hamas seized control of the Gaza strip in June 2007, more than 809 Qassam rockets and mortars have been fired at Israeli towns in the western Negev region. [9]
* Before Hamas took over, there was an average of 48 rockets and mortars fired every month from Gaza. Since Hamas took over the average has skyrocketed to 233 per month. [10]
* During September and October 2007, 68 percent of all Qassam and mortar strikes were launched from Beit Hanoun. [11]
* 14 percent of all Qassam and mortar launches came from Beit Lahiya and 8 percent came from the Jabaliya refugee camp, at the northern end of Gaza. [12]
* 10 people have been killed by rocket fire, including a 2-year old baby, Dorit Inso, and two 4-year olds, Yuval Abebah and Afik Zahavi. [13]
* The IDF and Israeli security forces have prevented 39 suicide bombings in 2007. 22 of those originated in Gaza and 17 in the West Bank. [14] (By way of comparison, there were 35 suicide bombings in 2001 which killed 85 Israelis. [15])
* In 2007 so far, there have been 492 attacks on IDF soldiers in the West Bank. Of those, there were 340 incidents of small arms fire, 112 incidents involving improvised explosive devices (IEDs) and 32 knife attacks. [16]
* In 2007, 60 Israeli civilians have been injured by rocket and mortar fire and 2 people killed. [17]
* Over 140 people have been physically wounded by the missile fire in Sderot alone. [18]
* In Nov. 2006, it was found that 33 percent of children in Sderot suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder. [19]
* More than 200 families (about 1,200 people) have fled Sderot due to the ongoing shelling from Gaza by Palestinian terrorists. [20]
* Israel has released 783 Palestinian prisoners this year (441 of them were approved for release before the Annapolis meeting.) [21] and granted amnesty to another 178.
Palestinian Terrorist Activity in Gaza During November 2007
* On Monday Nov. 20, Israeli civilian Ido Zoldan was killed in a drive-by shooting in the West Bank, carried out by the al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, an armed branch of Fatah. The terrorist group stated that the shooting was “an act of protest against the Annapolis conference and a response to Israeli crimes.” Zoldan is survived by his wife Tehila and his two small children, 3-year-old Aharon and 1-year-old Rachel. [22]
* 3 Palestinian terrorists from the al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades attempted to carry out a terror attack on the Israeli community of Netiv Ha’asara in the western Negev. The terrorists climbed the security barrier surrounding Gaza but were shot by Israel Defense Forces (IDF) troops during a gun battle that ensued. The al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades members were armed with assault rifles and grenades. [23]
* 136 Qassams rockets and mortars have been fired at the western Negev region as of Nov. 20, 2007. [24]
* On Nov. 11, the Iranian-backed Palestinian Islamic Jihad fired a rocket that hit a cowshed on Kibbutz Zikim killing 7 cows. [25]
* On Nov. 1, Israeli security forces operating in the Gaza Strip uncovered 7 tunnels used by Hamas to smuggle terrorist operatives and weapons from Egypt into the Gaza Strip. The IDF destroyed the tunnels in controlled explosions. [26]
Hamas’s Most Extreme Faction in Control of Gaza Strip
Hamas has strengthened its foothold on the Gaza Strip in recent months, partly through the support of Iran and Iran-backed Hezbollah, which have provided Hamas vastly improved weaponry and has enabled Hamas to deploy a coordinated network of observation posts, infantry and anti-tank forces. In addition, dozens of militants trained in Iran and Lebanon have created a system of control and coordination, complete with a chain of command for every area in the Gaza Strip. [27]
More than 350 Palestinians have been killed in factional fighting between Hamas and Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas’s Fatah Party since Hamas’s June 2007 seizure of the Gaza Strip. [28]
Palestinian Authority and Israel Defense Forces sources concur that Hamas’s most extreme faction, which controls Hamas’s military wing and relies primarily on Iranian funding, is currently in control of Gaza. [29] One of its main leaders, former Foreign Minister Mahmoud al-Zahar, recently stated that if Israel withdraws from the West Bank, Hamas would seize control.
Referring to the fierce fighting that characterized Hamas’s takeover of the Gaza Strip, al-Zahar warned: "We say to those in the West Bank take a lesson from what happened in Gaza.” [30] Senior Hamas officials have stated that Hamas will overthrow Fatah in the West Bank in less than a year. [31]
Since Hamas’s violent takeover, Palestinians who do not support Hamas’s brand of militant Islam have been routinely victimized. A recent Amnesty International report accuses Hamas of increasingly resorting to arbitrary detentions and torture and attacking civilian demonstrators and journalists. [32] For example, on Nov. 9, Hamas militants killed two civilians and wounded four others when members of a family refused to allow Hamas militants to plant near their house bombs intended to kill Hamas’ adversaries.
Another civilian who attempted to prevent Hamas militants from using his home to fire at IDF military posts was killed on Nov. 10. [33] On Oct. 31, video footage showed three militants using a Gaza schoolyard as a launching pad from which to fire mortars shells at Israel. [34] Because the schoolyard belonged to a United Nations-run school, U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon has requested a full investigation of the incident. [35]
Additionally, Iranian weapons and funding, as well as Hamas militants trained in Iran, are routinely smuggled through tunnels between Gaza and Egypt. For example, since Israel’s withdrawal from Gaza in 2005, Palestinian militants have illegally transported more than 112 tons of explosives through these tunnels. According to the IDF, Hamas is working to establish a bunker system with fortified rocket-launching and surveillance positions along the security fence on Gaza’s border with Israel. [36] In addition, Hamas has a declared policy of providing jihadist militants sanctuary in Gaza. [37]
Footnotes
[1] Federman , Josef, “Israel approves release of 441 prisoners”, Associated Press, Nov. 19, 2007, http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071119/ap_on_re_mi_ea/israel_palestinians_15, Weiss,Mark, and AP, “57 Palestinian prisoners head home”, Jerusalem Post, Sept. 30, 2007, http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?c=JPArticle&cid=1189411515123&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull and Entous, Adam, “Olmert and Abbas and negotiating teams to meet” Reuters, Oct. 2, 2007, http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20071002/wl_nm/pal
estinians_israel_dc_18 and “Ministerial committee recommends release of 256 Palestinian prisoners”, Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs, July 17, 2007, http://www.israel-mfa.gov.il/MFA/Government/Communiques/2007/M
inisterial+committee+reco
mmends+release+of+256+Palestinian+prisoners+17-Jul-2007.htm; “57 Palestinian prisoners head home”, BBC, July 20, 2007, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6907716.stm; Butcher, Tim, “Israel releases 255 Palestinian prisoners”, July 23, 2007, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/07/21/wmid121.xml; Kershner, Isabel, “Fatah Militants Lay Down Arms to Bolster Abbas” New York Times, July 22, 2007 http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/22/wo
rld/middleeast/22alaksa.html?_r=1&n=Top/Reference/Times%20Topic
s/Organizations/A/Al%20Aksa%20Martyrs%20Brigades&oref=slogin; Benn , Aluf, Issacharoff, Avi and Harel, Amos , “Fatah men, including Zbeidi, turn in their guns in amnesty deal”, Ha’aretz, July 15, 2007, http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/881764.html; Benn , Aluf, Issacharoff, Avi and Harel, Amos , “Fatah men, including Zbeidi, turn in their guns in amnesty deal”, Ha’aretz, July 15, 2007, http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/881764.html
[2] Kershner, Isabel, “Fatah Militants Lay Down Arms to Bolster Abbas” New York Times, July 22, 2007 http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/22/world/middleeast/22alaksa.html?_r=1&n=Top/Reference/Times%20Topics/Organizations/A/Al%20Aksa%20Martyrs%20Brigades&oref=slogin; Benn , Aluf, Issacharoff, Avi and Harel, Amos , “Fatah men, including Zbeidi, turn in their guns in amnesty deal”, Ha’aretz, July 15, 2007, http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/881764.html
[3] Ravid, Barak, “PM: Freeze settlements, dismantle outposts”, Haaretz, Nov. 20, 2007, http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/925859.html
[4] IDF Spokesman’s Unit, Nov. 20, 2007
[5] “Briefing by Assistant Chief of the Israel Security Agency at the weekly cabinet meeting”, Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs Newsletter, Aug. 28, 2007, http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/About+the+Ministry
/Behind+the+Headlines/Behind+the+Headlines+-+The+arming+of+Hamas+27-Aug-2007.htm; Katz, Yaakov, “Hamas building bunkers near border”, Jerusalem Post, Oct. 29, 2007, http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?c=JPArticle&cid=1192380683478&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
[6] IDF Spokesman’s Unit, Nov. 20, 2007
[7] Ibid.
[8] Ibid.
[9] “Missile fire from Gaza on Israeli civilian targets” from the Web site of the Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs, retrieved on Nov. 20, 2007, http://www.israel-mfa.gov.il/MFA/Terrorism-+Obstacle+to+Peace/Palestinian+terror+since+2000/Miss
ile+fire+from+Gaza+on+Israeli+civilian+targets+Aug+2007.htm
[10] IDF Spokesman’s Unit, Nov. 2007.
[11] Ibid.
[12] Ibid.
[13] Retrieved from the Web site of the Committee for a Secure Sderot on Nov. 20, 2007,
http://www.matesderot.co.il/info_en.asp?cat=119457167
[14] “News of the Israeli-Palestinian Confrontation, Oct. 15-31, 2007”, retrieved from the website of the Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center, Nov. 20, 2007,
http://www.terrorism-info.org.il/malam_multimedia/English/eng_n/html/t30oct_e07.htm
[15] “Suicide bombing terrorism during the current Israeli-Palestinian confrontation (September 2000 – December 2005)”, pp. 13, 22, retrieved from the Web site of the Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center, Nov. 20, 2007, http://www.intelligence.org.il/eng/eng_n/pdf/suicide_terrorism_ae.pdf
[16] IDF Spokesman’s Unit, Nov. 2007
[17] Ibid.
[18] Yossi Cohen, Spokesman for the City of Sderot, Nov. 19, 2007
[19] Ashkenazi , Eli, “Report: 33 percent of Sderot kids suffer post-traumatic stress”, Haaretz, Nov. 27, 2006, http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/792848.html
[20] Yossi Cohen, Spokesman for the City of Sderot, Nov. 19, 2007
[21] Federman , Josef, “Israel approves release of 441 prisoners”, Associated Press, Nov. 19, 2007, http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071119/ap_on_re_mi_ea/israel_palestinians_15; Weiss, Mark, and AP, “57 Palestinian prisoners head home”, Jerusalem Post, Sept. 30, 2007, http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?c=JPArticle&cid=1189411515123&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull; Entous, Adam, “Olmert and Abbas and negotiating teams to meet” Reuters, Oct. 2, 2007, http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20071002/wl_nm/palestinians_israel_dc_18; “Ministerial committee recommends release of 256 Palestinian prisoners”, Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs, July 17, 2007, http://www.israel-mfa.gov.il/MFA/Government/Communiques/2007/Ministerial+committee+recommends
+release+of+256+Palestinian+prisoners+17-Jul-2007.htm; “57 Palestinian prisoners head home”, BBC, July 20, 2007, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6907716.stm; Butcher, Tim, “Israel releases 255 Palestinian prisoners”, July 23, 2007, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/07/21/wmid121.xml; Kershner, Isabel, “Fatah Militants Lay Down Arms to Bolster Abbas” New York Times, July 22, 2007 http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/22/world/middleeast/22alaksa.html?_r=1&n=Top/Reference/Times%20Topics/Organizations/A/Al%20Aksa%20Martyrs%20Brigades&oref=slogin; Benn , Aluf, Issacharoff, Avi and Harel, Amos , “Fatah men, including Zbeidi, turn in their guns in amnesty deal”, Ha’aretz, July 15, 2007, http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/881764.html; Benn , Aluf, Issacharoff, Avi and Harel, Amos , “Fatah men, including Zbeidi, turn in their guns in amnesty deal”, Ha’aretz, July 15, 2007, http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/881764.html
[22] Weiss, Efrat, “Israeli killed in West Bank terror attack”, YnetNews, Nov. 20, 2007, http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3473402,00.html
[23] “Gaza: Terror Attack Thwarted”, retrieved from the Web site of the IDF, Nov. 20, 2007, http://dover.idf.il/IDF/English/News/the_Front/2007/11/2002.htm; Greenberg, Hanan, “IDF foils terror attack on Netiv Ha'asara”, YnetNews, Nov. 20, 2007, http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3473411,00.html
[24] IDF Spokesman’s Unit, Nov. 20, 2007
[25] Grinberg, Mijal, “Qassam strike kills 7 cows on kibbutz near Gaza”, Haaretz, Nov. 13, 2007, http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/922739.html
[26] “News of the Israeli-Palestinian Confrontation November 1-14 , 2007," retrieved from the Website of the Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center, Nov. 20, 2007 http://www.terrorism-info.org.il/malam_multimedia/English/eng_n/html/t14nov_07e.htm
[27] Harel, Amos, “IDF's tactical upper hand over Hamas in Gaza is diminishing,” Haaretz, Oct. 30, 2007, http://haaretz.com/hasen/spages/918243.html
[28] “New report slams Hamas and Fatah over human rights abuse in factional fighting,” Amnesty International Web site, accessed Nov.13, 2007, http://www.amnesty.org.uk/news_details.asp?NewsID=17497
[29] Isacharoff, Avi and Harel, Amos, “Hamas arrests scores of Fatah activists after Arafat rally in Gaza,” Haaretz, Nov. 13, 2007, http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/923594.html
[30] “Hamas leader sees W.Bank takeover if Israel leaves,” Reuters, Nov. 9, 2007, http://www.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUSL0995750
[31] Waked, Ali, “Hamas: We'll take control over West Bank in autumn,” Ynetnews.com, Oct. 30, 2007, http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3465575,00.html
[32] “New report slams Hamas and Fatah over human rights abuse in factional fighting,” Amnesty International Web site, accessed Nov.13, 2007, http://www.amnesty.org.uk/news_details.asp?NewsID=17497
[33] “2 Palestinians, Including a Child, Die from Previous Wounds and 4 Others, Including 2 Children Wounded in Armed Clashes in Gaza and Wadi al-Salqa,” Palestinian Centre for Human Rights Web Site, Nov. 11, 2007, http://www.pchrgaza.org/files/weapon/english/2007/report108.html
[34] Greenberg, Hannan, “Video: Terrorists firing mortars from schoolyard,” Ynetnews.com, Oct. 31, 2007, http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3466387,00.html
[35] Worsnip, Patrick, “UN's Ban orders probe of shooting from Gaza school,” Reuters, Nov. 8, 2007, http://www.reuters.com/article/featuredCrisis/idUSN08229763
[36] Katz, Yaakov, “Hamas building bunkers near border,” The Jerusalem Post, Oct. 30, 2007, http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull&cid=1192380683478
[37] Dahoah-Halevi, Jonathan, “"The Army of the Nation" - Another
Al-Qaeda Affiliate in the Gaza Strip,” Jerusalem Issue Briefs, Vol. 7, No. 12 via The Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs Web site, Aug. 7 2007, http://www.jcpa.org/JCPA/Templates/ShowPage.asp?DBID=1&
LNGID=1&TMID=111&FID=443&PID=0&IID=1748
The Israel Project is an international non-profit organization devoted to educating the press and the public about Israel while promoting security, freedom and peace. The Israel Project provides journalists, leaders and opinion-makers accurate information about Israel. T
Thursday, November 22, 2007
RICE: JEWS MUST SHARE THE PAIN
Emanuel A. Winston, Mid East Analyst & Commentator
America’s Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, in a speech to the Jews at the UJC (United Jewish Communities) General Assembly in Nashville, Tennessee on November 13th that they and the Israeli Jews must sacrifice. Since the Jews have been frequently told they must sacrifice again and again by this hostile representative of President Bush, let us see if she is willing to share the pain.
What if the leaders of Mexico lay claim to substantial parts of Texas and California as originally owned by them - under the Rice Doctrine?
What if Mexico asks the World Court and the U.N. to put the fate of the U.S. on the line in a World Court, given Rice and Bush are so generous with the lives and lands of the Jews?
Rice has turned into or perhaps always was a bigot from the South, having herself experienced prejudice from the whites oppressing blacks. Rice grew up in a well to do family. Her father was a pastor in Alabama. When the Birmingham Church was bombed and 4 little girls were murdered, Condoleezza felt it deeply. She seems to be carrying a racist time bomb in her belly from her youth and it may be exploding now. In her twisted perception, she conceives of the Palestinian Arabs as if they were her oppressed blacks and in her warped perception therefore, the Israelis became the oppressing Southern whites - from her childhood memories.
Will Condi SHARE THE PAIN and have to defend the transfer of American land, won by war, back to Mexico under her Rice Doctrine: "No acquisition of Land taken in a war"?
Now that Bush, Rice and James Baker III established new ground rules for population transfer, will they be surprised that Mexico demands the return of Texas and California. After all, the U.S. forced Mexico to relinquish these lands so, under Condi Rules it should now go back. The Jews were forced out their G-d given Lands by the Romans and now wish to insure re-possession of Lands Arab squatters claim as theirs. That they Terrorize in whatever faction, militias, organizations...be they Shi’ite or Sunni, none of this makes any difference to C. Rice.
Rice says that the Jews must make "painful concessions" to a pagan, bestial people whose god demands permanent war with all "infidels" (non-Muslims), especially Jews and Christians. So, Ms. Rice, are you prepared for the rest of your life to be identified as the person who made it possible for Texas and California to be divided from the rest of the U.S., probably under World Court or U.N. decisions? After all, the U.S. and Israel are looked upon by an unfriendly World Court and the U.N. as excellent targets. So, if Mexico demands return of lands under the "Rice Doctrine", be assured that the World Court and the U.N. will agree.
DEBKAfile informs us that Israel’s Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni are holding back their plans from the Israeli public to withdraw from Judea and Samaria (called the west bank by the rest of the world). Treason and Traitors do, indeed, flock together as birds of a feather as they plan for Land Transfer and Transfer of Jews out of that Land.
Hopefully, Olmert, Livni, Rice, Bush and Baker share the fate in some way of G-d’s choosing as he did to Korach and his tribe. Jews have been hounded by anti-Semites seemingly forever. Nothing has changed as these evil people coalesce to chop Israel into bite-size pieces. May G-d curse their days, their nights and all those around them. May they SHARE THE PAIN they foist on the Jewish people and the nation of Israel. Let nature continue to unleash her fury on the collaborating nations - with famine, storms, earthquakes, volcanoes, cyclones, disease, collapse of the money system, floods, devastating war.
If I missed anything dire, please feel free to add.
Does Prayer help? Well, so far - if you look around you - you might say it does.
G-d said he would send fire across to the islands (read: nations) for their evil ways and attacks against the Jews. Take a look at what is called the "Ring of Fire", a 10,000 mile crack running beneath the oceans. Presently, Indonesia, the most populous Muslim nation sits on that crack in the earth that bursts forth with frequent earthquakes and volcanic eruptions. Should that crack widen and become a linear seam volcano (like splitting a melon), the wall of flames will, indeed, go across to the Islands. That should fry their bacon.
America’s Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, in a speech to the Jews at the UJC (United Jewish Communities) General Assembly in Nashville, Tennessee on November 13th that they and the Israeli Jews must sacrifice. Since the Jews have been frequently told they must sacrifice again and again by this hostile representative of President Bush, let us see if she is willing to share the pain.
What if the leaders of Mexico lay claim to substantial parts of Texas and California as originally owned by them - under the Rice Doctrine?
What if Mexico asks the World Court and the U.N. to put the fate of the U.S. on the line in a World Court, given Rice and Bush are so generous with the lives and lands of the Jews?
Rice has turned into or perhaps always was a bigot from the South, having herself experienced prejudice from the whites oppressing blacks. Rice grew up in a well to do family. Her father was a pastor in Alabama. When the Birmingham Church was bombed and 4 little girls were murdered, Condoleezza felt it deeply. She seems to be carrying a racist time bomb in her belly from her youth and it may be exploding now. In her twisted perception, she conceives of the Palestinian Arabs as if they were her oppressed blacks and in her warped perception therefore, the Israelis became the oppressing Southern whites - from her childhood memories.
Will Condi SHARE THE PAIN and have to defend the transfer of American land, won by war, back to Mexico under her Rice Doctrine: "No acquisition of Land taken in a war"?
Now that Bush, Rice and James Baker III established new ground rules for population transfer, will they be surprised that Mexico demands the return of Texas and California. After all, the U.S. forced Mexico to relinquish these lands so, under Condi Rules it should now go back. The Jews were forced out their G-d given Lands by the Romans and now wish to insure re-possession of Lands Arab squatters claim as theirs. That they Terrorize in whatever faction, militias, organizations...be they Shi’ite or Sunni, none of this makes any difference to C. Rice.
Rice says that the Jews must make "painful concessions" to a pagan, bestial people whose god demands permanent war with all "infidels" (non-Muslims), especially Jews and Christians. So, Ms. Rice, are you prepared for the rest of your life to be identified as the person who made it possible for Texas and California to be divided from the rest of the U.S., probably under World Court or U.N. decisions? After all, the U.S. and Israel are looked upon by an unfriendly World Court and the U.N. as excellent targets. So, if Mexico demands return of lands under the "Rice Doctrine", be assured that the World Court and the U.N. will agree.
DEBKAfile informs us that Israel’s Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni are holding back their plans from the Israeli public to withdraw from Judea and Samaria (called the west bank by the rest of the world). Treason and Traitors do, indeed, flock together as birds of a feather as they plan for Land Transfer and Transfer of Jews out of that Land.
Hopefully, Olmert, Livni, Rice, Bush and Baker share the fate in some way of G-d’s choosing as he did to Korach and his tribe. Jews have been hounded by anti-Semites seemingly forever. Nothing has changed as these evil people coalesce to chop Israel into bite-size pieces. May G-d curse their days, their nights and all those around them. May they SHARE THE PAIN they foist on the Jewish people and the nation of Israel. Let nature continue to unleash her fury on the collaborating nations - with famine, storms, earthquakes, volcanoes, cyclones, disease, collapse of the money system, floods, devastating war.
If I missed anything dire, please feel free to add.
Does Prayer help? Well, so far - if you look around you - you might say it does.
G-d said he would send fire across to the islands (read: nations) for their evil ways and attacks against the Jews. Take a look at what is called the "Ring of Fire", a 10,000 mile crack running beneath the oceans. Presently, Indonesia, the most populous Muslim nation sits on that crack in the earth that bursts forth with frequent earthquakes and volcanic eruptions. Should that crack widen and become a linear seam volcano (like splitting a melon), the wall of flames will, indeed, go across to the Islands. That should fry their bacon.
Happy Thanksgiving
Posts will resume later this Thursday-it is family time now And here is the rest of it.
Wednesday, November 21, 2007
Annapolis' House of Cards
Frank J. Gaffney Jr.
The Washington Times | 11/21/2007
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice behaves like a zealot. In her ever-rasher pursuit of a Palestinian state, she exhibits the syndrome defined by the philosopher George Santana as one who redoubles her efforts upon losing sight of the objective. Let's recall: The objective laid out by President Bush, when he decided in June 2002 to support the creation of a homeland for the Palestinian people, was to provide a stable, secure neighbor for Israel, committed to leaving peaceably with the Jewish State.
Mr. Bush explicitly preconditioned such support on: an end to Palestinian terror; a Palestinian leadership untainted by ties to terrorism; and eliminating the infrastructure in Palestinian areas that enables such behavior. After the September 11, 2001, attacks, the United States was in the business of eliminating terrorist-sponsoring regimes, not creating them.
Now, however, it is crystal-clear that the only outcome from Condi Rice's idee fixe — namely that she will convene a Middle East peace conference at the U.S. Naval Academy for the purpose of extracting from Israel the territorial concessions needed rapidly to establish a Palestinian state — has nothing to do with the original Bush vision. Under present and foreseeable circumstances, the best that can be hoped from such a meeting for is failure. For success will result in a new safe haven for terror that is a mortal threat not only for Israel, but for the United States, as well.
Unfortunately, even the failure of Condi's Folly at Annapolis is likely to be a very bad outcome. To the extent her actions are raising unwarranted expectations on the part of Palestinians and their Arab friends, past practice suggests it will translate into a pretext for new violence against Israel.
That will be especially true if, as is also predictable, the Israelis are blamed for the outcome for not being willing enough — in the face of Palestinian intractability — to make what are euphemistically called "painful" moves for peace. Another way to describe such moves are as reckless concessions certain to jeopardize Israel's security, and quite possibly ours.
After all, it is only reasonable to expect the West Bank to follow the trajectory of the Gaza Strip and, before it, southern Lebanon — both of which Israel abandoned to her foes, only to have those territories become staging grounds for attacks on Israel and secure incubators for terror against us. Among those operating from such areas are Islamofascist terrorist organizations like Hamas, Hezbollah, al Qaeda and the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps, the newest addition to the State Department's list of such entities.
Condi Rice nonetheless demands that Israel now relinquish the West Bank and East Jerusalem to yet another terrorist organization: Mahmoud Abbas' Fatah. To be sure, the secretary of state would have us believe Fatah is no such thing. In fact, the entire Annapolis house of cards is built on the fraudulent foundation that the Palestinian faction established by Mr. Abbas' mentor, Yasser Arafat, is a reliable partner for peace and effective counterweight to Hamas, which now controls the Gaza Strip.
Only a zealot who has altogether lost any sense of reality could make such an assertion. Treating Fatah as the cornerstone of American diplomacy and demands on Israel is nothing less than perilous and irresponsible. Consider the following sampler of recent counter-indicators:
-- Last August, five Fatah operatives assigned to Mr. Abbas' security detail conspired to assassinate Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert during a visit by the latter to meet the Palestinian "president" in the West Bank city of Jericho. After their arrest on information from Israel's internal intelligence agency, Shin Bet, several of these individuals were released by the Palestinian Authority.
-- This is in keeping with past practice. By some estimates, Fatah and its Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade have claimed responsibility for murdering roughly as many Israelis as has Hamas. In those rare cases when the perpetrators are actually arrested by Palestinian police, they are generally set free in short order. How could Israel possibly entrust physical control of the West Bank — from which virtually the entire Jewish State's population can be subjected to rocket or even mortar fire — to people with such a record?
-- Speaking of the Jewish State, in the run-up to the Annapolis meeting, Mr. Abbas and his subordinates have lately become quite brazen in denouncing Israel's right to exist as such. Their statements not only speak volumes about the degree to which Condi Rice's desperate bid for a "legacy" is now being clearly read as bullies always do: as evidence of contemptible and exploitable weakness. They also make a mockery of the premise that Abbas and Company are preferable to Hamas because, unlike the latter, they are truly willing to live in peace with their Israeli neighbors.
-- In fact, only the most willfully blind could maintain such a pretense in light of the incessant propagandizing and indoctrination about killing Jews and destroying Israel that passes for official or at least officially sanctioned broadcasts, sermons and speeches emanating from Mr. Abbas' rump Palestinian Authority.
The only Palestinian state that can possibly come from Condoleezza Rice's zealotry will be a dagger pointed at the heart of Israel and a new safe-haven for terror aimed at the United States and other Western nations. Even if a corrupt and politically unrepresentative Olmert government in Israel is prepared to play along, Americans who understand the stakes for the Jewish State as well as our own, must reject her desperate and unacceptable bid to launch a Palestinian one at Annapolis.
Frank J. Gaffney, Jr. is the founder, president, and CEO of The Center for Security Policy. During the Reagan administration, Gaffney was the Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security, the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Nuclear Forces and Arms Control Policy, and a Professional Staff Member on the Senate Armed Services Committee, chaired by Senator John Tower (R-Texas). He is a columnist for The Washington Times, Jewish World Review, and Townhall.com and has also contributed to The Wall Street Journal, USA Today, The New Republic, The Washington Post, The New York Times, The Christian Science Monitor, The Los Angeles Times, and Newsday.
The Washington Times | 11/21/2007
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice behaves like a zealot. In her ever-rasher pursuit of a Palestinian state, she exhibits the syndrome defined by the philosopher George Santana as one who redoubles her efforts upon losing sight of the objective. Let's recall: The objective laid out by President Bush, when he decided in June 2002 to support the creation of a homeland for the Palestinian people, was to provide a stable, secure neighbor for Israel, committed to leaving peaceably with the Jewish State.
Mr. Bush explicitly preconditioned such support on: an end to Palestinian terror; a Palestinian leadership untainted by ties to terrorism; and eliminating the infrastructure in Palestinian areas that enables such behavior. After the September 11, 2001, attacks, the United States was in the business of eliminating terrorist-sponsoring regimes, not creating them.
Now, however, it is crystal-clear that the only outcome from Condi Rice's idee fixe — namely that she will convene a Middle East peace conference at the U.S. Naval Academy for the purpose of extracting from Israel the territorial concessions needed rapidly to establish a Palestinian state — has nothing to do with the original Bush vision. Under present and foreseeable circumstances, the best that can be hoped from such a meeting for is failure. For success will result in a new safe haven for terror that is a mortal threat not only for Israel, but for the United States, as well.
Unfortunately, even the failure of Condi's Folly at Annapolis is likely to be a very bad outcome. To the extent her actions are raising unwarranted expectations on the part of Palestinians and their Arab friends, past practice suggests it will translate into a pretext for new violence against Israel.
That will be especially true if, as is also predictable, the Israelis are blamed for the outcome for not being willing enough — in the face of Palestinian intractability — to make what are euphemistically called "painful" moves for peace. Another way to describe such moves are as reckless concessions certain to jeopardize Israel's security, and quite possibly ours.
After all, it is only reasonable to expect the West Bank to follow the trajectory of the Gaza Strip and, before it, southern Lebanon — both of which Israel abandoned to her foes, only to have those territories become staging grounds for attacks on Israel and secure incubators for terror against us. Among those operating from such areas are Islamofascist terrorist organizations like Hamas, Hezbollah, al Qaeda and the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps, the newest addition to the State Department's list of such entities.
Condi Rice nonetheless demands that Israel now relinquish the West Bank and East Jerusalem to yet another terrorist organization: Mahmoud Abbas' Fatah. To be sure, the secretary of state would have us believe Fatah is no such thing. In fact, the entire Annapolis house of cards is built on the fraudulent foundation that the Palestinian faction established by Mr. Abbas' mentor, Yasser Arafat, is a reliable partner for peace and effective counterweight to Hamas, which now controls the Gaza Strip.
Only a zealot who has altogether lost any sense of reality could make such an assertion. Treating Fatah as the cornerstone of American diplomacy and demands on Israel is nothing less than perilous and irresponsible. Consider the following sampler of recent counter-indicators:
-- Last August, five Fatah operatives assigned to Mr. Abbas' security detail conspired to assassinate Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert during a visit by the latter to meet the Palestinian "president" in the West Bank city of Jericho. After their arrest on information from Israel's internal intelligence agency, Shin Bet, several of these individuals were released by the Palestinian Authority.
-- This is in keeping with past practice. By some estimates, Fatah and its Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade have claimed responsibility for murdering roughly as many Israelis as has Hamas. In those rare cases when the perpetrators are actually arrested by Palestinian police, they are generally set free in short order. How could Israel possibly entrust physical control of the West Bank — from which virtually the entire Jewish State's population can be subjected to rocket or even mortar fire — to people with such a record?
-- Speaking of the Jewish State, in the run-up to the Annapolis meeting, Mr. Abbas and his subordinates have lately become quite brazen in denouncing Israel's right to exist as such. Their statements not only speak volumes about the degree to which Condi Rice's desperate bid for a "legacy" is now being clearly read as bullies always do: as evidence of contemptible and exploitable weakness. They also make a mockery of the premise that Abbas and Company are preferable to Hamas because, unlike the latter, they are truly willing to live in peace with their Israeli neighbors.
-- In fact, only the most willfully blind could maintain such a pretense in light of the incessant propagandizing and indoctrination about killing Jews and destroying Israel that passes for official or at least officially sanctioned broadcasts, sermons and speeches emanating from Mr. Abbas' rump Palestinian Authority.
The only Palestinian state that can possibly come from Condoleezza Rice's zealotry will be a dagger pointed at the heart of Israel and a new safe-haven for terror aimed at the United States and other Western nations. Even if a corrupt and politically unrepresentative Olmert government in Israel is prepared to play along, Americans who understand the stakes for the Jewish State as well as our own, must reject her desperate and unacceptable bid to launch a Palestinian one at Annapolis.
Frank J. Gaffney, Jr. is the founder, president, and CEO of The Center for Security Policy. During the Reagan administration, Gaffney was the Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security, the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Nuclear Forces and Arms Control Policy, and a Professional Staff Member on the Senate Armed Services Committee, chaired by Senator John Tower (R-Texas). He is a columnist for The Washington Times, Jewish World Review, and Townhall.com and has also contributed to The Wall Street Journal, USA Today, The New Republic, The Washington Post, The New York Times, The Christian Science Monitor, The Los Angeles Times, and Newsday.
Setback for Jordan's Islamic front
Candidates loyal to the monarchy have defeated Jordan's Islamist opposition in parliamentary elections, according to unofficial results. he Islamic Action Front (IAF), the main opposition party and the political arm of the Muslim Brotherhood, which fielded 22 candidates, won only seven seats, down from 17 in the outgoing parliament.
The preliminary returns from Tuesday’s election indicated that supporters of King Abdullah, mainly tribal Bedouin and centrist politicians, had secured a majority of the seats in the 110-member chamber of deputies.
Their victory was expected and attributed to the strong influence of family and tribal links on voting in Jordan.
Hayet al-Musaymeh, an IAF female candidate, who held a seat in the previous parliament, also lost her bid in the elections.
Instead, seven other women, both liberals and conservatives who ran as independents, won seats.
Official figures are expected to be announced at an interior ministry press conference on Wednesday.
Fraud allegations
A spokesman for the IAF had told Al Jazeera that voting irregularities were found across the country.
Al Jazeera's David Chater said the whole electoral system was geared towards maintaining the king's power base in parliament and whoever got elected, that support for the monarchy would remain.
He said the IAF, despite its complaints, had in fact cut a deal with Abdullah, fielding the 22 candidates for the 110 seats.
New PM
Meanwhile, Abdullah is expected to appoint a new prime minister "in the coming few days" to form a government after the elections, officials said.
Nader Dahabi, the head of a special economic zone in the Red Sea port of Aqaba, is expected to replace Marouf Bakhit, who had served as prime minister since November 2005, officials told AFP news agency.
Born in 1946, Dahabi served as transport minister from 2001 to 2003.
He had headed the Royal Jordanian airlines from 1994 to 2001.
Source: Al Jazeera and agencies
The preliminary returns from Tuesday’s election indicated that supporters of King Abdullah, mainly tribal Bedouin and centrist politicians, had secured a majority of the seats in the 110-member chamber of deputies.
Their victory was expected and attributed to the strong influence of family and tribal links on voting in Jordan.
Hayet al-Musaymeh, an IAF female candidate, who held a seat in the previous parliament, also lost her bid in the elections.
Instead, seven other women, both liberals and conservatives who ran as independents, won seats.
Official figures are expected to be announced at an interior ministry press conference on Wednesday.
Fraud allegations
A spokesman for the IAF had told Al Jazeera that voting irregularities were found across the country.
Al Jazeera's David Chater said the whole electoral system was geared towards maintaining the king's power base in parliament and whoever got elected, that support for the monarchy would remain.
He said the IAF, despite its complaints, had in fact cut a deal with Abdullah, fielding the 22 candidates for the 110 seats.
New PM
Meanwhile, Abdullah is expected to appoint a new prime minister "in the coming few days" to form a government after the elections, officials said.
Nader Dahabi, the head of a special economic zone in the Red Sea port of Aqaba, is expected to replace Marouf Bakhit, who had served as prime minister since November 2005, officials told AFP news agency.
Born in 1946, Dahabi served as transport minister from 2001 to 2003.
He had headed the Royal Jordanian airlines from 1994 to 2001.
Source: Al Jazeera and agencies
Stop abusing the memory of Yitzhak Rabin
Isi Leibler , THE JERUSALEM POST Nov. 20, 2007
Hitherto, I was loath to publicly express my feelings on the sensitive subject of the Rabin "heritage." I do so now because I am enraged at the cynical, even obscene manner, in which the memory of an assassinated prime minister has been transformed into a cult to promote political objectives to which Rabin adamantly opposed, even at the height of the Oslo period of his career. Worse, his name is being exploited to intensify divisions, create hatred and collectively demonize and transfer the guilt of a demented evil assassin on decent law abiding sectors of society. n the course of my years as a leader in the Diaspora before making aliya, I had considerable interaction with Rabin when he was prime minister and minister for defense. On my frequent visits to Jerusalem, Rabin would usually set aside quality time for private personal discussion. As an Australian, I found his frankness refreshing and developed a warm relationship with him. He disliked small talk and was inclined to say whatever was on his mind. Such was the nature of the man.
I liked Rabin. He was no "intellectual" but contrary to allegations by some of his right-wing critics, even when misguided he was always motivated by genuine patriotism and a desire to act in what he considered to be the best interests of the nation.
Oslo proved to be Rabin's undoing. It was widely recognized from the outset that Shimon Peres, Yossi Beilin and their cohorts had sandbagged him into endorsing policies which utterly conflicted with his long-standing attitudes. As the process began unraveling, he became increasingly impatient, inflexible, and aggressive toward his critics.
Like most Diaspora leaders at the time, despite reservations, I was disinclined to criticize the security policies of the elected government, and remained on the sidelines, at times even publicly defending the government. Nevertheless in the course of my private encounters with Rabin I shared with him my growing concerns. I clearly recollect him telling me repeatedly that Oslo was a "gamble" but that he felt obliged to put it to the test. "If it fails," he said, "we will have a carte blanche to take everything back." In retrospect I find it difficult to accept that he really believed what he was saying.
IT IS therefore clear that despite the best possible intentions, Rabin gambled and failed. As a consequence, the nation paid a bitter price. Since Oslo, 1,400 Israelis were killed and some 20,000 injured. Despite one-sided and unilateral concessions, our geopolitical position is at an all time low. Beyond that, we made an irretrievable blunder by literally resurrecting Arafat who at the time, in the wake of the first Gulf War, was effectively a political corpse, even reviled by the Arabs.
To make matters worse, Rabin was only able to pursue Oslo by indulging in one of the most cynical acts of political corruption in Israel's history, shamelessly bribing unsavory opposition members in order to achieve a Knesset majority. It is therefore surely surrealistic, year after year, to hear speeches sanctimoniously extolling and misrepresenting Rabin's allegedly glorious Oslo legacy and spuriously claiming that he was the first to achieve a historic breakthrough in peace with the Arabs. Promoting such fantasies renders a disservice to Rabin.
It is even more infuriating when Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, President Peres and Peace Now activists have the gall to claim that they are implementing Rabin's vision. How Rabin may have acted had he not been struck down by the assassin is open to conjecture. Some speculate that once he came to the realization that his gamble had failed, unlike his Labor successors, he would have reverted to his former stance and initiated tough and resolute military action.
However, what is surely beyond the realm of speculation is that Rabin was a genuine Labor Zionist and despised the Peace Now agitators. He displayed uninhibited contempt toward Beilin, Burg and the young radicals who were then steering the Labor Party toward post-Zionism. The bitter remarks about Shimon Peres which appear in his memoirs speak for themselves.
Indeed, even at the height of the Oslo debate, Rabin's views remained diametrically opposed to the proposals now emanating from those claiming to have inherited his mantle. For example, in one of his last speeches in the Knesset, on October 5 1995, only days before his assassination, referring to borders Rabin said: "We will not return to 4 June 1967 lines."
In relation to Jerusalem he said "First and foremost, united Jerusalem …as the capital of Israel under Israeli sovereignty."
And about settlements he stated "We committed ourselves before this Knesset not to uproot a single settlement in the framework of the interim government and not to hinder building for natural growth."
IN THIS context, for Prime Minister Olmert and his allies to continuously proclaim that they are fulfilling Rabin's vision is pure Orwellian double speak.
But the problem transcends misrepresenting themselves as heirs to Rabin. Just as Oslo supporters in their time falsely depicted disapproval of Oslo as "incitement" against Rabin, so today much of the legitimate condemnation of the current government policies of unilateral concessions, is again being dubbed "incitement."
To make matters worse, by collectively portraying entire law abiding sectors of Israeli society especially Orthodox Jews and settlers, as sub- human accomplices to the Rabin assassination, the promoters of the personality cult are themselves indulging in outright incitement and defamation.
The media is also behaving shamelessly by giving exaggerated prominence to the miserable murderer and his family, to fringe groups agitating for the parole of the assassin, and to worshipers of a crazed murderer like Baruch Goldstein. Clearly the role of these contemptible marginal groups is being exaggerated totally out of proportion in order to stifle legitimate criticism and undermine freedom of expression.
Irrespective as to whether or not it is appropriate to call for a moment of silence to commemorate the memory of a murdered prime minister at a soccer stadium, the abominable behavior of despicable louts that profaned that moment of silence, reflects adversely on the entire nation. But having said that, let us be clear than any form of collective demonization or incitement invariably creates ugly backlashes.
Yitzhak Rabin should be commemorated as an assassinated Israeli Prime Minister who served his country with distinction as a leader, military commander and diplomat. However such commemorations must be apolitical and promote harmony and unity, expressing a tragic national loss as opposed to indulging in divisive and provocative political opportunism.
This, I believe, is how the overwhelming majority of Israelis would wish to honor the memory of Yitzhak Rabin.
The writer is a former chairman of the Governing Board of the World Jewish Congress and a veteran international Jewish leader.
ileibler@netvision.net.il
Hitherto, I was loath to publicly express my feelings on the sensitive subject of the Rabin "heritage." I do so now because I am enraged at the cynical, even obscene manner, in which the memory of an assassinated prime minister has been transformed into a cult to promote political objectives to which Rabin adamantly opposed, even at the height of the Oslo period of his career. Worse, his name is being exploited to intensify divisions, create hatred and collectively demonize and transfer the guilt of a demented evil assassin on decent law abiding sectors of society. n the course of my years as a leader in the Diaspora before making aliya, I had considerable interaction with Rabin when he was prime minister and minister for defense. On my frequent visits to Jerusalem, Rabin would usually set aside quality time for private personal discussion. As an Australian, I found his frankness refreshing and developed a warm relationship with him. He disliked small talk and was inclined to say whatever was on his mind. Such was the nature of the man.
I liked Rabin. He was no "intellectual" but contrary to allegations by some of his right-wing critics, even when misguided he was always motivated by genuine patriotism and a desire to act in what he considered to be the best interests of the nation.
Oslo proved to be Rabin's undoing. It was widely recognized from the outset that Shimon Peres, Yossi Beilin and their cohorts had sandbagged him into endorsing policies which utterly conflicted with his long-standing attitudes. As the process began unraveling, he became increasingly impatient, inflexible, and aggressive toward his critics.
Like most Diaspora leaders at the time, despite reservations, I was disinclined to criticize the security policies of the elected government, and remained on the sidelines, at times even publicly defending the government. Nevertheless in the course of my private encounters with Rabin I shared with him my growing concerns. I clearly recollect him telling me repeatedly that Oslo was a "gamble" but that he felt obliged to put it to the test. "If it fails," he said, "we will have a carte blanche to take everything back." In retrospect I find it difficult to accept that he really believed what he was saying.
IT IS therefore clear that despite the best possible intentions, Rabin gambled and failed. As a consequence, the nation paid a bitter price. Since Oslo, 1,400 Israelis were killed and some 20,000 injured. Despite one-sided and unilateral concessions, our geopolitical position is at an all time low. Beyond that, we made an irretrievable blunder by literally resurrecting Arafat who at the time, in the wake of the first Gulf War, was effectively a political corpse, even reviled by the Arabs.
To make matters worse, Rabin was only able to pursue Oslo by indulging in one of the most cynical acts of political corruption in Israel's history, shamelessly bribing unsavory opposition members in order to achieve a Knesset majority. It is therefore surely surrealistic, year after year, to hear speeches sanctimoniously extolling and misrepresenting Rabin's allegedly glorious Oslo legacy and spuriously claiming that he was the first to achieve a historic breakthrough in peace with the Arabs. Promoting such fantasies renders a disservice to Rabin.
It is even more infuriating when Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, President Peres and Peace Now activists have the gall to claim that they are implementing Rabin's vision. How Rabin may have acted had he not been struck down by the assassin is open to conjecture. Some speculate that once he came to the realization that his gamble had failed, unlike his Labor successors, he would have reverted to his former stance and initiated tough and resolute military action.
However, what is surely beyond the realm of speculation is that Rabin was a genuine Labor Zionist and despised the Peace Now agitators. He displayed uninhibited contempt toward Beilin, Burg and the young radicals who were then steering the Labor Party toward post-Zionism. The bitter remarks about Shimon Peres which appear in his memoirs speak for themselves.
Indeed, even at the height of the Oslo debate, Rabin's views remained diametrically opposed to the proposals now emanating from those claiming to have inherited his mantle. For example, in one of his last speeches in the Knesset, on October 5 1995, only days before his assassination, referring to borders Rabin said: "We will not return to 4 June 1967 lines."
In relation to Jerusalem he said "First and foremost, united Jerusalem …as the capital of Israel under Israeli sovereignty."
And about settlements he stated "We committed ourselves before this Knesset not to uproot a single settlement in the framework of the interim government and not to hinder building for natural growth."
IN THIS context, for Prime Minister Olmert and his allies to continuously proclaim that they are fulfilling Rabin's vision is pure Orwellian double speak.
But the problem transcends misrepresenting themselves as heirs to Rabin. Just as Oslo supporters in their time falsely depicted disapproval of Oslo as "incitement" against Rabin, so today much of the legitimate condemnation of the current government policies of unilateral concessions, is again being dubbed "incitement."
To make matters worse, by collectively portraying entire law abiding sectors of Israeli society especially Orthodox Jews and settlers, as sub- human accomplices to the Rabin assassination, the promoters of the personality cult are themselves indulging in outright incitement and defamation.
The media is also behaving shamelessly by giving exaggerated prominence to the miserable murderer and his family, to fringe groups agitating for the parole of the assassin, and to worshipers of a crazed murderer like Baruch Goldstein. Clearly the role of these contemptible marginal groups is being exaggerated totally out of proportion in order to stifle legitimate criticism and undermine freedom of expression.
Irrespective as to whether or not it is appropriate to call for a moment of silence to commemorate the memory of a murdered prime minister at a soccer stadium, the abominable behavior of despicable louts that profaned that moment of silence, reflects adversely on the entire nation. But having said that, let us be clear than any form of collective demonization or incitement invariably creates ugly backlashes.
Yitzhak Rabin should be commemorated as an assassinated Israeli Prime Minister who served his country with distinction as a leader, military commander and diplomat. However such commemorations must be apolitical and promote harmony and unity, expressing a tragic national loss as opposed to indulging in divisive and provocative political opportunism.
This, I believe, is how the overwhelming majority of Israelis would wish to honor the memory of Yitzhak Rabin.
The writer is a former chairman of the Governing Board of the World Jewish Congress and a veteran international Jewish leader.
ileibler@netvision.net.il
Arye Eldad to head new secular Right party
National Union MK Arye Eldad will head a new secular right-wing party in the next election that will try to win support away from the Likud and Israel Beiteinu, Eldad announced Tuesda The party will be called Hatikva, which means "the hope" in Hebrew and is the name of Israel's national anthem.
Eldad, who has run as part of the National Union's Moledet party in the last two elections, said he had decided to form a new party, because with nine religious candidates in its top 10, the National Union did not receive enough secular votes. Eldad said he had first tried to convince all the parties that make up the National Union to unite and hold a membership drive and open primaries, but he did not succeed.
"In the last election, non-religious voters went to the Likud, Israel Beiteinu or stayed home because they had no one to vote for," Eldad said. "The Likud has proven that it can take right-wing votes and implement the policies of Peace Now. Israel Beiteinu used to sound like a right-wing party, but now they favor dividing Jerusalem. I needed a party that would really be right-wing."
Polls conducted for Hatikva found that 23 percent of Israelis who identify themselves as centrist or right-wing would consider voting for such a party.
Besides Eldad, the party has attracted the support of well-known figures such as attorney Haim Misgav and Dr. Ron Breiman, the former head of Professors for a Strong Israel. The 100 founders of the party elected as its temporary chairman Yehoar Gal, a reserve IAF colonel who has run for Knesset with the Likud and the National Union. He is close to former chief of General Staff Lt.-Gen. (res.) Dan Halutz.
Hatikva is conducting a membership drive via its Web site, Hatikva.org.il, and will select its Knesset list in a primary among its members. Eldad said he would remain part of the National Union until the next election.
Asked why he did not join one of the existing parties to the Right of the National Union, Eldad said Baruch Marzel's Jewish National Front Party was seen by the public as identifying with the views of slain Kach leader Meir Kahane, and former MK Michael Kleiner's Herut Party could not attract enough support.
Eldad said he hoped Hatikva would build itself into enough of a force to merit becoming a strong part of the nationalist camp. He said the party could run as part of the National Union in the next election.
Knesset Law Committee chairman Menahem Ben-Sasson is trying to pass an electoral reform that would automatically make the leader of the largest party prime minister, instead of the current system, in which the president decides who should form the government. Eldad said that if Ben-Sasson passed the reform, the Likud and all the parties to the Right of it would have to run together in order to ensure Likud chairman Binyamin Netanyahu's victory.
Eldad, who has run as part of the National Union's Moledet party in the last two elections, said he had decided to form a new party, because with nine religious candidates in its top 10, the National Union did not receive enough secular votes. Eldad said he had first tried to convince all the parties that make up the National Union to unite and hold a membership drive and open primaries, but he did not succeed.
"In the last election, non-religious voters went to the Likud, Israel Beiteinu or stayed home because they had no one to vote for," Eldad said. "The Likud has proven that it can take right-wing votes and implement the policies of Peace Now. Israel Beiteinu used to sound like a right-wing party, but now they favor dividing Jerusalem. I needed a party that would really be right-wing."
Polls conducted for Hatikva found that 23 percent of Israelis who identify themselves as centrist or right-wing would consider voting for such a party.
Besides Eldad, the party has attracted the support of well-known figures such as attorney Haim Misgav and Dr. Ron Breiman, the former head of Professors for a Strong Israel. The 100 founders of the party elected as its temporary chairman Yehoar Gal, a reserve IAF colonel who has run for Knesset with the Likud and the National Union. He is close to former chief of General Staff Lt.-Gen. (res.) Dan Halutz.
Hatikva is conducting a membership drive via its Web site, Hatikva.org.il, and will select its Knesset list in a primary among its members. Eldad said he would remain part of the National Union until the next election.
Asked why he did not join one of the existing parties to the Right of the National Union, Eldad said Baruch Marzel's Jewish National Front Party was seen by the public as identifying with the views of slain Kach leader Meir Kahane, and former MK Michael Kleiner's Herut Party could not attract enough support.
Eldad said he hoped Hatikva would build itself into enough of a force to merit becoming a strong part of the nationalist camp. He said the party could run as part of the National Union in the next election.
Knesset Law Committee chairman Menahem Ben-Sasson is trying to pass an electoral reform that would automatically make the leader of the largest party prime minister, instead of the current system, in which the president decides who should form the government. Eldad said that if Ben-Sasson passed the reform, the Likud and all the parties to the Right of it would have to run together in order to ensure Likud chairman Binyamin Netanyahu's victory.
Tuesday, November 20, 2007
Olmert Facing New Accusations of Corruption
HerNissan Ratzlav-Katz
Prime Minister Ehud Olmert is facing yet another corruption accusation, this time by State Comptroller Micha Lindenstrauss. In a report released Monday, Lindenstrauss charged that Olmert used his influence when he was Minister of Labor, Industry and Trade to obtain NIS 7.67 million of government aid for an associate's businesses between 2000 and 2005. Rahamim Ben-Shushan, an activist in the Likud party's Central Committee, was given financial assistance from the ministry for four factories operated by his Marina Group.
Ben-Shushan requested assistance from the ministry for one of his factories, while a competing factory was already receiving similar aid. After Ben-Shushan's request was passed off to the Ministry of Agriculture, he personally complained to Olmert about what he saw as discrimination.
Olmert used his influence when he was Minister of Labor, Industry and Trade to obtain NIS 7.67 million.
An Olmert aide, Oved Yechezkel, then turned to the Director-General of the Ministry of Labor, Industry and Trade, Raanan Dinur, with a request that Comptroller Lindenstrauss believes implied an illegal instruction. Despite the approved protocol for grant requests, which do not permit the involvement of the minister in the decision process, Yehezkel wrote to Dinur, "Ehud requests your personal attention and that you update him."
In a similar instance, in 2005, Yehezkel again intervened on behalf of Ben-Shushan with the new Director-General of the ministry, Hezi Tzaig. Writing as an advisor to Olmert, Yehezkel asked Tzaig to "stay in touch with Ben-Shushan and explore ways to assist [his] factory."
In an earlier case involving Ben-Shushan, Comptroller Lindenstrauss revealed, Olmert obtained for Ben-Shushan a commitment that a certain factory would be given preferred status three weeks before the issue was officially decided upon by the Ministry of Labor, Industry and Trade's Investment Center. The accusation leveled by Lindenstrauss is that Olmert met with the head of the Investment Center and the Mayor of Maalot Tarshicha, where the factory was located, in order to get them to agree to approve Ben-Shushan's factory for preferred status.
According to Lindenstrauss, "One gets the impression that the minister sought to benefit the entrepreneur [Ben-Shushan]."
Yechezkel currently serves as Olmert's senior advisor, while Dinur is now the Director-General of the Prime Minister's Office.
The latest accusation by the comptroller comes on top of three concurrent corruption investigations of the Prime Minister. In October, Attorney General Menachem Mazuz instructed the police to open a criminal investigation of Olmert in connection with other suspected wrongdoings committed when he was Minister of Industry, Trade and Labor. The suspicions revolve around a company that was
The latest accusation by State Comptroller Lindenstrauss comes on top of three concurrent corruption investigations of the Prime Minister.
represented by Olmert's longtime associate and attorney Uri Messer, as well as political appointments in the Small Businesses Authority and other illegal assistance to his political proteges.
Olmert is also under investigation for the purchase of a home on Jerusalem's Cremieux Street at a price substantially below market value, allegedly in return for exerting his influence in Jerusalem's municipality to aid the contractors. An additional investigation relates to charges that Olmert favored his business associates in the sale of Bank Leumi's controlling shares owned by the government, while he was serving as Acting Finance Minister.
Earlier this month an extensive poll on government corruption found that Prime Minister Olmert is considered the most corrupt politician in Israel in 2007. Fifty-six percent of the public defined his behavior as "corrupt to very corrupt." Olmert, who heads the Kadima party, also received this dubious distinction in 2006. The poll was conducted by the prestigious Maagar Mochot survey institute for the Fifth Annual Sderot Conference on Social and Economic Policy.
Prime Minister Ehud Olmert is facing yet another corruption accusation, this time by State Comptroller Micha Lindenstrauss. In a report released Monday, Lindenstrauss charged that Olmert used his influence when he was Minister of Labor, Industry and Trade to obtain NIS 7.67 million of government aid for an associate's businesses between 2000 and 2005. Rahamim Ben-Shushan, an activist in the Likud party's Central Committee, was given financial assistance from the ministry for four factories operated by his Marina Group.
Ben-Shushan requested assistance from the ministry for one of his factories, while a competing factory was already receiving similar aid. After Ben-Shushan's request was passed off to the Ministry of Agriculture, he personally complained to Olmert about what he saw as discrimination.
Olmert used his influence when he was Minister of Labor, Industry and Trade to obtain NIS 7.67 million.
An Olmert aide, Oved Yechezkel, then turned to the Director-General of the Ministry of Labor, Industry and Trade, Raanan Dinur, with a request that Comptroller Lindenstrauss believes implied an illegal instruction. Despite the approved protocol for grant requests, which do not permit the involvement of the minister in the decision process, Yehezkel wrote to Dinur, "Ehud requests your personal attention and that you update him."
In a similar instance, in 2005, Yehezkel again intervened on behalf of Ben-Shushan with the new Director-General of the ministry, Hezi Tzaig. Writing as an advisor to Olmert, Yehezkel asked Tzaig to "stay in touch with Ben-Shushan and explore ways to assist [his] factory."
In an earlier case involving Ben-Shushan, Comptroller Lindenstrauss revealed, Olmert obtained for Ben-Shushan a commitment that a certain factory would be given preferred status three weeks before the issue was officially decided upon by the Ministry of Labor, Industry and Trade's Investment Center. The accusation leveled by Lindenstrauss is that Olmert met with the head of the Investment Center and the Mayor of Maalot Tarshicha, where the factory was located, in order to get them to agree to approve Ben-Shushan's factory for preferred status.
According to Lindenstrauss, "One gets the impression that the minister sought to benefit the entrepreneur [Ben-Shushan]."
Yechezkel currently serves as Olmert's senior advisor, while Dinur is now the Director-General of the Prime Minister's Office.
The latest accusation by the comptroller comes on top of three concurrent corruption investigations of the Prime Minister. In October, Attorney General Menachem Mazuz instructed the police to open a criminal investigation of Olmert in connection with other suspected wrongdoings committed when he was Minister of Industry, Trade and Labor. The suspicions revolve around a company that was
The latest accusation by State Comptroller Lindenstrauss comes on top of three concurrent corruption investigations of the Prime Minister.
represented by Olmert's longtime associate and attorney Uri Messer, as well as political appointments in the Small Businesses Authority and other illegal assistance to his political proteges.
Olmert is also under investigation for the purchase of a home on Jerusalem's Cremieux Street at a price substantially below market value, allegedly in return for exerting his influence in Jerusalem's municipality to aid the contractors. An additional investigation relates to charges that Olmert favored his business associates in the sale of Bank Leumi's controlling shares owned by the government, while he was serving as Acting Finance Minister.
Earlier this month an extensive poll on government corruption found that Prime Minister Olmert is considered the most corrupt politician in Israel in 2007. Fifty-six percent of the public defined his behavior as "corrupt to very corrupt." Olmert, who heads the Kadima party, also received this dubious distinction in 2006. The poll was conducted by the prestigious Maagar Mochot survey institute for the Fifth Annual Sderot Conference on Social and Economic Policy.
The Amnesty Plan for Fatah operatives on Israel's wanted list
The Amnesty Plan and its goals 1. One of Israel 's gestures towards the Palestinian Authority was the Amnesty Plan for Fatah operatives on Israel 's wanted list, whose implementation began on July 12, 2007 . The plan was designed to reduce the numbers of those involved in terrorism, while encouraging those moderate parties in the Palestinian Authority opposed to Hamas.
2. As part of the Amnesty Plan, Israeli security forces will cease their counter-terrorist activities against some 170 wanted Fatah operatives in Judea and Samaria . This, provided they pledge to abandon the path of terrorism, surrender their arms, and face a series of restrictions during a three-month-long probation period. The Amnesty Plan, which does not include all the wanted operatives in Judea and Samaria , was coordinated with the Palestinian security services in order to facilitate its implementation through persuasion and enforcement.
3. The first group of wanted operatives was made up of Fatah terrorists, who clearly demonstrated their willingness to abandon the path of terrorism. The Israeli security forces indicated that they would later consider extending the amnesty to other terrorist operatives who can prove that their intentions are serious and willingly avoid engaging in or assisting to acts of terrorism. From the very beginning, it was clear that the real test of the Amnesty Plan would be the willingness of those wanted operatives included in it to abide by its conditions, and the willingness (and ability) of the Palestinian security services to enforce their authority on them and ensure the plan's implementation.
Interim summary of the probation period
4. During the probation period since the beginning of the Amnesty Plan's implementation, the Israeli security forces closely monitored the group of wanted operatives included in the plan. The purpose was to ascertain how well they fulfilled the obligations they had taken upon themselves, mainly the pledge to avoid all terrorist activities. The Israeli security forces encouraged the Palestinian Authority, of which Fatah is a major component, to collect the arms held by the wanted operatives and enforce the cessation of involvement in terrorism on those who refused to commit themselves to refrain from such activities.
5. During the first, probation phase, the Palestinian Authority's enforcement achievements were limited. The Palestinian security services gathered arms at a leisurely pace and not from all wanted operatives, including those specified in the Amnesty Plan. However, the plan did create a dynamic that had a positive influence on some of the wanted operatives, some of whom showed self-restraint, particularly in light of the new situation that arose following the Hamas military takeover of the Gaza Strip. The Israeli security forces encouraged that self-restraint, even though they took pains to ensure that all the obligations of the wanted operatives included in the plan were fulfilled.
6. The state of affairs at the end of the probation phase is as follows:
a. Some of the wanted operatives who surrendered their arms and fulfilled all their obligations are now moving on to the second phase, in which they will be granted complete pardon (the case of every wanted operative will be assessed individually, based on the severity of his past actions).
b. Other wanted operatives, who have abandoned the path of terrorism but have not fulfilled all the obligations, are continuing the probation phase.
c. A small part of the wanted operatives who continued or resumed terrorist activities have once again become immediate targets for counter-terrorist operations of the Israeli security forces (counter-terrorism operations have already been carried out against some of them during the probation phase).
d. Other wanted Fatah operatives, who have come to realize the futility of their past terrorist activities, are currently being gradually put into the probation phase, similarly to the first group included in the Amnesty Plan.
Summary
7. The Amnesty Plan makes it possible to take numerous terrorist operatives out of the circle of terrorism using a precise, monitored apparatus. The Israeli security forces continue encouraging the Palestinian Authority to move the plan forward, even though its achievements so far have been limited. The reason is that the dynamic created by the plan has a positive influence on the Palestinian street, and might prompt other wanted operatives to abandon the path of terrorism. The implementation of the plan is not dependent upon the progress of the Palestinian Authority buildup, which is still far from demonstrating any enforcement capabilities..
2. As part of the Amnesty Plan, Israeli security forces will cease their counter-terrorist activities against some 170 wanted Fatah operatives in Judea and Samaria . This, provided they pledge to abandon the path of terrorism, surrender their arms, and face a series of restrictions during a three-month-long probation period. The Amnesty Plan, which does not include all the wanted operatives in Judea and Samaria , was coordinated with the Palestinian security services in order to facilitate its implementation through persuasion and enforcement.
3. The first group of wanted operatives was made up of Fatah terrorists, who clearly demonstrated their willingness to abandon the path of terrorism. The Israeli security forces indicated that they would later consider extending the amnesty to other terrorist operatives who can prove that their intentions are serious and willingly avoid engaging in or assisting to acts of terrorism. From the very beginning, it was clear that the real test of the Amnesty Plan would be the willingness of those wanted operatives included in it to abide by its conditions, and the willingness (and ability) of the Palestinian security services to enforce their authority on them and ensure the plan's implementation.
Interim summary of the probation period
4. During the probation period since the beginning of the Amnesty Plan's implementation, the Israeli security forces closely monitored the group of wanted operatives included in the plan. The purpose was to ascertain how well they fulfilled the obligations they had taken upon themselves, mainly the pledge to avoid all terrorist activities. The Israeli security forces encouraged the Palestinian Authority, of which Fatah is a major component, to collect the arms held by the wanted operatives and enforce the cessation of involvement in terrorism on those who refused to commit themselves to refrain from such activities.
5. During the first, probation phase, the Palestinian Authority's enforcement achievements were limited. The Palestinian security services gathered arms at a leisurely pace and not from all wanted operatives, including those specified in the Amnesty Plan. However, the plan did create a dynamic that had a positive influence on some of the wanted operatives, some of whom showed self-restraint, particularly in light of the new situation that arose following the Hamas military takeover of the Gaza Strip. The Israeli security forces encouraged that self-restraint, even though they took pains to ensure that all the obligations of the wanted operatives included in the plan were fulfilled.
6. The state of affairs at the end of the probation phase is as follows:
a. Some of the wanted operatives who surrendered their arms and fulfilled all their obligations are now moving on to the second phase, in which they will be granted complete pardon (the case of every wanted operative will be assessed individually, based on the severity of his past actions).
b. Other wanted operatives, who have abandoned the path of terrorism but have not fulfilled all the obligations, are continuing the probation phase.
c. A small part of the wanted operatives who continued or resumed terrorist activities have once again become immediate targets for counter-terrorist operations of the Israeli security forces (counter-terrorism operations have already been carried out against some of them during the probation phase).
d. Other wanted Fatah operatives, who have come to realize the futility of their past terrorist activities, are currently being gradually put into the probation phase, similarly to the first group included in the Amnesty Plan.
Summary
7. The Amnesty Plan makes it possible to take numerous terrorist operatives out of the circle of terrorism using a precise, monitored apparatus. The Israeli security forces continue encouraging the Palestinian Authority to move the plan forward, even though its achievements so far have been limited. The reason is that the dynamic created by the plan has a positive influence on the Palestinian street, and might prompt other wanted operatives to abandon the path of terrorism. The implementation of the plan is not dependent upon the progress of the Palestinian Authority buildup, which is still far from demonstrating any enforcement capabilities..
Details of Annapolis Summit Are Cloudy
A few days after Thanksgiving, President Bush and Secretary of State Rice plan to open a meeting in Annapolis, Md., to launch the first round of substantive Israeli-Palestinian peace talks during Mr. Bush's presidency. But no conference date has been set. No invitations have been issued. And no one really agrees on what the participants will actually talk about once they arrive at the Naval Academy for the meeting, which is intended to relaunch Mr. Bush's stillborn "road map" plan to create a Palestinian state.
The anticipation surrounding the meeting has heightened the stakes for smaller countries seeking invites. If Turkey comes, Greece wants a seat. So does Brazil, which has more Arabs than the Palestinian territories. Norway hosted an earlier round of peacemaking in Oslo, so they want a role. Japan wants to do more than write checks for Palestinian Arabs.
"No one seems to know what is happening," one senior Arab envoy said last week, speaking on condition of anonymity to avoid embarrassing himself. "I am completely lost."
The envoy recounted the calls he had made in recent days to dig up information and said he had reserved rooms for his country's foreign minister and other officials. He then added with exasperation: "It is a very peculiar thing." Even a senior administration official deeply involved in the preparations confided, before speaking off the record about his expectations: "I can't connect the dots myself because it is still a work in progress."
The delay in officially announcing the meeting, which Mr. Bush said in July would take place "this fall," is largely the result of the complexities of the five-decade conflict between Israel and its Arab neighbors.
Ms. Rice is holding back an official announcement as long as possible in order to entice as many Arab nations — particularly Saudi Arabia — to attend at a senior level.
Many diplomats involved in planning the meeting say it is simply intended to validate talks that are already proceeding between Prime Minister Olmert of Israel and the Palestinian Authority president, Mahmoud Abbas, over the contours of a Palestinian state. The conference is intended to be brief, lasting only a day or so. The substance of a final statement may well be bland — there is no agreement on a text yet.
But Ms. Rice hopes the two sides will agree to press ahead on the "road map" plan on two simultaneous tracks. Under this new approach, the Israelis and Palestinian Arabs will negotiate hard toward a permanent settlement of the conflict, which all sides hope will be seen as a major breakthrough, while at the same time taking practical steps to ease tensions on the ground.
Ms. Rice has made repeated trips to the region this year to breath new life in the dormant peace talks..
The anticipation surrounding the meeting has heightened the stakes for smaller countries seeking invites. If Turkey comes, Greece wants a seat. So does Brazil, which has more Arabs than the Palestinian territories. Norway hosted an earlier round of peacemaking in Oslo, so they want a role. Japan wants to do more than write checks for Palestinian Arabs.
"No one seems to know what is happening," one senior Arab envoy said last week, speaking on condition of anonymity to avoid embarrassing himself. "I am completely lost."
The envoy recounted the calls he had made in recent days to dig up information and said he had reserved rooms for his country's foreign minister and other officials. He then added with exasperation: "It is a very peculiar thing." Even a senior administration official deeply involved in the preparations confided, before speaking off the record about his expectations: "I can't connect the dots myself because it is still a work in progress."
The delay in officially announcing the meeting, which Mr. Bush said in July would take place "this fall," is largely the result of the complexities of the five-decade conflict between Israel and its Arab neighbors.
Ms. Rice is holding back an official announcement as long as possible in order to entice as many Arab nations — particularly Saudi Arabia — to attend at a senior level.
Many diplomats involved in planning the meeting say it is simply intended to validate talks that are already proceeding between Prime Minister Olmert of Israel and the Palestinian Authority president, Mahmoud Abbas, over the contours of a Palestinian state. The conference is intended to be brief, lasting only a day or so. The substance of a final statement may well be bland — there is no agreement on a text yet.
But Ms. Rice hopes the two sides will agree to press ahead on the "road map" plan on two simultaneous tracks. Under this new approach, the Israelis and Palestinian Arabs will negotiate hard toward a permanent settlement of the conflict, which all sides hope will be seen as a major breakthrough, while at the same time taking practical steps to ease tensions on the ground.
Ms. Rice has made repeated trips to the region this year to breath new life in the dormant peace talks..
Remarks by FM Livni regarding Annapolis at today's Cabinet meeting
I hope the Palestinians will understand the importance of the initiation of a substantial and serious process for the first time in seven years. It will not be simple, there are differences, but we must find out for ourselves if there is a possibility of reaching an agreement with these moderate elements.
(Communicated by the Foreign Minister's Bureau)
Following are remarks made by Vice Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs Tzipi Livni on Annapolis at the Cabinet meeting held today (Monday 19 November 2007):
"To understand why we are entering the process, we must define our interests and understand the developments going on around us. The region is in a process of radicalization, including religious radicalization; Islamic movements are gaining momentum and power, and using democratic processes to gain control.
Simultaneously, there are delegitimization processes in international public opinion regarding the right of Israel to exist as a national home for the Jewish People. The world understands the necessity of creating a Palestinian state, it is perceived as a clear target, but not necessarily as a complete solution to the Palestinian problem.
Israel's security issues are not a part of the international agenda to the extent we would like them to be. Therefore, Israel's interest is to try to reach understandings with moderate factions on the ground and to reinforce Israel's primary interests in these agreements: Security and the creation of two national states, each of which provides a full national solution to its people, wherever they may be.
In view of the situation on the ground, we had two possibilities: To wait until the Palestinians created order and began the implementation and then start to negotiate, or to try and check the possibility of bridging the differences with the pragmatic elements on the ground without compromising on the implementation of the obligations detailed in the Roadmap.
We want to verify that we can reach a solution regarding the disputed issues, and only if there is progress regarding the implementation of obligations on the ground will we be able to continue with the implementation. We reached the formula that forms the basis of the negotiations in this manner.
Two important agreements were attained during the negotiation period: One, the principle of subordination to the Roadmap and the second, the understanding that we are at the activation stage of a process, one that has not existed for the past seven years, during which time all the related issues were placed on the table. The resolute support of the Arab world is important; sitting on the fence does not contribute anything. A bilateral dialogue must cause change in the relationship with Israel along the time axis.
I hope the Palestinians will understand the importance of the initiation of a substantial and serious process for the first time in seven years. It will not be simple, there are differences, but we must find out for ourselves if there is a possibility of reaching an agreement with these moderate elements. If not, then in all likelihood it will be much more difficult.
If we are able to reach agreements that are acceptable to us, they will be firmly recognized by the international community as acknowledged agreements, especially with regard to security issues.
The dialogue does not and must not prevent us from taking action at anytime to contend with terrorist activities".
span>
(Communicated by the Foreign Minister's Bureau)
Following are remarks made by Vice Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs Tzipi Livni on Annapolis at the Cabinet meeting held today (Monday 19 November 2007):
"To understand why we are entering the process, we must define our interests and understand the developments going on around us. The region is in a process of radicalization, including religious radicalization; Islamic movements are gaining momentum and power, and using democratic processes to gain control.
Simultaneously, there are delegitimization processes in international public opinion regarding the right of Israel to exist as a national home for the Jewish People. The world understands the necessity of creating a Palestinian state, it is perceived as a clear target, but not necessarily as a complete solution to the Palestinian problem.
Israel's security issues are not a part of the international agenda to the extent we would like them to be. Therefore, Israel's interest is to try to reach understandings with moderate factions on the ground and to reinforce Israel's primary interests in these agreements: Security and the creation of two national states, each of which provides a full national solution to its people, wherever they may be.
In view of the situation on the ground, we had two possibilities: To wait until the Palestinians created order and began the implementation and then start to negotiate, or to try and check the possibility of bridging the differences with the pragmatic elements on the ground without compromising on the implementation of the obligations detailed in the Roadmap.
We want to verify that we can reach a solution regarding the disputed issues, and only if there is progress regarding the implementation of obligations on the ground will we be able to continue with the implementation. We reached the formula that forms the basis of the negotiations in this manner.
Two important agreements were attained during the negotiation period: One, the principle of subordination to the Roadmap and the second, the understanding that we are at the activation stage of a process, one that has not existed for the past seven years, during which time all the related issues were placed on the table. The resolute support of the Arab world is important; sitting on the fence does not contribute anything. A bilateral dialogue must cause change in the relationship with Israel along the time axis.
I hope the Palestinians will understand the importance of the initiation of a substantial and serious process for the first time in seven years. It will not be simple, there are differences, but we must find out for ourselves if there is a possibility of reaching an agreement with these moderate elements. If not, then in all likelihood it will be much more difficult.
If we are able to reach agreements that are acceptable to us, they will be firmly recognized by the international community as acknowledged agreements, especially with regard to security issues.
The dialogue does not and must not prevent us from taking action at anytime to contend with terrorist activities".
span>
Monday, November 19, 2007
Blog Announcement
I am leaving for the states in a few hours-will be "off-line" for 24 hours, hopefully resuming posting by Tuesday afternoon-thank you all for your support And here is the rest of it.
What is a Jewish state?
Arab media's point of view
Khalid Amayreh in Occupied West Jerusalem
Seeking to perpetuate institutionalized racism and systematic discrimination against its non-Jewish citizens, the apartheid Israeli state has been incessantly trying to blackmail the weak and vulnerable Palestinian Authority (PA) into recognizing the Zionist state as “an exclusively Jewish state
Some Israeli officials have used terms such as “a state of the Jews, for the Jews, and by the Jews.” Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has been quoted as saying that Israel wouldn’t recognize a prospective Palestinian state on the West Bank unless the PA recognized Israel as “a state of the Jews.”
Israeli leaders are reluctant to tell the world what they exactly mean by “a state of the Jews,” ostensibly to save themselves the embarrassment of the implied racism inherent in the concept.
However, the implications in such a recognition are abundantly clear for those who have even rudimentary knowledge of the Israeli mentality.
To make a long story short, “Jewish state” means that Israel has an inherent right to discriminate against its non-Jewish citizens, especially the sizeable Palestinian minority, and, if need be, expel them from the country in order to preserve the “Jewishness” of Israel.
In other words, Israel simply wants to obtain from the Palestinian leadership a recognition that it has a legal and moral right to carry out ethnic cleansing of its Christian and Muslim citizens on the ground that Israel is and must always remain a Jewish state.
Of course, Israel is deliberately evasive and vague about its manifestly fascistic designs regarding its non-Jewish citizens. Israeli leaders and apologists claim ad nauseam that Israel is a Jewish and democratic state. But this is a defensive reflex at best and is as mendacious as claiming that apartheid is compatible with democracy.
The truth, however, is that Israel can’t be Talmudic and democratic at the same time. Hence “Jewish” and “democratic” are an eternal oxymoron that should never be used in the presence of an honest audience.
The reason for that is amply clear. Ask any Jew in Israel or abroad which comes first “Jewish” or “democratic” and he or she wouldn’t to tell you that “Jewish” always overrides “democratic.” Which really shows that “democratic” is no more than a cosmetic façade that is meant to blur or conceal the brutal ugliness of the fascist nature of the “Jewish state.”
Another important, even paramount, aspect of this issue is the Israeli insistence on obtaining recognition as Jewish state in order to permanently bar millions of Palestinian refugees deported from their homeland from time immemorial from repatriation.
In other words, Israel wants to legalize and legitimize ethnic cleansing by getting the victims, or at least their supposed representatives, to bless the greatest act of theft in the history of mankind.
Thus, recognition of Israel as a Jewish state would be tantamount to a double national suicide of immense catastrophic proportions for the Palestinian people.
First, it implies that Israel has the right to expel all or most of its Arab citizens or at least check their demographic growth by all means necessary to maintain Israel as a Jewish state.
And, second, it implies that Israel has the right to prevent Palestinian refugees uprooted from their ancestral homeland from returning to their homes and villages in what is now Israel. In other words, Israel wants to make sure that ethnic cleansing will win at last.
In light, one is prompted to ask: Can there be a greater national suicide for the Palestinian people?
In addition, there are a number of other practical implications which a recognition of Israel as a Jewish state would entail. These include the following:
1- That only “Jews” can be considered complete citizens of Israel, and that if an incomplete citizen, e.g. a non-Jew, wanted to be “complete” he or she would have to convert to Judaism. This is very much like the situation many Jews in mediaeval Europe faced, forcing them to convert to Christianity in order to enjoy equality and find acceptance in their contemporary societies.
2- That the Israeli citizenship per se is ultimately inconsequential and doesn’t guarantee holders all rights and privileges, since Israel is defined as “state of the Jews.” Hence, in order to enjoy full and complete and permanent citizenship, one has to be Jewish.
3- That whenever there is the slightest disharmony between the Jewish and democratic aspects of Israel, the Jewish aspect will override and take priority over the democratic aspect.
4- That Jews all over the world, including potential converts to Judaism, are citizens of Israel and may well be allowed the right to vote in national elections, especially if non-Jewish citizens, gain political influence in Israeli politics.
More to the point, recognizing Israel as a Jewish state also implies a recognition of the moral legitimacy of Israel’s criminal history, particularly the genocidal ethnic cleansing of the bulk of the indigenous Palestinian people from their ancestral homeland.
In other words, a recognition as such by the PA would also imply that the Palestinians would effectively though compulsively embrace and accept the Zionist narrative in its entirety.
This would mean that the victims of Zionist supremacy and racism would have to transform themselves into a sort of Arab Zionists, very much like Christian Zionists.
It is for these reasons that no dignified Palestinian under the sun will be able to recognize Israel as a Jewish state since such a recognition would be incompatible with basic morality and fundamental human decency.
Indeed, even if such a recognition were to be arrogated through blackmail and coercion, it would be utterly rejected by the vast bulk of Palestinians, and treated like a marriage under duress, which is no less than an act of rape.
Khalid Amayreh in Occupied West Jerusalem
Seeking to perpetuate institutionalized racism and systematic discrimination against its non-Jewish citizens, the apartheid Israeli state has been incessantly trying to blackmail the weak and vulnerable Palestinian Authority (PA) into recognizing the Zionist state as “an exclusively Jewish state
Some Israeli officials have used terms such as “a state of the Jews, for the Jews, and by the Jews.” Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has been quoted as saying that Israel wouldn’t recognize a prospective Palestinian state on the West Bank unless the PA recognized Israel as “a state of the Jews.”
Israeli leaders are reluctant to tell the world what they exactly mean by “a state of the Jews,” ostensibly to save themselves the embarrassment of the implied racism inherent in the concept.
However, the implications in such a recognition are abundantly clear for those who have even rudimentary knowledge of the Israeli mentality.
To make a long story short, “Jewish state” means that Israel has an inherent right to discriminate against its non-Jewish citizens, especially the sizeable Palestinian minority, and, if need be, expel them from the country in order to preserve the “Jewishness” of Israel.
In other words, Israel simply wants to obtain from the Palestinian leadership a recognition that it has a legal and moral right to carry out ethnic cleansing of its Christian and Muslim citizens on the ground that Israel is and must always remain a Jewish state.
Of course, Israel is deliberately evasive and vague about its manifestly fascistic designs regarding its non-Jewish citizens. Israeli leaders and apologists claim ad nauseam that Israel is a Jewish and democratic state. But this is a defensive reflex at best and is as mendacious as claiming that apartheid is compatible with democracy.
The truth, however, is that Israel can’t be Talmudic and democratic at the same time. Hence “Jewish” and “democratic” are an eternal oxymoron that should never be used in the presence of an honest audience.
The reason for that is amply clear. Ask any Jew in Israel or abroad which comes first “Jewish” or “democratic” and he or she wouldn’t to tell you that “Jewish” always overrides “democratic.” Which really shows that “democratic” is no more than a cosmetic façade that is meant to blur or conceal the brutal ugliness of the fascist nature of the “Jewish state.”
Another important, even paramount, aspect of this issue is the Israeli insistence on obtaining recognition as Jewish state in order to permanently bar millions of Palestinian refugees deported from their homeland from time immemorial from repatriation.
In other words, Israel wants to legalize and legitimize ethnic cleansing by getting the victims, or at least their supposed representatives, to bless the greatest act of theft in the history of mankind.
Thus, recognition of Israel as a Jewish state would be tantamount to a double national suicide of immense catastrophic proportions for the Palestinian people.
First, it implies that Israel has the right to expel all or most of its Arab citizens or at least check their demographic growth by all means necessary to maintain Israel as a Jewish state.
And, second, it implies that Israel has the right to prevent Palestinian refugees uprooted from their ancestral homeland from returning to their homes and villages in what is now Israel. In other words, Israel wants to make sure that ethnic cleansing will win at last.
In light, one is prompted to ask: Can there be a greater national suicide for the Palestinian people?
In addition, there are a number of other practical implications which a recognition of Israel as a Jewish state would entail. These include the following:
1- That only “Jews” can be considered complete citizens of Israel, and that if an incomplete citizen, e.g. a non-Jew, wanted to be “complete” he or she would have to convert to Judaism. This is very much like the situation many Jews in mediaeval Europe faced, forcing them to convert to Christianity in order to enjoy equality and find acceptance in their contemporary societies.
2- That the Israeli citizenship per se is ultimately inconsequential and doesn’t guarantee holders all rights and privileges, since Israel is defined as “state of the Jews.” Hence, in order to enjoy full and complete and permanent citizenship, one has to be Jewish.
3- That whenever there is the slightest disharmony between the Jewish and democratic aspects of Israel, the Jewish aspect will override and take priority over the democratic aspect.
4- That Jews all over the world, including potential converts to Judaism, are citizens of Israel and may well be allowed the right to vote in national elections, especially if non-Jewish citizens, gain political influence in Israeli politics.
More to the point, recognizing Israel as a Jewish state also implies a recognition of the moral legitimacy of Israel’s criminal history, particularly the genocidal ethnic cleansing of the bulk of the indigenous Palestinian people from their ancestral homeland.
In other words, a recognition as such by the PA would also imply that the Palestinians would effectively though compulsively embrace and accept the Zionist narrative in its entirety.
This would mean that the victims of Zionist supremacy and racism would have to transform themselves into a sort of Arab Zionists, very much like Christian Zionists.
It is for these reasons that no dignified Palestinian under the sun will be able to recognize Israel as a Jewish state since such a recognition would be incompatible with basic morality and fundamental human decency.
Indeed, even if such a recognition were to be arrogated through blackmail and coercion, it would be utterly rejected by the vast bulk of Palestinians, and treated like a marriage under duress, which is no less than an act of rape.
In the Diaspora: The blank screen
Samuel Freedman
THE JERUSALEM POST
Some years ago, I had a student in my journalism class who had won a bronze medal in rowing at the Barcelona Olympics She described to me a training regimen that included not only physical exercises but mental ones. Foremost among them was a discipline called "visualization."
Visualization means what its name implies. An elite athlete will envision, in vivid detail, winning the race or scoring the goal or sinking the basket. The repeated psychic act of imagining success is meant to prepare both mind and body for enacting success when the moment of actual competition arrives.
Just lately, I have been thinking about my inability to conjure an image, in this case the image of a triumphant, or even optimistic, ending to the impending Israeli-Palestinian-American peace conference in Annapolis. And maybe I am suffering from more than the usual narcissism to believe that this personal failure exists far more widely within American Jewry.
I refer here not to the highly focused, highly mobilized minority of the American Jewish community that has opposed territorial compromise from Madrid and Oslo in the early 1990s to Gaza in 2005. That faction, augmented now by Christian Zionists who have their own millennialist motives for retaining Greater Israel, has always gotten out its uncompromising message.
Rather, I am talking about the passive, reluctant mainstream of American Jews that has been endorsing a two-state solution for the past generation. Polling over the years has tended to show somewhere between 60 and 70% of the community holding this position, and if anything I suspect the number may have increased as the creation of a Palestinian state alongside Israel has spread from a liberal stance to a center-right one, thanks to the demographic threat to Israel from the Palestinian birth rate.
TO USE the Nixonian cliche, this segment has been the "silent majority" of American Jewry. While it has had its public figures - Leonard Fein, Letty Cottin Pogrebin, Michael Lerner, M.J. Rosenberg - it has never been able to assemble its followers the way American backers of the settlement policy have routinely been able to marshal theirs.
Still, throughout the 1990s, the American peace camp provided the political cover that George H.W. Bush and especially Bill Clinton required in trying to bring the Israelis and Palestinians to a permanent resolution. The image of Clinton drawing Yitzhak Rabin and Yasser Arafat into a begrudging handshake permitted American Jewish doves to visualize an end to turmoil and terror, even if the peace partner had formerly been the terrorist-in-chief. It is hard to conceive of Clinton having pushed so hard at Camp David and Taba had he believed those efforts would estrange his American Jewish supporters (and future campaign contributors for his wife).
The Aksa intifada supplied a different set of images, of course - bloody hands emerging from the Ramallah police station, distraught girls outside the Dolphinarium, a ravaged Seder in Netanya. For all but a sliver of the American Jewish Left, some of which is discredited by its anti-Zionism, it became impossible to sustain the image of a negotiated peace.
I will never forget the abject, funereal version of Hatikva I heard on Yom Kippur 2000 in that epicenter of peace activism, Congregation B'nai Jeshurun on Manhattan's Upper West Side.
YEARS LATER, whatever hopes had flickered back to life with the plan for unilateral withdrawal were dampened by Ariel Sharon's stroke and definitely extinguished by the rain of Kassams on Sderot and Katyushas from Lebanon courtesy of Sheikh Nasrallah.
Now come three crippled leaders (George W. Bush, Mahmoud Abbas, and Ehud Olmert) to try to accomplish what three leaders with strong mandates (Arafat, Clinton, Ehud Barak) could not at Camp David. The America that was victorious in the wake of the first Gulf War and the collapse of the Soviet Union, an America whose president could strong-arm even Yitzhak Shamir into going to Madrid, has given way to an America stuck in an Iraq quagmire and vulnerable to jihadist Islam's asymmetrical warfare. This hardly seems like the conditions for cutting the Gordian knot.
For the moderate and liberal American Jews most inclined toward the Annapolis conference, there is precious little trust in President Bush to do anything right. I do not mean the facile, fashionable way the Left blames him for everything wrong in the world. (What will satirists and bloggers do when their favorite Beelzebub is gone?) I mean the collective memory in the United States of Bush's bungled response to Hurricane Katrina - an enduring symbol on these shores of the president's incompetence, or at least his inability to translate appealing rhetoric into effective action.
Yes, commentators such as David Brooks in the New York Times have theorized that the common fear of an ascendant, nuclear-capable Iran may be enough to push the Israelis and the Sunni secularists of Fatah into some kind of embrace. I would love to believe this hypothesis, but in a very literal way I cannot see how it might unfold, what agreement could be struck, what constituencies back home in the Middle East could be won over.
There are hundreds of channels on my cable television system at home. When it comes to Annapolis, though, my own screen is blank.
THE JERUSALEM POST
Some years ago, I had a student in my journalism class who had won a bronze medal in rowing at the Barcelona Olympics She described to me a training regimen that included not only physical exercises but mental ones. Foremost among them was a discipline called "visualization."
Visualization means what its name implies. An elite athlete will envision, in vivid detail, winning the race or scoring the goal or sinking the basket. The repeated psychic act of imagining success is meant to prepare both mind and body for enacting success when the moment of actual competition arrives.
Just lately, I have been thinking about my inability to conjure an image, in this case the image of a triumphant, or even optimistic, ending to the impending Israeli-Palestinian-American peace conference in Annapolis. And maybe I am suffering from more than the usual narcissism to believe that this personal failure exists far more widely within American Jewry.
I refer here not to the highly focused, highly mobilized minority of the American Jewish community that has opposed territorial compromise from Madrid and Oslo in the early 1990s to Gaza in 2005. That faction, augmented now by Christian Zionists who have their own millennialist motives for retaining Greater Israel, has always gotten out its uncompromising message.
Rather, I am talking about the passive, reluctant mainstream of American Jews that has been endorsing a two-state solution for the past generation. Polling over the years has tended to show somewhere between 60 and 70% of the community holding this position, and if anything I suspect the number may have increased as the creation of a Palestinian state alongside Israel has spread from a liberal stance to a center-right one, thanks to the demographic threat to Israel from the Palestinian birth rate.
TO USE the Nixonian cliche, this segment has been the "silent majority" of American Jewry. While it has had its public figures - Leonard Fein, Letty Cottin Pogrebin, Michael Lerner, M.J. Rosenberg - it has never been able to assemble its followers the way American backers of the settlement policy have routinely been able to marshal theirs.
Still, throughout the 1990s, the American peace camp provided the political cover that George H.W. Bush and especially Bill Clinton required in trying to bring the Israelis and Palestinians to a permanent resolution. The image of Clinton drawing Yitzhak Rabin and Yasser Arafat into a begrudging handshake permitted American Jewish doves to visualize an end to turmoil and terror, even if the peace partner had formerly been the terrorist-in-chief. It is hard to conceive of Clinton having pushed so hard at Camp David and Taba had he believed those efforts would estrange his American Jewish supporters (and future campaign contributors for his wife).
The Aksa intifada supplied a different set of images, of course - bloody hands emerging from the Ramallah police station, distraught girls outside the Dolphinarium, a ravaged Seder in Netanya. For all but a sliver of the American Jewish Left, some of which is discredited by its anti-Zionism, it became impossible to sustain the image of a negotiated peace.
I will never forget the abject, funereal version of Hatikva I heard on Yom Kippur 2000 in that epicenter of peace activism, Congregation B'nai Jeshurun on Manhattan's Upper West Side.
YEARS LATER, whatever hopes had flickered back to life with the plan for unilateral withdrawal were dampened by Ariel Sharon's stroke and definitely extinguished by the rain of Kassams on Sderot and Katyushas from Lebanon courtesy of Sheikh Nasrallah.
Now come three crippled leaders (George W. Bush, Mahmoud Abbas, and Ehud Olmert) to try to accomplish what three leaders with strong mandates (Arafat, Clinton, Ehud Barak) could not at Camp David. The America that was victorious in the wake of the first Gulf War and the collapse of the Soviet Union, an America whose president could strong-arm even Yitzhak Shamir into going to Madrid, has given way to an America stuck in an Iraq quagmire and vulnerable to jihadist Islam's asymmetrical warfare. This hardly seems like the conditions for cutting the Gordian knot.
For the moderate and liberal American Jews most inclined toward the Annapolis conference, there is precious little trust in President Bush to do anything right. I do not mean the facile, fashionable way the Left blames him for everything wrong in the world. (What will satirists and bloggers do when their favorite Beelzebub is gone?) I mean the collective memory in the United States of Bush's bungled response to Hurricane Katrina - an enduring symbol on these shores of the president's incompetence, or at least his inability to translate appealing rhetoric into effective action.
Yes, commentators such as David Brooks in the New York Times have theorized that the common fear of an ascendant, nuclear-capable Iran may be enough to push the Israelis and the Sunni secularists of Fatah into some kind of embrace. I would love to believe this hypothesis, but in a very literal way I cannot see how it might unfold, what agreement could be struck, what constituencies back home in the Middle East could be won over.
There are hundreds of channels on my cable television system at home. When it comes to Annapolis, though, my own screen is blank.
Dichter says the Gaza Strip is 'lost'
Gaza is "lost," and Egypt is doing nothing to stop the continued arms smuggling across the border, Public Security Minister Avi Dichter said on Sunday. His comments came as he toured Moshav Nativ Ha'asarah, a border community which has been particularly hard-hit by the continued Kassam rocket fire from the Gaza Strip.
"The Annapolis summit is meant to stabilize the situation in the West Bank, because Gaza is already lost," Dichter said.
"I live only ten kilometers away from here," the minister told residents, who expressed concern over the government's inability to stem the rocket fire.
"In Ashkelon, the situation may be different, but I understand it very well. We need to halt the rocket fire by controlling rather than taking control. It's not enough to deal with the rocket fire - we must also deal with the independence of Hamas, which is smuggling in weapons such as anti-tank missiles similar to those Hizbullah used against us in Lebanon."
Dichter also laid the blame for Hamas's continued amassment of arms on Egypt's lax policy of patrolling the border, saying that it would be possible to stop arms smuggling in "an hour" if Egypt decided to take action.
"Hamas is turning into a terrorist army," he said. "It is arming and building up in every way like an army. I suggest a three-part plan: An operation against the continued rocket fire, action against Hamas gaining strength, and an operation to end Hamas's ability [to wage war]."
"I am demanding that the government continue IDF action against Hamas," Dichter continued. "We have the ability to do that, unlike in Lebanon. There, Hizbullah was part of the state, whereas here Hamas in Gaza is defined as a hostile entity against which we can act."
The tough words came as residents voiced despair over the security situation.
"It is not possible to live here like this," Chairman of the Nativ Ha'asarah Agricultural Committee Shaike Shaked told Dichter. "The community will collapse."
This sentiment was later echoed by another resident of the town, who told the minister that "we have no life, the IDF doesn't react, and the situation is only getting worse. Maybe they should just evacuate us."
"The Annapolis summit is meant to stabilize the situation in the West Bank, because Gaza is already lost," Dichter said.
"I live only ten kilometers away from here," the minister told residents, who expressed concern over the government's inability to stem the rocket fire.
"In Ashkelon, the situation may be different, but I understand it very well. We need to halt the rocket fire by controlling rather than taking control. It's not enough to deal with the rocket fire - we must also deal with the independence of Hamas, which is smuggling in weapons such as anti-tank missiles similar to those Hizbullah used against us in Lebanon."
Dichter also laid the blame for Hamas's continued amassment of arms on Egypt's lax policy of patrolling the border, saying that it would be possible to stop arms smuggling in "an hour" if Egypt decided to take action.
"Hamas is turning into a terrorist army," he said. "It is arming and building up in every way like an army. I suggest a three-part plan: An operation against the continued rocket fire, action against Hamas gaining strength, and an operation to end Hamas's ability [to wage war]."
"I am demanding that the government continue IDF action against Hamas," Dichter continued. "We have the ability to do that, unlike in Lebanon. There, Hizbullah was part of the state, whereas here Hamas in Gaza is defined as a hostile entity against which we can act."
The tough words came as residents voiced despair over the security situation.
"It is not possible to live here like this," Chairman of the Nativ Ha'asarah Agricultural Committee Shaike Shaked told Dichter. "The community will collapse."
This sentiment was later echoed by another resident of the town, who told the minister that "we have no life, the IDF doesn't react, and the situation is only getting worse. Maybe they should just evacuate us."
Knesset members lash out at Livni
Knesset members from both ends of the political spectrum responded with vehemence to Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni's statement on Sunday that a Palestinian state would serve as a solution to Arab-Israelis and that all MKs must recognize Israel as a Jewish state. MK Ophir Paz-Pines (Labor) even compared the foreign minister to Minister of Strategic Affairs Avigdor Lieberman, who has stated in the past his support for population swaps with a future Palestinian state.
"The statement sounds like something that came out of the mouth of Avigdor Lieberman, and does not befit her." Paz-Pines said. "Israel is the home of the Jewish people, but we mustn't forget that it is also the home and country of non-Jewish citizens. The Palestinian state will serve as a solution to the [Palestinian] refugee problem, but not for Arab-Israelis," Paz-Pines continued.
In reaction to Livni's comments, MK Arye Eldad (NU-NRP) said that the Palestinians already have a state in Jordan, whose population is 70 percent Palestinian.
According to Eldad, "Tzipi Livni wants to give another country to the Palestinians and she thinks that Arab-Israelis will be satisfied with it. Whoever gives up Judea and Samaria will not be able to stop [and will give up] the Galilee and the Negev [as well]." He added.
Arab MK and Hadash Chairman Muhammad Barakei called Livni's words "an escalation in Livni and her government's chutzpa. Apparently the moderate Right-wing is becoming more and more extreme," he claimed. "The Palestinian Arabs in Israel are the country's children and live in their homeland."
During a meeting with visiting French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner, Livni had criticized MK Ahmed Tibi (UAL) for his statements encouraging the Palestinians not to agree to recognize Israel as a Jewish state. Livni said that the establishment of a Palestinian state would be a solution for all Palestinians, whether in the Gaza Strip, the West Bank, or in Israel.
The Palestinians can't make both arguments, Livni said. It must be clear that Israel was founded as the Jewish homeland, and every elected MK has to recognize that, the foreign minister said.
"The statement sounds like something that came out of the mouth of Avigdor Lieberman, and does not befit her." Paz-Pines said. "Israel is the home of the Jewish people, but we mustn't forget that it is also the home and country of non-Jewish citizens. The Palestinian state will serve as a solution to the [Palestinian] refugee problem, but not for Arab-Israelis," Paz-Pines continued.
In reaction to Livni's comments, MK Arye Eldad (NU-NRP) said that the Palestinians already have a state in Jordan, whose population is 70 percent Palestinian.
According to Eldad, "Tzipi Livni wants to give another country to the Palestinians and she thinks that Arab-Israelis will be satisfied with it. Whoever gives up Judea and Samaria will not be able to stop [and will give up] the Galilee and the Negev [as well]." He added.
Arab MK and Hadash Chairman Muhammad Barakei called Livni's words "an escalation in Livni and her government's chutzpa. Apparently the moderate Right-wing is becoming more and more extreme," he claimed. "The Palestinian Arabs in Israel are the country's children and live in their homeland."
During a meeting with visiting French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner, Livni had criticized MK Ahmed Tibi (UAL) for his statements encouraging the Palestinians not to agree to recognize Israel as a Jewish state. Livni said that the establishment of a Palestinian state would be a solution for all Palestinians, whether in the Gaza Strip, the West Bank, or in Israel.
The Palestinians can't make both arguments, Livni said. It must be clear that Israel was founded as the Jewish homeland, and every elected MK has to recognize that, the foreign minister said.
Sunday, November 18, 2007
Olmert Considering ReOpening Orient House to PA
Hillel Fendel
Palestinian Authority sources in Jerusalem say they have received signs that Prime Minister Ehud Olmert is seriously considering approving Abbas's request to re-open a PA office in Jerusalem.
The Orient House, a building in eastern Jerusalem not far from the Old City's Damascus Gate, was the focus of forbidden Palestinian Authority activities - including the funding of terrorism - until Israel closed it down in 2001.
PA Members Say
The Israeli newspaper Makor Rishon reports that PA personnel who worked in Orient House before it was closed are saying they have received clear indications that the building may soon be re-opened. Rafik Hariri, a top aide to PA chairman Mahmoud Abbas, reportedly signaled to them that Israel has decided to reconsider a recent request Abbas made to Olmert regarding the opening of the PA institutions in eastern Jerusalem.
At the time of the request, during a meeting between the two this past September, Olmert did not turn Abbas down flat, but rather said the matter requires careful checking.
Alternatively, both PA and Israeli judicial figures are trying to find a way to allow the Palestinian Research Institute to operate in the Orient House, as it did in the past, without a need to rescind the closure orders.
Documents Prove Terrorist Activities
Documents captured during Operation Defensive Shield in the spring of 2002 proved conclusively that the Orient House served as a center for terrorist activities. They also showed that the building served as a fully-functioning arm of the Palestinian Authority in Jerusalem, something that was forbidden according to the Oslo Agreement.
In 1999, then-Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu ordered the building closed in his last major act in office, but the Supreme Court intervened and nullified the order. Only two years later, after the Sbarros pizzeria suicide bombing in August 2001 in which 15 Israelis were murdered, did Netanyahu's successor Ehud Barak close the headquarters.
The Makor Rishon report states that the Prime Minister's Office responded that it knows nothing of the above developments, and that the closure remains in effect.
Palestinian Authority sources in Jerusalem say they have received signs that Prime Minister Ehud Olmert is seriously considering approving Abbas's request to re-open a PA office in Jerusalem.
The Orient House, a building in eastern Jerusalem not far from the Old City's Damascus Gate, was the focus of forbidden Palestinian Authority activities - including the funding of terrorism - until Israel closed it down in 2001.
PA Members Say
The Israeli newspaper Makor Rishon reports that PA personnel who worked in Orient House before it was closed are saying they have received clear indications that the building may soon be re-opened. Rafik Hariri, a top aide to PA chairman Mahmoud Abbas, reportedly signaled to them that Israel has decided to reconsider a recent request Abbas made to Olmert regarding the opening of the PA institutions in eastern Jerusalem.
At the time of the request, during a meeting between the two this past September, Olmert did not turn Abbas down flat, but rather said the matter requires careful checking.
Alternatively, both PA and Israeli judicial figures are trying to find a way to allow the Palestinian Research Institute to operate in the Orient House, as it did in the past, without a need to rescind the closure orders.
Documents Prove Terrorist Activities
Documents captured during Operation Defensive Shield in the spring of 2002 proved conclusively that the Orient House served as a center for terrorist activities. They also showed that the building served as a fully-functioning arm of the Palestinian Authority in Jerusalem, something that was forbidden according to the Oslo Agreement.
In 1999, then-Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu ordered the building closed in his last major act in office, but the Supreme Court intervened and nullified the order. Only two years later, after the Sbarros pizzeria suicide bombing in August 2001 in which 15 Israelis were murdered, did Netanyahu's successor Ehud Barak close the headquarters.
The Makor Rishon report states that the Prime Minister's Office responded that it knows nothing of the above developments, and that the closure remains in effect.
Is Israel Really a Jewish State?
Arieh Eldad
Shimon Peres, the president of Israel, was interviewed by IDF radio as he flew to Turkey, and he said, "One hundred and fifty thousand jobs for Palestinians in Judea and Samaria are more important than fifteen thousand olim [Jewish immigrants]."
Peres’ vision of a "new Middle East," which following the Oslo Accords drowned us in an ocean of blood, included the idea that economic prosperity would bring peace to the region. This idea was shot full of holes in the second intifada, but Peres has not despaired, and on his way to Turkey to proclaim his vision of a Palestinian State prospering by the side of Israel, he unhesitatingly revealed himself to be the first post-Zionist president of Israel.
Peres had recourse to a wide range of comparisons. Had he wanted to, he could have said that 150,000 jobs for Arabs are more important than 150,000 guns for the Israeli army, and this would have buttressed his position as a seeker of peace, clinging to his vision of a "new Middle East." But he chose in his comparison to undermine the foundation on which the Zionist basis for the State of Israel rests. The welfare of the Arabs is more important than Aliya to Israel; are these not the very words of the British White Paper that made the number of Jewish immigrants to Mandatory Palestine conditional on the country’s "economic ability to absorb" the immigrants, in other words, on their alleged affect on Arab employment and unemployment? At that time, didn’t the leaders of the Jewish community in Eretz Israel accuse the British of betraying Zionism?
Peres’ words reflect the policy of Olmert and his government. In the name of supposed demographics, and in order to "maintain Israel as a Jewish state," they are ready to retreat from Judea and Samaria, expel hundreds of thousands of Jews from their homes, divide Jerusalem and establish in it for the first time in history an Arab capital.
If for the sake of Zionist appearances they were at least talking at the same time of the need to bring to Israel millions of Jewish olim, one might err and think that they really do care about the Jewish character of Israel. But Peres, Olmert, and Haim Ramon have already moved on. They are ready to bring into the country "no more than 100,000 Arab refugees" (what happened to the demographics they were worrying about?). Political pundits claim that Tzippi Livni and Ehud Barak are opposed to this idea. It can be safely assumed that their opposition to the entrance of refugees will evaporate as quickly as the thousand oaths they swore to Jerusalem, "the eternally reunited eternal capital of Israel forever and forever." They’re no longer Zionist, for there is no such thing as half-Zionism. He who betrays Eretz Israel and Jerusalem necessarily betrays the pillar of Zionism, Jewish aliya to Israel, and instead gives preference to Arab employment over Jewish immigration, and is ready to import Arab refugees to Israel.
The Olmert government is proud that it is the first Israeli government to have an Arab cabinet minister. Minister of Science Raleb Majadela appeared in the Knesset this week to reply to a parliamentary query of mine concerning the destruction of antiquities on Temple Mount by the Moslem Wakf. The minister of science is legally responsible for the implementation of the Antiquities Law, and the Antiquities Authority is accountable to him. And this first Arab minister, a member of Olmert’s cabinet, declared from the Knesset podium that, as far as he is concerned, the laws of the State of Israel do not apply to Temple Mount, and that if he had to choose between loyalty to his ministerial position and loyalty to Islam and his nationality, he would choose the latter. This minister who has sworn loyalty to the State of Israel and its laws has proven what many claim: that the Arabs are not loyal to the State of Israel but rather to their Arab national identity. But he need not fear for his job.
Apparently he faithfully represents the face of the Israeli government, a post-Zionist government, with a prime minister ready to implement the "right of return" of Arab refugees, to abandon the demand the Arabs disarm the terrorist organizations before any Israeli withdrawal, and to ignore Hamas’ declaration that it will immediately take over any territory evacuated by Israel in Judea and Samaria. If the president of Israel, the symbol of the state, prefers Arabs to Jews, Israel’s demand that the Palestinians recognize Israel as a Jewish state is hypocritical. Why should Abu Mazen be more Zionist that Peres, more Jewish than Olmert? Abu Allah, representing Abu Mazen in the negotiations over the "central issues not being talked about," slapped the face of Israel as it runs as if possessed to Annapolis and announced that the Palestinians will never recognize Israel as a Jewish state. Undoubtedly, the government of Israel will recover easily from this slap in the face and come to the conclusion that there is no need to stand by a demand that they themselves no longer believe in.
Shimon Peres, the president of Israel, was interviewed by IDF radio as he flew to Turkey, and he said, "One hundred and fifty thousand jobs for Palestinians in Judea and Samaria are more important than fifteen thousand olim [Jewish immigrants]."
Peres’ vision of a "new Middle East," which following the Oslo Accords drowned us in an ocean of blood, included the idea that economic prosperity would bring peace to the region. This idea was shot full of holes in the second intifada, but Peres has not despaired, and on his way to Turkey to proclaim his vision of a Palestinian State prospering by the side of Israel, he unhesitatingly revealed himself to be the first post-Zionist president of Israel.
Peres had recourse to a wide range of comparisons. Had he wanted to, he could have said that 150,000 jobs for Arabs are more important than 150,000 guns for the Israeli army, and this would have buttressed his position as a seeker of peace, clinging to his vision of a "new Middle East." But he chose in his comparison to undermine the foundation on which the Zionist basis for the State of Israel rests. The welfare of the Arabs is more important than Aliya to Israel; are these not the very words of the British White Paper that made the number of Jewish immigrants to Mandatory Palestine conditional on the country’s "economic ability to absorb" the immigrants, in other words, on their alleged affect on Arab employment and unemployment? At that time, didn’t the leaders of the Jewish community in Eretz Israel accuse the British of betraying Zionism?
Peres’ words reflect the policy of Olmert and his government. In the name of supposed demographics, and in order to "maintain Israel as a Jewish state," they are ready to retreat from Judea and Samaria, expel hundreds of thousands of Jews from their homes, divide Jerusalem and establish in it for the first time in history an Arab capital.
If for the sake of Zionist appearances they were at least talking at the same time of the need to bring to Israel millions of Jewish olim, one might err and think that they really do care about the Jewish character of Israel. But Peres, Olmert, and Haim Ramon have already moved on. They are ready to bring into the country "no more than 100,000 Arab refugees" (what happened to the demographics they were worrying about?). Political pundits claim that Tzippi Livni and Ehud Barak are opposed to this idea. It can be safely assumed that their opposition to the entrance of refugees will evaporate as quickly as the thousand oaths they swore to Jerusalem, "the eternally reunited eternal capital of Israel forever and forever." They’re no longer Zionist, for there is no such thing as half-Zionism. He who betrays Eretz Israel and Jerusalem necessarily betrays the pillar of Zionism, Jewish aliya to Israel, and instead gives preference to Arab employment over Jewish immigration, and is ready to import Arab refugees to Israel.
The Olmert government is proud that it is the first Israeli government to have an Arab cabinet minister. Minister of Science Raleb Majadela appeared in the Knesset this week to reply to a parliamentary query of mine concerning the destruction of antiquities on Temple Mount by the Moslem Wakf. The minister of science is legally responsible for the implementation of the Antiquities Law, and the Antiquities Authority is accountable to him. And this first Arab minister, a member of Olmert’s cabinet, declared from the Knesset podium that, as far as he is concerned, the laws of the State of Israel do not apply to Temple Mount, and that if he had to choose between loyalty to his ministerial position and loyalty to Islam and his nationality, he would choose the latter. This minister who has sworn loyalty to the State of Israel and its laws has proven what many claim: that the Arabs are not loyal to the State of Israel but rather to their Arab national identity. But he need not fear for his job.
Apparently he faithfully represents the face of the Israeli government, a post-Zionist government, with a prime minister ready to implement the "right of return" of Arab refugees, to abandon the demand the Arabs disarm the terrorist organizations before any Israeli withdrawal, and to ignore Hamas’ declaration that it will immediately take over any territory evacuated by Israel in Judea and Samaria. If the president of Israel, the symbol of the state, prefers Arabs to Jews, Israel’s demand that the Palestinians recognize Israel as a Jewish state is hypocritical. Why should Abu Mazen be more Zionist that Peres, more Jewish than Olmert? Abu Allah, representing Abu Mazen in the negotiations over the "central issues not being talked about," slapped the face of Israel as it runs as if possessed to Annapolis and announced that the Palestinians will never recognize Israel as a Jewish state. Undoubtedly, the government of Israel will recover easily from this slap in the face and come to the conclusion that there is no need to stand by a demand that they themselves no longer believe in.
So, we give them even more-what fools we are
Settlement building permits have been suspended' No new building permits have been issued for housing units in the larger West Bank settlements for the last five months, according to a spokesman for the Construction and Housing Ministry.
While yellow cranes can be seen clearing earth for thousands of homes in many West Bank settlements based on prior authorization, building permits for only 260 units were issued in those communities in 2007 - and those were handed out in the first part of this year, the spokesman said.
The figures support charges by settler leaders that Defense Minister Ehud Barak has refused to issue new permits for construction in West Bank settlements at a time when its population is growing at almost three times that of the rest of the country.
Settlers in smaller communities have long complained about not obtaining construction permits. But this is the first time since former prime minister Yitzhak Rabin was in office 12 years ago that the Defense Ministry has taken steps to halt new construction in larger settlements that would likely be retained by Israel as part of a final-status agreement with the Palestinian Authority - including Ma'aleh Adumim, Modi'in Illit and Beitar Illit.
"Since Barak became the defense minister, nothing has been approved," said Shaul Goldstein, who heads the Gush Etzion Regional Council, adding that he was waiting for word on six proposed construction projects he had submitted to the Defense Ministry.
In 2006 there was a 26 percent decline in the number of new building permits issued to the larger West Bank settlements, from 2,100 units in 2005 to 1,550 in 2006, the Construction and Housing Ministry spokesman said.
That number then dipped by 83% in the first part of 2007 before the permits were stopped altogether, the spokesman added.
The only new permits that looked like they would be authorized in these past few months were for a 48-unit housing project in Ariel, he said. Last week, the permits were denied by the Defense Ministry.
The Construction and Housing Ministry spokesman clarified that his office only worked in conjunction with the Defense Ministry on permits for larger West Bank settlements. The Defense Ministry handled permits for smaller settlements by itself, the spokesman said.
The Prime Minister's Office referred questions about a freeze on new construction to the Defense Ministry. Barak's spokesman said he could not comment, although a source in the Defense Ministry said that no orders to halt new construction had been issued.
But a number of other sources said that Barak was not issuing building permits for settlements over the Green Line. One source added that no statement had been made to that effect so as not to preempt a public announcement of a construction freeze at the upcoming US-sponsored peace summit scheduled for later this month in Annapolis, Maryland.
Still, the matter of settlement construction is due to be discussed at this week's cabinet meeting.
MK Otniel Schneller (Kadima) blamed the United States for pressuring Israel to declare a sweeping halt to new construction projects in all settlements.
Such a declaration was "a mistake" and was a "lose-lose proposition" for Israel in that it alienated those settlers who would be willing to compromise on the issue of territorial
withdrawal, Schneller said. It created an alliance between them and the right wing of the settler movement, he said. It could also eventually break apart the coalition, he added.
Building should continue in the West Bank areas that will remain in Israeli hands, Schneller said.
MK David Rotem (Israel Beiteinu), a former legal adviser for the Council of Jewish Communities of Judea, Samaria and the Gaza Strip, said his party knew Barak was trying to freeze construction in the settlements.
"There is no doubt that we will work to prevent Barak from doing this," Rotem said. "We won't be a partner to such unilateral and strong-armed tactics.
"There is no need to give the Palestinians any prize before they stop the rocket attacks," he added.
Rotem said that party head MK Avigdor Lieberman planned to raise the issue in the cabinet soon, even though Barak was authorized to halt construction.
A Construction and Housing Ministry spokesman said that despite the anecdotal evidence from settler leaders, he did not believe there was a need for additional homes in the settlements at this time and that, overall, new construction was down in many areas of the country.
Meanwhile, building continues on already authorized projects in settlements such as Ma'aleh Adumim, Beitar Illit, Alfei Menashe and Givat Ze'ev.
One such 800-unit project in Givat Ze'ev, some 4.9 kilometers from the Green Line, was authorized in the 1990s but has only now gotten under way.
A project manager said some 360 units had already been sold and that in spite of rumors of a construction freeze, four people had signed housing contracts on Thursday.
The manager said he had heard rumors of a freeze, but nothing more and that it didn't worry him. "It's all talk," he said.
Givat Ze'ev Council head Amos Tartman said he was equally unconcerned because his settlement was within the "consensus," meaning that it was widely accepted that it would remain in Israeli hands.
In the Samaria settlement of Alfei Menashe, some 2.8 km. from the Green Line, where 100 new homes are being constructed, council head Hizdai Eliezer said he was also unfazed. The residents in this mostly secular community include members of the Meretz and Labor parties because few consider this a West Bank settlement, said Eliezer. People come here more for the schools and the lifestyle than right-wing ideology, he added.
But down the road, in the settlement of Karnei Shomron - which is also within the boundaries of the security barrier - construction has basically been frozen for the last four years, according to council head Herzl Ben-Ari.
Some 400 young married couples from the community's second generation cannot find homes here, he said.
Ben-Ari said that just two weeks ago he sat down with Construction and Housing Minister Ze'ev Boim and director-general Chaim Fialkoff to discuss a project for 100 new housing units in the settlement.
According to Ben-Ari, he was told that the plans had their approval, but had been rejected by the Defense Ministry. A Construction and Ministry spokesman said he had no knowledge of either the meeting or the plans.
Ariel Mayor Ran Nahman said he has also had a hard time gaining approval for construction projects. Olmert made a mistake in lumping all the settlements together into one category, he said.
Ariel is not the same as the "hilltop youth," he said, referring to young activists who have manned illegal outposts throughout the West Bank.
He added that he was surprised that Israel Beiteinu had agreed to stay in the government given its prohibitive policy toward settlement construction. "I call from here to [Avigdor] Lieberman to leave the government immediately," he said.
Gil Hoffman, Herb Keinon, Yaakov Katz and Hilary Leila Krieger contributed to this report.
While yellow cranes can be seen clearing earth for thousands of homes in many West Bank settlements based on prior authorization, building permits for only 260 units were issued in those communities in 2007 - and those were handed out in the first part of this year, the spokesman said.
The figures support charges by settler leaders that Defense Minister Ehud Barak has refused to issue new permits for construction in West Bank settlements at a time when its population is growing at almost three times that of the rest of the country.
Settlers in smaller communities have long complained about not obtaining construction permits. But this is the first time since former prime minister Yitzhak Rabin was in office 12 years ago that the Defense Ministry has taken steps to halt new construction in larger settlements that would likely be retained by Israel as part of a final-status agreement with the Palestinian Authority - including Ma'aleh Adumim, Modi'in Illit and Beitar Illit.
"Since Barak became the defense minister, nothing has been approved," said Shaul Goldstein, who heads the Gush Etzion Regional Council, adding that he was waiting for word on six proposed construction projects he had submitted to the Defense Ministry.
In 2006 there was a 26 percent decline in the number of new building permits issued to the larger West Bank settlements, from 2,100 units in 2005 to 1,550 in 2006, the Construction and Housing Ministry spokesman said.
That number then dipped by 83% in the first part of 2007 before the permits were stopped altogether, the spokesman added.
The only new permits that looked like they would be authorized in these past few months were for a 48-unit housing project in Ariel, he said. Last week, the permits were denied by the Defense Ministry.
The Construction and Housing Ministry spokesman clarified that his office only worked in conjunction with the Defense Ministry on permits for larger West Bank settlements. The Defense Ministry handled permits for smaller settlements by itself, the spokesman said.
The Prime Minister's Office referred questions about a freeze on new construction to the Defense Ministry. Barak's spokesman said he could not comment, although a source in the Defense Ministry said that no orders to halt new construction had been issued.
But a number of other sources said that Barak was not issuing building permits for settlements over the Green Line. One source added that no statement had been made to that effect so as not to preempt a public announcement of a construction freeze at the upcoming US-sponsored peace summit scheduled for later this month in Annapolis, Maryland.
Still, the matter of settlement construction is due to be discussed at this week's cabinet meeting.
MK Otniel Schneller (Kadima) blamed the United States for pressuring Israel to declare a sweeping halt to new construction projects in all settlements.
Such a declaration was "a mistake" and was a "lose-lose proposition" for Israel in that it alienated those settlers who would be willing to compromise on the issue of territorial
withdrawal, Schneller said. It created an alliance between them and the right wing of the settler movement, he said. It could also eventually break apart the coalition, he added.
Building should continue in the West Bank areas that will remain in Israeli hands, Schneller said.
MK David Rotem (Israel Beiteinu), a former legal adviser for the Council of Jewish Communities of Judea, Samaria and the Gaza Strip, said his party knew Barak was trying to freeze construction in the settlements.
"There is no doubt that we will work to prevent Barak from doing this," Rotem said. "We won't be a partner to such unilateral and strong-armed tactics.
"There is no need to give the Palestinians any prize before they stop the rocket attacks," he added.
Rotem said that party head MK Avigdor Lieberman planned to raise the issue in the cabinet soon, even though Barak was authorized to halt construction.
A Construction and Housing Ministry spokesman said that despite the anecdotal evidence from settler leaders, he did not believe there was a need for additional homes in the settlements at this time and that, overall, new construction was down in many areas of the country.
Meanwhile, building continues on already authorized projects in settlements such as Ma'aleh Adumim, Beitar Illit, Alfei Menashe and Givat Ze'ev.
One such 800-unit project in Givat Ze'ev, some 4.9 kilometers from the Green Line, was authorized in the 1990s but has only now gotten under way.
A project manager said some 360 units had already been sold and that in spite of rumors of a construction freeze, four people had signed housing contracts on Thursday.
The manager said he had heard rumors of a freeze, but nothing more and that it didn't worry him. "It's all talk," he said.
Givat Ze'ev Council head Amos Tartman said he was equally unconcerned because his settlement was within the "consensus," meaning that it was widely accepted that it would remain in Israeli hands.
In the Samaria settlement of Alfei Menashe, some 2.8 km. from the Green Line, where 100 new homes are being constructed, council head Hizdai Eliezer said he was also unfazed. The residents in this mostly secular community include members of the Meretz and Labor parties because few consider this a West Bank settlement, said Eliezer. People come here more for the schools and the lifestyle than right-wing ideology, he added.
But down the road, in the settlement of Karnei Shomron - which is also within the boundaries of the security barrier - construction has basically been frozen for the last four years, according to council head Herzl Ben-Ari.
Some 400 young married couples from the community's second generation cannot find homes here, he said.
Ben-Ari said that just two weeks ago he sat down with Construction and Housing Minister Ze'ev Boim and director-general Chaim Fialkoff to discuss a project for 100 new housing units in the settlement.
According to Ben-Ari, he was told that the plans had their approval, but had been rejected by the Defense Ministry. A Construction and Ministry spokesman said he had no knowledge of either the meeting or the plans.
Ariel Mayor Ran Nahman said he has also had a hard time gaining approval for construction projects. Olmert made a mistake in lumping all the settlements together into one category, he said.
Ariel is not the same as the "hilltop youth," he said, referring to young activists who have manned illegal outposts throughout the West Bank.
He added that he was surprised that Israel Beiteinu had agreed to stay in the government given its prohibitive policy toward settlement construction. "I call from here to [Avigdor] Lieberman to leave the government immediately," he said.
Gil Hoffman, Herb Keinon, Yaakov Katz and Hilary Leila Krieger contributed to this report.
More demands-what dowe get?
The Palestinians have told the United States they will accept nothing less than a total freeze in Jewish settlement building ahead of a conference on statehood, a top Palestinian official said on Saturday. Western diplomats say Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert is under Western and Arab pressure to go beyond the partial freeze he was expected to announce before the U.S.-sponsored conference this month as a way to bolster Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas.
The diplomats say Olmert sought to exempt the occupied West Bank's major settlement blocs, which Israel intends to keep under any final peace deal. Washington was cool to that idea, an Israeli source said.
Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat said he sent a letter to the Bush administration on Friday demanding that Israel fully meet its obligations under a long-stalled "road map" peace plan.
The road map demands a freeze on "all settlement activity," including so-called "natural growth" of existing settlements. It also calls on the Palestinians to rein in militants.
"Enough games. We want to see an end to settlement expansion and natural growth," Erekat said.
He did not make clear what the Palestinians would do if the demand was not met, putting the onus on the United States and international community to hold Israel to its road map commitments.
About 270,000 Jewish settlers live in the West Bank among 2.5 million Palestinians. The World Court has branded all the settlements on land captured by Israel in the 1967 war as illegal.
Israeli officials said Olmert would meet on Saturday with top aides who have been trying to reach understandings with Washington on settlements before the conference.
ARAB STATES
Freezing all settlement construction might help encourage key Arab states such as Saudi Arabia to attend. The Saudis are expected to take a position after a planned meeting of Arab League foreign ministers on November 22, Palestinian officials said.
Palestinian officials said the Annapolis, Maryland, conference would begin on November 26. The main session will take place the following day, Israeli officials said.
Olmert plans to ask his cabinet on Monday to approve the release of around 400 Palestinian prisoners, short of the 2,000 requested by Abbas.
It is unclear how any future deal would be implemented with the Palestinian territories divided. Hamas Islamists seized the Gaza Strip in June, while Abbas's Fatah faction still dominates the West Bank.
Preparations for the conference have been marred by disputes between Israeli and Palestinian negotiators over a joint document meant to address in general terms "core" issues like borders, and the future of Jerusalem and millions of Palestinian refugees.
Palestinians seek pre-conference settlement freeze
Washington has stepped up pressure on both sides to resolve their differences, but U.S. and Israeli officials have stressed that the centrepiece of the conference will be an agreement to resume formal statehood negotiations.
Olmert and Abbas have said they hoped to reach an agreement on a Palestinian state before Bush leaves office in January 2009, though Israel insists implementation not begin until the Palestinians dismantle militant groups.
Palestinian negotiators plan to visit Washington next week to try to finalize the details.
It is unclear what impact any announcement from Olmert on settlements would have on the ground. Israel's Defense Ministry has already frozen building permits in order to increase pressure on residents to leave dozens of outposts that are considered illegal even under Israeli law.
(Additional reporting by Adam Entous in Jerusalem; Writing by Adam Entous; Editing by Matthew Tostevin)
The diplomats say Olmert sought to exempt the occupied West Bank's major settlement blocs, which Israel intends to keep under any final peace deal. Washington was cool to that idea, an Israeli source said.
Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat said he sent a letter to the Bush administration on Friday demanding that Israel fully meet its obligations under a long-stalled "road map" peace plan.
The road map demands a freeze on "all settlement activity," including so-called "natural growth" of existing settlements. It also calls on the Palestinians to rein in militants.
"Enough games. We want to see an end to settlement expansion and natural growth," Erekat said.
He did not make clear what the Palestinians would do if the demand was not met, putting the onus on the United States and international community to hold Israel to its road map commitments.
About 270,000 Jewish settlers live in the West Bank among 2.5 million Palestinians. The World Court has branded all the settlements on land captured by Israel in the 1967 war as illegal.
Israeli officials said Olmert would meet on Saturday with top aides who have been trying to reach understandings with Washington on settlements before the conference.
ARAB STATES
Freezing all settlement construction might help encourage key Arab states such as Saudi Arabia to attend. The Saudis are expected to take a position after a planned meeting of Arab League foreign ministers on November 22, Palestinian officials said.
Palestinian officials said the Annapolis, Maryland, conference would begin on November 26. The main session will take place the following day, Israeli officials said.
Olmert plans to ask his cabinet on Monday to approve the release of around 400 Palestinian prisoners, short of the 2,000 requested by Abbas.
It is unclear how any future deal would be implemented with the Palestinian territories divided. Hamas Islamists seized the Gaza Strip in June, while Abbas's Fatah faction still dominates the West Bank.
Preparations for the conference have been marred by disputes between Israeli and Palestinian negotiators over a joint document meant to address in general terms "core" issues like borders, and the future of Jerusalem and millions of Palestinian refugees.
Palestinians seek pre-conference settlement freeze
Washington has stepped up pressure on both sides to resolve their differences, but U.S. and Israeli officials have stressed that the centrepiece of the conference will be an agreement to resume formal statehood negotiations.
Olmert and Abbas have said they hoped to reach an agreement on a Palestinian state before Bush leaves office in January 2009, though Israel insists implementation not begin until the Palestinians dismantle militant groups.
Palestinian negotiators plan to visit Washington next week to try to finalize the details.
It is unclear what impact any announcement from Olmert on settlements would have on the ground. Israel's Defense Ministry has already frozen building permits in order to increase pressure on residents to leave dozens of outposts that are considered illegal even under Israeli law.
(Additional reporting by Adam Entous in Jerusalem; Writing by Adam Entous; Editing by Matthew Tostevin)
Israeli Sabotage is a Deliberate Policy to Bring Down Palestinian Moderation
Raghida Dergham
Arab Media
The Israeli attempts to cause the failure of the international peace conference before its presumed convening in 10 days' time in Annapolis poses a fundamental question, namely: if Israel truly doesn't want peace, what then?
This question is faced by Israelis and Arabs as well as the Americans, since America's policy of embracing Israel has earned it the hatred of millions of Muslims and Arabs. The question is also faced by the Europeans, Russians and Chinese and the rest of the world.
It might be said that the world has become used to the fruitless search for a solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict and no longer sees this conflict as containing a fuse to ignite greater crises. Thus, no one is concerned, especially since there now a bloody Palestinian-Palestinian conflict that has diverted attention from reducing the sufferings of the Palestinians from Israeli occupation for more than 40 years.
However, becoming used to this habit or indifference does not eliminate other factors that must be used to answer the fundamental question. Among these are the war on terror, battles over regional influence, the increase in extremism due to the anger over seeing the peace process transformed into a mere anesthetic or a pretext to buy time and avoid what is required when it comes to peace. Things are not as they usually are, despite the habit of becoming fed up with searching for peaceful solutions.
If Israel truly does not want peace, and is truly prepared to demolish moderation in Arab and Islamic ranks because the Jewish state finds that a partnership with Arab and Islamic extremism serves a justification for its existence, what will the US do after the Americans themselves are a direct victim of Israeli extremism, which wears the mask of moderation?
These are some of the questions that the White House, the Congress and American public opinion must answer, on the eve of the autumn conference that the Israeli leadership is readying for with a series of impossible conditions, despite the fact that it preparing for the establishment of two states - Israel and Palestine - to live together in peace and with international guarantees.
Israeli democracyAt first, there is no room for pretending that the Israeli popular base is unable to affect the positions of its leaders, thanks to the policies of its leaders in the government, the Knesset and the opposition.The Israelis are proud of having a democracy, which is rare in the Middle East, and the idea that they have only to enhance the tools of democracy. This is the formula for them today: if you want to see the current situation continue, you must get ready for tomorrow, which will bring with it a natural division in this unnatural situation, which tries to combine occupation and democracy, while the two are naturally opposites. The occupation violates human rights, which is a violation of the fundamental bases of democracy. If you truly want peace, then take part in making a serious peace with Palestinians, Lebanese and Syrians. Before, the price of peace was not this clear: get rid of the occupation based on the 1967 borders, with an exchange of territory, and realistically treat the Palestinians' right of return to a place where they were expelled from their homes in 1948, and establish a Palestinian state side-by-side with Israel, in coexistence and normalization with the Arab-Islamic world.
AnnapolisThere is no reason to boycott the Annapolis conference because its mere convening will save the Palestinian Authority from the danger of its being marginalized and will surround the establishment of the state of Palestine with international attention. This is exactly what the Israeli leadership doesn't want and what the tools of the Israeli lobby are trying to achieve, via a campaign against the effectiveness and competence of the Palestinian Authority and its capacities. It's a renewed campaign by the lobby, using its customary tactic, claiming that there is no strong, responsible Palestinian partner for the Israeli government in order to make peace, and that Ehud Olmert's government is weak, and not in a position enabling it to make peace.The artificial "recognition" issue took on a new form this week, with the Israeli leadership's insistence that the reference-point for the Annapolis conference be the launching of negotiations as a necessary Palestinian recognition of the "Jewishness" of Israel. At first, this new item appears to indicate Israeli weakness, springing from the deadly need to "recognize" Israel as a Jewish state, then acknowledge the Jewishness of Israel, or Israel as a Jewish homeland. This goes beyond exposing a deficiency; in fact it serves as two things. One is the deliberate sabotage involved in trying to sink the Annapolis conference, and the second is preemptively trying to eliminate from any discussion the right of return provision according to UN Security Council Resolution 194 on Palestinian refugees from the 1948 war.There is a "new invention" - a determination to declare a freeze on settlements on the eve of the Annapolis Conference, as if this is a big compromise by the Israeli leadership, while in fact these settlements are illegal according to international law. The Road Map for establishing two states asks Israel to freeze settlements and dismantle settlement points. This maneuvering around the commitments of the Road Map should not be endorsed by the White House just because it is doing its utmost to convene the Annapolis Conference, in the belief that this event will save the presidential legacy of George Bush.
Success in NablusThe Palestinian Authority has duties according to the first phase of the Road Map; likewise, the Israeli government has duties as well. The PA is requested to take security measures and the Israeli governments must freeze and remove settlement activities. The Palestinian prime minister, Salam Fayad, has confirmed that his government will move ahead with its security plan, all the way to imposing it in the Gaza Strip, which is controlled by the Hamas movement. He said that the test of the city of Nablus and is a test for his government, affirming that the era of chaos has ended for good; "no one who attacks or trades in the people's security will escape punishment and the justice of the people." He said that Nablus is perhaps more important than Annapolis, not because the latter isn't important as an international event that is dedicated to ending the political isolation of the (Palestinian) national issue, but because one of the elements of success of Annapolis and post-Annapolis is his government's succeeding in Nablus.The language of the Palestinian leadership itself reveals the difference between it and the Israeli leadership, which avoids the proposals brought by US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and accepted by both Israeli Prime Minister Olmert and the head of the PA, Mahmoud Abbas. The Israeli delegation that is preparing the negotiations dossier for the Annapolis Conference today rejects the principle of a parallel and immediate implementation of phase one of the Road Map and rejects setting up a US-Israeli-Palestinian committee to monitor its implementation.It's also interesting to note that Israel currently rejects mentioning the Arab Peace Initiative as a reference-point for the peace process, which is very embarrassing for the US administration, which has made the greatest possible efforts to convince Arab countries to attend the conference, and this includes the initiative's author, Saudi Arabia. This peace plan is the Arab peace plan. Israel has never put forward an Israeli peace plan. It continually works to abort peace plans that are proposed. Its provocative stance on refusing to mention the Arab Peace Initiative as one of the reference-points for the peace process can only be a testament to the sterile Israeli maneuvers, just like its demand that Palestinians issue a prior recognition of the Jewishness of Israel to head off any discussion of the right of return.
Inter-Palestinian divisionThen there is the Knesset, which last week approved a draft law to prevent the Israeli government from changing the borders of east and west Jerusalem without the approval of two thirds (80) of Knesset members, instead of an absolute majority of 61, according to current law. The goal of this change is head off any chance of reaching an agreement about the status of East Jerusalem. This stance by the Israeli Knesset is another chapter in the annals of Israeli intransigence when it comes to the requirements of peace with the Palestinians.It's no coincidence that these Israeli positions, meant to sabotage the conference, are part of a deliberate policy to bring down Palestinian moderates, represented by the PA and the government of Abbas and Fayyad, at a time of competition between Hamas and the PA. This is not the first time that Israel has invested in Hamas; the Jewish state directly helped create Hamas to challenge the Palestinian Liberation Organization. Israel is trying to ignite inter-Palestinian division, in the belief that this is in Israel's interest. Thus, it is readying itself militarily for the post-Annapolis conference phase, since it expects the eruption of a wave of violence against the PA if the Annapolis Conference fails to push the peace process seriously forward. Thus, the Israelis are competing among themselves, at a time in which there is no Israeli option other than igniting a Palestinian civil war in order to justify Israel's mass expulsion of Palestinians to Jordan, as an alternative homeland - this is in order to solve the demographic problem and turn Israel into a purely Jewish state, militarily, with no need for negotiations or compromises.
Israeli leaders' gamesToday, in order to frustrate the international efforts to put the Palestinian issue back on the front burner, with American leadership, at the level of the president, top Israeli leaders are competing to rein in the PA and open channels of dialogue with Syria. The battle is taking place between Prime Minister Olmert and his deputy, Ehud Barak, who holds the Defense Ministry, with Foreign Minister Tzivi Lipni in the middle.Olmert is setting up a channel of communication with Syrian President Bashar al-Asad, via Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyib Erdogan, and senior officials in Qatar, who have a special relationship with Israel and the Syrian leadership. Barak is also playing on the Qatari channel this week he appointed Uri Sagay, a general in the Israeli reserves, as responsible for examining whether it would be possible to resume a dialogue with Damascus (he is a member of the Israeli negotiating delegation with Syria, and during these talks he met the then-Syrian chief of staff, Hikmat Shehabi, and the Syrian ambassador to Washington at the time, who is now the foreign minister, Walid Moallem).Sagay earlier chaired the Israeli Army's military intelligence committee in the government of Yitzhak Rabin between 1992 and 1995. Then, Barak, while prime minister, appointed him as the official responsible for negotiations with Syria in 1999.Barak wants to revive negotiations with Syria to prevent Israel being forced to deal with the Arab Peace Initiative, which makes it uncomfortable. Damascus did not embrace the initiative, and Qatar has always worked against it, simply because it is a Saudi initiative. Barak's choice of Sagay has another very important motive behind it, which is that Sagay is one of the biggest proponents of freezing negotiations with the Palestinians. He believes that the playing on the different tracks is useful and that negotiating with Syria is the realistic option. Both Barak and Sagay want to deal with Syria over things like Palestine, Lebanon and Iran.Olmert is less skilled than Barak on this score; therefore, he expresses his readiness to withdraw from the Golan Heights in exchange for moving Syria away from the Iranian axis. According to Israeli press reports that quoted high-level sources close to Olmert, the prime minister has sent secret 'peace messages' to al-Asad - these set as a condition splitting Damascus from its Iranian ally, in exchange for returning the Golan to Syria. The prime minister tasked Erdogan with discovering whether the Syrian president was amenable to recovering the Golan in exchange for severing its strategic relations with the Islamic Republic in Iran.Barak is good at believing himself better equipped to understand the language of deal-making. Therefore, some press reports quoting sources who spoke with him at length recently described him as ready to see Syria regain influence in Lebanon in a deal that is sought by Syria more than the Golan. He believes that peace with Syria will weaken the Iran-Hizbullah-Hamas axis after moving Syria away from this axis via bilateral relations with Israel. Barak believes that this bilateral relationship is the more important guarantee to Damascus that Syria will not see regime change.One of Barak's considerations is that reviving the Syrian track will lead to the isolation of the PA, which he considers unable to sign a peace deal with Israel. Another consideration is connected to Lebanon; he believes that returning Lebanon to Syrian control is a small price, as the bilateral relationship with Damascus is strategically more important.The problem for Barak, as well as Olmert, is the position of the US president, who opposes such a deal at the expense of Lebanon, and at the expense of his vision of establishing a Palestinian state. Likewise, US Vice President Dick Cheney is not ready to sacrifice Lebanon to a Syrian-Israeli deal. There are those in the US administration, as in Israel, who believe that playing on the tracks is a timeworn tactic, and that the tactic of splitting Syria from Iran is an ignorant policy because splitting Hizbullah from Iran has become impossible Israel is playing with fire in Palestine and Lebanon by banking on Syria. If Israel wants peace with Syria by withdrawing from the Golan Heights, it will be taking a wise decision. If it puts Lebanon and Palestine down as collateral in an unrealistic dream of splitting Syria from Iran, it should cease this reckless playing with the minds and interests of patriots, and even its American godfather.*Published in London-based Al-Hayat on November 16, 2007.
Arab Media
The Israeli attempts to cause the failure of the international peace conference before its presumed convening in 10 days' time in Annapolis poses a fundamental question, namely: if Israel truly doesn't want peace, what then?
This question is faced by Israelis and Arabs as well as the Americans, since America's policy of embracing Israel has earned it the hatred of millions of Muslims and Arabs. The question is also faced by the Europeans, Russians and Chinese and the rest of the world.
It might be said that the world has become used to the fruitless search for a solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict and no longer sees this conflict as containing a fuse to ignite greater crises. Thus, no one is concerned, especially since there now a bloody Palestinian-Palestinian conflict that has diverted attention from reducing the sufferings of the Palestinians from Israeli occupation for more than 40 years.
However, becoming used to this habit or indifference does not eliminate other factors that must be used to answer the fundamental question. Among these are the war on terror, battles over regional influence, the increase in extremism due to the anger over seeing the peace process transformed into a mere anesthetic or a pretext to buy time and avoid what is required when it comes to peace. Things are not as they usually are, despite the habit of becoming fed up with searching for peaceful solutions.
If Israel truly does not want peace, and is truly prepared to demolish moderation in Arab and Islamic ranks because the Jewish state finds that a partnership with Arab and Islamic extremism serves a justification for its existence, what will the US do after the Americans themselves are a direct victim of Israeli extremism, which wears the mask of moderation?
These are some of the questions that the White House, the Congress and American public opinion must answer, on the eve of the autumn conference that the Israeli leadership is readying for with a series of impossible conditions, despite the fact that it preparing for the establishment of two states - Israel and Palestine - to live together in peace and with international guarantees.
Israeli democracyAt first, there is no room for pretending that the Israeli popular base is unable to affect the positions of its leaders, thanks to the policies of its leaders in the government, the Knesset and the opposition.The Israelis are proud of having a democracy, which is rare in the Middle East, and the idea that they have only to enhance the tools of democracy. This is the formula for them today: if you want to see the current situation continue, you must get ready for tomorrow, which will bring with it a natural division in this unnatural situation, which tries to combine occupation and democracy, while the two are naturally opposites. The occupation violates human rights, which is a violation of the fundamental bases of democracy. If you truly want peace, then take part in making a serious peace with Palestinians, Lebanese and Syrians. Before, the price of peace was not this clear: get rid of the occupation based on the 1967 borders, with an exchange of territory, and realistically treat the Palestinians' right of return to a place where they were expelled from their homes in 1948, and establish a Palestinian state side-by-side with Israel, in coexistence and normalization with the Arab-Islamic world.
AnnapolisThere is no reason to boycott the Annapolis conference because its mere convening will save the Palestinian Authority from the danger of its being marginalized and will surround the establishment of the state of Palestine with international attention. This is exactly what the Israeli leadership doesn't want and what the tools of the Israeli lobby are trying to achieve, via a campaign against the effectiveness and competence of the Palestinian Authority and its capacities. It's a renewed campaign by the lobby, using its customary tactic, claiming that there is no strong, responsible Palestinian partner for the Israeli government in order to make peace, and that Ehud Olmert's government is weak, and not in a position enabling it to make peace.The artificial "recognition" issue took on a new form this week, with the Israeli leadership's insistence that the reference-point for the Annapolis conference be the launching of negotiations as a necessary Palestinian recognition of the "Jewishness" of Israel. At first, this new item appears to indicate Israeli weakness, springing from the deadly need to "recognize" Israel as a Jewish state, then acknowledge the Jewishness of Israel, or Israel as a Jewish homeland. This goes beyond exposing a deficiency; in fact it serves as two things. One is the deliberate sabotage involved in trying to sink the Annapolis conference, and the second is preemptively trying to eliminate from any discussion the right of return provision according to UN Security Council Resolution 194 on Palestinian refugees from the 1948 war.There is a "new invention" - a determination to declare a freeze on settlements on the eve of the Annapolis Conference, as if this is a big compromise by the Israeli leadership, while in fact these settlements are illegal according to international law. The Road Map for establishing two states asks Israel to freeze settlements and dismantle settlement points. This maneuvering around the commitments of the Road Map should not be endorsed by the White House just because it is doing its utmost to convene the Annapolis Conference, in the belief that this event will save the presidential legacy of George Bush.
Success in NablusThe Palestinian Authority has duties according to the first phase of the Road Map; likewise, the Israeli government has duties as well. The PA is requested to take security measures and the Israeli governments must freeze and remove settlement activities. The Palestinian prime minister, Salam Fayad, has confirmed that his government will move ahead with its security plan, all the way to imposing it in the Gaza Strip, which is controlled by the Hamas movement. He said that the test of the city of Nablus and is a test for his government, affirming that the era of chaos has ended for good; "no one who attacks or trades in the people's security will escape punishment and the justice of the people." He said that Nablus is perhaps more important than Annapolis, not because the latter isn't important as an international event that is dedicated to ending the political isolation of the (Palestinian) national issue, but because one of the elements of success of Annapolis and post-Annapolis is his government's succeeding in Nablus.The language of the Palestinian leadership itself reveals the difference between it and the Israeli leadership, which avoids the proposals brought by US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and accepted by both Israeli Prime Minister Olmert and the head of the PA, Mahmoud Abbas. The Israeli delegation that is preparing the negotiations dossier for the Annapolis Conference today rejects the principle of a parallel and immediate implementation of phase one of the Road Map and rejects setting up a US-Israeli-Palestinian committee to monitor its implementation.It's also interesting to note that Israel currently rejects mentioning the Arab Peace Initiative as a reference-point for the peace process, which is very embarrassing for the US administration, which has made the greatest possible efforts to convince Arab countries to attend the conference, and this includes the initiative's author, Saudi Arabia. This peace plan is the Arab peace plan. Israel has never put forward an Israeli peace plan. It continually works to abort peace plans that are proposed. Its provocative stance on refusing to mention the Arab Peace Initiative as one of the reference-points for the peace process can only be a testament to the sterile Israeli maneuvers, just like its demand that Palestinians issue a prior recognition of the Jewishness of Israel to head off any discussion of the right of return.
Inter-Palestinian divisionThen there is the Knesset, which last week approved a draft law to prevent the Israeli government from changing the borders of east and west Jerusalem without the approval of two thirds (80) of Knesset members, instead of an absolute majority of 61, according to current law. The goal of this change is head off any chance of reaching an agreement about the status of East Jerusalem. This stance by the Israeli Knesset is another chapter in the annals of Israeli intransigence when it comes to the requirements of peace with the Palestinians.It's no coincidence that these Israeli positions, meant to sabotage the conference, are part of a deliberate policy to bring down Palestinian moderates, represented by the PA and the government of Abbas and Fayyad, at a time of competition between Hamas and the PA. This is not the first time that Israel has invested in Hamas; the Jewish state directly helped create Hamas to challenge the Palestinian Liberation Organization. Israel is trying to ignite inter-Palestinian division, in the belief that this is in Israel's interest. Thus, it is readying itself militarily for the post-Annapolis conference phase, since it expects the eruption of a wave of violence against the PA if the Annapolis Conference fails to push the peace process seriously forward. Thus, the Israelis are competing among themselves, at a time in which there is no Israeli option other than igniting a Palestinian civil war in order to justify Israel's mass expulsion of Palestinians to Jordan, as an alternative homeland - this is in order to solve the demographic problem and turn Israel into a purely Jewish state, militarily, with no need for negotiations or compromises.
Israeli leaders' gamesToday, in order to frustrate the international efforts to put the Palestinian issue back on the front burner, with American leadership, at the level of the president, top Israeli leaders are competing to rein in the PA and open channels of dialogue with Syria. The battle is taking place between Prime Minister Olmert and his deputy, Ehud Barak, who holds the Defense Ministry, with Foreign Minister Tzivi Lipni in the middle.Olmert is setting up a channel of communication with Syrian President Bashar al-Asad, via Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyib Erdogan, and senior officials in Qatar, who have a special relationship with Israel and the Syrian leadership. Barak is also playing on the Qatari channel this week he appointed Uri Sagay, a general in the Israeli reserves, as responsible for examining whether it would be possible to resume a dialogue with Damascus (he is a member of the Israeli negotiating delegation with Syria, and during these talks he met the then-Syrian chief of staff, Hikmat Shehabi, and the Syrian ambassador to Washington at the time, who is now the foreign minister, Walid Moallem).Sagay earlier chaired the Israeli Army's military intelligence committee in the government of Yitzhak Rabin between 1992 and 1995. Then, Barak, while prime minister, appointed him as the official responsible for negotiations with Syria in 1999.Barak wants to revive negotiations with Syria to prevent Israel being forced to deal with the Arab Peace Initiative, which makes it uncomfortable. Damascus did not embrace the initiative, and Qatar has always worked against it, simply because it is a Saudi initiative. Barak's choice of Sagay has another very important motive behind it, which is that Sagay is one of the biggest proponents of freezing negotiations with the Palestinians. He believes that the playing on the different tracks is useful and that negotiating with Syria is the realistic option. Both Barak and Sagay want to deal with Syria over things like Palestine, Lebanon and Iran.Olmert is less skilled than Barak on this score; therefore, he expresses his readiness to withdraw from the Golan Heights in exchange for moving Syria away from the Iranian axis. According to Israeli press reports that quoted high-level sources close to Olmert, the prime minister has sent secret 'peace messages' to al-Asad - these set as a condition splitting Damascus from its Iranian ally, in exchange for returning the Golan to Syria. The prime minister tasked Erdogan with discovering whether the Syrian president was amenable to recovering the Golan in exchange for severing its strategic relations with the Islamic Republic in Iran.Barak is good at believing himself better equipped to understand the language of deal-making. Therefore, some press reports quoting sources who spoke with him at length recently described him as ready to see Syria regain influence in Lebanon in a deal that is sought by Syria more than the Golan. He believes that peace with Syria will weaken the Iran-Hizbullah-Hamas axis after moving Syria away from this axis via bilateral relations with Israel. Barak believes that this bilateral relationship is the more important guarantee to Damascus that Syria will not see regime change.One of Barak's considerations is that reviving the Syrian track will lead to the isolation of the PA, which he considers unable to sign a peace deal with Israel. Another consideration is connected to Lebanon; he believes that returning Lebanon to Syrian control is a small price, as the bilateral relationship with Damascus is strategically more important.The problem for Barak, as well as Olmert, is the position of the US president, who opposes such a deal at the expense of Lebanon, and at the expense of his vision of establishing a Palestinian state. Likewise, US Vice President Dick Cheney is not ready to sacrifice Lebanon to a Syrian-Israeli deal. There are those in the US administration, as in Israel, who believe that playing on the tracks is a timeworn tactic, and that the tactic of splitting Syria from Iran is an ignorant policy because splitting Hizbullah from Iran has become impossible Israel is playing with fire in Palestine and Lebanon by banking on Syria. If Israel wants peace with Syria by withdrawing from the Golan Heights, it will be taking a wise decision. If it puts Lebanon and Palestine down as collateral in an unrealistic dream of splitting Syria from Iran, it should cease this reckless playing with the minds and interests of patriots, and even its American godfather.*Published in London-based Al-Hayat on November 16, 2007.
Heading for impasse
Arab media
We are yet again heading for a dangerous impasse. As the (yet unspecified) date for the Annapolis meeting comes nearer, crucial questions remain unanswered. Who will attend? What will the meeting be about? What will happen after?Heading for impasse
We are yet again heading for a dangerous impasse. As the (yet unspecified) date for the Annapolis meeting comes nearer, crucial questions remain unanswered. Who will attend? What will the meeting be about? What will happen after?It is astonishing that such basic issues are unresolved for what should be a vital conference to bring parties from opposite poles to a viable agreement over one of the thorniest issues in the world.It is somewhat frightening that the importance attached simply to holding the meeting should supersede the importance of actually solving fundamental issues.But it is not surprising. After all, the US is attempting to convene a meeting of two protagonists of which one it strongly supports to the detriment of a solution and in violation of international legality.A few days ago, Israeli parliamentarians voted to make any Israeli “concession” over Jerusalem even harder, demanding that any Israeli government need, to that end, a two-thirds majority rather than a simple one.That would matter little in a case where international law trumped national law, but since when has international law applied to Israel? And international law will not apply to Israel unless the US demands that Israel accede to such law.So it’s a familiar script. Israel says it wants peace, Washington claims Israel wants peace and the world accepts it, with nothing in exchange to show. Again.But such patterns can only go on so long. As one American president once observed, you cannot fool all of the people all of the time. Already, the vast majority of people in this region have no faith in this talk. Let’s face it, no one here has any faith in such talk. And while there have been plenty of people calling the emperor naked, so far they have not been heard, perhaps because they do not come with the advantage of innocence.Nevertheless, soon we will stop telling ourselves that, surely, the emperor must be wearing clothes. And that will be a dangerous time.18 November 2007
http://www.jordantimes.com/?news=3697
We are yet again heading for a dangerous impasse. As the (yet unspecified) date for the Annapolis meeting comes nearer, crucial questions remain unanswered. Who will attend? What will the meeting be about? What will happen after?Heading for impasse
We are yet again heading for a dangerous impasse. As the (yet unspecified) date for the Annapolis meeting comes nearer, crucial questions remain unanswered. Who will attend? What will the meeting be about? What will happen after?It is astonishing that such basic issues are unresolved for what should be a vital conference to bring parties from opposite poles to a viable agreement over one of the thorniest issues in the world.It is somewhat frightening that the importance attached simply to holding the meeting should supersede the importance of actually solving fundamental issues.But it is not surprising. After all, the US is attempting to convene a meeting of two protagonists of which one it strongly supports to the detriment of a solution and in violation of international legality.A few days ago, Israeli parliamentarians voted to make any Israeli “concession” over Jerusalem even harder, demanding that any Israeli government need, to that end, a two-thirds majority rather than a simple one.That would matter little in a case where international law trumped national law, but since when has international law applied to Israel? And international law will not apply to Israel unless the US demands that Israel accede to such law.So it’s a familiar script. Israel says it wants peace, Washington claims Israel wants peace and the world accepts it, with nothing in exchange to show. Again.But such patterns can only go on so long. As one American president once observed, you cannot fool all of the people all of the time. Already, the vast majority of people in this region have no faith in this talk. Let’s face it, no one here has any faith in such talk. And while there have been plenty of people calling the emperor naked, so far they have not been heard, perhaps because they do not come with the advantage of innocence.Nevertheless, soon we will stop telling ourselves that, surely, the emperor must be wearing clothes. And that will be a dangerous time.18 November 2007
http://www.jordantimes.com/?news=3697
Jewish disengagement
Naomi Chazan
THE JERUSALEM POST
The General Assembly of the United Jewish Communities held in Nashville earlier this week was ostensibly all about the malaise of American Jewry, not about IsraelThe 3,000 delegates who converged on the capital of country music were primarily preoccupied with their unaffiliated co-religionists who were not there and will probably never attend such a gathering - mostly young professionals who have detached themselves from the organized Jewish community. As if this studied disengagement from institutionalized Jewry can be neatly divorced from Israel and how it is purveyed by the American Jewish establishment.
This new crisis in American Jewry has more to do with Israel than the formal leadership cares to acknowledge. Many American Jews, especially the new, highly-educated generation, cannot glibly concur with the stated positions of those who purportedly speak in their name. They find little solace in communal life unconnected to central issues on the national and global agenda. Discouraged from voicing their opinions, they prefer to opt out in growing numbers. Unless the muzzle on Israel-related issues is removed, this situation may become permanent, severely affecting the vibrancy of Jewish life - in Israel as well as the US.
THE AMERICAN Jewish establishment has redefined the nature of its support for Israel in recent years. Never enthusiastic about the Oslo process, after its collapse its key spokespeople jettisoned any serious discussion of accommodation, preferring to underline the ongoing threats posed by Islamic extremism (Hamas, Hizbullah, Iran). Their position toward the impending Annapolis process has been, at best, lukewarm.
Indeed, organized US Jewry, with some notable exceptions, has leaned far to the right of the bulk of its constituency. Polls have consistently shown significant levels of support for a Palestinian state among American Jews (reaching 54 percent at the height of the Second Lebanon War, according to the American Jewish Committee's annual survey last year). Backing for current US efforts to reignite negotiations to achieve this objective appears even higher.
The visible gap between American Jews and many of the organizations that claim to represent them is evident in three major areas. First, American Jewish discourse - not to speak of that of the general public - has highlighted issues related to the conflict at the expense of other aspects of the Israeli experience. Many American Jews know little, if anything, about the main domestic issues facing Israel today. While they may have read about corruption in the corridors of power, they are not conversant with the constitutional debate in the country. They are familiar with the monopoly of Orthodoxy, but ignore its ramifications for human and civil rights. They are vaguely aware that Israel is now a fully developed state, although they have not grappled with the implications of its alarming socioeconomic gaps. The growing divide between Jews and Arabs within the country seems far away. In short, some of the very gripping challenges which make Israel real are simply not discussed.
SECOND, THE coalitions formed to promote Israeli interests are alien to many American Jews. The close connection with neo-conservatives in Washington (including a disproportionate number of Jews), has seriously distanced the majority, which is liberal in orientation and consistently supports the Democratic Party. The alliance with the Moral Majority is off-putting to many. And the emergence of watchdog groups monitoring the press, campus life and even the voluntary sector leaves little room for any nuance. The issue is not whether Israel is always right or always wrong, as much of present debate suggests, but rather how to deal constructively with a myriad of complex problems on which opinions legitimately diverge.
And third, a curious self-imposed uniformity has developed in American Jewish circles. A new type of Jewish political correctness precludes dissent on the official interpretation of everything from Steven Walt and John Mearsheimer's study of the Jewish lobby or Jimmy Carter's book on the conflict to tenure decisions in academe. Progressive voices have few organized outlets (notably the Reform Movement, the New Israel Fund, the Israel Policy Forum, Americans for Peace Now, Brit Tzedek v'Shalom). These have been mostly excluded from the formal Jewish establishment.
It is hardly surprising, then, that so many younger Jews have retreated from their institutional representatives. The trend toward privatization of Jewish life in the US, so skillfully depicted by Steven Cohen and Ari Kelman in their recent study (Beyond Distancing), highlights different notions of identity, community and attachment to Israel than the solidarity usually associated with the older generation. This detachment has many sources, not least of which is the prohibition on criticizing Israel.
Breaking this taboo is essential for the health of US Jewry and for Israel. American Jews are quintessentially democratic; American Jewish approaches to Israel are not. Open debate allows individuals to align their deeply held values with their Jewish identity and feel comfortable with the results. It also reflects the diversity which is so much a part of the Jewish scene in the US. The many opinions on Israel and Israeli government policy cannot be distilled into a single voice. Such unanimity does not exist in Israel and can hardly be countenanced elsewhere. A real discussion can both invigorate and engage; its absence is stultifying.
Israel can only gain from such a reframing. Multiple Jewish voices reengaged with Israeli concerns can contribute enormously to defining Israel's longer-term interests and placing current policies in perspective. They can help fortify the country's democratic foundations. And, ultimately, they can sustain the increasingly tenuous connection between Israel and world Jewry so apparent in Nashville.
THE JERUSALEM POST
The General Assembly of the United Jewish Communities held in Nashville earlier this week was ostensibly all about the malaise of American Jewry, not about IsraelThe 3,000 delegates who converged on the capital of country music were primarily preoccupied with their unaffiliated co-religionists who were not there and will probably never attend such a gathering - mostly young professionals who have detached themselves from the organized Jewish community. As if this studied disengagement from institutionalized Jewry can be neatly divorced from Israel and how it is purveyed by the American Jewish establishment.
This new crisis in American Jewry has more to do with Israel than the formal leadership cares to acknowledge. Many American Jews, especially the new, highly-educated generation, cannot glibly concur with the stated positions of those who purportedly speak in their name. They find little solace in communal life unconnected to central issues on the national and global agenda. Discouraged from voicing their opinions, they prefer to opt out in growing numbers. Unless the muzzle on Israel-related issues is removed, this situation may become permanent, severely affecting the vibrancy of Jewish life - in Israel as well as the US.
THE AMERICAN Jewish establishment has redefined the nature of its support for Israel in recent years. Never enthusiastic about the Oslo process, after its collapse its key spokespeople jettisoned any serious discussion of accommodation, preferring to underline the ongoing threats posed by Islamic extremism (Hamas, Hizbullah, Iran). Their position toward the impending Annapolis process has been, at best, lukewarm.
Indeed, organized US Jewry, with some notable exceptions, has leaned far to the right of the bulk of its constituency. Polls have consistently shown significant levels of support for a Palestinian state among American Jews (reaching 54 percent at the height of the Second Lebanon War, according to the American Jewish Committee's annual survey last year). Backing for current US efforts to reignite negotiations to achieve this objective appears even higher.
The visible gap between American Jews and many of the organizations that claim to represent them is evident in three major areas. First, American Jewish discourse - not to speak of that of the general public - has highlighted issues related to the conflict at the expense of other aspects of the Israeli experience. Many American Jews know little, if anything, about the main domestic issues facing Israel today. While they may have read about corruption in the corridors of power, they are not conversant with the constitutional debate in the country. They are familiar with the monopoly of Orthodoxy, but ignore its ramifications for human and civil rights. They are vaguely aware that Israel is now a fully developed state, although they have not grappled with the implications of its alarming socioeconomic gaps. The growing divide between Jews and Arabs within the country seems far away. In short, some of the very gripping challenges which make Israel real are simply not discussed.
SECOND, THE coalitions formed to promote Israeli interests are alien to many American Jews. The close connection with neo-conservatives in Washington (including a disproportionate number of Jews), has seriously distanced the majority, which is liberal in orientation and consistently supports the Democratic Party. The alliance with the Moral Majority is off-putting to many. And the emergence of watchdog groups monitoring the press, campus life and even the voluntary sector leaves little room for any nuance. The issue is not whether Israel is always right or always wrong, as much of present debate suggests, but rather how to deal constructively with a myriad of complex problems on which opinions legitimately diverge.
And third, a curious self-imposed uniformity has developed in American Jewish circles. A new type of Jewish political correctness precludes dissent on the official interpretation of everything from Steven Walt and John Mearsheimer's study of the Jewish lobby or Jimmy Carter's book on the conflict to tenure decisions in academe. Progressive voices have few organized outlets (notably the Reform Movement, the New Israel Fund, the Israel Policy Forum, Americans for Peace Now, Brit Tzedek v'Shalom). These have been mostly excluded from the formal Jewish establishment.
It is hardly surprising, then, that so many younger Jews have retreated from their institutional representatives. The trend toward privatization of Jewish life in the US, so skillfully depicted by Steven Cohen and Ari Kelman in their recent study (Beyond Distancing), highlights different notions of identity, community and attachment to Israel than the solidarity usually associated with the older generation. This detachment has many sources, not least of which is the prohibition on criticizing Israel.
Breaking this taboo is essential for the health of US Jewry and for Israel. American Jews are quintessentially democratic; American Jewish approaches to Israel are not. Open debate allows individuals to align their deeply held values with their Jewish identity and feel comfortable with the results. It also reflects the diversity which is so much a part of the Jewish scene in the US. The many opinions on Israel and Israeli government policy cannot be distilled into a single voice. Such unanimity does not exist in Israel and can hardly be countenanced elsewhere. A real discussion can both invigorate and engage; its absence is stultifying.
Israel can only gain from such a reframing. Multiple Jewish voices reengaged with Israeli concerns can contribute enormously to defining Israel's longer-term interests and placing current policies in perspective. They can help fortify the country's democratic foundations. And, ultimately, they can sustain the increasingly tenuous connection between Israel and world Jewry so apparent in Nashville.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)