His approach to the Arab-Israel impasse has a lamentable consistency
By Mortimer B. Zuckerman
When Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu accepted an invitation to speak to a joint meeting of Congress last week, he could have had no idea that the Obama administration would attempt to take the ground from under him. A preemptive strike is about the only interpretation one can make of yet another Middle East speech by the president—a speech that represented a fundamental change in American policy toward Israel going back 44 years.
The president advocated that the borders before the Six-Day War should be a starting point for negotiations. That would mean Israel yielding all the land won in the war, including the Golan Heights, the West Bank, East Jerusalem, and Gaza. If Israel wanted to keep land settled since the war, it could do so only by swapping it for parcels of land in pre-1967 Israel. U.N. Security Council Resolution 242, passed in November 1967, is the foundational document of postwar diplomacy in the Middle East. Its withdrawal clause deliberately did not demand or insist that Israel pull back completely to the lines before the 1967 war, but only called on Israel to withdraw from "territories," not from "all the territories" or from "the territories," a deliberate distinction. Furthermore, Israel was to withdraw to secure and recognized borders. That has always been interpreted as not being synonymous with the pre-1967 boundaries.
Resolution 242 has served as the reference for Arab-Israeli peace agreements including the Egyptian-Israeli peace treaty and the 1993 Oslo agreements between Israel and the Palestinians, signed by Yitzhak Rabin and Yasser Arafat on the White House lawn. Neither of them stipulated that the final borders between Israel and the Palestinians would be the 1967 lines but only that these borders were to be a subject for future negotiations. [ Check out political cartoons about the Middle East uprisings ]
As Glenn Kessler pointed out in his Fact Checker blog at the Washington Post, this was supported by what President Lyndon Johnson said in 1968: "It is clear, however, that a return to the situation of 4 June 1967 will not bring peace. There must be secure and there must be recognized borders." President Ronald Reagan said in September 1982: "In the pre-1967 borders, Israel was barely 10 miles wide at its narrowest point. The bulk of Israel's population lived within artillery range of hostile Arab armies. I am not about to ask Israel to live that way again." And his secretary of state, George Shultz, was equally unequivocal in September 1988: "Israel will never negotiate from or return to the 1967 borders." Citations from Presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush made the same point.
Moreover, when Israel took the risk of leaving Gaza in 2005, Bush assured the Israelis that the United States would not expect Israel to withdraw to its pre-1967 borders and that Israeli settlements would be reflected in Israel's right to secure, recognizable, and defensible borders. Both houses of Congress approved these assurances, which had been matched in letters by U.S. secretaries of state from Henry Kissinger to Warren Christopher. President Obama himself, when he was campaigning and appealing to the Jewish community, stated that any future agreement would reflect Israel's right to "secure, recognized, and defensible borders"—the term of art for not returning to the indefensible prewar lines.
These vital commitments now seem to be in the process of disavowal by the Obama administration, whose secretary of state went so far as to assert that President Bush's pledges did not become part of the official U.S. position.
One other consequence of the president's position is that the parties must negotiate a border that is different from 1967. Since the 1967 line runs through Jerusalem, it would mean that the Western Wall and even Jerusalem's Jewish Quarter are Palestinian—alien territory for which Israel must now negotiate.Furthermore, Obama's speech undermines the prospects of a negotiation. It removes the principal Israeli negotiating chip. The Israelis would have to persuade the Palestinians to accept Israel as a Jewish state and understand that the refugees whom the Arabs have made no effort to accommodate cannot be given a "right of return," which would swamp Israel. Indeed, Obama failed to include previous U.S. statements that the Palestinians will never see the right of return implemented through a return to Israel proper. It's an omission that leaves it open for Palestinians to pocket as a concession without having to withdraw their demand for a right of return for millions of Palestinians. [See photos of the Obamas abroad.]
There is a certain lamentable consistency to Obama's handling of the Israeli-Arab impasse. Two years ago he inserted settlements as the center of his Middle East strategy, which hamstrung the possibility of successful talks. His call for a freeze turned settlements from a dignified wish into a threshold demand that needed to be met in full. This made it impossible for the Palestinians to compromise, for as President Mahmoud Abbas stated, he could not be less Palestinian than the American president.
Now again, Obama has stymied talks by asking Israelis to give up their main negotiating card, without demanding that the Palestinians provide anything in return. No request to return to negotiations. No meeting. No envoy. No "quartet" session. That is simply a non-starter in a Middle East culture where you never give anything for nothing. The president has made it virtually impossible for the Palestinian leader to make the necessary compromises. Instead he was rewarding the Palestinians just weeks after they announced a reconciliation with Hamas, and amid talk that Abbas would wage a declaration of political war against Israel by asking the United Nations to recognize Palestine as a state. That would be a breach of the Palestine Liberation Organization's commitment in the Oslo agreement that "neither side shall initiate or take any step that will change the status of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip pending the outcome of permanent status negotiations."
The crux of the matter is what happened after the 1993 Oslo Accords. The Israelis had to endure a campaign of indiscriminate murder by hundreds of Palestinian suicide bombers who, with Arafat's complicity, crossed over from the West Bank to kill Israelis.
Since then another menacing element has emerged to make a mockery of the pledges of Oslo. Abbas for the PLO has agreed to a joint venture with Hamas in the government of the West Bank. Hamas is a proxy of Iran. The Hamas charter calls for the murder of every Jew and for Israel's destruction. Their chief, Khalid Meshal, has said that Hamas would never recognize Israel's right to exist nor abandon liberating all of Palestine. Yet Abbas, in commenting on Netanyahu's congressional speech, said: "Our goal is not to isolate Israel nor to challenge its legitimacy."
How can he even think of saying that when he has partnered with Hamas? Obama did at least acknowledge that it would be impossible for Israel to negotiate seriously with a party that includes Hamas. Nobody has thought what to do with Hamas if it is to have access to the billions of dollars of aid from the United States and Europe now given to the Palestinians, much of which would buy more rockets and other weaponry. [Read: Obama offers little new in Middle East speech.]
The 1967 borders, which gave Israel a width of about nine miles, half the diameter of the Washington beltway, were not boundaries of peace. They were boundaries of repeated wars, and the Israelis will simply not return to them, especially now that Abbas's party, Fatah, has joined with Hamas. Israelis will not forget that the last time Abbas received control of an area, namely Gaza, his forces ran away and left it to Hamas, which rained thousands of rockets on Israel. The risk is that the West Bank, with Hamas in control, will become yet another base for terrorism with access to the overlooks of the Jerusalem suburbs, Tel Aviv beaches, and the main airport.
Today Israeli counter-terrorism forces can reach every place in the West Bank, capture prohibited weapons, or intercept suicide bombers, an access that gives them high-quality, precise military intelligence along with the full freedom of operation to enter Palestinian city centers and villages to locate and destroy bomb-producing factories and terrorist cells. Palestinian-Israeli counter-terrorism coordination has made the West Bank secure (and it's prospering). That cannot be sustained if Hamas is in the government, since most of the terrorists are Hamas people.
Were the West Bank to become a failed Palestinian state, it would threaten the very viability of Israel. The high ridge line of the West Bank overlooks so much of the heartland of Israel that even a Palestinian teenager with the most simple weaponry such as a portable Qassam rocket could hit Israel's main airport and major cities. This land is a mere eight to 12 miles from the Mediterranean—a lethal proximity Europeans and Americans cannot fully appreciate unless they have been there.
For its part, Israel also remembers what happened when it withdrew from Lebanon. The world community, having pressed for that, immediately lost interest, but while its eyes were closed, Hezbollah took over, re-armed, and accumulated more than 60,000 rockets and missiles. U.N. forces fled their positions as soon as internal fighting heated up, and monitors themselves fell victim to local Palestinian kidnapping. So Israel cannot rely on international forces to keep the peace. Abba Eban had it right about international forces in the Middle East when he compared them to an umbrella that is folded up when it rains. That is why an Israeli security presence in the Jordan Valley is critical to prevent terrorists and weapons coming in through Jordan. That is why Obama's implied opposition to an open-ended Israeli presence along the Jordan River would present yet another security issue.
What the Israelis know and understand and what the rest of the world doesn't is that the Palestinian discourse in Arabic is much more hostile than what the English-speaking world hears. The Palestinian propaganda in all the controlled media and in the schools portrays Israel as an illegitimate invader that must be destroyed. Just a few weeks ago, a member of the Palestinian parliament, Yunis al-Astal, spoke out on Hamas Al-Aqsa TV and asserted that the Jews being brought to Palestine is a divine plan that will give the Arabs the honor of annihilating them. Every day terrorists are honored as devoted brothers and sisters, even the late cleric Muhammad Fadlallah, seen by some as the mastermind of the 1983 Hezbollah bombing that claimed the lives of 241 U.S. servicemen in Lebanon.
A campaign to delegitimize Israel is waged every day along with incitement to violence. A Pew poll showed that 68 percent of Palestinian Muslims support suicide bombing. Polls also suggest that 85 percent of the Palestinians don't want peace if it means any compromise on borders, settlements, or Jerusalem, or any restraints on their wishes to move into Israel proper, what they call the right of return. The Palestinians and Syrians who rushed Israel's borders recently were not "protesters"; they did not come to negotiate. They assaulted Israel's borders on the anniversary of Israel's founding in 1948. They came to destroy, and more such mass efforts are being planned.
The Israeli position is misrepresented throughout the Middle East and to a large extent in Europe. Prime Minister Netanyahu is not the "no" robot of the anti-Israel propaganda. He has demonstrated his willingness to take risks for peace. He overcame the resistance of his Likud party to a two-state solution; he agreed to a temporary 10-month moratorium on new settlement construction, which no previous government was even willing to consider; he authorized the release of dozens of Palestinian prisoners; he dramatically reduced checkpoints and blockades in the West Bank even though this would increase the security risk to Israelis; he gave free passes without further review to hundreds of Palestinians to move between Israel and the West Bank for economic reasons; and he authorized new security arrangements that were in effect a modified form of amnesty to help former terrorists join the Palestinians as peaceful civilians.
In his most recent speech to the Knesset, he made it clear that Israel would insist on retaining the large settlement blocks near the 1967 borders—the position of every prime minister going back to Yitzhak Rabin—but by inference he excluded the smaller isolated settlements. In his speech to Congress, he stated he would be very generous with respect to territory. His proposal for a military presence along the Jordan River did not include seeking to retain settlements there. As he told Congress, he is prepared to cede territory that is at the heart of the Jewish nation, territory legitimately won in a war of defense against Arab attempts to destroy Israel. Quite simply, in Israeli domestic politics, Netanyahu has drawn a clear line between his position and the security-minded conservatives led by Likud, and the more hard-line religious right of the settlement movement that rejects territorial compromise under any circumstances.
Israel still retains the burden of putting forth its own peace initiative. But it will hardly feel encouraged to do that without the certain knowledge and confidence that the United States remains its main ally, not just in words but in deeds.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid was right in a speech he gave last week after the Obama address. "The place where negotiating will happen," he said, "must be the negotiating table—and nowhere else. Those negotiations will not happen, and their terms will not be set, through speeches, or in the streets, or in the media. No one should set premature parameters about borders, about building, or about anything else."
He added: "A fair beginning to good-faith talks means that Israel cannot be asked to agree to confines that would compromise its own security." Amen to all of that!
Thursday, June 09, 2011
Wednesday, June 08, 2011
Bad for the Jews
Roger L Simon
When my grandmother was still alive, when some domestic or international conflict came to her attention, she would ask, “Is it good for the Jews?”
Many friends have told me they heard the same thing from their grandmothers, because this was a natural reaction for people of that generation after years and years of pogroms and finally the Holocaust.
So somewhere in the subconscious of almost all Jews there is that inner grandmother talking to us. And what those bubbes are saying now is not good, not by a long shot. Many of us have thought the following I am sure, but I have not yet seen anyone say it print. So being the fool that I am, I’m going to bite the proverbial bullet and be the one to do it now. Maybe it will be cathartic.
This last year or two has been — bad for the Jews.
No, I’m not talking about the increasingly-tenuous struggle for Israel’s survival and and the controversy surrounding Benjamin Netanyahu’s speech in front of Congress. I am proud more than ever of the Israelis’ courage and of their prime minister.
I am thinking of something much more personal. I am thinking of three infamous people at the top of the world’s news in recent times all of whom, unfortunately, happen to be Jews…
Bernard Madoff, Dominique Strauss-Kahn and now Anthony Weiner.
In varying degrees there is something quite wrong, veering toward the sociopathic, with all of those men. My grandmother would definitely conclude that they are not “good for the Jews.” And I suspect I speak for most or our tribe when I say that I cringe when I see their (yes, Jewish) names in print or their visages on television. This is true notwithstanding that I don’t know of any of these men personally, nor have I even met them. Like everyone reading this article, I know bloody well who they are.
Yes, I know nobody said we were supposed to be perfect, yet I feel branded by these men and their behavior. Anthony Weiner looks like somebody in my family and I wish he would go away. Ditto Madoff and Strauss-Kahn. Yet here they are — in my face, day after day.
So I guess you can call me a “guilty Jew,” though my guilt has not lead me into pacifism or back into the liberal fold that I left a decade ago. Far from it. Indeed, in this case it has made me angry. Agnostic though I may be, I want to follow in the best tradition of my people and see these men punished — punished to the limits of the law or, if they have not strictly broken a law, be subject to a more transcendent retribution that knows no bounds.
As these people disgrace us, I will redouble my efforts in the support of Israel. I will continue to be proud of my heritage. And I will continue to fight for America.
When my grandmother was still alive, when some domestic or international conflict came to her attention, she would ask, “Is it good for the Jews?”
Many friends have told me they heard the same thing from their grandmothers, because this was a natural reaction for people of that generation after years and years of pogroms and finally the Holocaust.
So somewhere in the subconscious of almost all Jews there is that inner grandmother talking to us. And what those bubbes are saying now is not good, not by a long shot. Many of us have thought the following I am sure, but I have not yet seen anyone say it print. So being the fool that I am, I’m going to bite the proverbial bullet and be the one to do it now. Maybe it will be cathartic.
This last year or two has been — bad for the Jews.
No, I’m not talking about the increasingly-tenuous struggle for Israel’s survival and and the controversy surrounding Benjamin Netanyahu’s speech in front of Congress. I am proud more than ever of the Israelis’ courage and of their prime minister.
I am thinking of something much more personal. I am thinking of three infamous people at the top of the world’s news in recent times all of whom, unfortunately, happen to be Jews…
Bernard Madoff, Dominique Strauss-Kahn and now Anthony Weiner.
In varying degrees there is something quite wrong, veering toward the sociopathic, with all of those men. My grandmother would definitely conclude that they are not “good for the Jews.” And I suspect I speak for most or our tribe when I say that I cringe when I see their (yes, Jewish) names in print or their visages on television. This is true notwithstanding that I don’t know of any of these men personally, nor have I even met them. Like everyone reading this article, I know bloody well who they are.
Yes, I know nobody said we were supposed to be perfect, yet I feel branded by these men and their behavior. Anthony Weiner looks like somebody in my family and I wish he would go away. Ditto Madoff and Strauss-Kahn. Yet here they are — in my face, day after day.
So I guess you can call me a “guilty Jew,” though my guilt has not lead me into pacifism or back into the liberal fold that I left a decade ago. Far from it. Indeed, in this case it has made me angry. Agnostic though I may be, I want to follow in the best tradition of my people and see these men punished — punished to the limits of the law or, if they have not strictly broken a law, be subject to a more transcendent retribution that knows no bounds.
As these people disgrace us, I will redouble my efforts in the support of Israel. I will continue to be proud of my heritage. And I will continue to fight for America.
Tuesday, June 07, 2011
Tonight begins Shavuot
Arlene Kushner
Tonight begins Shavuot -- the celebration of the Jewish people having received the Torah at Sinai 50 days after Pesach.
It lasts for one day here, and two days outside of the Land. Because of its association with Torah, the night of Shavuot is spent in study. I usually make it to about 3 AM. And here is where we can see one of the special joys of living in Yerushalayim: I've been in a quandary as to which shiurim (study sessions) to attend because there is so much available. Such problems! Such blessings!
Traditionally, as well, dairy foods are eaten on Shavuot. Not a bad combination: religious study and cheesecake. At the end of the day, on Sunday, at the Syrian border in the Golan -- across from the Druse village of Majdal Shams and at the abandoned Syrian town of Kuneitra -- the IDF held off those hundreds attempting to breach our border. Lessons had been learned from May and effective techniques were in place; high level commanders were on the scene, as well.
The Syrians are claiming 20 dead, Israel is saying it was fewer but I don't have an official number -- the Northern Command is saying eight to 10. At any rate, Israel is holding Syria, which encouraged the rioters for its own purposes, responsible for deaths. Whether there were 20 dead or eight, the number pales in comparison with the number of protesters killed by the Assad regime inside of Syria.
The point is being made by multiple commentators that the Syrians are using the Palestinian Arabs as ploys to their own end. And the question is how long Palestinian Arabs will consent to play this role.
~~~~~~~~~~
But by no means does the relative IDF success on Sunday signal that we are home free. What we've dealt with until now is merely the beginning. Sunday marked the start of the Six Day War in 1967. Friday marks the day on which Jerusalem was reunited in the course of that war. Calling it Al-Quds day, the Arabs are planning riots at our borders and in Judea and Samaria. Needless to say, Israel is preparing diligently.
~~~~~~~~~~
Netanyahu envoy Yitzhak Molcho and PA negotiator Saeb Erekat have reportedly both been in the US in the last couple of days for separate secret consultations -- in the case of Erekat, at least, with David Hale, acting US Middle East envoy (acting, now that Mitchell has resigned).
The goal, clearly enunciated by a State Department official, was "to work on getting both sides back to the table." Obama wants to "jump start" negotiations to preclude that UN vote in September. The betting is that he will veto anything that comes before the Security Council with regard to a Palestinian state. But he will do it most reluctantly, as this places him in opposition to Arab or Muslim elements that he regularly courts and allies him publicly with Israel. And so, if there's a way around it, by bringing the parties to the table (in which case Abbas will withdraw efforts at the UN), he's all for it.
The fact that it is an impossible situation, and that "negotiations" cannot possible lead to a peace agreement is irrelevant. This is about politics, and the Obama image, not about peace.
~~~~~~~~~~
It is imperative, of course, that Netanyahu hold that tough line in consultations with the US now. No being a "nice guy" and making it easier for Obama by conceding on certain issues in order to bring Abbas back to the table.
~~~~~~~~~~
As to Abbas, I offer a purely speculative thought. A couple of reports have surfaced lately regarding the fact that Abbas really knows that the UN ploy is not going to succeeded in bringing a Palestinian state into existence. With this recognition, if indeed it exists, might come a restructuring of Abbas tactics.
He had been courting Hamas for a unity government in order to be able to go to the UN and say that the PA represented all Palestinian Arabs who would constitute the population of the state. But now it is the PA/Fatah that is the stumbling block to the formation of that unity government, which was supposed to have been in place by now. Abbas is holding tight to his promotion of Fayyad as prime minister, in the face of furious Hamas objections, and the PA is still holding Hamas prisoners in Judea and Samaria. Is Abbas sabotaging the unity agreement? Is he back to playing both ends against the middle? Hoping to mollify Obama sufficiently so that the president might lean harder on Israel?
I don't have answers, only questions.
~~~~~~~~~~
What I will say is that secret negotiations on what each side will do to re-start peace talks makes me nervous. I find this potentially more unsettling than that UN vote. Although I still strongly suspect that at the end of the day Abbas's demands will make it impossible to proceed.
No, let me alter that comment: It is Obama's proposals (I won't call them "demands" although they sure come close) that may make it impossible. According to Haaretz (which may be seriously inaccurate, as it promotes a decidedly leftist position) the US is trying to get both parties to agree to come to the table based on the Obama outlines from his recent State Department and AIPAC speeches. After what Netanyahu said in his press conference with the president and then in Congress? Could this be?
No worry, if it is the case. Netanyahu is not about to agree to start negotiations with pre-'67 lines as the starting point, and issues such as Jerusalem and refugees to be tabled until we've conceded Judea and Samaria.
~~~~~~~~~~
The Freedom and Justice Party, created by the Muslim Brotherhood, and chaired by Mohamed Morsi, has been officially approved by the Egyptian Committee of Parties' Affairs. It is the first party to officially declare since Mubarak's fall. Not a good sign.
Carolyn Glick wrote about "The Real Egyptian Revolution" the other day:
"...As for the military, its actions to date make clear that its commanders do not see themselves as guardians of secular rule in Egypt. Instead, they see themselves as engines for a transition from Mubarak’s authoritarian secularism to the Brotherhood’s populist Islamism.
"Since forcing Mubarak to resign, the military junta has embraced Hamas, the Palestinian branch of the Muslim Brotherhood. They engineered the Palestinian unity government which will pave the way for Hamas’s victory in the Palestinian Authority’s legislative and presidential elections scheduled for the fall.
"Then there is Sinai. Since the revolution, the military has allowed Sinai to become a major base not only for Hamas but for the global jihad. As Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu warned on Monday, Egyptian authorities are not asserting their sovereignty in Sinai and jihadists from Hamas, al-Qaida and other groups are inundating the peninsula.
"Last week’s move to open Egypt’s border with Gaza at the Rafah passage is further proof that the military has made its peace with the Islamic takeover of Egypt..."
http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Columnists/Article.aspx?id=223422
~~~~~~~~~~
Not a good scene: According to the Iranian news agency FARS, Iranian submarines, accompanied by Iranian warships, are in international waters in the Red Sea, on an intelligence gathering mission.
~~~~~~~~~~
I'll end today with a link to a video with Andrew Klavan, on a solution to the crisis in the Middle East. A bit different from what I usually share: brilliant and funny.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uIEeiDjdUuU&feature=feedu
~~~~~~~~~~
© Arlene Kushner. This material is produced by Arlene Kushner, functioning as an independent journalist. Permission is granted for it to be reproduced only with proper attribution.
Tonight begins Shavuot -- the celebration of the Jewish people having received the Torah at Sinai 50 days after Pesach.
It lasts for one day here, and two days outside of the Land. Because of its association with Torah, the night of Shavuot is spent in study. I usually make it to about 3 AM. And here is where we can see one of the special joys of living in Yerushalayim: I've been in a quandary as to which shiurim (study sessions) to attend because there is so much available. Such problems! Such blessings!
Traditionally, as well, dairy foods are eaten on Shavuot. Not a bad combination: religious study and cheesecake. At the end of the day, on Sunday, at the Syrian border in the Golan -- across from the Druse village of Majdal Shams and at the abandoned Syrian town of Kuneitra -- the IDF held off those hundreds attempting to breach our border. Lessons had been learned from May and effective techniques were in place; high level commanders were on the scene, as well.
The Syrians are claiming 20 dead, Israel is saying it was fewer but I don't have an official number -- the Northern Command is saying eight to 10. At any rate, Israel is holding Syria, which encouraged the rioters for its own purposes, responsible for deaths. Whether there were 20 dead or eight, the number pales in comparison with the number of protesters killed by the Assad regime inside of Syria.
The point is being made by multiple commentators that the Syrians are using the Palestinian Arabs as ploys to their own end. And the question is how long Palestinian Arabs will consent to play this role.
~~~~~~~~~~
But by no means does the relative IDF success on Sunday signal that we are home free. What we've dealt with until now is merely the beginning. Sunday marked the start of the Six Day War in 1967. Friday marks the day on which Jerusalem was reunited in the course of that war. Calling it Al-Quds day, the Arabs are planning riots at our borders and in Judea and Samaria. Needless to say, Israel is preparing diligently.
~~~~~~~~~~
Netanyahu envoy Yitzhak Molcho and PA negotiator Saeb Erekat have reportedly both been in the US in the last couple of days for separate secret consultations -- in the case of Erekat, at least, with David Hale, acting US Middle East envoy (acting, now that Mitchell has resigned).
The goal, clearly enunciated by a State Department official, was "to work on getting both sides back to the table." Obama wants to "jump start" negotiations to preclude that UN vote in September. The betting is that he will veto anything that comes before the Security Council with regard to a Palestinian state. But he will do it most reluctantly, as this places him in opposition to Arab or Muslim elements that he regularly courts and allies him publicly with Israel. And so, if there's a way around it, by bringing the parties to the table (in which case Abbas will withdraw efforts at the UN), he's all for it.
The fact that it is an impossible situation, and that "negotiations" cannot possible lead to a peace agreement is irrelevant. This is about politics, and the Obama image, not about peace.
~~~~~~~~~~
It is imperative, of course, that Netanyahu hold that tough line in consultations with the US now. No being a "nice guy" and making it easier for Obama by conceding on certain issues in order to bring Abbas back to the table.
~~~~~~~~~~
As to Abbas, I offer a purely speculative thought. A couple of reports have surfaced lately regarding the fact that Abbas really knows that the UN ploy is not going to succeeded in bringing a Palestinian state into existence. With this recognition, if indeed it exists, might come a restructuring of Abbas tactics.
He had been courting Hamas for a unity government in order to be able to go to the UN and say that the PA represented all Palestinian Arabs who would constitute the population of the state. But now it is the PA/Fatah that is the stumbling block to the formation of that unity government, which was supposed to have been in place by now. Abbas is holding tight to his promotion of Fayyad as prime minister, in the face of furious Hamas objections, and the PA is still holding Hamas prisoners in Judea and Samaria. Is Abbas sabotaging the unity agreement? Is he back to playing both ends against the middle? Hoping to mollify Obama sufficiently so that the president might lean harder on Israel?
I don't have answers, only questions.
~~~~~~~~~~
What I will say is that secret negotiations on what each side will do to re-start peace talks makes me nervous. I find this potentially more unsettling than that UN vote. Although I still strongly suspect that at the end of the day Abbas's demands will make it impossible to proceed.
No, let me alter that comment: It is Obama's proposals (I won't call them "demands" although they sure come close) that may make it impossible. According to Haaretz (which may be seriously inaccurate, as it promotes a decidedly leftist position) the US is trying to get both parties to agree to come to the table based on the Obama outlines from his recent State Department and AIPAC speeches. After what Netanyahu said in his press conference with the president and then in Congress? Could this be?
No worry, if it is the case. Netanyahu is not about to agree to start negotiations with pre-'67 lines as the starting point, and issues such as Jerusalem and refugees to be tabled until we've conceded Judea and Samaria.
~~~~~~~~~~
The Freedom and Justice Party, created by the Muslim Brotherhood, and chaired by Mohamed Morsi, has been officially approved by the Egyptian Committee of Parties' Affairs. It is the first party to officially declare since Mubarak's fall. Not a good sign.
Carolyn Glick wrote about "The Real Egyptian Revolution" the other day:
"...As for the military, its actions to date make clear that its commanders do not see themselves as guardians of secular rule in Egypt. Instead, they see themselves as engines for a transition from Mubarak’s authoritarian secularism to the Brotherhood’s populist Islamism.
"Since forcing Mubarak to resign, the military junta has embraced Hamas, the Palestinian branch of the Muslim Brotherhood. They engineered the Palestinian unity government which will pave the way for Hamas’s victory in the Palestinian Authority’s legislative and presidential elections scheduled for the fall.
"Then there is Sinai. Since the revolution, the military has allowed Sinai to become a major base not only for Hamas but for the global jihad. As Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu warned on Monday, Egyptian authorities are not asserting their sovereignty in Sinai and jihadists from Hamas, al-Qaida and other groups are inundating the peninsula.
"Last week’s move to open Egypt’s border with Gaza at the Rafah passage is further proof that the military has made its peace with the Islamic takeover of Egypt..."
http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Columnists/Article.aspx?id=223422
~~~~~~~~~~
Not a good scene: According to the Iranian news agency FARS, Iranian submarines, accompanied by Iranian warships, are in international waters in the Red Sea, on an intelligence gathering mission.
~~~~~~~~~~
I'll end today with a link to a video with Andrew Klavan, on a solution to the crisis in the Middle East. A bit different from what I usually share: brilliant and funny.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uIEeiDjdUuU&feature=feedu
~~~~~~~~~~
© Arlene Kushner. This material is produced by Arlene Kushner, functioning as an independent journalist. Permission is granted for it to be reproduced only with proper attribution.
Monday, June 06, 2011
"Strength in Unity"
Arlene Kushner
At the end of the day, it's not our enemies, who certainly threaten us (see below), who are our biggest problem: It's a lack of internal unity: Unity among Jews here in Israel, and unity among Jews outside Israel with regard to standing with Israel. That unity is our greatest strength, and it is what I wish to address today.
I was sent the following by a reader (thanks, Helaine!). It is a quote from Rabbi Lazer Brody, who teaches on issues of faith:
"Jerusalem is the heart of all the Jewish people. If you cull other Jews or cut yourself off from any group... then you cut yourself off from a part of Jerusalem. No wonder Jerusalem is under the threat of being split! It's all the result of infighting and hate, no matter how seemingly justified it may be. The Chafetz Chaim says that Hashem doesn't want hate or contention in any form, even if you think it's a mitzvah [e.g., to oppose people who are not observant]. So, if you care about Jerusalem remaining unified, love every Jew. You don't have to agree with his ideology or lifestyle, but you are commanded to love him like yourself. "By the same token, every Jew has a portion of the Land of Israel.
"Large segments of our homeland are in danger, measure for measure with our actions: we cut ourselves off from other Jews, and we get part of our homeland cut away from is. Think about it, for I know it's true.
"The unity of the Land of Israel depends on Jewish unity - this should be our goal, now more than ever."
This is solidly in sync with traditional Jewish teaching: We are told that we lost the Second Temple because of baseless hatred (sinat chinam) among Jews.
~~~~~~~~~~
Another reader (for this, thanks Cheryl H.!) sent a video -- the "Rabbi and the Paratroopers" -- that models for us how we should all act. It's five years old -- dating to the time of the Lebanon War. Is it a coincidence that it came to me now?
See it, please. An Orthodox rabbi, with a long white flowing beard, embracing secular soldiers with a pure love that he expresses in action. It will warm your heart and just may bring tears to your eyes, as it did to mine.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pACng5jMVvE
~~~~~~~~~~
And then, an article that addresses division -- division sufficient to bring a different kind of tears to one's eyes. This is a situation of great seriousness that must be addressed.
Daniel Gordis -- Senior Vice President of the Shalem Center in Jerusalem -- has written stunningly on the question, "Are Young Rabbis Turning on Israel?"
Gordis, musing on the powerful feelings evoked in Israel during Yom HaZikaron (Israeli memorial day), writes:
"I read a recent message sent to students at the interdenominational rabbinical school at Boston’s Hebrew College, asking them to prepare themselves for Yom Ha-Zikaron by musing on the following paragraph: 'For Yom Ha-Zikaron, our kavanah [intention] is to open up our communal remembrance to include losses on all sides of the conflict in Israel/Palestine. In this spirit, our framing question for Yom Ha-Zikaron is this: On this day, what do you remember and for whom do you grieve?'
"It is the rare e-mail that leaves me speechless. Here, at a reputable institution training future rabbis who will shape a generation of American Jews and their attitudes to Israel, the parties were treated with equal weight and honor in the run-up to Yom Ha-Zikaron. What the students were essentially being asked was whether the losses on Israel’s side touched them any more deeply than the losses on the side of Israel’s enemies.
"...That is a stunning question...There is, perhaps, a place for such memories [of the death of enemies]. That time is when the conflict has abated, when weapons are set aside, when healing has begun. That time...has not yet come to Israel.
"...The heartbreaking point was this: in the case of these rabbinical students, there is not an instinct that should be innate—the instinct to protect their own people first, or to mourn our losses first. Their instinct, instead, is to 'engage.' But 'engagement' is a value-free endeavor. It means setting instinctive dispositions utterly aside. And that is precisely what this emerging generation of American Jewish leaders believes it ought to do.
"...This kavanah to rabbinical students was not my first brush with this worrisome phenomenon among those training to be the religious leadership of American Jews. In April, before I learned about this Yom Ha-Zikaron incident, I wrote a column in the Jerusalem Post pointing to the problem of rabbinical students who are increasingly distanced from Israel. I noted an example of an American rabbinical student who had elected to celebrate his birthday in Ramallah, and another who was looking to buy a new prayer shawl and sent out an e-mail asking for advice about where to buy one—with the proviso that the tallith could not have been made in Israel. I said nothing about how widespread the phenomenon is, because we do not know. But it was time to acknowledge the situation, I argued, so that we might begin to address it."
What Gordis says he encountered was a great deal of defensivenss: "It's not us."
"...But there was another reaction, too, and it came not from the deans, but from students at these schools, as well as from communal professionals and even rabbis out in the field...A communal Jewish professional in the South wrote, 'Just yesterday I had a conversation with a synagogue that is interviewing recent graduates of [two rabbinical schools from different movements]. Students from both these schools have expressed opinions that are nothing short of hostile to Israel.'
"Then, a rabbi in the field wrote me:
'Interesting column. Unfortunately, not an entirely new phenomenon. [Some years] ago, one of the rabbis of [a major New York synagogue] refused to shake my hand when I was introduced as a major in the IDF. And a few years back, [an] avowed Zionist [dean of one of the schools in question] told a group of rabbinical students that if he were around at the time, and had a say, he would have voted against the establishment of the State of Israel.'
"Students in Jerusalem and in the States asked to meet with me, and on almost every occasion, they spoke about how lonely it can be for an unapologetically pro-Israel student at some of today’s rabbinical schools. (This phenomenon is, not surprisingly, almost entirely absent on Orthodox campuses, although, alarmingly, it is becoming an issue on the left end of Orthodoxy, too.)
"The number of vocally anti-Israel students is probably small, but their collective impact is far from marginal. These students are shaping the discourse about Israel in America’s rabbinical schools. And worse, because Israel-related conversations are becoming highly charged and many campuses seek to avoid friction at virtually all costs, these vocal students are effectively shutting down serious discourse about Israel. (One campus dean actually instructed students to cease all e-mail discussion of Israel, while every other political topic remained fair game.)
~~~~~~~~~~
Gordis, in attempting to understand how this could be happening, focuses on a few key issues.
"Memory is the first factor. As I have chatted with these students over the past months, it has become clear that the profound differences in our instincts and loyalties can be traced, in part, to the differences in our formative experiences."
People who remember from their formative years the threats to Israel respond differently from those whose image of Israel during their growing up was of a strong nation -- strong either in a positive sense, or in a negative sense as the TV has focused on tough IDF soldiers.
"Those differences in memory lead to the second major divide: students today cannot imagine a world without a Jewish state. Despite the ongoing conflict, the fundamental goal of political Zionism—the dream of creating a sovereign, secure Jewish state—has been so utterly successful that these students cannot imagine that Israel is actually at risk. After a meeting with a group of rabbinical students in Jerusalem, one of the participants wrote to me: 'my classmates shared with me that they had never imagined that Israel could be so fragile as to be fighting for her very existence. Your angle really seemed to hit them hard.' It had never occurred to me, when I reminded these graduate students of Israel’s ongoing vulnerability, that I was saying anything that wasn’t utterly obvious.
"Beyond what I believe to be their naïveté about Israel’s security, however, these rabbinical students also have no sense of how utterly different American Jewish life is from what it would have been without a Jewish state...these students have little sense of how the very existence of a Jewish state contributed to this utter transformation of American Jewish life [from timidity during the Holocaust to outspoken self-assurance now]. Ironically, the very sense of comfort that enables some of these students to work to marginalize Israel is a direct result of the Jewish state itself.
"In conversation with these students, there’s one word in particular that makes them squirm with discomfort, and it represents the third way in which their generation differs. That word is 'enemy.' There is something hard and non-malleable about the term 'enemy,' and today’s students are loath to use it. They are disturbed by the intractability of the conflict in Israel, but they refuse to draw any conclusions from Palestinian recalcitrance. Dan Kaiman, the student who celebrated his birthday in Ramallah, wrote a piece in the Jerusalem Post in response to my column, explaining that
"'I chose to have one of my birthday celebrations in Ramallah to honor, respect, and value the relationships I have built with a people and place I care deeply about. I also celebrated my birthday here in Jerusalem for the same reasons. I believe in a Zionism that desires peace, safety, and cooperation among Jews and Arabs...'
Gordis then described the communication from one California rabbi:
"..'We are not the generation of rabbis hoping to abandon Israel. We are the generation of rabbis who hope that God will give us the merit to be peacemakers.' How a rabbi holding a pulpit in West Los Angeles is going to become a peacemaker in the Middle East is never explained. But one thing is clear from [this] article: peacemaking, this generation believes, requires imagining that we do not have enemies. Neville Chamberlain would have appreciated the company.
"And while one can surely forge meaningful relations with people in Ramallah, it requires a stunning suspension of the particular for Kaiman to call Ramallah a 'place I care deeply about' and to say that one cares about Jerusalem 'for the same reasons.' ...Does the fact that there were PLO posters in the bar where the birthday party was held not make it difficult for a future rabbi to have a beer there? For this, too, Kaiman had an explanation:
"'I am aware of the [posters] on the walls and the incredible complexity of this conflict….There are also many places in Israel where I feel uncomfortable as a liberal Jew, a Zionist, and an American. Feeling uncomfortable is not an invitation to disengage, close myself off, or stop listening (or, in my specific case, celebrating). I find that by engaging those with whom I may not agree, I am provided with opportunities to learn about myself and others, and begin to transform discomfort into opportunity.'
"'Engagement' is a gloriously vague notion, so evanescent in its purposes and intentions that it casts a fog over the clarity provided by genuine commitment: to loyalty, or heritage, or love, or sanctity, or duty. It is the sort of benign interaction that one can have even with enemies. Engagement is particularly easy if you refuse to acknowledge that the people who continue to celebrate those who have killed you are your enemies.
"...the discomfort with the idea of 'the enemy' and the intolerability of being in a drawn-out conflict has led these students to the conviction that Israel must solve the conflict. The Palestinian position is not going to shift; that much they intuit. But having enemies, and being in interminable conflict, is unbearably painful for them. So Israel must change. And if it will not, or cannot, then it is Israel that is at fault. In which case, it makes perfectly good sense for these future Jewish leaders to refuse to purchase prayer shawls manufactured in Israel and to insist on demonstratively remaining seated as the prayer for Israeli soldiers is recited in their rabbinical-school communities. They will do virtually anything in order to avoid confronting the fact that the Jewish people has intractable enemies. Their universalist worldview does not have a place for enemies. (emphasis added)
"The final difference between these young Jewish leaders and those who preceded them is perhaps the most disturbing. This new tone in discussions about Israel is so 'fair,' so 'balanced,' so 'even-handed' that what is entirely gone is an instinct of belonging—the visceral sense on the part of these students that they are part of a people, that the blood and the losses that were required to create the state of Israel is their blood and their loss. (emphasis added)
"...All this is simply a reflection of the decreased role of 'peoplehood' in Judaism. What we are witnessing is a Protestantization of American Jewish life. By and large, today’s rabbinical students did not grow up in homes that were richly Jewish. More often than not, these students came to their Jewish commitments as a result of individual journeys on which they embarked. They sought meaning, and found it. They sought prayer, and learned it. Their Jewish experience is roughly analogous to a Protestant religious awakening. The Protestant religious experience is a deeply personal one, not a communal one. Worship in the Protestant tradition is about reaching for the divine, while in the Jewish tradition, it is no less about creating a bond with other Jews. In Protestant liturgy, history is almost absent, while in the Jewish prayer book, it is omnipresent. The replacement of communal faith by personal journey among today’s young Jews is a profound reflection of the degree to which Christianity has colored their sense of what Judaism at its very core is all about."
~~~~~~~~~~
There is more. Read the entire article, please:
https://www.commentarymagazine.com/article/are-young-rabbis-turning-on-israel/
And then, if you are terrified, as indeed you might be, think long and hard please, about what you -- if you are an American Jew and particularly an affiliated American Jew -- can do about this situation.
~~~~~~~~~~
As I write, the IDF and other Israeli forces are engaging with those trying to cross the border in the north via Syria, in the Golan Heights, or rioting in Palestinian Arab areas here.
Photo: AFP Palestinians breaking through syria border - Yaron Kaminsky
They are calling this "Naksa" Day -- a commemoration of the tragedy of the war in 1967, when we acquired all of Judea and Samaria, and Gaza. Abbas called this the new "nuclear weapon" for Palestinians: They feel they have a new way to get us, and it is not going to be easy. How do you win against people who say they'll reach their "homes" in Israel or die as martyrs trying? How do you convince the world that those who come "unarmed" sometimes throw chunks of concrete at the heads of soldiers? They have attempted to structure the situation so that the world sees them as "innocents" and Israel as the big bad Goliath.
And yet, they cannot be permitted to breach our borders.
The IDF has non-lethal means such as tear gas at its disposal, and uses crowd control methods -- including warnings by loudspeaker in Arabic -- when possible, but sometimes finds it necessary to use live fire as well. When shooting is necessary, shots are aimed at the lower parts of the body. At one point a Molotov cocktail that was thrown by demonstrators caused the explosion of four mines on the Syrian side of the border. Reports on casualties vary.
Some of the best video footage I've located yet is here:
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4078644,00.html
Scroll down the page part way.
The IDF is expressing general satisfaction with its ability to keep the situation under control.
I will have more complete information on this tomorrow.
~~~~~~~~~~
Acknowledging that Israel has a right to defend herself, the State Department none-the-less declared itself "deeply troubled" by the situation at our border with Syria. The call was for "restraint" by "both sides." I love these even-handed statements.
~~~~~~~~~~
In Judea and Samaria:
-- A border policeman was lightly injured by rocks thrown at the Kalandia checkpoint, which was then shut down. In additional to rocks, Molotov cocktails were thrown at security forces and burning tired were hurled into the air.
-- Their was a violent disturbance near Elon Moreh and crowds were dispersed.
-- Worst of all, in my mind: rocks were thrown at a kindergarten in the Beit Hadassah region.
~~~~~~~~~~
Hakim Awad and Amjad Awad of Awarta have now been formally charged in military court with the murder of five members of the Fogel family, in Itamar.
Amjad said: "I am proud of what I did and will accept any punishment I receive, because I did it all for Palestine...I would do it again."
Proud of stabbing a baby to death. I am not a violent person, normally, but...
~~~~~~~~~~
France has made an offer to host a parlay at which there would be an attempt to restart the "peace negotiations."
Abbas has said he'll be glad to attend if Israel first stops all construction and agrees to negotiate according to the '67 lines. Apparently there was tension between Fatah and Hamas with regard to how to respond to this proposal.
Netanyahu, while expressing interest, says Israel will not negotiate with a unity government of which Hamas is a constituent part.
~~~~~~~~~~
Khaled Abu Toameh, writing in the JPost, reports that: "One month after the Egyptian-brokered Hamas-Fatah reconciliation accord was announced in Cairo, the two parties are continuing to squabble over the establishment of a unity government."
The new government was supposed to be announced this week, but there is a major stumbling block with regard to selection of prime minister. Hamas is fiercely opposed to the selection of the incumbent, Salam Fayyad, while Abbas continues to push for him.
Additionally, the PA continues to clamp down on Hamas in Judea and Samaria.
~~~~~~~~~~
It was clear from the beginning that the movement towards that unity government was motivated by some very pragmatic concerns -- such as presenting a united front at the UN -- and not because of a deep and genuine reconciliation between the parties. Should the unity government fail to be forged, or should it immediately and precipitously fall apart, there would be multiple political/diplomatic implications.
~~~~~~~~~~
A small correction: I wrote the other day about countries to be approached by Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon, with regard to not supporting a unilaterally declared Palestinian state. One of those countries is Colombia, which I erroneously spelled Columbia. (thanks, Marta)
~~~~~~~~~~
© Arlene Kushner. This material is produced by Arlene Kushner, functioning as an independent journalist. Permission is granted for it to be reproduced only with proper attribution.
At the end of the day, it's not our enemies, who certainly threaten us (see below), who are our biggest problem: It's a lack of internal unity: Unity among Jews here in Israel, and unity among Jews outside Israel with regard to standing with Israel. That unity is our greatest strength, and it is what I wish to address today.
I was sent the following by a reader (thanks, Helaine!). It is a quote from Rabbi Lazer Brody, who teaches on issues of faith:
"Jerusalem is the heart of all the Jewish people. If you cull other Jews or cut yourself off from any group... then you cut yourself off from a part of Jerusalem. No wonder Jerusalem is under the threat of being split! It's all the result of infighting and hate, no matter how seemingly justified it may be. The Chafetz Chaim says that Hashem doesn't want hate or contention in any form, even if you think it's a mitzvah [e.g., to oppose people who are not observant]. So, if you care about Jerusalem remaining unified, love every Jew. You don't have to agree with his ideology or lifestyle, but you are commanded to love him like yourself. "By the same token, every Jew has a portion of the Land of Israel.
"Large segments of our homeland are in danger, measure for measure with our actions: we cut ourselves off from other Jews, and we get part of our homeland cut away from is. Think about it, for I know it's true.
"The unity of the Land of Israel depends on Jewish unity - this should be our goal, now more than ever."
This is solidly in sync with traditional Jewish teaching: We are told that we lost the Second Temple because of baseless hatred (sinat chinam) among Jews.
~~~~~~~~~~
Another reader (for this, thanks Cheryl H.!) sent a video -- the "Rabbi and the Paratroopers" -- that models for us how we should all act. It's five years old -- dating to the time of the Lebanon War. Is it a coincidence that it came to me now?
See it, please. An Orthodox rabbi, with a long white flowing beard, embracing secular soldiers with a pure love that he expresses in action. It will warm your heart and just may bring tears to your eyes, as it did to mine.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pACng5jMVvE
~~~~~~~~~~
And then, an article that addresses division -- division sufficient to bring a different kind of tears to one's eyes. This is a situation of great seriousness that must be addressed.
Daniel Gordis -- Senior Vice President of the Shalem Center in Jerusalem -- has written stunningly on the question, "Are Young Rabbis Turning on Israel?"
Gordis, musing on the powerful feelings evoked in Israel during Yom HaZikaron (Israeli memorial day), writes:
"I read a recent message sent to students at the interdenominational rabbinical school at Boston’s Hebrew College, asking them to prepare themselves for Yom Ha-Zikaron by musing on the following paragraph: 'For Yom Ha-Zikaron, our kavanah [intention] is to open up our communal remembrance to include losses on all sides of the conflict in Israel/Palestine. In this spirit, our framing question for Yom Ha-Zikaron is this: On this day, what do you remember and for whom do you grieve?'
"It is the rare e-mail that leaves me speechless. Here, at a reputable institution training future rabbis who will shape a generation of American Jews and their attitudes to Israel, the parties were treated with equal weight and honor in the run-up to Yom Ha-Zikaron. What the students were essentially being asked was whether the losses on Israel’s side touched them any more deeply than the losses on the side of Israel’s enemies.
"...That is a stunning question...There is, perhaps, a place for such memories [of the death of enemies]. That time is when the conflict has abated, when weapons are set aside, when healing has begun. That time...has not yet come to Israel.
"...The heartbreaking point was this: in the case of these rabbinical students, there is not an instinct that should be innate—the instinct to protect their own people first, or to mourn our losses first. Their instinct, instead, is to 'engage.' But 'engagement' is a value-free endeavor. It means setting instinctive dispositions utterly aside. And that is precisely what this emerging generation of American Jewish leaders believes it ought to do.
"...This kavanah to rabbinical students was not my first brush with this worrisome phenomenon among those training to be the religious leadership of American Jews. In April, before I learned about this Yom Ha-Zikaron incident, I wrote a column in the Jerusalem Post pointing to the problem of rabbinical students who are increasingly distanced from Israel. I noted an example of an American rabbinical student who had elected to celebrate his birthday in Ramallah, and another who was looking to buy a new prayer shawl and sent out an e-mail asking for advice about where to buy one—with the proviso that the tallith could not have been made in Israel. I said nothing about how widespread the phenomenon is, because we do not know. But it was time to acknowledge the situation, I argued, so that we might begin to address it."
What Gordis says he encountered was a great deal of defensivenss: "It's not us."
"...But there was another reaction, too, and it came not from the deans, but from students at these schools, as well as from communal professionals and even rabbis out in the field...A communal Jewish professional in the South wrote, 'Just yesterday I had a conversation with a synagogue that is interviewing recent graduates of [two rabbinical schools from different movements]. Students from both these schools have expressed opinions that are nothing short of hostile to Israel.'
"Then, a rabbi in the field wrote me:
'Interesting column. Unfortunately, not an entirely new phenomenon. [Some years] ago, one of the rabbis of [a major New York synagogue] refused to shake my hand when I was introduced as a major in the IDF. And a few years back, [an] avowed Zionist [dean of one of the schools in question] told a group of rabbinical students that if he were around at the time, and had a say, he would have voted against the establishment of the State of Israel.'
"Students in Jerusalem and in the States asked to meet with me, and on almost every occasion, they spoke about how lonely it can be for an unapologetically pro-Israel student at some of today’s rabbinical schools. (This phenomenon is, not surprisingly, almost entirely absent on Orthodox campuses, although, alarmingly, it is becoming an issue on the left end of Orthodoxy, too.)
"The number of vocally anti-Israel students is probably small, but their collective impact is far from marginal. These students are shaping the discourse about Israel in America’s rabbinical schools. And worse, because Israel-related conversations are becoming highly charged and many campuses seek to avoid friction at virtually all costs, these vocal students are effectively shutting down serious discourse about Israel. (One campus dean actually instructed students to cease all e-mail discussion of Israel, while every other political topic remained fair game.)
~~~~~~~~~~
Gordis, in attempting to understand how this could be happening, focuses on a few key issues.
"Memory is the first factor. As I have chatted with these students over the past months, it has become clear that the profound differences in our instincts and loyalties can be traced, in part, to the differences in our formative experiences."
People who remember from their formative years the threats to Israel respond differently from those whose image of Israel during their growing up was of a strong nation -- strong either in a positive sense, or in a negative sense as the TV has focused on tough IDF soldiers.
"Those differences in memory lead to the second major divide: students today cannot imagine a world without a Jewish state. Despite the ongoing conflict, the fundamental goal of political Zionism—the dream of creating a sovereign, secure Jewish state—has been so utterly successful that these students cannot imagine that Israel is actually at risk. After a meeting with a group of rabbinical students in Jerusalem, one of the participants wrote to me: 'my classmates shared with me that they had never imagined that Israel could be so fragile as to be fighting for her very existence. Your angle really seemed to hit them hard.' It had never occurred to me, when I reminded these graduate students of Israel’s ongoing vulnerability, that I was saying anything that wasn’t utterly obvious.
"Beyond what I believe to be their naïveté about Israel’s security, however, these rabbinical students also have no sense of how utterly different American Jewish life is from what it would have been without a Jewish state...these students have little sense of how the very existence of a Jewish state contributed to this utter transformation of American Jewish life [from timidity during the Holocaust to outspoken self-assurance now]. Ironically, the very sense of comfort that enables some of these students to work to marginalize Israel is a direct result of the Jewish state itself.
"In conversation with these students, there’s one word in particular that makes them squirm with discomfort, and it represents the third way in which their generation differs. That word is 'enemy.' There is something hard and non-malleable about the term 'enemy,' and today’s students are loath to use it. They are disturbed by the intractability of the conflict in Israel, but they refuse to draw any conclusions from Palestinian recalcitrance. Dan Kaiman, the student who celebrated his birthday in Ramallah, wrote a piece in the Jerusalem Post in response to my column, explaining that
"'I chose to have one of my birthday celebrations in Ramallah to honor, respect, and value the relationships I have built with a people and place I care deeply about. I also celebrated my birthday here in Jerusalem for the same reasons. I believe in a Zionism that desires peace, safety, and cooperation among Jews and Arabs...'
Gordis then described the communication from one California rabbi:
"..'We are not the generation of rabbis hoping to abandon Israel. We are the generation of rabbis who hope that God will give us the merit to be peacemakers.' How a rabbi holding a pulpit in West Los Angeles is going to become a peacemaker in the Middle East is never explained. But one thing is clear from [this] article: peacemaking, this generation believes, requires imagining that we do not have enemies. Neville Chamberlain would have appreciated the company.
"And while one can surely forge meaningful relations with people in Ramallah, it requires a stunning suspension of the particular for Kaiman to call Ramallah a 'place I care deeply about' and to say that one cares about Jerusalem 'for the same reasons.' ...Does the fact that there were PLO posters in the bar where the birthday party was held not make it difficult for a future rabbi to have a beer there? For this, too, Kaiman had an explanation:
"'I am aware of the [posters] on the walls and the incredible complexity of this conflict….There are also many places in Israel where I feel uncomfortable as a liberal Jew, a Zionist, and an American. Feeling uncomfortable is not an invitation to disengage, close myself off, or stop listening (or, in my specific case, celebrating). I find that by engaging those with whom I may not agree, I am provided with opportunities to learn about myself and others, and begin to transform discomfort into opportunity.'
"'Engagement' is a gloriously vague notion, so evanescent in its purposes and intentions that it casts a fog over the clarity provided by genuine commitment: to loyalty, or heritage, or love, or sanctity, or duty. It is the sort of benign interaction that one can have even with enemies. Engagement is particularly easy if you refuse to acknowledge that the people who continue to celebrate those who have killed you are your enemies.
"...the discomfort with the idea of 'the enemy' and the intolerability of being in a drawn-out conflict has led these students to the conviction that Israel must solve the conflict. The Palestinian position is not going to shift; that much they intuit. But having enemies, and being in interminable conflict, is unbearably painful for them. So Israel must change. And if it will not, or cannot, then it is Israel that is at fault. In which case, it makes perfectly good sense for these future Jewish leaders to refuse to purchase prayer shawls manufactured in Israel and to insist on demonstratively remaining seated as the prayer for Israeli soldiers is recited in their rabbinical-school communities. They will do virtually anything in order to avoid confronting the fact that the Jewish people has intractable enemies. Their universalist worldview does not have a place for enemies. (emphasis added)
"The final difference between these young Jewish leaders and those who preceded them is perhaps the most disturbing. This new tone in discussions about Israel is so 'fair,' so 'balanced,' so 'even-handed' that what is entirely gone is an instinct of belonging—the visceral sense on the part of these students that they are part of a people, that the blood and the losses that were required to create the state of Israel is their blood and their loss. (emphasis added)
"...All this is simply a reflection of the decreased role of 'peoplehood' in Judaism. What we are witnessing is a Protestantization of American Jewish life. By and large, today’s rabbinical students did not grow up in homes that were richly Jewish. More often than not, these students came to their Jewish commitments as a result of individual journeys on which they embarked. They sought meaning, and found it. They sought prayer, and learned it. Their Jewish experience is roughly analogous to a Protestant religious awakening. The Protestant religious experience is a deeply personal one, not a communal one. Worship in the Protestant tradition is about reaching for the divine, while in the Jewish tradition, it is no less about creating a bond with other Jews. In Protestant liturgy, history is almost absent, while in the Jewish prayer book, it is omnipresent. The replacement of communal faith by personal journey among today’s young Jews is a profound reflection of the degree to which Christianity has colored their sense of what Judaism at its very core is all about."
~~~~~~~~~~
There is more. Read the entire article, please:
https://www.commentarymagazine.com/article/are-young-rabbis-turning-on-israel/
And then, if you are terrified, as indeed you might be, think long and hard please, about what you -- if you are an American Jew and particularly an affiliated American Jew -- can do about this situation.
~~~~~~~~~~
As I write, the IDF and other Israeli forces are engaging with those trying to cross the border in the north via Syria, in the Golan Heights, or rioting in Palestinian Arab areas here.
Photo: AFP Palestinians breaking through syria border - Yaron Kaminsky
They are calling this "Naksa" Day -- a commemoration of the tragedy of the war in 1967, when we acquired all of Judea and Samaria, and Gaza. Abbas called this the new "nuclear weapon" for Palestinians: They feel they have a new way to get us, and it is not going to be easy. How do you win against people who say they'll reach their "homes" in Israel or die as martyrs trying? How do you convince the world that those who come "unarmed" sometimes throw chunks of concrete at the heads of soldiers? They have attempted to structure the situation so that the world sees them as "innocents" and Israel as the big bad Goliath.
And yet, they cannot be permitted to breach our borders.
The IDF has non-lethal means such as tear gas at its disposal, and uses crowd control methods -- including warnings by loudspeaker in Arabic -- when possible, but sometimes finds it necessary to use live fire as well. When shooting is necessary, shots are aimed at the lower parts of the body. At one point a Molotov cocktail that was thrown by demonstrators caused the explosion of four mines on the Syrian side of the border. Reports on casualties vary.
Some of the best video footage I've located yet is here:
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4078644,00.html
Scroll down the page part way.
The IDF is expressing general satisfaction with its ability to keep the situation under control.
I will have more complete information on this tomorrow.
~~~~~~~~~~
Acknowledging that Israel has a right to defend herself, the State Department none-the-less declared itself "deeply troubled" by the situation at our border with Syria. The call was for "restraint" by "both sides." I love these even-handed statements.
~~~~~~~~~~
In Judea and Samaria:
-- A border policeman was lightly injured by rocks thrown at the Kalandia checkpoint, which was then shut down. In additional to rocks, Molotov cocktails were thrown at security forces and burning tired were hurled into the air.
-- Their was a violent disturbance near Elon Moreh and crowds were dispersed.
-- Worst of all, in my mind: rocks were thrown at a kindergarten in the Beit Hadassah region.
~~~~~~~~~~
Hakim Awad and Amjad Awad of Awarta have now been formally charged in military court with the murder of five members of the Fogel family, in Itamar.
Amjad said: "I am proud of what I did and will accept any punishment I receive, because I did it all for Palestine...I would do it again."
Proud of stabbing a baby to death. I am not a violent person, normally, but...
~~~~~~~~~~
France has made an offer to host a parlay at which there would be an attempt to restart the "peace negotiations."
Abbas has said he'll be glad to attend if Israel first stops all construction and agrees to negotiate according to the '67 lines. Apparently there was tension between Fatah and Hamas with regard to how to respond to this proposal.
Netanyahu, while expressing interest, says Israel will not negotiate with a unity government of which Hamas is a constituent part.
~~~~~~~~~~
Khaled Abu Toameh, writing in the JPost, reports that: "One month after the Egyptian-brokered Hamas-Fatah reconciliation accord was announced in Cairo, the two parties are continuing to squabble over the establishment of a unity government."
The new government was supposed to be announced this week, but there is a major stumbling block with regard to selection of prime minister. Hamas is fiercely opposed to the selection of the incumbent, Salam Fayyad, while Abbas continues to push for him.
Additionally, the PA continues to clamp down on Hamas in Judea and Samaria.
~~~~~~~~~~
It was clear from the beginning that the movement towards that unity government was motivated by some very pragmatic concerns -- such as presenting a united front at the UN -- and not because of a deep and genuine reconciliation between the parties. Should the unity government fail to be forged, or should it immediately and precipitously fall apart, there would be multiple political/diplomatic implications.
~~~~~~~~~~
A small correction: I wrote the other day about countries to be approached by Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon, with regard to not supporting a unilaterally declared Palestinian state. One of those countries is Colombia, which I erroneously spelled Columbia. (thanks, Marta)
~~~~~~~~~~
© Arlene Kushner. This material is produced by Arlene Kushner, functioning as an independent journalist. Permission is granted for it to be reproduced only with proper attribution.
Sunday, June 05, 2011
Security forces on high alert
IDF, police deploy in all sectors ahead of 'Naksa Day' despite reports of canceled border marches. 'We won't let anyone infiltrate Israel, and if need be will use live ammunition,' military source says
Hanan Greenberg
Israel News
The Israel Defense Forces and Police are on high alert ahead of 'Naksa Day' marking 44 years since the break out of the Six Day War.
Security forces are gearing up for protests and marches in borders and all sectors, similar to those held three weeks ago on the deadly 'Nakba Day.' The IDF vowed to prevent any infiltration into Israel and is threatening the use of live fire.
Despite reports of a canceled march in Syria, it appears the main focus will be on the northern border where dozens of people infiltrated Israel on 'Nakba Day'. Several were shot to death. The fences have been fortified and forces have been deployed.
Soldiers have been ordered to avoid hurting civilians wherever possible, however senior officers in the field will be allowed to order the use of live fire. "We have no intention of letting anyone in Israel. We shall use our discretion as well as a variety of means and if needed live ammunition will be employed too," a military source said.
The IDF has equipped all forces in the field with crowd-dispersal means and non-lethal weapons.
The army is hoping to prevent protests by leftists or other elements which may create riots and disrupt security forces' activity in case foreign citizens approach the borders. Several roadblocks have been deployed in the northern Golan Heights.
The army is also bracing for rallies near the Lebanese border despite the cancellation of the march to the border. It is nevertheless feared that citizens inspired by Iranian elements will be sent to the border.
'Waiting for out mistake'
Alert level has also been raised across the West Bank. The Central Command has estimated that excluding minor incidents 'Naksa Day' will go over peacefully in the region.
The IDF also fears protestors may reach the fence in the Gaza Strip.
"The common element in all the sectors is that they're waiting for us to make a mistake," the military source said.
"Fatalities on the other side serve a purpose, it complicates matters for Israel on the PR level and gives others ammunition with which to slam us. We shall use discretion but will not allow a violation of sovereignty, unnecessary conflict or damage to infrastructure. That's a red line as far as we're concerned."
Police estimate Sunday's events will go over with relative calm and no specific alerts warning of terrorist attacks were received. Nevertheless, police will raise its alert level to the second highest level.
Hagai Einav, Hassan Shaalan, Yair Altman, Omri Efraim and Roee Nahmias contributed to this report
Saturday, June 04, 2011
Jerusalem is our home
Op-ed: Israelis willing to give up Jerusalem must undergo serious process of self-examination
Eddie Yair Fraiman
Israel Opinion
Ten measures of beauty descended on the world - nine were taken by Jerusalem, one by the rest of the world. There is no beauty greater than Jerusalem. (Talmud: Kiddushin 49B).
I remember myself standing in front of Jerusalem’s ancient walls, looking up in excitement and awe. I was a boy on a school field trip wandering into another world. Back then, I couldn't truly grasp the great meaning of those shining Jerusalem stones. The deep importance and weight of millennia of Jewish existence in the holy city was particularly poignant for us, citizens of a sovereign Jewish state visiting our capital city. This poignancy wasn't yet clear to me as a young boy. But I felt I was home. This feeling brought me back to live in Jerusalem for my university studies. I couldn't imagine any other option, and I recognized how fortunate my generation is. Jews haven’t always been able to make this simple decision - Aliya, going up to Jerusalem!
For generations my ancestors dreamt of Jerusalem, mentioning her in their prayers from morning till evening and on all of Israel's holy days. The destruction of the Second Temple was and still is remembered at every Jewish wedding- "If I forget thee, O Jerusalem, may my right hand forget itself "- demonstrating with these sacred words that even during their greatest joys, the people of Israel remember their beloved homeland, and deep in her heart, Jerusalem. Reciting these lines, spoken by generation upon generation of Jewish grooms before me, was one of the most exciting and meaningful moments of my own wedding.
In addition to those Jews in the Diaspora, throughout the past 2,000 years there was also a small but continually enduring Jewish presence in the holy city. The Jews of Jerusalem lived as a small minority under the shadow of the city’s heavy walls, which protected them from outside dangers. The walls of Montefiore built for the Mishkenot Shaananim neighborhood testify to both the symbolism of the Old City’s battlements, and the Zionist pioneers’ movement to move and build a modern, shining city beyond them.
After the establishment of the State of Israel, Jerusalem suffered from foreign Jordanian rule and occupation. The Jewish neighborhoods opposite the ancient city walls were subjected to constant Jordanian attack and heavy fire. Only after the Six Day War, when Jerusalem was finally liberated from foreign, unjust occupation, was the Shofar again heard on Temple Mount. Only with the regaining of their sovereignty could the Jews go back and live in their eternal capital city, as could people of every nation and religion.
Born in Jerusalem
However, along with this justified reverence, Jerusalem’s unique position in the world also brings her difficulties. We live in a modern, liberal world where people are driven to underestimate the important values of the past. Too many of us have forgotten the history and Jewish nationality which unite the people of Israel. Today, too many Jews alienate themselves from their past and their own people, choosing to abandon the principles and faith of their forefathers in favor of universal values disconnected from the struggles and beliefs of their grandparents. In doing so, these individuals deny the contribution of those who came before them, and believe instead in foreign values.
Given their abandonment- some might even say betrayal- of their own history and identity, it’s not surprising that some of our Jewish brethren speak up and call on others to leave Jerusalem, to give up our capital, to cut it in half, to divide it or to run away. However, those individuals who are willing to give up Jerusalem need to undergo a process of serious self examination and criticism.
Then there are those people who excuse their leaving Jerusalem because they don’t like one thing or another about the city - the complexity and tension of life in a such a multicultural and often conflicted city, the difficult economic situation faced by many, particularly young secular couples, or the ever encroaching religiosity from the city’s ultra-Orthodox sector.
However, like those who want to give away the city to our enemies, these people ought to open a history book and learn about Jerusalem’s past. They should understand that living in Jerusalem is about much more than simply making your life in one city or another. To live in modern, undivided Jerusalem is to make a choice and a statement about the future of the Jewish people and the State of Israel. To live here is to proclaim one’s place in the history and continuity of the Jewish nation.
In every generation there have been Jews who betrayed their brothers and the people of Israel. In our days these are the fallen weaklings who try to speak nicely to foreigners and the world at large while forgetting their own people at home. They show tremendous concern for foreign workers on the shores of Tel Aviv, and worry about the preservation of terrorists’ rights, but they forget the eternal capital of Israel – and hand it away to the enemy.
Every Jewish woman and man in our generation must ask themselves whether they did enough for Jerusalem. Whether they lived Jerusalem, created in it, built it and brought the Jewish spirit to it. We must remember that we're lucky to be the free generation who builds in Jerusalem!
At least I can be proud of the fact that after thousands of years of my family living in the Diaspora, after thousands of years of killings, persecution, pogroms and Jewish destruction that my family endured – my first child was born in the Jewish people’s eternal capital. On her birth certificate it says: BORN IN JERUSALEM!
Friday, June 03, 2011
More Facts on the Myth of "The Palestinian People"
Michael Brown
My May 28th article, “Five Simple Truths about the Mideast Conflict,” elicited some passionate responses from those on both sides of the debate, with the first point in particular proving to be the most controversial: “There is no such thing as a historic ‘Palestinian people” living in the Middle East.’” Let’s unpack two of the most common responses to that assertion, separating myth from fact. Of course, we know that there are several million people living in the West Bank and Gaza who identify as Palestinians today, and regardless of their historic pedigree, they are human beings with real needs. But when a misleading “history” is presented so as to delegitimize Jewish claims to the Land, the falsehoods must be exposed.
Myth #1. The modern Palestinians can trace their lineage back to the ancient Philistines, who were living in the land of Canaan (= Palestine) long before the Israelites had arrived on the scene.
This is completely false as to any lineal or ethnic connection between modern Palestinians and ancient Philistines.
First, the Philistines were Aegean (or Cypriot) sea peoples who migrated to the southern coast of Israel/Canaan in the 12th century BC. It is unclear what relationship they bear with the Philistines who are mentioned in Genesis, hundreds of years earlier. In short, they were not a Semitic people, as the Israelites and Arabs were. Second, from the 8th-5th centuries BC, they were crushed or ruled by the Assyrians, Babylonians, and Persians, ultimately being absorbed by these populations and entirely disappearing from history. In other words, there was a distinct, end of the line for the Philistines roughly 2,500 years ago.
Third, six hundred years after the extinction of the Philistines, and after putting down a Jewish revolt, the Romans changed the name of Judea to Palaestina (in Latin) in order to discourage Jewish patriotism. So, there is absolutely no lineal or ethnic connection between the (earlier) Philistine people and the (later) land called Palestine. In fact, the Philistines had previously lived in the western part of the country, on the Mediterranean coast, whereas Palestine originally referred to the eastern part of the country, on the West Bank of the Jordan river.
Fourth, some Muslim leaders have claimed that there was a continuous Arab presence in Palestine dating back to Muslim conquests in the 7th century AD. But this dubious claim, even if true , would still mean that the continuous Jewish presence in the land predated the first major Arab presence by at least 2,000 years, and it would also underscore the fact that there is no connection between the later Arabs and the earlier (extinct) Philistines.
Myth # 2. The whole argument about there being no historic, “Palestinian people” is meaningless, since there’s is no such thing as a historic Iraqi people either. Borders were artificially created after World War I.”
This is false, as to the overall argument and only partially true about the artificial borders.
Anyone who knows the history of the modern Middle East will recognize the names of nation-states that did not exist as such before (such as United Arab Emirates). But not all national identities in the Middle East are of recent origin.
There has certainly been an ancient, historic Egyptian people in the region, to the south of Israel, and an ancient, historic Syrian-Lebanese people, to the north of Israel, while the Iraqi people often traced their heritage back to the ancient kings of Babylon as well as to the golden age of Islam that flourished in their region 700 years ago. In contrast, the Arabs living in Palestine had no such national identity because they had no such ancient, historic roots, not to mention the fact that there were dozens of other (non-Arab) peoples living in Palestine, some of whom had ruled the region for centuries.
In the oft-quoted words of the celebrated Arab-American historian and Princeton University professor, Philip Hitti, testifying before the Anglo-American Committee in 1946, “There is no such thing as ‘Palestine’ in history, absolutely not.” And so, if there was no “Palestine” in the pre-1948 Arab consciousness, there was no Palestinian people. The only people living in Palestine who traced their pedigree back to ancient, biblical times and who awaited the restoration of their ancient homeland were the Jewish people.
But why bother with facts? The old myths and lies are so much more effective.
My May 28th article, “Five Simple Truths about the Mideast Conflict,” elicited some passionate responses from those on both sides of the debate, with the first point in particular proving to be the most controversial: “There is no such thing as a historic ‘Palestinian people” living in the Middle East.’” Let’s unpack two of the most common responses to that assertion, separating myth from fact. Of course, we know that there are several million people living in the West Bank and Gaza who identify as Palestinians today, and regardless of their historic pedigree, they are human beings with real needs. But when a misleading “history” is presented so as to delegitimize Jewish claims to the Land, the falsehoods must be exposed.
Myth #1. The modern Palestinians can trace their lineage back to the ancient Philistines, who were living in the land of Canaan (= Palestine) long before the Israelites had arrived on the scene.
This is completely false as to any lineal or ethnic connection between modern Palestinians and ancient Philistines.
First, the Philistines were Aegean (or Cypriot) sea peoples who migrated to the southern coast of Israel/Canaan in the 12th century BC. It is unclear what relationship they bear with the Philistines who are mentioned in Genesis, hundreds of years earlier. In short, they were not a Semitic people, as the Israelites and Arabs were. Second, from the 8th-5th centuries BC, they were crushed or ruled by the Assyrians, Babylonians, and Persians, ultimately being absorbed by these populations and entirely disappearing from history. In other words, there was a distinct, end of the line for the Philistines roughly 2,500 years ago.
Third, six hundred years after the extinction of the Philistines, and after putting down a Jewish revolt, the Romans changed the name of Judea to Palaestina (in Latin) in order to discourage Jewish patriotism. So, there is absolutely no lineal or ethnic connection between the (earlier) Philistine people and the (later) land called Palestine. In fact, the Philistines had previously lived in the western part of the country, on the Mediterranean coast, whereas Palestine originally referred to the eastern part of the country, on the West Bank of the Jordan river.
Fourth, some Muslim leaders have claimed that there was a continuous Arab presence in Palestine dating back to Muslim conquests in the 7th century AD. But this dubious claim, even if true , would still mean that the continuous Jewish presence in the land predated the first major Arab presence by at least 2,000 years, and it would also underscore the fact that there is no connection between the later Arabs and the earlier (extinct) Philistines.
Myth # 2. The whole argument about there being no historic, “Palestinian people” is meaningless, since there’s is no such thing as a historic Iraqi people either. Borders were artificially created after World War I.”
This is false, as to the overall argument and only partially true about the artificial borders.
Anyone who knows the history of the modern Middle East will recognize the names of nation-states that did not exist as such before (such as United Arab Emirates). But not all national identities in the Middle East are of recent origin.
There has certainly been an ancient, historic Egyptian people in the region, to the south of Israel, and an ancient, historic Syrian-Lebanese people, to the north of Israel, while the Iraqi people often traced their heritage back to the ancient kings of Babylon as well as to the golden age of Islam that flourished in their region 700 years ago. In contrast, the Arabs living in Palestine had no such national identity because they had no such ancient, historic roots, not to mention the fact that there were dozens of other (non-Arab) peoples living in Palestine, some of whom had ruled the region for centuries.
In the oft-quoted words of the celebrated Arab-American historian and Princeton University professor, Philip Hitti, testifying before the Anglo-American Committee in 1946, “There is no such thing as ‘Palestine’ in history, absolutely not.” And so, if there was no “Palestine” in the pre-1948 Arab consciousness, there was no Palestinian people. The only people living in Palestine who traced their pedigree back to ancient, biblical times and who awaited the restoration of their ancient homeland were the Jewish people.
But why bother with facts? The old myths and lies are so much more effective.
"Tough Going"
Arlene Kushner
Let me start with something good, to fortify:
In September (which is shaping up to be some month!) the UN at its NY headquarters is having a 10th anniversary commemoration of the 2001 Durban conference. That original conference was an anti-Semitic anti-Israel horror, and this commemoration is highly unlikely to be anything other than obscene.
Now we learn that the US will not be participating. Until this announcement, it was only Canada and Israel that had declared intention to not participate.
As a State Department representative put it, the US opposed the "resolution establishing this event because the Durban process included ugly displays of intolerance and anti-Semitism, and we did not want to see that commemorated. "Anne Bayefsky, of Eye on the UN, believes this decision, made at this time -- so many months after Canada had announced its decision -- was made in response to the backlash to Obama's speech calling for a return to the '67 lines.
I don't know if Obama has sufficient clout internationally any longer for this decision to influence other Western nations with regard to participation.
~~~~~~~~~~
You may remember that just weeks ago, when a group of Bretslav Chassidim went to pray at Kever Yosef in Shechem (Joseph's Tomb, in what the Arabs call Nablus), they were shot at by PA security personnel. Shot, actually, when they were leaving the area, not when entering. Ben-Yosef Livnat was killed and four others were wounded.
The group had gone to pray without securing clearance from the IDF, which would have paved the way with PA security, as the Tomb is in Area A, controlled by the PA. (Never mind that it's a sickening thought, that a Jewish site of sanctity should be controlled by Palestinian Arabs -- who were committed to providing ready access for Jews, but do not.) But the security forces, according to knowledgeable individuals, knew the Bretslav Chassidim and certainly knew that they came to pray and were not dangerous.
The IDF has completed its investigation of the matter and has concluded that the security forces shot intentionally and aimed to kill. Chief of Staff Benny Gantz has said this act was without justification, done when the security forces knew their lives were not in danger.
Gantz has not used the word "terrorism," but a defense ministry official has -- and I do. These guys may be "security," but they are terrorists.
What is more, my best information at this writing is that these forces were US-trained. If and as this is confirmed, I will address this issue again.
~~~~~~~~~~~
The Palestinian Arabs are not going to miss a trick, with regard to their efforts to establish a state in September, and one that will be a full member of the UN, as well.
PA foreign minister, Riad Maliki has said that, if there is a veto in the Security Council, they will seek an emergency session of the General Assembly known as "Uniting for Peace" to override any veto.
What he's referring to is this:
In 1950, North Korean invaded South Korea -- generating a threat to world peace. But there was dissension within the Security Council, with the Soviet Union boycotting, and thus creating a stalemate.
The General Assembly then passed Resolution 377, which established the "emergency special session" framework. It read:
"...if the Security Council, because of lack of unanimity of the permanent members, fails to exercise its primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security in any case where there appears to be a threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression, the General Assembly shall consider the matter immediately with a view to making appropriate recommendations to Members for collective measures, including in the case of a breach of the peace or act of aggression the use of armed force when necessary, to maintain or restore international peace and security."
~~~~~~~~~~
An emergency session of the General Assembly can be called within twenty-four hours after the Secretary-General has received a request from the majority of the members of the GA. At present, the PA does not have that majority. This is where the decisions of various states that are still on the fence become important.
~~~~~~~~~~
I was back on the phone today with an international lawyer who serves as a professional source of information for me. He says, yes, the PA is likely to be able to convene an emergency session of the GA. ("Emergency" here simply means a session not regularly scheduled.) But, he says, whatever is decided will be a recommendation and not binding in any event.
He does not believe that the parameters at work at the time of the Korean War are applicable in this case. Put simply: a decision about a Palestinian state having membership in the UN does not exactly qualify as constituting a threat to international peace.
He makes this judgment because he's speaking with a legal mind, rationally. But can we be sure that the UN will not decide that a Palestinian state is so important that denying it "rights" constitutes a threat to world peace? At the UN, which panders to the Palestinian Arabs, anything is possible.
What this will depend upon is the readiness of a majority of the states to bend or break the rules. The president of the GA has already made a statement indicating that if the Security Council vetoes, there is nothing the GA can do. And the illegality of GA action on a Palestinian state is what the letter signed by international jurists that was sent to the Secretary-General addressed. So the Palestinian Arabs do not have it all wrapped up.
One last note: Maliki talks about overriding a veto. In any event, I do not believe this is possible. What the General Assembly could do, at most, would be to recommend that the Security Council reconsider the matter.
~~~~~~~~~~
Knowing full well that it isn't all wrapped up for them, the Palestinian Arabs are trying other tactics at the same time.
Riyad Mansour, who represents the PA at the UN (observer status), has now said that they are ready to take to the streets, and follow in the footsteps of the Tunisians and Egyptians.
"I need to mobilize the largest number of forces, whether [on] the ground or [on] the political front...we have other tactics that we can use in order to flex additional muscles in order to make it very, very difficult for anyone to obstruct our effort."
It's my opinion that the mere fact that he can make such statements is prima facie evidence that the Palestinian Arabs do not deserve a state. A responsible governing party does not threaten violence at every turn -- especially when peaceful alternatives are at hand. But who's going to notice this?
~~~~~~~~~~
We are all familiar with the claim made so often by Obama that the Arab states are concerned about establishment of a Palestinian state. Does this sound as if the Arabs care about the situation of the Arabs in PA areas:
In a press conference yesterday, PA prime minister Salam Fayyad said the PA is experiencing a financial shortfall. The Arab states, he said, are delivering much less than they committed to. Collectively the PA is receiving $452.5 million a month from the Arab states.
~~~~~~~~~~
A poll of a representative sample of Israeli adults was carried out by Geocartography Knowledge Group last week for Israel Television Channel One's Politika program. Key results:
66% would oppose any part of Jerusalem going to a Palestinian state
73% would be opposed to international control of the holy places in the context of a peace agreement
67% opposed to freezing construction beyond the '67 line.
You might want to save this to refer to when you hear claims that most Israelis are for dividing Jerusalem for peace.
~~~~~~~~~~
In ceremonies of Yom Yerushalayim yesterday, Prime Minster Netanyahu shared childhood memories of a divided Jerusalem:
"From Sanhedria in the north to Talpiot in the south, the city was constantly under fire or the threat of fire.
"A scar passed through the center of the city -- of barbed wire, no-man's land, mines, waste -- it was a dump.
" won't go back to a divided city, to a cut and wounded city, because the day Jerusalem was redeemed, the day the city was unified -- the wound healed and the scar disappeared.
There are problems and challenges, but we won't revert to those days."
~~~~~~~~~~
© Arlene Kushner. This material is produced by Arlene Kushner, functioning as an independent journalist. Permission is granted for it to be reproduced only with proper attribution.
Let me start with something good, to fortify:
In September (which is shaping up to be some month!) the UN at its NY headquarters is having a 10th anniversary commemoration of the 2001 Durban conference. That original conference was an anti-Semitic anti-Israel horror, and this commemoration is highly unlikely to be anything other than obscene.
Now we learn that the US will not be participating. Until this announcement, it was only Canada and Israel that had declared intention to not participate.
As a State Department representative put it, the US opposed the "resolution establishing this event because the Durban process included ugly displays of intolerance and anti-Semitism, and we did not want to see that commemorated. "Anne Bayefsky, of Eye on the UN, believes this decision, made at this time -- so many months after Canada had announced its decision -- was made in response to the backlash to Obama's speech calling for a return to the '67 lines.
I don't know if Obama has sufficient clout internationally any longer for this decision to influence other Western nations with regard to participation.
~~~~~~~~~~
You may remember that just weeks ago, when a group of Bretslav Chassidim went to pray at Kever Yosef in Shechem (Joseph's Tomb, in what the Arabs call Nablus), they were shot at by PA security personnel. Shot, actually, when they were leaving the area, not when entering. Ben-Yosef Livnat was killed and four others were wounded.
The group had gone to pray without securing clearance from the IDF, which would have paved the way with PA security, as the Tomb is in Area A, controlled by the PA. (Never mind that it's a sickening thought, that a Jewish site of sanctity should be controlled by Palestinian Arabs -- who were committed to providing ready access for Jews, but do not.) But the security forces, according to knowledgeable individuals, knew the Bretslav Chassidim and certainly knew that they came to pray and were not dangerous.
The IDF has completed its investigation of the matter and has concluded that the security forces shot intentionally and aimed to kill. Chief of Staff Benny Gantz has said this act was without justification, done when the security forces knew their lives were not in danger.
Gantz has not used the word "terrorism," but a defense ministry official has -- and I do. These guys may be "security," but they are terrorists.
What is more, my best information at this writing is that these forces were US-trained. If and as this is confirmed, I will address this issue again.
~~~~~~~~~~~
The Palestinian Arabs are not going to miss a trick, with regard to their efforts to establish a state in September, and one that will be a full member of the UN, as well.
PA foreign minister, Riad Maliki has said that, if there is a veto in the Security Council, they will seek an emergency session of the General Assembly known as "Uniting for Peace" to override any veto.
What he's referring to is this:
In 1950, North Korean invaded South Korea -- generating a threat to world peace. But there was dissension within the Security Council, with the Soviet Union boycotting, and thus creating a stalemate.
The General Assembly then passed Resolution 377, which established the "emergency special session" framework. It read:
"...if the Security Council, because of lack of unanimity of the permanent members, fails to exercise its primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security in any case where there appears to be a threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression, the General Assembly shall consider the matter immediately with a view to making appropriate recommendations to Members for collective measures, including in the case of a breach of the peace or act of aggression the use of armed force when necessary, to maintain or restore international peace and security."
~~~~~~~~~~
An emergency session of the General Assembly can be called within twenty-four hours after the Secretary-General has received a request from the majority of the members of the GA. At present, the PA does not have that majority. This is where the decisions of various states that are still on the fence become important.
~~~~~~~~~~
I was back on the phone today with an international lawyer who serves as a professional source of information for me. He says, yes, the PA is likely to be able to convene an emergency session of the GA. ("Emergency" here simply means a session not regularly scheduled.) But, he says, whatever is decided will be a recommendation and not binding in any event.
He does not believe that the parameters at work at the time of the Korean War are applicable in this case. Put simply: a decision about a Palestinian state having membership in the UN does not exactly qualify as constituting a threat to international peace.
He makes this judgment because he's speaking with a legal mind, rationally. But can we be sure that the UN will not decide that a Palestinian state is so important that denying it "rights" constitutes a threat to world peace? At the UN, which panders to the Palestinian Arabs, anything is possible.
What this will depend upon is the readiness of a majority of the states to bend or break the rules. The president of the GA has already made a statement indicating that if the Security Council vetoes, there is nothing the GA can do. And the illegality of GA action on a Palestinian state is what the letter signed by international jurists that was sent to the Secretary-General addressed. So the Palestinian Arabs do not have it all wrapped up.
One last note: Maliki talks about overriding a veto. In any event, I do not believe this is possible. What the General Assembly could do, at most, would be to recommend that the Security Council reconsider the matter.
~~~~~~~~~~
Knowing full well that it isn't all wrapped up for them, the Palestinian Arabs are trying other tactics at the same time.
Riyad Mansour, who represents the PA at the UN (observer status), has now said that they are ready to take to the streets, and follow in the footsteps of the Tunisians and Egyptians.
"I need to mobilize the largest number of forces, whether [on] the ground or [on] the political front...we have other tactics that we can use in order to flex additional muscles in order to make it very, very difficult for anyone to obstruct our effort."
It's my opinion that the mere fact that he can make such statements is prima facie evidence that the Palestinian Arabs do not deserve a state. A responsible governing party does not threaten violence at every turn -- especially when peaceful alternatives are at hand. But who's going to notice this?
~~~~~~~~~~
We are all familiar with the claim made so often by Obama that the Arab states are concerned about establishment of a Palestinian state. Does this sound as if the Arabs care about the situation of the Arabs in PA areas:
In a press conference yesterday, PA prime minister Salam Fayyad said the PA is experiencing a financial shortfall. The Arab states, he said, are delivering much less than they committed to. Collectively the PA is receiving $452.5 million a month from the Arab states.
~~~~~~~~~~
A poll of a representative sample of Israeli adults was carried out by Geocartography Knowledge Group last week for Israel Television Channel One's Politika program. Key results:
66% would oppose any part of Jerusalem going to a Palestinian state
73% would be opposed to international control of the holy places in the context of a peace agreement
67% opposed to freezing construction beyond the '67 line.
You might want to save this to refer to when you hear claims that most Israelis are for dividing Jerusalem for peace.
~~~~~~~~~~
In ceremonies of Yom Yerushalayim yesterday, Prime Minster Netanyahu shared childhood memories of a divided Jerusalem:
"From Sanhedria in the north to Talpiot in the south, the city was constantly under fire or the threat of fire.
"A scar passed through the center of the city -- of barbed wire, no-man's land, mines, waste -- it was a dump.
" won't go back to a divided city, to a cut and wounded city, because the day Jerusalem was redeemed, the day the city was unified -- the wound healed and the scar disappeared.
There are problems and challenges, but we won't revert to those days."
~~~~~~~~~~
© Arlene Kushner. This material is produced by Arlene Kushner, functioning as an independent journalist. Permission is granted for it to be reproduced only with proper attribution.
Thursday, June 02, 2011
"Finding Our Strengths"
Arlene Kushner
MK Tzipi Hotovely (Likud) is advancing legislation that would require Hebrew names only -- and not Arabic -- to be used for all Jerusalem neighborhood, on signs and in official Israeli broadcasts.
While this may seem like a small matter, it is not -- and Hotovely is thinking clearly. There is great psychological impact inherent in a name. As she explained:
"In our battle for Jerusalem, it is important to recognize the historic Hebrew roots of the city...
"People say we can give up parts of Jerusalem because we didn't pray to return to Sheikh Jarreh or to Silwan. But we did pray to return to Shimon Hatzadik and to the City of David. "When a neighborhood is called by its correct name, it gives it significance. It's important."
Whether the proposed bill passes or not, we might all take our cue from her.
~~~~~~~~~~
Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon (Yisrael Beitenu) left for Mexico City today, after which he will travel to El Salvador and a meeting of the Organization of American States. His goal is to counter the Palestinian Arab campaign for recognition of a Palestinian state.
Mexico remains on the fence in the matter, and -- if convinced to not to recognize a Palestinian state -- might have considerable sway over El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras and Panama.
Another country to be lobbied in this respect is Columbia. Considered Israel's closest ally in South America, this country currently sits on the UN Security Council; there is hope that it might vote with the US against UN membership for a Palestinian state. The US would prefer to not cast a vote in isolation, but to have backing in at least some quarters.
~~~~~~~~~~
Clarification: There are 15 members of the Security Council, five permanent and 10 additional members serving two year terms. For a state to be approved for UN membership, it must receive nine votes out of the 15, with no veto by a permanent member. The US, alone, can stop the process. The desire to not stand alone is primarily political/diplomatic and not legal.
~~~~~~~~~~
Meanwhile, the PA's Nabil Sha'ath has announced his plans to visit Mexico and Columbia to promote the Palestinian state.
~~~~~~~~~~
The argument is being made by the US government that Obama gave his '67 borders speech in order to convince European nations not to support a Palestinian state. And so we see here, too, Obama's eagerness to get other states on board with his position.
But if the cost of stopping recognition of a unilaterally declared Palestinian state is international pressure on Israel to move back to untenable, indefensible lines that deny us basic rights, then I say bring on the unilateral declaration.
This is no favor to Israel.
~~~~~~~~~~
We have a great deal to cope with in the coming weeks and months:
There has been talk for some time now, especially via Facebook, of plans by Palestinian Arabs to flood across our borders in September, when the Palestinian state is declared, or the vote is brought to the UN.
Now there is additional talk about such an effort in June, to coincide with the Six Day War. Mass rallies are being called for, to begin this Friday, and run through June 7. There are detailed plans for marches on Israel's borders from Syria, Lebanon, Jordan and Gaza. Additionally, there will be marches inside Jerusalem by Israeli Arabs to the Al Aksa Mosque on the Temple Mount.
According to a spokesman in the prime minister's office, Israel is ready to use "any means necessary" to protect its border...
"We're prepared for any eventuality, whether by use of the police, army, security forces, Foreign Ministry and of course the Prime Minister's office, to provide a security response to attempts to enter our territory...
"The borders are under our sovereignty and will be maintained, whatever the cost."
The IDF and related forces, having coped with attempts on "Nakba Day" to cross our borders, will undoubtedly be better prepared this time. And when it comes down to it, because the sanctity of borders must be maintained, we will do what is necessary. But one of the goals is to avoid casualties as much as is possible, because provoking massive casualties is part of their goal.
~~~~~~~~~~
The IDF has learned another lesson, as well. This is with regard to those damned flotillas attempting to break our naval blockade of Gaza. Chief of Staff Benny Gantz says Israel is now prepared for the next flotilla, which may be coming later this month. (Or may be delayed a month or more if they don't have their act together yet.)
The navy -- utilizing commandos from the Israeli Navy Flotilla 13, the Shayetet -- has been conducting training exercises with the air force. Members of the Police and Prison Service who specialize in quelling civilian riots will also be involved.
"We will order the ships to stop, but if they don't we are prepared to intercept and board the ships," a senior navy officer said. There would be a number of "surprises" for the ships participating in the flotilla.
Here, too, action will be taken as necessary, but the goal will be to take the ships without casualties.
~~~~~~~~~~
I've previously used this video "Our Best Defense," which sings "If I forget you, Oh Yerushalayim," and so yesterday I decided to run something else. But it's still the most moving (brings me to tears) and so I share it as Yom Yerushalayim draws to a close:
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x105hx_prier-notre-meilleure-arme
~~~~~~~~~~
Neither would our day be complete without hearing the magnificent late Ofra Haza sing "Yerushalayim Shel Zahav" (Jerusalem of Gold).
http://judaismoreformista.blogspot.com/2007/08/ierushalaim-shel-zahav-ofra-haza.html
~~~~~~~~~~
© Arlene Kushner. This material is produced by Arlene Kushner, functioning as an independent journalist. Permission is granted for it to be reproduced only with proper attribution.
see my website www.ArlenefromIsrael.info
MK Tzipi Hotovely (Likud) is advancing legislation that would require Hebrew names only -- and not Arabic -- to be used for all Jerusalem neighborhood, on signs and in official Israeli broadcasts.
While this may seem like a small matter, it is not -- and Hotovely is thinking clearly. There is great psychological impact inherent in a name. As she explained:
"In our battle for Jerusalem, it is important to recognize the historic Hebrew roots of the city...
"People say we can give up parts of Jerusalem because we didn't pray to return to Sheikh Jarreh or to Silwan. But we did pray to return to Shimon Hatzadik and to the City of David. "When a neighborhood is called by its correct name, it gives it significance. It's important."
Whether the proposed bill passes or not, we might all take our cue from her.
~~~~~~~~~~
Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon (Yisrael Beitenu) left for Mexico City today, after which he will travel to El Salvador and a meeting of the Organization of American States. His goal is to counter the Palestinian Arab campaign for recognition of a Palestinian state.
Mexico remains on the fence in the matter, and -- if convinced to not to recognize a Palestinian state -- might have considerable sway over El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras and Panama.
Another country to be lobbied in this respect is Columbia. Considered Israel's closest ally in South America, this country currently sits on the UN Security Council; there is hope that it might vote with the US against UN membership for a Palestinian state. The US would prefer to not cast a vote in isolation, but to have backing in at least some quarters.
~~~~~~~~~~
Clarification: There are 15 members of the Security Council, five permanent and 10 additional members serving two year terms. For a state to be approved for UN membership, it must receive nine votes out of the 15, with no veto by a permanent member. The US, alone, can stop the process. The desire to not stand alone is primarily political/diplomatic and not legal.
~~~~~~~~~~
Meanwhile, the PA's Nabil Sha'ath has announced his plans to visit Mexico and Columbia to promote the Palestinian state.
~~~~~~~~~~
The argument is being made by the US government that Obama gave his '67 borders speech in order to convince European nations not to support a Palestinian state. And so we see here, too, Obama's eagerness to get other states on board with his position.
But if the cost of stopping recognition of a unilaterally declared Palestinian state is international pressure on Israel to move back to untenable, indefensible lines that deny us basic rights, then I say bring on the unilateral declaration.
This is no favor to Israel.
~~~~~~~~~~
We have a great deal to cope with in the coming weeks and months:
There has been talk for some time now, especially via Facebook, of plans by Palestinian Arabs to flood across our borders in September, when the Palestinian state is declared, or the vote is brought to the UN.
Now there is additional talk about such an effort in June, to coincide with the Six Day War. Mass rallies are being called for, to begin this Friday, and run through June 7. There are detailed plans for marches on Israel's borders from Syria, Lebanon, Jordan and Gaza. Additionally, there will be marches inside Jerusalem by Israeli Arabs to the Al Aksa Mosque on the Temple Mount.
According to a spokesman in the prime minister's office, Israel is ready to use "any means necessary" to protect its border...
"We're prepared for any eventuality, whether by use of the police, army, security forces, Foreign Ministry and of course the Prime Minister's office, to provide a security response to attempts to enter our territory...
"The borders are under our sovereignty and will be maintained, whatever the cost."
The IDF and related forces, having coped with attempts on "Nakba Day" to cross our borders, will undoubtedly be better prepared this time. And when it comes down to it, because the sanctity of borders must be maintained, we will do what is necessary. But one of the goals is to avoid casualties as much as is possible, because provoking massive casualties is part of their goal.
~~~~~~~~~~
The IDF has learned another lesson, as well. This is with regard to those damned flotillas attempting to break our naval blockade of Gaza. Chief of Staff Benny Gantz says Israel is now prepared for the next flotilla, which may be coming later this month. (Or may be delayed a month or more if they don't have their act together yet.)
The navy -- utilizing commandos from the Israeli Navy Flotilla 13, the Shayetet -- has been conducting training exercises with the air force. Members of the Police and Prison Service who specialize in quelling civilian riots will also be involved.
"We will order the ships to stop, but if they don't we are prepared to intercept and board the ships," a senior navy officer said. There would be a number of "surprises" for the ships participating in the flotilla.
Here, too, action will be taken as necessary, but the goal will be to take the ships without casualties.
~~~~~~~~~~
I've previously used this video "Our Best Defense," which sings "If I forget you, Oh Yerushalayim," and so yesterday I decided to run something else. But it's still the most moving (brings me to tears) and so I share it as Yom Yerushalayim draws to a close:
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x105hx_prier-notre-meilleure-arme
~~~~~~~~~~
Neither would our day be complete without hearing the magnificent late Ofra Haza sing "Yerushalayim Shel Zahav" (Jerusalem of Gold).
http://judaismoreformista.blogspot.com/2007/08/ierushalaim-shel-zahav-ofra-haza.html
~~~~~~~~~~
© Arlene Kushner. This material is produced by Arlene Kushner, functioning as an independent journalist. Permission is granted for it to be reproduced only with proper attribution.
see my website www.ArlenefromIsrael.info
Wednesday, June 01, 2011
Why Borders Matter
Barry Rubin
A reader asks whether there are any defensible borders in the modern world because it is possible to fire missiles or rockets across a border.
Well, yes, but even in ancient times it has always been possible for an army to cross–or try to cross–a border. That isn’t what defensible borders means.
Example, rockets can hit Sderot from the Gaza Strip but not hit Tel Aviv because the latter city is too far for Hamas to hit from its side of the border. Can they get bigger ones? Yes but the bigger they are the easier they are to spot and the longer–even seconds count–a defensive missile has for shooting them down. The further the border, the longer it takes for a terrorist squad to get to where there are a lot of people to kill. It’s best to stop them either before they cross the border or while they are on the way.
Geography matters also. It is far easier to attack or shoot downward from the Golan Heights than from the flat plain below. It is far easier to do so also from the Judean Hills. An army holding that terrain has an advantage, even when it comes to firing rockets
It is far easier to cut a narrow corridor like that leading to Jerusalem in the pre-1967 borders and thus surround, beseige, and capture that city than it would be if the border was further away. The same applies to the fact that pre-1967 Israel’s narrowest point is half the width of the Washington Beltway, that’s twenty minutes’ even in driving in traffic. And enemy armies don’t stop at red lights.
Depth of defense is a basic strategic consideration. The deeper your territory the more time and space you have to maneuver and to create multiple lines and defenses, each of which the enemy must face and defeat for advancing.
Israel has a small standing army. Its defense depends on mobilizing reserves, civilians, who must get the word, go to their assigned stations, get their equipment, and go into action. That can be done quickly but it still takes time. And it is much harder to do if attacking forces are within range of their homes, assembly points, and armories.
The reader asking about all of this cites the rather bad example of Muammar Qadhafi in Libya who “cannot defend his borders.” Leaving aside the fact that there’s a civil war going on (his main enemy is inside his borders), of course it is best to have a technological edge and the ability to move quickly. Israel has both of these advantages.
What it lacks, with the 1967 borders, is strategic depth and advantageous terrain.
But isn’t peace better than a good defensive situation?
Of course it is. Not being attacked at all is better than being attacked and winning (I’m sure there are exceptions to that but I’ll leave that for another time.)
Yet that’s precisely the point. It is because Israel CANNOT ASSUME AND HAS GOOD REASON NOT TO ASSUME that an agreement with the Palestinian Authority would lead to lasting peace. This is the factor that is generally left out of Western calculations that simply cannot comprehend Israel’s position on the issues.
Western officials and those talking on television and writing in newspapers call on Israel to rush into a deal–no matter what concessions are needed–because things will get worse. That, like many of the mainstream arguments given about the Middle East, can be demolished in sixty seconds. If things are going to get worse–and they will–any peace agreement would be abrogated by the other side and backfire.
It isn’t a great idea to be a country the size of Delaware surrounded by enemies who daily boast of how they’re going to wipe you off the map, have broken almost all of their previous agreements, and who outnumber you by a ratio of about twenty to one.
How is that hard to understand?
Now, with Iran moving toward getting nuclear weapons; Turkey about to reelect a government dedicated to Israel’s destruction; the Palestinian Authority reincorporating Hamas; Egypt electing a radical and possibly Islamist regime; Hizballah taking over Lebanon; and the weakest, most unreliable, government in Washington within living memory is not the time for Israel to weaken its defenses.
Why don’t we hear that simple truth?
To take voluntarily a bad strategic position in a situation where the probability of attack is higher than at any time in more than 30 years is crazy. Yet this is what much of the world, including the U.S. president, wants Israel to do.
Israel is not going to follow a stupid, self-destructive strategy. If only this could be said of others today!
Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center, editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal, and a featured columnist at PajamasMedia http://pajamasmedia.com/barryrubin/ His latest books are The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan). The website of the GLORIA Center is http://www.gloria-center.org.
A reader asks whether there are any defensible borders in the modern world because it is possible to fire missiles or rockets across a border.
Well, yes, but even in ancient times it has always been possible for an army to cross–or try to cross–a border. That isn’t what defensible borders means.
Example, rockets can hit Sderot from the Gaza Strip but not hit Tel Aviv because the latter city is too far for Hamas to hit from its side of the border. Can they get bigger ones? Yes but the bigger they are the easier they are to spot and the longer–even seconds count–a defensive missile has for shooting them down. The further the border, the longer it takes for a terrorist squad to get to where there are a lot of people to kill. It’s best to stop them either before they cross the border or while they are on the way.
Geography matters also. It is far easier to attack or shoot downward from the Golan Heights than from the flat plain below. It is far easier to do so also from the Judean Hills. An army holding that terrain has an advantage, even when it comes to firing rockets
It is far easier to cut a narrow corridor like that leading to Jerusalem in the pre-1967 borders and thus surround, beseige, and capture that city than it would be if the border was further away. The same applies to the fact that pre-1967 Israel’s narrowest point is half the width of the Washington Beltway, that’s twenty minutes’ even in driving in traffic. And enemy armies don’t stop at red lights.
Depth of defense is a basic strategic consideration. The deeper your territory the more time and space you have to maneuver and to create multiple lines and defenses, each of which the enemy must face and defeat for advancing.
Israel has a small standing army. Its defense depends on mobilizing reserves, civilians, who must get the word, go to their assigned stations, get their equipment, and go into action. That can be done quickly but it still takes time. And it is much harder to do if attacking forces are within range of their homes, assembly points, and armories.
The reader asking about all of this cites the rather bad example of Muammar Qadhafi in Libya who “cannot defend his borders.” Leaving aside the fact that there’s a civil war going on (his main enemy is inside his borders), of course it is best to have a technological edge and the ability to move quickly. Israel has both of these advantages.
What it lacks, with the 1967 borders, is strategic depth and advantageous terrain.
But isn’t peace better than a good defensive situation?
Of course it is. Not being attacked at all is better than being attacked and winning (I’m sure there are exceptions to that but I’ll leave that for another time.)
Yet that’s precisely the point. It is because Israel CANNOT ASSUME AND HAS GOOD REASON NOT TO ASSUME that an agreement with the Palestinian Authority would lead to lasting peace. This is the factor that is generally left out of Western calculations that simply cannot comprehend Israel’s position on the issues.
Western officials and those talking on television and writing in newspapers call on Israel to rush into a deal–no matter what concessions are needed–because things will get worse. That, like many of the mainstream arguments given about the Middle East, can be demolished in sixty seconds. If things are going to get worse–and they will–any peace agreement would be abrogated by the other side and backfire.
It isn’t a great idea to be a country the size of Delaware surrounded by enemies who daily boast of how they’re going to wipe you off the map, have broken almost all of their previous agreements, and who outnumber you by a ratio of about twenty to one.
How is that hard to understand?
Now, with Iran moving toward getting nuclear weapons; Turkey about to reelect a government dedicated to Israel’s destruction; the Palestinian Authority reincorporating Hamas; Egypt electing a radical and possibly Islamist regime; Hizballah taking over Lebanon; and the weakest, most unreliable, government in Washington within living memory is not the time for Israel to weaken its defenses.
Why don’t we hear that simple truth?
To take voluntarily a bad strategic position in a situation where the probability of attack is higher than at any time in more than 30 years is crazy. Yet this is what much of the world, including the U.S. president, wants Israel to do.
Israel is not going to follow a stupid, self-destructive strategy. If only this could be said of others today!
Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center, editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal, and a featured columnist at PajamasMedia http://pajamasmedia.com/barryrubin/ His latest books are The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan). The website of the GLORIA Center is http://www.gloria-center.org.
Tuesday, May 31, 2011
The conflict isn’t territorial
Op-ed: Deputy PM Ya'alon says Israel must be recognized as Jewish state for peace to prevail
Moshe (Bogi) Ya'alon
Israel Opinion
The key sentence in the prime minister's speech before Congress made it clear that the main reason for the failure of all attempts to secure Israel-Palestinian peace is the Palestinian refusal to recognize Israel as a Jewish State; that is, to recognize the Jewish people's right to maintain a Jewish nation-state, the State of Israel, on the land of its forefathers. srael's Palestinian dialogue partner in peace talks is the PLO; all members of this umbrella organization, including Fatah, reject Israel's right to exist, while accepting it (because of the IDF's military power) on the condition that it would be an entity that lacks an ethnic identity – that is, that it will not be the Jewish people's nation-state.
Op-Ed
A speech isn’t enough / Ehud Olmert
Former PM Olmert says peace requires bold decisions, will not be achieved through speeches
Full Story
The Palestinians always stress that they are in favor of the "two-state" solution, rather than a solution based on "two states for two peoples." According to Palestinian leader Abbas, the Jews are not entitled to a state. He rejects a connection between the Jews, as a religion, and the Land of Israel, even though he admits to a Jewish presence in Eretz Yisrael in the distant past, as the Koran often refers to it. Indeed, Abbas defines Jewishness as a religion, rather than a nationality.
Ever since the Oslo Accords, the Palestinians have resorted to a series of verbal maneuvers in order to reject Israel's identity as the Jewish people's nation-state, and they have never renounced the return of refugees. This approach is not only espoused by some sly statesmen. It is the main message conveyed to the Palestinian public in general and Palestinian youth in particular, via the media, textbooks, constitutive documents of political organizations, religious authorities and cultural work.
Palestinian maps make no mention of Israel, and the PMW website, which monitors the Palestinian media, shows us the Palestinian leadership, headed by Abbas, beaming while a talented singer promises that Haifa and other areas within Israel will again be part of Palestine. Moreover, Palestinian children are being educated from young age to hate Israel and adore suicide bombers. This is not the way to make true peace. This is not how one prepares for coexistence.
Rockets in response to concessions
Promoting an atmosphere that encourages violence and terror, combined with incitement for hatred of Israel and the Jews, is the reason for the ongoing suffering of the Palestinians rather than the steps adopted by Israel to defend itself in the face of this incitement. An Israeli concession on this matter will prompt the establishment of a hostile (and apparently failed) state near our population centers.
The heart of the conflict with the Palestinians is existential and not just territorial, as proven by Nakba Day events and as the prime minister made clear in his speech. As far as the Palestinians are concerned, the occupation started in 1948 and not in 1967. Hence, Palestinian recognition of Israel as the Jewish people's nation-state is a required condition for viable peace with the Palestinians, although it is not a condition for entering negotiations.
Imparting this realization to the Palestinian public is a condition for implementing a peace deal and will require significant time. We should not delude ourselves and cultivate false hopes.
Past experience taught us that for any territory we gave up in order to move closer to the peace we seek, we got terror and rockets rather than peace. I'm glad to see that more and more Israelis are aware of this danger, and the more united Israel is on this front vis-à-vis the Palestinians and the international system, the higher our chances will be of prompting the Palestinians and the world to address the issue, and as result to secure stable, agreed-upon peace that will meet the national demands of both peoples.
The writer is Israel's deputy prime minister and minister for strategic affairs
Monday, May 30, 2011
"UN Panic"
Arlene Kushner
There is considerable anxiety these days with regard to the threats of the Palestinian Authority (and now the Arab League) to ask the UN, in September, to officially declare "Palestine" to be a state.
Accompanying -- or fueling -- this anxiety is a great deal of misinformation. And so -- having consulted with legal experts here in Israel and done other research -- I will make my best effort to clarify a muddled situation.
~~~~~~~~~~
What is referred to as "international law" is not nearly as clear or definitive as many people imagine it to be. There are certain written documents of international law. The Geneva Conventions (four treaties and three protocols pertaining to human rights during war) would be a prime example. But technically these apply only to those nations that have ratified the conventions -- that is, that have agreed to abide by their stipulations. Similarly, there is the charter of the UN, the principles of which have theoretically been accepted by all member states.
There is also "customary international law": When a practice is so common that there is a broad international consensus that it is obligatory, it becomes a rule of customary law considered binding upon all nations.
Sometimes, even though a treaty (such as a Geneva Convention) is binding only on signatories, the principles stated within that treaty have been so widely accepted internationally that they can be said to be "customary international law."
~~~~~~~~~~
This is what we have, broadly, from the perspective of international law with regard to the establishment of a Palestinian state:
The United Nations does not "recognize" or "declare" states into existence. All the UN can do is accept for membership states that are already in existence. (I'll come to this below.)
A state applies to the Secretary-General. The Security Council must then make a recommendation on membership and send that recommendation to the General Assembly.
But we can assume that the application by a Palestinian state would be vetoed in the Security Council by the US. This is close to a sure thing, because this is the principle on which Obama has advanced his policy and his public position: the state of Palestine must be established via negotiations. What is more, Obama is likely to be influenced by Congressional pressure and electoral considerations.
There is considerable talk among the Arabs now about going to the General Assembly for a declaration of statehood, to avoid that Security Council veto, but quite frankly, I don't know what they're thinking. In any event, a declaration of statehood for the Palestinians by the General Assembly would be only a recommendation without weight in international law. This is important to keep in mind.
~~~~~~~~~~
Here I would like to stop for an aside: It is often said that Israel was voted into existence with the partition of Palestine recommended by the General Assembly on November 29, 1947. This is not the case. The GA, which only makes non-binding recommendations, did no more than suggest or advise that division of Palestine into states for the Jews and the Arabs would be prudent.
Israel came into being with the declaration of independence made by Ben Gurion on May 14, 1948. The Jewish community in Palestine acted in compliance with the recommendation of the GA regarding division of Palestine. But it was the Jewish community and its leadership, acting, that established the state, not the UN.
~~~~~~~~~~
As to establishing a Palestinian state:
The PA must declare the state into existence. This it can do, independent of all other issues. There are, however, criteria for the establishment of a state that have been established in customary international law (drawing from the Montevideo Convention):
A state must have (a) a permanent population; (b) a defined territory; (c) government; and (d) capacity to enter into relations with the other states.
It is the issue of defined territory that is most problematic.
Originally it was thought that a Fatah-controlled PA would make the declaration in Judea and Samaria. But now formation of a unity government with Hamas is in process. If that government is established, the "state," as it would be declared, would include Gaza.
But beyond this is the question of the border between the PA in Judea and Samaria, and Israel. The talk, of course, is of a Palestinian state to the '67 line. That line was an armistice line between Israel and Jordan in 1949, a line that, according to the terms of the armistice treaty, would not prejudice future negotiations on a final border. The armistice was abrogated in 1967, when Jordan attacked Israel. It is a line without meaning today.
Needless to say, the PA is not in control of all of the territory of Judea and Samaria, from the Jordan River to the '67 line. At most it controls area A, as defined by the Oslo Accords (encompassing the main Arab cities such as Nablus and Jenin -- where the IDF still does operations against terrorists), and partially controls area B.
I spoke yesterday with a lawyer from the Legal Forum of Israel who says the PA cannot declare a state on land it does not control. I have spoken with another legal expert who says they'll declare on all of Judea and Samaria, but will control less.
In other words, they'll do as they please -- undoubtedly, they will declare Jerusalem or part of it as their capital, as well -- regardless of international law.
~~~~~~~~~~
What would follow next is the recognition of this state of Palestine by other states. The international status, the viability, of this state would be affected by how well recognized it was internationally.
We've already seen recognition by some states -- Brazil, Uruguay, Argentina -- in Latin America, which is interesting, as this has come before the PA itself has declared a state. But in any event it is the recognition of Western democracies that would make a real difference for the new Palestinian state.
What we are looking at is the possibility of recognition by European nations -- and it is these nations that Netanyahu has been lobbying in this regard. The Europeans must be convinced that a unilateral declaration of Palestinian statehood would be detrimental to peace in the Middle East and should not be supported.
~~~~~~~~~~
It is the considered opinion of many, if not most, experts that nothing much will happen on the ground after that Palestinian state is declared. It is a certainty that no international force, UN or otherwise, is going to come in and push us back to the '67 line. And keep in mind that Israel is not going to recognize the state. Israel is highly unlikely to honor the inviolate integrity of this unilaterally declared sovereign state if it is necessary to pursue terrorists, and most certainly will not honor the unilaterally declared border.
~~~~~~~~~~
The overriding concern with regard to this matter is not with legalities, but with politics. If Israel is perceived as "occupying" part of a Palestinian state, then there may be an increased effort at isolating and delegitimizing the Jewish state -- utilizing boycotts and sanctions. Thus, every possible effort is being made now to make Israel's case within the international community, and to bolster Israel's status. To that end, what Netanyahu just accomplished in the Congress is of enormous importance.
It must be noted as well that whatever I've said about international law, there is a tendency to ignore that law today and take action as it suits various parties politically.
~~~~~~~~~~
In seeking to declare a state unilaterally, the Palestinian Arabs are hoping to circumvent the "end of conflict" that would come with a negotiated settlement. They are separating peace from statehood. This point cannot be over emphasized, and it is what the international community must understand. If there were a final peace accord, in theory, two states would stand side by side. As it is, they hope to declare their state and still go at Israel until she is no more.
~~~~~~~~~~
What is more, unilateral declaration of statehood by the Palestinian Arabs represents an abrogation of agreements under Oslo (which created the PA in the first place). It also flies in the face of UN resolutions -- most particularly Security Council Resolution 242 of 1967 -- which call for a negotiated settlement on final borders.
~~~~~~~~~~
A letter drafted jointly by lawyers of the Legal Forum for Israel and by Ambassador Alan Baker, Director of the Institute for Contemporary Affairs at the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, and signed by jurists and international lawyers from around the world is being sent to the Secretary-General of the United Nations.
It addresses the inherent illegality of the adoption of a resolution by the General Assembly recognizing a Palestinian state and its borders, and seems to be a move to block a worse case scenario in which the General Assembly ignores both its own rules and international law.
You can see it in its entirety here:
http://www.jcpa.org/JCPA/Templates/ShowPage.asp?DRIT=1&DBID=1&LNGID=1&TMID=111&FID=442&PID=0&IID=7267&TTL=A_UN_Resolution_to_Recognize_a_Palestinian_State_within_the_%E2%80%9C1967_Borders%E2%80%9D_Would_Be_Illegal
I would like to share three of the points made in the letter:
"[] While the Interim Agreement [of the Oslo Accords] was signed by Israel and the PLO, it was witnessed by the UN together with the EU, the Russian Federation, the US, Egypt, and Norway. It is thus inconceivable that such witnesses, including first and foremost the UN, would now give license to a measure in the UN aimed at violating this agreement and undermining major resolutions of the Security Council.
"[] While the UN has maintained a persistent policy of non-recognition of Israel's sovereignty over Jerusalem pending a negotiated solution, despite Israel's historic rights to the city, it is inconceivable that the UN would now recognize a unilaterally declared Palestinian state, the borders of which would include eastern Jerusalem. This would represent the ultimate in hypocrisy, double standards, and discrimination, as well as an utter disregard of the rights of Israel and the Jewish People.
"[] Such unilateral action by the Palestinians could give rise to reciprocal initiatives in the Israeli Parliament (Knesset) which could include proposed legislation to declare Israel's sovereignty over extensive parts of Judea and Samaria, if and when the Palestinians carry out their unilateral action."
Again, I point out that such a move by the General Assembly would carry no weight in international law, but might have negative political repercussions for Israel.
As to the last of the points in the letter above: Israel, as the PA, is bound by the Oslo Accords to resolve via negotiations issues of borders and status of territory in Judea and Samaria. Unilateral action is precluded. If the PA were to take unilateral action, it would abrogate Oslo and free Israel to move on annexation of at least Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria.
~~~~~~~~~~
© Arlene Kushner. This material is produced by Arlene Kushner, functioning as an independent journalist. Permission is granted for it to be reproduced only with proper attribution.
There is considerable anxiety these days with regard to the threats of the Palestinian Authority (and now the Arab League) to ask the UN, in September, to officially declare "Palestine" to be a state.
Accompanying -- or fueling -- this anxiety is a great deal of misinformation. And so -- having consulted with legal experts here in Israel and done other research -- I will make my best effort to clarify a muddled situation.
~~~~~~~~~~
What is referred to as "international law" is not nearly as clear or definitive as many people imagine it to be. There are certain written documents of international law. The Geneva Conventions (four treaties and three protocols pertaining to human rights during war) would be a prime example. But technically these apply only to those nations that have ratified the conventions -- that is, that have agreed to abide by their stipulations. Similarly, there is the charter of the UN, the principles of which have theoretically been accepted by all member states.
There is also "customary international law": When a practice is so common that there is a broad international consensus that it is obligatory, it becomes a rule of customary law considered binding upon all nations.
Sometimes, even though a treaty (such as a Geneva Convention) is binding only on signatories, the principles stated within that treaty have been so widely accepted internationally that they can be said to be "customary international law."
~~~~~~~~~~
This is what we have, broadly, from the perspective of international law with regard to the establishment of a Palestinian state:
The United Nations does not "recognize" or "declare" states into existence. All the UN can do is accept for membership states that are already in existence. (I'll come to this below.)
A state applies to the Secretary-General. The Security Council must then make a recommendation on membership and send that recommendation to the General Assembly.
But we can assume that the application by a Palestinian state would be vetoed in the Security Council by the US. This is close to a sure thing, because this is the principle on which Obama has advanced his policy and his public position: the state of Palestine must be established via negotiations. What is more, Obama is likely to be influenced by Congressional pressure and electoral considerations.
There is considerable talk among the Arabs now about going to the General Assembly for a declaration of statehood, to avoid that Security Council veto, but quite frankly, I don't know what they're thinking. In any event, a declaration of statehood for the Palestinians by the General Assembly would be only a recommendation without weight in international law. This is important to keep in mind.
~~~~~~~~~~
Here I would like to stop for an aside: It is often said that Israel was voted into existence with the partition of Palestine recommended by the General Assembly on November 29, 1947. This is not the case. The GA, which only makes non-binding recommendations, did no more than suggest or advise that division of Palestine into states for the Jews and the Arabs would be prudent.
Israel came into being with the declaration of independence made by Ben Gurion on May 14, 1948. The Jewish community in Palestine acted in compliance with the recommendation of the GA regarding division of Palestine. But it was the Jewish community and its leadership, acting, that established the state, not the UN.
~~~~~~~~~~
As to establishing a Palestinian state:
The PA must declare the state into existence. This it can do, independent of all other issues. There are, however, criteria for the establishment of a state that have been established in customary international law (drawing from the Montevideo Convention):
A state must have (a) a permanent population; (b) a defined territory; (c) government; and (d) capacity to enter into relations with the other states.
It is the issue of defined territory that is most problematic.
Originally it was thought that a Fatah-controlled PA would make the declaration in Judea and Samaria. But now formation of a unity government with Hamas is in process. If that government is established, the "state," as it would be declared, would include Gaza.
But beyond this is the question of the border between the PA in Judea and Samaria, and Israel. The talk, of course, is of a Palestinian state to the '67 line. That line was an armistice line between Israel and Jordan in 1949, a line that, according to the terms of the armistice treaty, would not prejudice future negotiations on a final border. The armistice was abrogated in 1967, when Jordan attacked Israel. It is a line without meaning today.
Needless to say, the PA is not in control of all of the territory of Judea and Samaria, from the Jordan River to the '67 line. At most it controls area A, as defined by the Oslo Accords (encompassing the main Arab cities such as Nablus and Jenin -- where the IDF still does operations against terrorists), and partially controls area B.
I spoke yesterday with a lawyer from the Legal Forum of Israel who says the PA cannot declare a state on land it does not control. I have spoken with another legal expert who says they'll declare on all of Judea and Samaria, but will control less.
In other words, they'll do as they please -- undoubtedly, they will declare Jerusalem or part of it as their capital, as well -- regardless of international law.
~~~~~~~~~~
What would follow next is the recognition of this state of Palestine by other states. The international status, the viability, of this state would be affected by how well recognized it was internationally.
We've already seen recognition by some states -- Brazil, Uruguay, Argentina -- in Latin America, which is interesting, as this has come before the PA itself has declared a state. But in any event it is the recognition of Western democracies that would make a real difference for the new Palestinian state.
What we are looking at is the possibility of recognition by European nations -- and it is these nations that Netanyahu has been lobbying in this regard. The Europeans must be convinced that a unilateral declaration of Palestinian statehood would be detrimental to peace in the Middle East and should not be supported.
~~~~~~~~~~
It is the considered opinion of many, if not most, experts that nothing much will happen on the ground after that Palestinian state is declared. It is a certainty that no international force, UN or otherwise, is going to come in and push us back to the '67 line. And keep in mind that Israel is not going to recognize the state. Israel is highly unlikely to honor the inviolate integrity of this unilaterally declared sovereign state if it is necessary to pursue terrorists, and most certainly will not honor the unilaterally declared border.
~~~~~~~~~~
The overriding concern with regard to this matter is not with legalities, but with politics. If Israel is perceived as "occupying" part of a Palestinian state, then there may be an increased effort at isolating and delegitimizing the Jewish state -- utilizing boycotts and sanctions. Thus, every possible effort is being made now to make Israel's case within the international community, and to bolster Israel's status. To that end, what Netanyahu just accomplished in the Congress is of enormous importance.
It must be noted as well that whatever I've said about international law, there is a tendency to ignore that law today and take action as it suits various parties politically.
~~~~~~~~~~
In seeking to declare a state unilaterally, the Palestinian Arabs are hoping to circumvent the "end of conflict" that would come with a negotiated settlement. They are separating peace from statehood. This point cannot be over emphasized, and it is what the international community must understand. If there were a final peace accord, in theory, two states would stand side by side. As it is, they hope to declare their state and still go at Israel until she is no more.
~~~~~~~~~~
What is more, unilateral declaration of statehood by the Palestinian Arabs represents an abrogation of agreements under Oslo (which created the PA in the first place). It also flies in the face of UN resolutions -- most particularly Security Council Resolution 242 of 1967 -- which call for a negotiated settlement on final borders.
~~~~~~~~~~
A letter drafted jointly by lawyers of the Legal Forum for Israel and by Ambassador Alan Baker, Director of the Institute for Contemporary Affairs at the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, and signed by jurists and international lawyers from around the world is being sent to the Secretary-General of the United Nations.
It addresses the inherent illegality of the adoption of a resolution by the General Assembly recognizing a Palestinian state and its borders, and seems to be a move to block a worse case scenario in which the General Assembly ignores both its own rules and international law.
You can see it in its entirety here:
http://www.jcpa.org/JCPA/Templates/ShowPage.asp?DRIT=1&DBID=1&LNGID=1&TMID=111&FID=442&PID=0&IID=7267&TTL=A_UN_Resolution_to_Recognize_a_Palestinian_State_within_the_%E2%80%9C1967_Borders%E2%80%9D_Would_Be_Illegal
I would like to share three of the points made in the letter:
"[] While the Interim Agreement [of the Oslo Accords] was signed by Israel and the PLO, it was witnessed by the UN together with the EU, the Russian Federation, the US, Egypt, and Norway. It is thus inconceivable that such witnesses, including first and foremost the UN, would now give license to a measure in the UN aimed at violating this agreement and undermining major resolutions of the Security Council.
"[] While the UN has maintained a persistent policy of non-recognition of Israel's sovereignty over Jerusalem pending a negotiated solution, despite Israel's historic rights to the city, it is inconceivable that the UN would now recognize a unilaterally declared Palestinian state, the borders of which would include eastern Jerusalem. This would represent the ultimate in hypocrisy, double standards, and discrimination, as well as an utter disregard of the rights of Israel and the Jewish People.
"[] Such unilateral action by the Palestinians could give rise to reciprocal initiatives in the Israeli Parliament (Knesset) which could include proposed legislation to declare Israel's sovereignty over extensive parts of Judea and Samaria, if and when the Palestinians carry out their unilateral action."
Again, I point out that such a move by the General Assembly would carry no weight in international law, but might have negative political repercussions for Israel.
As to the last of the points in the letter above: Israel, as the PA, is bound by the Oslo Accords to resolve via negotiations issues of borders and status of territory in Judea and Samaria. Unilateral action is precluded. If the PA were to take unilateral action, it would abrogate Oslo and free Israel to move on annexation of at least Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria.
~~~~~~~~~~
© Arlene Kushner. This material is produced by Arlene Kushner, functioning as an independent journalist. Permission is granted for it to be reproduced only with proper attribution.
One Day in the Life of an Israeli Hospital
Steven Plaut
The Bash-Israel Lobby has now become a large choir of totalitarian chanting about supposed Israeli “apartheid.” Western campuses are filled with the hate fests of “Israel Apartheid Week.” Friends of Israel attempt to engage the bigots in debate, attempt to challenge their claims. Statistics are ladled out. Facts are cited, documentation is presented. But the libels about Israeli “Apartheid” are notoriously resistant to facts and truth, like mutant bacteria that resist antibiotics. Anyone who knows anything at all about the Middle East understands that Israel is the only country in the region that is not an apartheid regime. I must say that I find the “debates” about Israeli “apartheid” to be boring and wearying. Instead, I would like to offer a simple window into life in Israel and into Arab-Jewish relations inside Israel. It is based on the routine inside an Israeli hospital, where I had the “opportunity” to spend some time recently.
Apartheid? Make up your own mind.
Obviously, this is a country that has no shortage of world-class Jewish medical doctors. The chief physician in my department in the hospital is an Israeli Arab. He did not get his position out of any gesture of “affirmative action,” but rather simply because he is immensely qualified. He leads a team of medical doctors that include Jews and Arabs, as well as similar teams of nurses and other personnel. My personal doctor in the ward is a young Arab. Russian is the third most common language in the ward, after Hebrew and Arabic; many of the best physicians of the one-time Soviet Union moved long ago to Israel.
I notice that many of the younger Arab doctors have picked up basic Russian. Many of them have additional academic degrees, like an MPH, besides their MD. Among the medical students doing shifts in the ward are a small but notable number of Ethiopian Jewish women, first-generation Israelis. An Arab woman student is doing the ECG checkups in the emergency room. As she finishes checking me, I ask her if the machine can tell whether I am in love, and this has her giggling. A young Arab from Haifa is working in the ward as a volunteer. He just graduated from the highly prestigious Arab Orthodox (as in Greek Orthodox) high school in Haifa and is building up his resume as a volunteer to help him get into med school.
I think the most notable feature of life in the hospital ward is the ready and cordial mingling and socializing of everyone, Jews and Arabs, religious and secular, recent immigrants with old-timers, the well-off with the poor. The socializing is not some sort of “social engineering” program initiative, but simply occurs spontaneously and naturally. Patient family members chat amongst themselves, comparing patient histories, offering health tips and advice, suggestions, information about tests and doctors, share foods, assisting one another. Anyone who spends more than 3 minutes with the patients and their families sheds any delusions about any imaginary Israeli “apartheid.” There are no politics on the floor of the hospital ward.
“We will call the orderly to wheel you back to the ward,” says the Xray technician. “No need,” says the elderly Arab man just behind me in line, I will push him back, and we will swap stories along the way. The odor of strong coffee sneaks into my room. I follow it in a semi-trance to the eating area across the hallway. A large Druse family is sitting there, and has brought their own coffee in a large “finjan” coffee pot from the village. The smell of your coffee is already restoring my health and strength, I tell them, and they insist that I sit with them and share a few cups, a bit mystified by my bizarre American accent, especially when I try to say a few words in Arabic.
No one initiates the mingling and mutual support. Even though in ordinary life Jews and Arabs usually move in different social circles, as indeed do subgroups of Jews and subgroups of Arabs, they find nothing strange about being thrust together in the hospital ward. This may be the most difficult part of life in the Middle East to explain to outsiders. All of the passions and politics and political conflict are part of everyday life in Israel. I doubt that anyone, Jew or Arab, changes his or her political notions and loyalties one iota by spending days or weeks mingling socially. They will leave with the same ideological orientations they held before coming to the hospital.
Probably the hardest notion of all to explain is that the Middle East conflict has nothing at all to do with “getting to know the ‘Other’” or establishing personal social ties with members of the belligerent community. As surprising as it sounds, there is no “alienation” or unfamiliarity with the “Other” in Israel. It is apparent from the first moment in the ward. Israeli Jews and Arabs are actually enormously familiar with one another, which is why they mingle so easily in the ”artificial” and alien environment of the hospital ward. They already know the “Other” quite well. I am told there is even more intense mingling among families in the children’s ward, but I simply cannot bring myself to enter the ward to see for myself. I find it too draining emotionally. I can cope with sick adults, no matter how seriously sick, and have even visited people in the worst psychiatric wards, but I am just too weak to come to terms with a ward of sick children.
The presumption that unfamiliarity is what lies behind political belligerence is a Western prejudice and is simply wrong. Most Israeli Jews know some basic Arabic, and Israeli Arabs are so thoroughly immersed in Israeli culture that when chatting amongst themselves it is rare for them to complete an entire sentence without Hebrew words and terms being interjected, when they convey an idea better than the parallel word in Arabic.
There are decidedly different “cultures” of hospital visiting among the different groups. Ashkenazi Jewish families tend to come in small numbers, stay for short visits, and speak in near whispers. Rural Arabs tend to arrive in large numbers, almost the whole village showing up to entertain the patient in near festival tones. Druse also come in large numbers, but tend to divide themselves into shifts, with one team entering the patient’s room as the previous team is relieved.
There are even more clear differences in the “hospital culture of food” among the different groups. Arabs and Druse arrive with large picnic coolers of home-made food from their towns and villages. It goes without saying that their patients should eat home-cooked and not the pathetic excuse for food that the hospitals wards serve up. Invariably the supplies from home include the delightful “finjan” filled with indescribably delicious coffee. The families invite roommates of their sick to share.
Down in the lobby is an espresso bar. It is filled with Ashkenazi yuppie families. There is a Middle East grill where the Sephardic families hang out, and it is also my favorite source for lunch. There are some fast-food joints where teenagers, Jews and Arabs, tend to hang out. Older Arabs however prefer to hang out in the cafeteria eating what they have brought from home, or in small gardens scattered among the hospital buildings.
In a previous hospitalization 11 years ago, I spent the week next to an elderly Bedouin who had been a legendary police “scout” in Israel, solving crimes and exercising near-supernatural powers of forensics. After leaving the hospital I published a book in large part about his life and about Bedouins in northern Israel, “The Scout.” Our families have remained on warm terms since our ordeals.
It is all really the diametric opposite of that old mafia cliché about it being business and not personal. Politics, war, ideology – in the Middle East those are all “business.” But there is no room for business on the hospital ward. To the contrary, everything is “personal.” Relations go well beyond the “correct” to being truly amicable. Such cordiality does not change the background political-national-religious conflict, that which has been ongoing for so many decades. Here is where one begins to understand the Middle East. Do stays of intimate socializing at the personal level in the hospital ward change loyalties, political affinities, ideological passions for those involved when they depart? Not in the least. This is the fundamental “contradiction” that underlies everything in this country.
Consider the following. The Wall Street Journal on May 25, 2011 reported this story: “A Palestinian woman from Gaza arrives at Soroka Hospital in Beersheba for lifesaving skin treatment for burns over half her body. After the conclusion of her extensive treatment, the woman is invited back for follow-up visits to the outpatient clinic. One day she is caught at the border crossing wearing a suicide belt. Her intention? To blow herself up at the same clinic that saved her life.”
Nothing in that news report really contradicts anything in my above descriptions of life in the Israeli hospital ward. It is a pair of ideas about which one needs to wrap one’s mind. It is only when one can digest both that one begins to understand Israel.
This is also the reality of life and of Arab-Jewish relations in the Israel that is being increasingly demonized by bigots, anti-Semites and Israel-bashers as an “apartheid” regime. I would say that a week in an Israeli hospital is just what could cure such people of their “ideas,” but on second thought they would emerge with their hate and bias intact. Israel’s own radical leftists get sick as often as other Israelis and are just as aware of the Jewish-Arab relations of the hospital ward. They too ignore the reality to denounce their own country falsely as “apartheid,” because they are driven by hatred of their country and desire for its destruction.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)