Ted Belman
Prime Minister Ehud Olmert Monday categorically rejected assertions by American Jewish leaders that Jerusalem is not an Israeli issue but “a Jewish one.”
. Speaking at a news briefing Monday, Olmert said that the Jerusalem issue had “been determined long ago” and that “the government of Israel has a sovereign right to negotiate anything on behalf of Israel.”
He said that at this stage, the matter was a theoretical rather than practical one, as the subject of Jerusalem was not yet on the negotiating table.
Don’t you believe it.
I attended a lecture tonight by Jacques Gauthier, a Canadian Lawyer who just received his PhD after twenty years of research on the legal status of Jerusalem and the writing of a dissertation of some 1300 pages with 3000 footnotes. He is not a Jew and had to present his thesis to a panel of two of the leading international lawyers and one world famous Jewish historian. The reason for so many footnotes was to enable himself to defend his thesis from intense attack by one of the lawyers who happened to be a Jewish anti-Zionist and who had represented the PA on numerous occasions.
Here’s what he said in point form,
1. The Balfour Declaration of 1917 started the whole process but it didn’t create legal rights.
2. The San Remo Resolution adopted on 25 April 1920 incorporated the Balfour Declaration of 19171 and Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations. It was the basic document upon which the Mandate for Palestine was constructed. And it constituted a treaty and was thus legally binding.
The High Contracting Parties agree to entrust, by application of the provisions of Article 22, the administration of Palestine, within such boundaries as may be determined by the Principal Allied Powers, to a Mandatory, to be selected by the said Powers. The Mandatory will be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 8, 1917, by the British Government, and adopted by the other Allied Powers, in favour of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.
He pointed out that the Arabs weren’t even mentioned but that civil and religious rights only were accorded other inhabitants . This thereby excludes political rights for Arabs.
3. Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations provides for the creation of mandates.
To those colonies and territories which as a consequence of the late war have ceased to be under the sovereignty of the States which formerly governed them and which are inhabited by peoples not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world, there should be applied the principle that the well-being and development of such peoples form a sacred trust of civilisation and that securities for the performance of this trust should be embodied in this Covenant.
The legal significance here is that “the well-being and development of such peoples form a sacred trust of civilisation. The Mandatory Power was the trustee of that trust.
4 The resolution of the League of Nations creating the Palestine Mandate, included the following significant recital
“Whereas recognition has thereby been given to the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country;
This had never happened before in history. No such recognition had ever been according to anyone, ever. Palestine was to be held for the Jewish people wherever they lived.
ART. 2. The Mandatory shall be responsible for placing the country under such political, administrative and economic conditions as will secure the establishment of the Jewish national home, as laid down in the preamble, and the development of self-governing institutions, and also for safeguarding the civil and religious rights of all the inhabitants of Palestine, irrespective of race and religion.
Thus the operative clause specifically referred to the preamble and reiterated that there were no political rights for other inhabitants.
ART. 5. The Mandatory shall be responsible for seeing that no Palestine territory shall be ceded or leased to, or in any way placed under the control of the Government of any foreign Power.
ART. 6. The Administration of Palestine, while ensuring that the rights and position of other sections of the population are not prejudiced, shall facilitate Jewish immigration under suitable conditions and shall encourage, in co-operation with the Jewish agency referred to in Article 4, close settlement by Jews on the land, including State lands and waste lands not required for public purposes.
5. The United Nations took over from the failed League of Nations in 1945 and its Charter included
Article: 80 .. nothing in this Chapter shall be construed in or of itself to alter in any manner the rights whatsoever of any states or any peoples or the terms of existing international instruments to which Members of the United Nations may respectively be parties.
Thus the Palestinian Mandate continued without change.
6. In 1947, the General Assembly of the UN passed Res 181 which became known as the Partition Plan pursuant to which both Jews and Arabs could announce their state.
First it must be noted that the Charter of the UN specifically gave no power to the General Assembly because that would infringe on the sovereign power of individual members. So the GA could recommend only. Secondly, this recommendation was in violation of the terms of the Mandate.
This resolution also provided for a Special regime for Jerusalem which had the following defined boundaries,
A. SPECIAL REGIME The City of Jerusalem shall be established as a corpus separatum under a special international regime and shall be administered by the United Nations. The Trusteeship Council shall be designated to discharge the responsibilities of the Administering Authority on behalf of the United Nations.
B. BOUNDARIES OF THE CITY The City of Jerusalem shall include the present municipality of Jerusalem plus the surrounding villages and towns, the most eastern of which shall be Abu Dis; the most southern, Bethlehem; the most western, ‘Ein Karim (including also the built-up area of Motsa); and the most northern Shu’fat, as indicated on the attached sketch-map (annex B).
But this regime was to be limited in time
The Statute elaborated by the Trusteeship Council the aforementioned principles shall come into force not later than 1 October 1948. It shall remain in force in the first instance for a period of ten years, unless the Trusteeship Council finds it necessary to undertake a re-examination of these provisions at an earlier date. After the expiration of this period the whole scheme shall be subject to examination by the Trusteeship Council in the light of experience acquired with its functioning. The residents the City shall be then free to express by means of a referendum their wishes as to possible modifications of regime of the City.
This provision for a referendum was of critical importance to the acceptance of Res 181 by Ben Gurion. He knew that the Jews were in a majority within these boundaries and would be in 10 years when the referendum was to be held. Thus he was confidant that Jerusalem would return to Jewish hands.
Keep in mind that the disposition of this area was to be determined not by Israel but by the residents of Jerusalem so defined. Currently the Jews have a 2:1 majority there.
Needless to say that after the Armistance Agreement of ‘49 the Jordanians who were in control of Jerusalem violated every provision of this resolution calling for among other things respect for holy places. The referendum never took place.
After the ‘67 war in which Israel regained the land to the Jordan including Jerusalem, Res 242 of the Security Council was passed authorizing Israel to remain in possession of all the land until they had “secure and recognized boundaries”. It did not require Israel to withdraw from all of the territories and it was silent on Jerusalem. Also it “Affirms further the necessity for achieving a just settlement of the refugee problem”. There was no reference to Res 181 nor was there a distinction made between Jewish and Arab refugees.
Not only should Israel be demanding that the referendum be held now, Jerusalem should be the first order of business. Olmert is sloughing us off by saying “Jerusalem is not on the table yet”.
He should demand that the referendum take place before the balance of the land is negotiated. If the Arabs won’t agree to the referendum there is nothing to talk about.
Obviously, Olmert isn’t going to ask for a referendum or insist that Jerusalem not be divided.
.
Wednesday, November 28, 2007
The Annapolis Folly
Ariel Cohen
In analyzing political processes, we cannot look only at one day, one week or one year. The timelines and track records of governments, movements and peoples do matter.
Israel has a track record of seeking peace. At Camp David 1979, Israel gave up 100 percent of the Sinai. Egypt promised a warm peace: tourism, trade, art and science contacts. Nothing of the kind has happened. There is cold peace, and today the Egyptian-Israeli border leaches terrorists and explosives, while Egypt is doing nothing.
If the Muslim Brothers, the spiritual kinsmen of Hamas, take over Egypt, the remnants of President Anwar Sadat’s peace legacy will evaporate overnight. How do I know? Because the Broherhood said so.
One may criticize Anwar Sadat, but two things cannot be denied: he had a vision of peace and he was martyred for it.
In 1993, Yitzhak Rabin and Shimon Peres convinced themselves that bringing Yasir Arafat out of his Tunisian semi-retirement would advance peace. They offered Arafat everything: control of Gaza and the West Bank, international recognition, visits with President Clinton, photo ops on the White House lawn, room and board in Camp David.
But when the push came to shove, Arafat walked away from the peace negotiations and started a bloody terror war, what they called an “intifadah”. As a result, 1,000 Israelis and 4,000 Palestinians were killed. Many Israeli civilians were brutally murdered and maimed by suicide bombers, on buses and in restaurants, during Passover Seder celebrations or in schools and kindergartens.
What was accomplished by the terror war? The GDP in the West bank is 3 times lower than it was in the year 2000. It is 4 times lower in Gaza. And both sides are further from peace than they were before the terror war started.
Israel also signed a peace treaty with Jordan in 1994. The peace was achieved because of the vision of King Houssein of Jordan. His grandfather, King Abdullah, was killed by a Palestinian religious fanatic in the Al Aqsa mosque, in 1952. The grandson upheld his grandfather’s vision.
Great men have visions of peace -- and work to accomplish their dreams. Terrorists have visions of bloodshed—and work to accomplish theirs.
In the year 2000, then-Prime Minister Ehud Barak ordered Israeli troops from South Lebanon. That midnight retreat signaled to Arafat that Israelis were weak, that they no longer had the stamina to fight. This what triggered Arafat’s intransigence in Camp David that year.
Israeli retreat precipitated Arafat’s rule of terror.
Ariel Sharon, one of Israel greatest battlefield generals, succeeded where Barak failed. He put down Arafat’s terror assault. But by 2005, Sharon, embattled by allegations of corruption, needed a distraction. As early as 2003, he announced plans to withdraw from Gaza and uproot the Jewish villages there.
For the first time, Israel destroyed the homes of its citizens without a peace treaty, without any reciprocity – with nothing in return. And once the jubilant mobs had burned and destroyed the synagogues and hothouses and homes in Gaza in the fall of 2005, Hamas coasted to victory in the January 2006 Parliamentary elections. The corrupt Fatah, led by Abu Mazen, was defeated.
As you see, these timelines matter.
What also matters is that the voters in Gaza preferred the intransigent position of Hamas – no recognition of Israel’s right to exist – to the somewhat more wishy-washy position of Fatah.
Now, the US State Department was warned by both Israel and the Abu Mazen that pressing for these elections could bring Hamas to power. But the warnings were not heeded.
Since 2001, the Road Map plan, produced by the Quartet, has been gathering dust. But there is no other plan. According to the Road Map, the Palestinian Authority had to fight terrorism; terrorist organizations, like Hamas, were to be dismantled, members of terrorist organizations were to be disarmed or incorporated into a single Palestinian military and police force under single command. Palestinians undertook to stop incitement to murder of Jews: men, women and children. None of this has happened.
The vision of President Bush, articulated in the June 2002 speech, talked about two democratic states living side by side. When Hamas rounds up and shoots Fatah supporters in Gaza, is this practicing democracy? When Hamas pushes Fatah members off the roofs? When they ban music?
Is this the democracy that the US is promoting throughout the Middle East?
So, what do the Palestinians get for violating the Road Map? For their inability to live together as a community which includes secular and religious people? For refusing to recognize Israel’s right to exist?
The Annapolis conference!
And who are Palestinians today? Who speaks for them? Who represents them?
Is it Abu Mazen and his cronies from Tunis who were voted out by their own people? Is it Prime Minister Salam Fayad, the pragmatic former World Bank official? How much legitimacy does he have, when he admits that he cannot appear in the West Bank cities of Jenin and Nablus because he could be killed?
Are Palestinians capable of delivering any commitments they undertake, when President Abbas’s own bodyguards were planning to assassinate Prime Minister Olmert – and then arrested and released as if this was a minor traffic violation?
Is it Hamas? If so, which one – the leadership in Gaza or in Damascus? The Saudi-supported or Iran-supported? Is it the Palestinian spokesmen in Damascus, like Faruk Qaddumi, who opposes any talks with Israel?
The ultimate aim of all competing Palestinian leaderships is not to create a viable state. It is to perpetrate the narrative of hatred and victimhood which prevents both peace and statehood from taking root.
Even the Palestinian Authority’s Saeb Erekat refuses to recognize Israel as a Jewish state. The PA refuses to give up its demands that the refugees and the descendants of the refugees of 1948 go back to what is today Israel, whereas ALL of the World War Two and decolonization era refugees have been resettled: in Germany and Poland, in India and Pakistan, in Russia and Ukraine. 200 million refugees have been resettled, and so are refugees no more.
Included in that are 800 thousands Jewish refugees forced to flee from Arab lands when Egypt, Syria, Iraq and others turned on their Jewish minorities, stripped them of their property, and threatened their lives in anger at the creation of the State of Israel.
But the Arab states have refused refused to give their refugee brothers citizenship or basic rights. They too are intent on perpetuating the problem – and the United States, Europe, the UN and Russia have not lifted a finger to demand that these oil-rich countries, which do not know what to do with their dollar glut, resettle the Palestinians just as Israel resettled 800,000 Jews from Arab lands. So, who is more cruel to the Palestinians – Israel or their Arab brethren?
The Palestinians refuse to recognize the continuity of Jewish presence in the Land of Israel and the existence of two Jewish Temples on the Temple Mount. In other words, they refuse to recognize the basic notion of “the other” – and without that, there can be no peace.
Until such recognition and reconciliation takes place, all the photo ops are a waste of time. Until such time as the rulers and the people of Gaza and the West Bank stop their incitement in kindergartens, schools, mosques and on radio and TV, the peace process has no meaning, as millions are being brainwashed to become the next generation of “shahids” – suicide murderers.
Until such mutual respect, recognition and reconciliation are in place, territorial concessions, “taking risks for peace,” dismantling Jewish villages, calls to loosen security in the West Bank and Gaza, or provide electricity, food and water to Hamas death factories are themselves counterproductive and deadly, no matter how humanitarian they may sound.
The rationale of pushing Israel to make more concessions in order to placate the Arab countries to help the US in Iraq, or to build the coalition against Iran will simply not work. These issues are barely connected.
The Iranian and Shi’a threat to the Sunni regimes is real, and the Arab rulers in Riyadh and Cairo know it. Iran is more of a threat to them than Israel ever was. Iran with nuclear weapons is a threat to the world, as it may try to dominate the Persian Gulf – the world’s gas station.
Creating a Palestinian terror state in Gaza and the West Bank today will precipitate a new terror war led by Hamas. In such a state, hell-bent on the destruction of Israel, Hamas may quickly overthrow what remains of Abu Mazen’s authority. A terror in Gaza and the West Bank will threaten not only Israel, but also Jordan.
Iran will use any post-Annapolis pretext to re-launch Hezbollah attacks against Israel and in order to take over Lebanon, together with their Syrian allies.
It is myopic to concentrate on the Arab-Israeli conflict, that cemetery of diplomacy, while ignoring the threats from Iran, from Hezbollah, and from Al Qaeda. These challenges are geographically spread from Gaza to Lebanon, from Iraq to Qatar, from Afghanistan and Pakistan to Kashmir and beyond.
The resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is unlikely, but even if it was resolved tomorrow, it would not eliminate the deep divisions in the Muslim world. They are between the radicals and the moderates, between the Sunni and the Shia, between democrats and authoritarians, between socialists and Islamists. Even if, God forbid, Israel disappeared today, America’s problem in the Middle East would not disappear with it.
The US recently suffered diplomatic setbacks in Pakistan and Georgia, and may do so in again Lebanon.
Adding to this list the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is against US interests and is the equivalent of giving oneself a black eye. Or shooting oneself in the foot.
.
In analyzing political processes, we cannot look only at one day, one week or one year. The timelines and track records of governments, movements and peoples do matter.
Israel has a track record of seeking peace. At Camp David 1979, Israel gave up 100 percent of the Sinai. Egypt promised a warm peace: tourism, trade, art and science contacts. Nothing of the kind has happened. There is cold peace, and today the Egyptian-Israeli border leaches terrorists and explosives, while Egypt is doing nothing.
If the Muslim Brothers, the spiritual kinsmen of Hamas, take over Egypt, the remnants of President Anwar Sadat’s peace legacy will evaporate overnight. How do I know? Because the Broherhood said so.
One may criticize Anwar Sadat, but two things cannot be denied: he had a vision of peace and he was martyred for it.
In 1993, Yitzhak Rabin and Shimon Peres convinced themselves that bringing Yasir Arafat out of his Tunisian semi-retirement would advance peace. They offered Arafat everything: control of Gaza and the West Bank, international recognition, visits with President Clinton, photo ops on the White House lawn, room and board in Camp David.
But when the push came to shove, Arafat walked away from the peace negotiations and started a bloody terror war, what they called an “intifadah”. As a result, 1,000 Israelis and 4,000 Palestinians were killed. Many Israeli civilians were brutally murdered and maimed by suicide bombers, on buses and in restaurants, during Passover Seder celebrations or in schools and kindergartens.
What was accomplished by the terror war? The GDP in the West bank is 3 times lower than it was in the year 2000. It is 4 times lower in Gaza. And both sides are further from peace than they were before the terror war started.
Israel also signed a peace treaty with Jordan in 1994. The peace was achieved because of the vision of King Houssein of Jordan. His grandfather, King Abdullah, was killed by a Palestinian religious fanatic in the Al Aqsa mosque, in 1952. The grandson upheld his grandfather’s vision.
Great men have visions of peace -- and work to accomplish their dreams. Terrorists have visions of bloodshed—and work to accomplish theirs.
In the year 2000, then-Prime Minister Ehud Barak ordered Israeli troops from South Lebanon. That midnight retreat signaled to Arafat that Israelis were weak, that they no longer had the stamina to fight. This what triggered Arafat’s intransigence in Camp David that year.
Israeli retreat precipitated Arafat’s rule of terror.
Ariel Sharon, one of Israel greatest battlefield generals, succeeded where Barak failed. He put down Arafat’s terror assault. But by 2005, Sharon, embattled by allegations of corruption, needed a distraction. As early as 2003, he announced plans to withdraw from Gaza and uproot the Jewish villages there.
For the first time, Israel destroyed the homes of its citizens without a peace treaty, without any reciprocity – with nothing in return. And once the jubilant mobs had burned and destroyed the synagogues and hothouses and homes in Gaza in the fall of 2005, Hamas coasted to victory in the January 2006 Parliamentary elections. The corrupt Fatah, led by Abu Mazen, was defeated.
As you see, these timelines matter.
What also matters is that the voters in Gaza preferred the intransigent position of Hamas – no recognition of Israel’s right to exist – to the somewhat more wishy-washy position of Fatah.
Now, the US State Department was warned by both Israel and the Abu Mazen that pressing for these elections could bring Hamas to power. But the warnings were not heeded.
Since 2001, the Road Map plan, produced by the Quartet, has been gathering dust. But there is no other plan. According to the Road Map, the Palestinian Authority had to fight terrorism; terrorist organizations, like Hamas, were to be dismantled, members of terrorist organizations were to be disarmed or incorporated into a single Palestinian military and police force under single command. Palestinians undertook to stop incitement to murder of Jews: men, women and children. None of this has happened.
The vision of President Bush, articulated in the June 2002 speech, talked about two democratic states living side by side. When Hamas rounds up and shoots Fatah supporters in Gaza, is this practicing democracy? When Hamas pushes Fatah members off the roofs? When they ban music?
Is this the democracy that the US is promoting throughout the Middle East?
So, what do the Palestinians get for violating the Road Map? For their inability to live together as a community which includes secular and religious people? For refusing to recognize Israel’s right to exist?
The Annapolis conference!
And who are Palestinians today? Who speaks for them? Who represents them?
Is it Abu Mazen and his cronies from Tunis who were voted out by their own people? Is it Prime Minister Salam Fayad, the pragmatic former World Bank official? How much legitimacy does he have, when he admits that he cannot appear in the West Bank cities of Jenin and Nablus because he could be killed?
Are Palestinians capable of delivering any commitments they undertake, when President Abbas’s own bodyguards were planning to assassinate Prime Minister Olmert – and then arrested and released as if this was a minor traffic violation?
Is it Hamas? If so, which one – the leadership in Gaza or in Damascus? The Saudi-supported or Iran-supported? Is it the Palestinian spokesmen in Damascus, like Faruk Qaddumi, who opposes any talks with Israel?
The ultimate aim of all competing Palestinian leaderships is not to create a viable state. It is to perpetrate the narrative of hatred and victimhood which prevents both peace and statehood from taking root.
Even the Palestinian Authority’s Saeb Erekat refuses to recognize Israel as a Jewish state. The PA refuses to give up its demands that the refugees and the descendants of the refugees of 1948 go back to what is today Israel, whereas ALL of the World War Two and decolonization era refugees have been resettled: in Germany and Poland, in India and Pakistan, in Russia and Ukraine. 200 million refugees have been resettled, and so are refugees no more.
Included in that are 800 thousands Jewish refugees forced to flee from Arab lands when Egypt, Syria, Iraq and others turned on their Jewish minorities, stripped them of their property, and threatened their lives in anger at the creation of the State of Israel.
But the Arab states have refused refused to give their refugee brothers citizenship or basic rights. They too are intent on perpetuating the problem – and the United States, Europe, the UN and Russia have not lifted a finger to demand that these oil-rich countries, which do not know what to do with their dollar glut, resettle the Palestinians just as Israel resettled 800,000 Jews from Arab lands. So, who is more cruel to the Palestinians – Israel or their Arab brethren?
The Palestinians refuse to recognize the continuity of Jewish presence in the Land of Israel and the existence of two Jewish Temples on the Temple Mount. In other words, they refuse to recognize the basic notion of “the other” – and without that, there can be no peace.
Until such recognition and reconciliation takes place, all the photo ops are a waste of time. Until such time as the rulers and the people of Gaza and the West Bank stop their incitement in kindergartens, schools, mosques and on radio and TV, the peace process has no meaning, as millions are being brainwashed to become the next generation of “shahids” – suicide murderers.
Until such mutual respect, recognition and reconciliation are in place, territorial concessions, “taking risks for peace,” dismantling Jewish villages, calls to loosen security in the West Bank and Gaza, or provide electricity, food and water to Hamas death factories are themselves counterproductive and deadly, no matter how humanitarian they may sound.
The rationale of pushing Israel to make more concessions in order to placate the Arab countries to help the US in Iraq, or to build the coalition against Iran will simply not work. These issues are barely connected.
The Iranian and Shi’a threat to the Sunni regimes is real, and the Arab rulers in Riyadh and Cairo know it. Iran is more of a threat to them than Israel ever was. Iran with nuclear weapons is a threat to the world, as it may try to dominate the Persian Gulf – the world’s gas station.
Creating a Palestinian terror state in Gaza and the West Bank today will precipitate a new terror war led by Hamas. In such a state, hell-bent on the destruction of Israel, Hamas may quickly overthrow what remains of Abu Mazen’s authority. A terror in Gaza and the West Bank will threaten not only Israel, but also Jordan.
Iran will use any post-Annapolis pretext to re-launch Hezbollah attacks against Israel and in order to take over Lebanon, together with their Syrian allies.
It is myopic to concentrate on the Arab-Israeli conflict, that cemetery of diplomacy, while ignoring the threats from Iran, from Hezbollah, and from Al Qaeda. These challenges are geographically spread from Gaza to Lebanon, from Iraq to Qatar, from Afghanistan and Pakistan to Kashmir and beyond.
The resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is unlikely, but even if it was resolved tomorrow, it would not eliminate the deep divisions in the Muslim world. They are between the radicals and the moderates, between the Sunni and the Shia, between democrats and authoritarians, between socialists and Islamists. Even if, God forbid, Israel disappeared today, America’s problem in the Middle East would not disappear with it.
The US recently suffered diplomatic setbacks in Pakistan and Georgia, and may do so in again Lebanon.
Adding to this list the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is against US interests and is the equivalent of giving oneself a black eye. Or shooting oneself in the foot.
.
Tuesday, November 27, 2007
Bush says time is right to relaunch Mideast peace negotiations
President George W. Bush said in remarks prepared for delivery Tuesday at the Annapolis conference that the time is right to relaunch Mideast peace talks because "a battle is under way for the future of the Middle East. Bush said it will not be easy to achieve the goal of creating two states - Israel and Palestine - living side-by-side in peace after decades of conflict and bloodshed, yet he urged the two sides to work together for the sake of their people.
"Today, Palestinians and Israelis each understand that helping the other to realize their aspirations is the key to realizing their own, and both require an independent, democratic, viable Palestinian state," Bush said in remarks released by the White House.
"Such a state will provide Palestinians with the chance to lead lives of freedom, purpose and dignity," he said. "And such a state will help provide Israelis with something they have been seeking for generations: to live in peace with their neighbors."
Comments: Nice words-these and $3.50 gets you a latte at Starbucks. This is only about politics and money. We are witnessing the transition of USA politcy toward Israel as well as the beginning of putting us in harm's way. Iran is not going to take lightly Syria going to the conference-watch what emerges in the next 3 days..
"Today, Palestinians and Israelis each understand that helping the other to realize their aspirations is the key to realizing their own, and both require an independent, democratic, viable Palestinian state," Bush said in remarks released by the White House.
"Such a state will provide Palestinians with the chance to lead lives of freedom, purpose and dignity," he said. "And such a state will help provide Israelis with something they have been seeking for generations: to live in peace with their neighbors."
Comments: Nice words-these and $3.50 gets you a latte at Starbucks. This is only about politics and money. We are witnessing the transition of USA politcy toward Israel as well as the beginning of putting us in harm's way. Iran is not going to take lightly Syria going to the conference-watch what emerges in the next 3 days..
Seeking a Mideast Path, Bush Offers a Nudge
WASHINGTON, Nov. 26 — It might seem, after nearly seven years of deliberate detachment from Arab-Israeli peace negotiations, that President Bush has plunged into Middle Eastern diplomacy with Clintonesque energy.. He met with the Israel and Palestinian leaders at the White House on Monday and will do so again on Wednesday. On Tuesday, he will meet them at the United States Naval Academy in Annapolis, Md., along with delegations from 46 countries and international organizations (including, after an arm-twisting by phone last week, Saudi Arabia).
In fact, Mr. Bush and his aides still deplore what they view as President Clinton’s disastrously hands-on involvement in the peace process in 2000. And they insist that Mr. Bush does not intend to negotiate personally the two-state peace he has pronounced as his vision, just as they insist that this is not an 11th-hour effort to forge a legacy other than the one left by the Iraq war.
“The United States cannot impose our vision,” Mr. Bush told the Palestinian leader, Mahmoud Abbas, in the Oval Office on Monday, before saying, and sounding, again, Clintonesque, “but we can help facilitate.”
For all the pomp of the Annapolis gathering, the White House is not calling it a summit meeting or anything else suggestive of substantive progress. Mr. Bush’s vision is ambitious, but his strategy is cautious — he may be repeating Mr. Clinton’s role, yet he rejects what he sees as the meddlesome quality of it.
That view reflects more than just his personality. (“The president is not a gambler,” his press secretary, Dana M. Perino, said last week.) It also echoes a view held by conservatives in the administration, and probably by Mr. Bush, that the United States should not impose terms on Israel, America’s closest ally in a troubled region.
“They’re extremely cautious because they’re exposed in that sense,” Martin S. Indyk, a former ambassador to Israel who worked in the Clinton administration, said of Mr. Bush and his aides, and of the inevitable comparisons to Mr. Clinton’s final push for peace as his term neared an end. “They don’t think it’s a good idea to drive it to a conclusion.”
As a result, Mr. Bush has given every indication that once the diplomats leave Wednesday, he will again leave any talks to come to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and, more important, to the Israelis and Palestinians.
“We have said from the very beginning, and the president made clear, that it is the parties themselves that have to make the peace,” the national security adviser, Stephen J. Hadley, said on the eve of this week’s meetings.
Even before the two sides — or three sides, or 49 sides — meet Tuesday, critics have declared Mr. Bush’s Annapolis gathering the photo opportunity that Ms. Rice emphatically said it would not be only a month ago.
“The mother of all photo ops,” an Israeli official called it on Monday, underscoring the fact that when it comes to Middle East peace, skepticism is always in order.
That, however, does not necessarily mean that it will be a failed photo op. Mr. Bush’s approach has resulted in the first international conference on the Arab-Israeli conflict since the Madrid conference organized by his father’s secretary of state, James A. Baker III, in 1991.
The real measure of Annapolis, officials on all sides agreed, will be what happens afterward. That almost certainly will depend on how much political capital Mr. Bush’s administration is willing to spend when the two sides reach another impasse on the difficult “final status” issues like the future of the border, the capital and Palestinian refugees.
Mr. Bush is expected to give at least a preliminary answer to that question when he opens Tuesday’s meeting with a speech that has taken on greater significance in recent days, as the Israelis and Palestinians have struggled to agree even on a general statement that might emerge from the conference.
During a toast at a formal dinner at the State Department on Monday evening, Mr. Bush promised “my personal commitment” to what has become the White House mantra since 2002: two states, Israeli and Palestinian, living side by side in peace and security.
Mr. Bush’s aides often point out that in 2002 he was the first American president to declare support for a Palestinian state. That is true, but they fail to mention that he did so while refusing to negotiate with Yasir Arafat, then the Palestinian leader, effectively endorsing a deadly stalemate.
A recurring criticism of Mr. Bush is that he has so clearly tilted American policy toward Israel that the United States is no longer seen as an honest broker, emphasizing Israel’s security over Palestinian grievances.
That was the case in 2004, when he publicly expressed support for some of the nonnegotiable positions of the former Israeli prime minister, Ariel Sharon, including Mr. Sharon’s objections to what Palestinians regard as the all-important right of return for Palestinians uprooted by the conflict. Mr. Bush’s assurances to Israel remain on the table.
An even more consistent criticism, though, has been that Mr. Bush failed to follow through, declaring a vision only to let it wither on the vine as the conflict between the Israelis and Palestinians worsened.
“This is not a slogan,” said Dennis Ross, the Middle East envoy for Mr. Clinton and the current president’s father. “If you’re going to do Middle East peace process, you can’t just lay out a broad vision.”
Mr. Bush’s aides bristle at the suggestion that he has not been effectively engaged, noting that it was the president who proposed the Annapolis conference back in July. Ms. Perino, the press secretary, suggested Monday that circumstances in Israel and the Palestinian territories had changed, with both now having leaders willing to negotiate.
Privately, officials also express confidence that the Arab world might finally get behind the effort out of fear of Iran’s rising influence in the region.
Mr. Bush, for now, seems to have accepted the argument that the Palestinian cause is at the root of Islamic mistrust of the United States — or at least that resolving the Middle East conflict could halt the march of Hamas, the radical Islamic group.
To conservatives, that might be Mr. Bush’s biggest gamble: risking a failed peace effort that would lead to greater radicalization.
“If the conference fails, it doesn’t leave you in equipoise,” said John R. Bolton, who served as the United Nations representative under Mr. Bush until last year and is now a vocal critic of the administration. “It could put you in a worse position.”
Comment: I hope this Times article is not reflecting Bush's understanding of ME problems. If it is then the USA is end deep trouble!».
In fact, Mr. Bush and his aides still deplore what they view as President Clinton’s disastrously hands-on involvement in the peace process in 2000. And they insist that Mr. Bush does not intend to negotiate personally the two-state peace he has pronounced as his vision, just as they insist that this is not an 11th-hour effort to forge a legacy other than the one left by the Iraq war.
“The United States cannot impose our vision,” Mr. Bush told the Palestinian leader, Mahmoud Abbas, in the Oval Office on Monday, before saying, and sounding, again, Clintonesque, “but we can help facilitate.”
For all the pomp of the Annapolis gathering, the White House is not calling it a summit meeting or anything else suggestive of substantive progress. Mr. Bush’s vision is ambitious, but his strategy is cautious — he may be repeating Mr. Clinton’s role, yet he rejects what he sees as the meddlesome quality of it.
That view reflects more than just his personality. (“The president is not a gambler,” his press secretary, Dana M. Perino, said last week.) It also echoes a view held by conservatives in the administration, and probably by Mr. Bush, that the United States should not impose terms on Israel, America’s closest ally in a troubled region.
“They’re extremely cautious because they’re exposed in that sense,” Martin S. Indyk, a former ambassador to Israel who worked in the Clinton administration, said of Mr. Bush and his aides, and of the inevitable comparisons to Mr. Clinton’s final push for peace as his term neared an end. “They don’t think it’s a good idea to drive it to a conclusion.”
As a result, Mr. Bush has given every indication that once the diplomats leave Wednesday, he will again leave any talks to come to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and, more important, to the Israelis and Palestinians.
“We have said from the very beginning, and the president made clear, that it is the parties themselves that have to make the peace,” the national security adviser, Stephen J. Hadley, said on the eve of this week’s meetings.
Even before the two sides — or three sides, or 49 sides — meet Tuesday, critics have declared Mr. Bush’s Annapolis gathering the photo opportunity that Ms. Rice emphatically said it would not be only a month ago.
“The mother of all photo ops,” an Israeli official called it on Monday, underscoring the fact that when it comes to Middle East peace, skepticism is always in order.
That, however, does not necessarily mean that it will be a failed photo op. Mr. Bush’s approach has resulted in the first international conference on the Arab-Israeli conflict since the Madrid conference organized by his father’s secretary of state, James A. Baker III, in 1991.
The real measure of Annapolis, officials on all sides agreed, will be what happens afterward. That almost certainly will depend on how much political capital Mr. Bush’s administration is willing to spend when the two sides reach another impasse on the difficult “final status” issues like the future of the border, the capital and Palestinian refugees.
Mr. Bush is expected to give at least a preliminary answer to that question when he opens Tuesday’s meeting with a speech that has taken on greater significance in recent days, as the Israelis and Palestinians have struggled to agree even on a general statement that might emerge from the conference.
During a toast at a formal dinner at the State Department on Monday evening, Mr. Bush promised “my personal commitment” to what has become the White House mantra since 2002: two states, Israeli and Palestinian, living side by side in peace and security.
Mr. Bush’s aides often point out that in 2002 he was the first American president to declare support for a Palestinian state. That is true, but they fail to mention that he did so while refusing to negotiate with Yasir Arafat, then the Palestinian leader, effectively endorsing a deadly stalemate.
A recurring criticism of Mr. Bush is that he has so clearly tilted American policy toward Israel that the United States is no longer seen as an honest broker, emphasizing Israel’s security over Palestinian grievances.
That was the case in 2004, when he publicly expressed support for some of the nonnegotiable positions of the former Israeli prime minister, Ariel Sharon, including Mr. Sharon’s objections to what Palestinians regard as the all-important right of return for Palestinians uprooted by the conflict. Mr. Bush’s assurances to Israel remain on the table.
An even more consistent criticism, though, has been that Mr. Bush failed to follow through, declaring a vision only to let it wither on the vine as the conflict between the Israelis and Palestinians worsened.
“This is not a slogan,” said Dennis Ross, the Middle East envoy for Mr. Clinton and the current president’s father. “If you’re going to do Middle East peace process, you can’t just lay out a broad vision.”
Mr. Bush’s aides bristle at the suggestion that he has not been effectively engaged, noting that it was the president who proposed the Annapolis conference back in July. Ms. Perino, the press secretary, suggested Monday that circumstances in Israel and the Palestinian territories had changed, with both now having leaders willing to negotiate.
Privately, officials also express confidence that the Arab world might finally get behind the effort out of fear of Iran’s rising influence in the region.
Mr. Bush, for now, seems to have accepted the argument that the Palestinian cause is at the root of Islamic mistrust of the United States — or at least that resolving the Middle East conflict could halt the march of Hamas, the radical Islamic group.
To conservatives, that might be Mr. Bush’s biggest gamble: risking a failed peace effort that would lead to greater radicalization.
“If the conference fails, it doesn’t leave you in equipoise,” said John R. Bolton, who served as the United Nations representative under Mr. Bush until last year and is now a vocal critic of the administration. “It could put you in a worse position.”
Comment: I hope this Times article is not reflecting Bush's understanding of ME problems. If it is then the USA is end deep trouble!».
THE JEWISH STATE
Seth Mandel
Zionism is racism. Israel is building a concrete separation barrier. Israel is an apartheid state. Israel is occupying Palestinian land. There are Jewish extremists, too -- like settlers -- so Israelis and Jews should not point fingers at the extremists on the other side. If you're Jewish, and you propagate any of these poisonous myths, please send regards to Norman Finkelstein, Rabbi Michael Lerner, and the leadership of the Neturei Karta at your next meeting of the Enlightened Jews Club.
True enlightenment, however, can come from just one conversation with a man who is the very definition of a Zionist. He is also the very definition of a hero.
His name is Salah Uddin Shoaib Choudhury, and he is a Muslim.
Our readers may remember our front-page article on him back in August. As a quick refresher, Choudhury is a Bangladeshi journalist who was arrested in 2003 for attempting to fly to Tel Aviv. But instead of the minor fine that would normally come with a "passport violation" in Bangladesh, Choudhury was imprisoned, beaten, tortured, starved, and deprived of medical attention for his broken bones and glaucoma.
The reason: Choudhury writes pro-Israel and pro-Jewish columns for his newspaper, The Weekly Blitz, and he speaks out against Islamism, violence, and corruption.
He was put on trial for treason, sedition, espionage, and blasphemy -- essentially for being a "Zionist spy." With the help of Dr. Richard L. Benkin, a Chicago-area analyst for a workers' compensation administrator, Choudhury's cause became public, though the Bangladeshi government has yet to fulfill its promise to drop the charges, and they are proceeding with the trial.
In the hopes that Choudhury will accept political asylum in the Unite States or Canada (among others), Bangladeshi authorities are granting him occasional travel permits. He won't accept asylum, however, no matter how often they try to get rid of him. He wants to fight the battles where they are, even if it means giving his life to do so.
Choudhury was back in the states at the end of October, and has been speaking about the dangers of ignoring Islamists and appeasing terrorists, as well as the right of the state of Israel to be a Jewish state.
Sometimes you can tell the character of a person by the company he keeps. At a Hudson Institute-sponsored luncheon at Manhattan's Four Seasons restaurant on Oct. 30, Choudhury was seated next to Elie Wiesel. Benkin -- a hero himself -- and Naomi Ragen were at another table, and people such as Dr. Alex Grobman, the president of the Institute for Contemporary Jewish Life, were seated around the room as well.
Grobman is the author of "Nations United: How the United Nations Undermines Israel and the West", and Choudhury -- the man everyone came to see -- addressed that subject immediately.
"The United Nations is a diaper -- it is too dirty, we need to dispose of it," he told the audience. He said it without a laugh, because he wasn't joking. Choudhury is as honest as they come, and his disdain for Islamists, terrorist apologists, and anti-Semites was obvious.
The thousands of Bangladeshi madrassas, he told the audience, are "giving birth to thousands and thousands of jihadists, and nobody cares."
When he started speaking out against what he saw as a perversion of Islam and of justice, he said, people called him an idiot.
"I am proud to be an idiot," is his response.
That's because the Islamists, who are teaching Muslims to hate Jews, Christians, and especially Israel, are perpetrating more than hate speech. In 2005, a madrassa teacher raped a 9-year-old girl. During the investigation, the madrassa faculty explained to police that the girl's family was Jewish, and the charges would offend their "religious sensibilities."
Choudhury's response to them: "If raping a 9-year-old girl has something to do with your religious sensibilities, you are worshiping a perverted god."
Because he dared to be an "idiot", that madrassa teacher is now in prison.
In another of many incidents, an Indian woman, who was an employee of Saudi Arabian Airlines, was sexually harassed by her Saudi co-workers. The Saudi government's response was to open their arms and invite the woman to join their royal harem.
But Choudhury covered the story, which was then picked up by the Indian press, and the woman is now free and receiving compensation.
What an "idiot", huh?
But maybe his greatest attribute of "idiocy" is his insistence on being a Muslim Zionist. He is adamant in his belief that Israel is the rightful homeland of the Jewish people, and he understands the danger Israelis face everyday surrounded by their Islamist neighbors, sworn to Israel's destruction.
And so he chides those would support giving Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad a platform to spread his hate. He admonishes those who would blame American meddling or Israeli actions for the anti-Semitic and anti-West hate that fills the hearts of Islamists, and he castigates those who would deny that Western civilization is in the terrorists' crosshairs.
"You are not angry," he told the audience at the Four Seasons. "My brothers and sisters here, please become angry."
What would we say to Choudhury if he would pick up Tikkun magazine or the Ha'aretz newspaper and read about how important it is for us to give our enemies land when they try to destroy ours, or give our enemies guns when they shoot at our children, or give our enemies transportation when they blow up our buses, or give our enemies recognition when they deny our right to exist?
What could we say? Who would be the idiot then?
Netta Kohn Dror-Shav authored a 1998 policy paper for the Ariel Center for Policy Research titled "The Ultimate Enemy -- Jews Against Jews". In it, she explores several defense mechanisms through which Jews drift toward their enemies.
Denial, she wrote, "leads to avoidance of recognizing the actual inherent dangers, and causes a virtual cognitive distortion of reality."
Basic lack of security, she wrote, causes many Israelis to grasp at any offer for peace, disregarding the enemy's conduct in favor of its temporary rhetoric.
Anxiety, Dror-Shav wrote, propels Jews toward "a resolution -- any resolution -- that puts an end to the uncertainty and thus serves to relieve the anxiety in some way."
Lack of confidence, dependency, passivity, guilt, the "good child complex" (the need for approval from everyone), and Jewish self-hatred are also categories Dror-Shav includes in her report. But the most striking one, in my opinion, was this: identification with the aggressor.
Identification with the aggressor is "pernicious", she wrote, because it causes us to abandon our own sense of self and identity, and instead live vicariously through our enemy's struggle because we project the righteousness of our own struggle onto our foe.
And what comes with our enemy's righteousness is the sinister character of those who still cling to the original Jewish struggle, in this case Zionism.
Anything that gets in the way of our enemy's acceptance (those darned settlers!) and the subsequent security (come on, it's not like there are that many rockets falling on our heads) is considered, as Dror-Shav called it, "the ultimate 'enemy'."
Choudhury may call himself, in the words of his detractors, an "idiot", but he is clearly no fool. He sees the situation in the crystallized beauty of truth, without an ounce of psychological projection.
He wants to remain a thorn in the side of the Islamists, and he insists that his suffering has been "minor" -- though he must wear special dark glasses because his glaucoma went untreated for so long, and when his mother passed away while he was in prison in Dhaka, instead of letting him attend the funeral and say goodbye, they tortured him some more, calling him a "son of a b---- Israeli agent".
Yet, he calls Jews his brothers and sisters, he displays a shofar and the text of the Torah in his house, he signs his emails "shalom uvracha", and he dreams of going to Israel.
In fact, in August, Choudhury told me that although his passport stated that he was allowed to travel to any country except Israel, he found the idea simply ridiculous that after not giving in to the Islamists he would surrender to a piece of paper.
"I will visit Israel," he told me. "The passport is not the last word. I will visit. That is my dream; that has to be accomplished."
For now, he travels back to face those who want him dead -- and have the power to make that happen. But he doesn't tone down his rhetoric; he believes that Islamist terrorism isn't only Israel's problem, it is the world's. But Israel, he insists, is on the front lines, and we owe it to the world we are trying to heal to stand foursquare behind the Jewish state.
It might serve us well to have moments of such "idiocy."
"I say Israel is for the Jews," Choudhury said. "People call me a Zionist, and I am proud to be. What is wrong with that?"
Excellent question.
.
Zionism is racism. Israel is building a concrete separation barrier. Israel is an apartheid state. Israel is occupying Palestinian land. There are Jewish extremists, too -- like settlers -- so Israelis and Jews should not point fingers at the extremists on the other side. If you're Jewish, and you propagate any of these poisonous myths, please send regards to Norman Finkelstein, Rabbi Michael Lerner, and the leadership of the Neturei Karta at your next meeting of the Enlightened Jews Club.
True enlightenment, however, can come from just one conversation with a man who is the very definition of a Zionist. He is also the very definition of a hero.
His name is Salah Uddin Shoaib Choudhury, and he is a Muslim.
Our readers may remember our front-page article on him back in August. As a quick refresher, Choudhury is a Bangladeshi journalist who was arrested in 2003 for attempting to fly to Tel Aviv. But instead of the minor fine that would normally come with a "passport violation" in Bangladesh, Choudhury was imprisoned, beaten, tortured, starved, and deprived of medical attention for his broken bones and glaucoma.
The reason: Choudhury writes pro-Israel and pro-Jewish columns for his newspaper, The Weekly Blitz, and he speaks out against Islamism, violence, and corruption.
He was put on trial for treason, sedition, espionage, and blasphemy -- essentially for being a "Zionist spy." With the help of Dr. Richard L. Benkin, a Chicago-area analyst for a workers' compensation administrator, Choudhury's cause became public, though the Bangladeshi government has yet to fulfill its promise to drop the charges, and they are proceeding with the trial.
In the hopes that Choudhury will accept political asylum in the Unite States or Canada (among others), Bangladeshi authorities are granting him occasional travel permits. He won't accept asylum, however, no matter how often they try to get rid of him. He wants to fight the battles where they are, even if it means giving his life to do so.
Choudhury was back in the states at the end of October, and has been speaking about the dangers of ignoring Islamists and appeasing terrorists, as well as the right of the state of Israel to be a Jewish state.
Sometimes you can tell the character of a person by the company he keeps. At a Hudson Institute-sponsored luncheon at Manhattan's Four Seasons restaurant on Oct. 30, Choudhury was seated next to Elie Wiesel. Benkin -- a hero himself -- and Naomi Ragen were at another table, and people such as Dr. Alex Grobman, the president of the Institute for Contemporary Jewish Life, were seated around the room as well.
Grobman is the author of "Nations United: How the United Nations Undermines Israel and the West", and Choudhury -- the man everyone came to see -- addressed that subject immediately.
"The United Nations is a diaper -- it is too dirty, we need to dispose of it," he told the audience. He said it without a laugh, because he wasn't joking. Choudhury is as honest as they come, and his disdain for Islamists, terrorist apologists, and anti-Semites was obvious.
The thousands of Bangladeshi madrassas, he told the audience, are "giving birth to thousands and thousands of jihadists, and nobody cares."
When he started speaking out against what he saw as a perversion of Islam and of justice, he said, people called him an idiot.
"I am proud to be an idiot," is his response.
That's because the Islamists, who are teaching Muslims to hate Jews, Christians, and especially Israel, are perpetrating more than hate speech. In 2005, a madrassa teacher raped a 9-year-old girl. During the investigation, the madrassa faculty explained to police that the girl's family was Jewish, and the charges would offend their "religious sensibilities."
Choudhury's response to them: "If raping a 9-year-old girl has something to do with your religious sensibilities, you are worshiping a perverted god."
Because he dared to be an "idiot", that madrassa teacher is now in prison.
In another of many incidents, an Indian woman, who was an employee of Saudi Arabian Airlines, was sexually harassed by her Saudi co-workers. The Saudi government's response was to open their arms and invite the woman to join their royal harem.
But Choudhury covered the story, which was then picked up by the Indian press, and the woman is now free and receiving compensation.
What an "idiot", huh?
But maybe his greatest attribute of "idiocy" is his insistence on being a Muslim Zionist. He is adamant in his belief that Israel is the rightful homeland of the Jewish people, and he understands the danger Israelis face everyday surrounded by their Islamist neighbors, sworn to Israel's destruction.
And so he chides those would support giving Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad a platform to spread his hate. He admonishes those who would blame American meddling or Israeli actions for the anti-Semitic and anti-West hate that fills the hearts of Islamists, and he castigates those who would deny that Western civilization is in the terrorists' crosshairs.
"You are not angry," he told the audience at the Four Seasons. "My brothers and sisters here, please become angry."
What would we say to Choudhury if he would pick up Tikkun magazine or the Ha'aretz newspaper and read about how important it is for us to give our enemies land when they try to destroy ours, or give our enemies guns when they shoot at our children, or give our enemies transportation when they blow up our buses, or give our enemies recognition when they deny our right to exist?
What could we say? Who would be the idiot then?
Netta Kohn Dror-Shav authored a 1998 policy paper for the Ariel Center for Policy Research titled "The Ultimate Enemy -- Jews Against Jews". In it, she explores several defense mechanisms through which Jews drift toward their enemies.
Denial, she wrote, "leads to avoidance of recognizing the actual inherent dangers, and causes a virtual cognitive distortion of reality."
Basic lack of security, she wrote, causes many Israelis to grasp at any offer for peace, disregarding the enemy's conduct in favor of its temporary rhetoric.
Anxiety, Dror-Shav wrote, propels Jews toward "a resolution -- any resolution -- that puts an end to the uncertainty and thus serves to relieve the anxiety in some way."
Lack of confidence, dependency, passivity, guilt, the "good child complex" (the need for approval from everyone), and Jewish self-hatred are also categories Dror-Shav includes in her report. But the most striking one, in my opinion, was this: identification with the aggressor.
Identification with the aggressor is "pernicious", she wrote, because it causes us to abandon our own sense of self and identity, and instead live vicariously through our enemy's struggle because we project the righteousness of our own struggle onto our foe.
And what comes with our enemy's righteousness is the sinister character of those who still cling to the original Jewish struggle, in this case Zionism.
Anything that gets in the way of our enemy's acceptance (those darned settlers!) and the subsequent security (come on, it's not like there are that many rockets falling on our heads) is considered, as Dror-Shav called it, "the ultimate 'enemy'."
Choudhury may call himself, in the words of his detractors, an "idiot", but he is clearly no fool. He sees the situation in the crystallized beauty of truth, without an ounce of psychological projection.
He wants to remain a thorn in the side of the Islamists, and he insists that his suffering has been "minor" -- though he must wear special dark glasses because his glaucoma went untreated for so long, and when his mother passed away while he was in prison in Dhaka, instead of letting him attend the funeral and say goodbye, they tortured him some more, calling him a "son of a b---- Israeli agent".
Yet, he calls Jews his brothers and sisters, he displays a shofar and the text of the Torah in his house, he signs his emails "shalom uvracha", and he dreams of going to Israel.
In fact, in August, Choudhury told me that although his passport stated that he was allowed to travel to any country except Israel, he found the idea simply ridiculous that after not giving in to the Islamists he would surrender to a piece of paper.
"I will visit Israel," he told me. "The passport is not the last word. I will visit. That is my dream; that has to be accomplished."
For now, he travels back to face those who want him dead -- and have the power to make that happen. But he doesn't tone down his rhetoric; he believes that Islamist terrorism isn't only Israel's problem, it is the world's. But Israel, he insists, is on the front lines, and we owe it to the world we are trying to heal to stand foursquare behind the Jewish state.
It might serve us well to have moments of such "idiocy."
"I say Israel is for the Jews," Choudhury said. "People call me a Zionist, and I am proud to be. What is wrong with that?"
Excellent question.
.
Drilling a Hole in the Lifeboat
Barry Rubin
Middle East priorities have gone astray.. What would you do if your foreign policy agenda had these priorities:
Get Arab and European support for solving the Iraq crisis.
Mobilize Arab and European forces against a threat led by Iran and its allies, Syria, Hamas, and Hizballah.
Get Iran to stop its campaign to get nuclear weapons.
Reestablish American credibility toward friends and deterrence toward enemies.
Reduce the level of Israel-Palestinian conflict.
That pretty much describes the U.S. framework for dealing with the Middle East nowadays. The Annapolis conference is not going to contribute to these goals. The most likely outcome is either failure or a non-event portrayed as a victory because it took place at all. No one is going to say: We are so grateful at the United States becoming more active on Arab-Israeli issues that we are going to back its policy on other issues.
On the contrary, the conference is more likely to show the inability of the United States to produce results, thus undermining belief in U.S. leverage in the region in general. It shines the spotlight on the most divisive issue, the great excuse for not doing more to help U.S. efforts, raising its prominence. What most of Washington simply fails to understand is that any real demand for Palestinian or Arab concessions will be fodder for radical groups and frighten Arab regimes, pushing the latter away from support for America rather than toward it. And any Israeli concessions obtained by this process will not satisfy their demands either.
Despite thousands of claims by lots of famous people, national leaders, and respected journals, solving the Arab-Israeli conflict will not make radical Islamism or terrorism go away. Would you like to know why? Because even if this issue could be solved—which isn’t about to happen for reasons requiring a different article—to do so would necessitate a compromise including an end to the conflict, acceptance of Israel, and compromises by the Arab side. These steps would inflame the extremists and make any Arab rulers who accepted it vulnerable to being called traitors. It would increase instability in the Arab world, also by removing the conflict as splendid excuse and basis for mobilizing support for the current rulers. Arab politicians understand this reality; most people in the West don’t.
Such considerations are accurate analytically but the conference will take place any way. It has been reinterpreted by the U.S. government as the opening of a long-term process rather than its culmination. The analogy is to the Madrid meeting of 1991—which started a nine-year-long failed peace process—rather than to the Camp David summit of 2000, which marked its breakdown.
Given the fact that the meeting is going to take place, and one would like to see as little damage result as possible, what is the worst mistake that could be made to ensure that an already difficult situation becomes worse? Answer: invite Syria.
Let’s remember a few things. The meeting was called to deal with the Palestinian issue. Bringing in the Syrian question is going to destroy that focus. Palestinian leaders know this to be true and no doubt are horrified by Damascus getting equal time.
But that’s just the start of the problem. Run your eye back up the page to the five points listed as priorities for U.S. policy.
Iraq? Syria is the main sponsor of the terrorist insurgency. It has a deep interest in ensuring that no moderate, stable, pro-Western regime takes root in Syria.
The radical alliance? Syria is a leading factor in the problem, a partner with Iran for twenty years. Anyone who believes that Damascus can be split from Tehran understands nothing about the mutual benefits Syria gets from the alliance, far greater than anything the West could possibly give to its dictator President Bashar al-Asad.
Iranian nuclear? When Iran gets atomic weapons it will be a great day for Syria, ensuring its strategic protection, damaging Western influence, and helping the radical Islamist cause that Syria backs.
American credibility? It undermines years of U.S. efforts to pressure Bashar away from radical adventurism. Syria can now show that it can kill Americans soldiers in Iraq, murder democratic Lebanese politicians, foment Hamas’s takeover of the Gaza Strip, and sponsor Hizballah’s effort to seize power in Lebanon without incurring any serious risk or cost.
On the contrary, Syria is now making demands on the United States for concessions in order to entice it to show up. This is happening at the very moment when plans for an international trial of Syrian leaders for political assassinations in Lebanon is gathering momentum, as Syria’s campaign to install a puppet government in Beirut has just been foiled.
Is the conference’s purpose, however ill-conceived, to make progress on Arab-Israeli peace and strengthen the Palestinian Authority? Having Syria present lets in the main Arab sponsor of Hamas, a state working tirelessly to throw out the current Palestinian leadership and raise the level of Arab-Israeli violence.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Barry Rubin is Director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center, Interdisciplinary Center university. His latest book, The Truth about Syria was published by Palgrave-Macmillan in May 2007. Prof. Rubin's columns can be read online at: http://gloria.idc.ac.il/articles/index.html.
.
Middle East priorities have gone astray.. What would you do if your foreign policy agenda had these priorities:
Get Arab and European support for solving the Iraq crisis.
Mobilize Arab and European forces against a threat led by Iran and its allies, Syria, Hamas, and Hizballah.
Get Iran to stop its campaign to get nuclear weapons.
Reestablish American credibility toward friends and deterrence toward enemies.
Reduce the level of Israel-Palestinian conflict.
That pretty much describes the U.S. framework for dealing with the Middle East nowadays. The Annapolis conference is not going to contribute to these goals. The most likely outcome is either failure or a non-event portrayed as a victory because it took place at all. No one is going to say: We are so grateful at the United States becoming more active on Arab-Israeli issues that we are going to back its policy on other issues.
On the contrary, the conference is more likely to show the inability of the United States to produce results, thus undermining belief in U.S. leverage in the region in general. It shines the spotlight on the most divisive issue, the great excuse for not doing more to help U.S. efforts, raising its prominence. What most of Washington simply fails to understand is that any real demand for Palestinian or Arab concessions will be fodder for radical groups and frighten Arab regimes, pushing the latter away from support for America rather than toward it. And any Israeli concessions obtained by this process will not satisfy their demands either.
Despite thousands of claims by lots of famous people, national leaders, and respected journals, solving the Arab-Israeli conflict will not make radical Islamism or terrorism go away. Would you like to know why? Because even if this issue could be solved—which isn’t about to happen for reasons requiring a different article—to do so would necessitate a compromise including an end to the conflict, acceptance of Israel, and compromises by the Arab side. These steps would inflame the extremists and make any Arab rulers who accepted it vulnerable to being called traitors. It would increase instability in the Arab world, also by removing the conflict as splendid excuse and basis for mobilizing support for the current rulers. Arab politicians understand this reality; most people in the West don’t.
Such considerations are accurate analytically but the conference will take place any way. It has been reinterpreted by the U.S. government as the opening of a long-term process rather than its culmination. The analogy is to the Madrid meeting of 1991—which started a nine-year-long failed peace process—rather than to the Camp David summit of 2000, which marked its breakdown.
Given the fact that the meeting is going to take place, and one would like to see as little damage result as possible, what is the worst mistake that could be made to ensure that an already difficult situation becomes worse? Answer: invite Syria.
Let’s remember a few things. The meeting was called to deal with the Palestinian issue. Bringing in the Syrian question is going to destroy that focus. Palestinian leaders know this to be true and no doubt are horrified by Damascus getting equal time.
But that’s just the start of the problem. Run your eye back up the page to the five points listed as priorities for U.S. policy.
Iraq? Syria is the main sponsor of the terrorist insurgency. It has a deep interest in ensuring that no moderate, stable, pro-Western regime takes root in Syria.
The radical alliance? Syria is a leading factor in the problem, a partner with Iran for twenty years. Anyone who believes that Damascus can be split from Tehran understands nothing about the mutual benefits Syria gets from the alliance, far greater than anything the West could possibly give to its dictator President Bashar al-Asad.
Iranian nuclear? When Iran gets atomic weapons it will be a great day for Syria, ensuring its strategic protection, damaging Western influence, and helping the radical Islamist cause that Syria backs.
American credibility? It undermines years of U.S. efforts to pressure Bashar away from radical adventurism. Syria can now show that it can kill Americans soldiers in Iraq, murder democratic Lebanese politicians, foment Hamas’s takeover of the Gaza Strip, and sponsor Hizballah’s effort to seize power in Lebanon without incurring any serious risk or cost.
On the contrary, Syria is now making demands on the United States for concessions in order to entice it to show up. This is happening at the very moment when plans for an international trial of Syrian leaders for political assassinations in Lebanon is gathering momentum, as Syria’s campaign to install a puppet government in Beirut has just been foiled.
Is the conference’s purpose, however ill-conceived, to make progress on Arab-Israeli peace and strengthen the Palestinian Authority? Having Syria present lets in the main Arab sponsor of Hamas, a state working tirelessly to throw out the current Palestinian leadership and raise the level of Arab-Israeli violence.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Barry Rubin is Director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center, Interdisciplinary Center university. His latest book, The Truth about Syria was published by Palgrave-Macmillan in May 2007. Prof. Rubin's columns can be read online at: http://gloria.idc.ac.il/articles/index.html.
.
Monday, November 26, 2007
RICE CHOREOGRAPHED THE ANNAPOLIS LYNCHING
Emanuel A. Winston
Mid East Analyst & Commentator
Every time America's Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and her underhanded propaganda mechanics leaked misleading information about the Annapolis Lynching . I tried to cut through the lies. First Rice floated the idea that the "reformed Terrorist" Mahmoud Abbas was finally there as an "honest partner" for Israel's Prime Minister Ehud Olmert to deal with.
While she yapped about the "inevitable peace", she offered up the "division of Jerusalem" so Israel's opposition would focus on that primarily, while she colluded with Saudi Arabia, Syria and the PLO's Fatah to divide Israel's heartland, Judea and Samaria, from the rest of Israel as her first, main target.
Many of us saw through that ploy.
All the while Rice whipped and tugged on her trembling poodle, PM Olmert, to obey or have his nose pushed into his own dirt. He trembled and obeyed despite knowing he was not only selling out the Jewish nation but also the inevitable dead and wounded to follow.
Then Rice floated the idea that Bush himself was starting to go against her idea of bring every enemy Israel and the Jews had into one big Conference Room. That proved to be a lie, no doubt, on the advice of James Baker III, Papa Bush's Secretary of State, whose past meets the qualification of a Grand Inquisitor for the Catholic Church during the Inquisition.
The Queen "B" floats the idea that the Annapolis Lynching may be postponed for a year. That was so blatant that even the Jews and Christians of wishful thinkers knew they were being suckered. They knew that her intention was to give us all false hope and call off the opposition to dicing Israel into edible pieces for the Terrorists and satisfy Saudi Arabia.
Now you know that the lies piled upon lies was a carefully calculated plan by Rice, the Arabist State Department, James Baker - all with the approval of Bush himself.
The Annapolis Butchery is now scheduled to take place, first with a dinner in Washington on November 26th and then the whole day of November 27th at the Annapolis Naval Academy as "manipulated" by C. Rice. It's supposed to be safely and secretly hidden at Annapolis, Maryland - far away from the multitudes of opposition protesters and media who might have made a difference in the survival and sovereignty of the State of Israel and the lives of the 6 ½ million Israelis.
All the promises to eviscerate Israel's heartland have been on-going non-stop, despite the leaks that Saudi Arabia or Syria (hopefully) will not attend.
The Rice Perfidy was plain for all to see and now the Queen "B" swings the cleaver. Once again the "Final Solution to the Jewish Question" is on the butcher block as happened at Wannsee under Heydrich and Eichmann.
Israel and her Jews are intended (by this bunch of UN-holy ghouls) to meet the fate of extinction IF C. Rice and the rest of the world have their way with them.
Even as the Islamists of the Arab world promise on their Korans to not only kill off Israel and America as well, the Quislings of American governance join them, ignoring their own peril.
As I have said for years, hopefully G-d's patience has worn thin and will take retribution upon the nations and their leaders for trying to destroy His handiwork and his people.
"NEVER FORGET! NEVER FORGIVE!"
.
Mid East Analyst & Commentator
Every time America's Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and her underhanded propaganda mechanics leaked misleading information about the Annapolis Lynching . I tried to cut through the lies. First Rice floated the idea that the "reformed Terrorist" Mahmoud Abbas was finally there as an "honest partner" for Israel's Prime Minister Ehud Olmert to deal with.
While she yapped about the "inevitable peace", she offered up the "division of Jerusalem" so Israel's opposition would focus on that primarily, while she colluded with Saudi Arabia, Syria and the PLO's Fatah to divide Israel's heartland, Judea and Samaria, from the rest of Israel as her first, main target.
Many of us saw through that ploy.
All the while Rice whipped and tugged on her trembling poodle, PM Olmert, to obey or have his nose pushed into his own dirt. He trembled and obeyed despite knowing he was not only selling out the Jewish nation but also the inevitable dead and wounded to follow.
Then Rice floated the idea that Bush himself was starting to go against her idea of bring every enemy Israel and the Jews had into one big Conference Room. That proved to be a lie, no doubt, on the advice of James Baker III, Papa Bush's Secretary of State, whose past meets the qualification of a Grand Inquisitor for the Catholic Church during the Inquisition.
The Queen "B" floats the idea that the Annapolis Lynching may be postponed for a year. That was so blatant that even the Jews and Christians of wishful thinkers knew they were being suckered. They knew that her intention was to give us all false hope and call off the opposition to dicing Israel into edible pieces for the Terrorists and satisfy Saudi Arabia.
Now you know that the lies piled upon lies was a carefully calculated plan by Rice, the Arabist State Department, James Baker - all with the approval of Bush himself.
The Annapolis Butchery is now scheduled to take place, first with a dinner in Washington on November 26th and then the whole day of November 27th at the Annapolis Naval Academy as "manipulated" by C. Rice. It's supposed to be safely and secretly hidden at Annapolis, Maryland - far away from the multitudes of opposition protesters and media who might have made a difference in the survival and sovereignty of the State of Israel and the lives of the 6 ½ million Israelis.
All the promises to eviscerate Israel's heartland have been on-going non-stop, despite the leaks that Saudi Arabia or Syria (hopefully) will not attend.
The Rice Perfidy was plain for all to see and now the Queen "B" swings the cleaver. Once again the "Final Solution to the Jewish Question" is on the butcher block as happened at Wannsee under Heydrich and Eichmann.
Israel and her Jews are intended (by this bunch of UN-holy ghouls) to meet the fate of extinction IF C. Rice and the rest of the world have their way with them.
Even as the Islamists of the Arab world promise on their Korans to not only kill off Israel and America as well, the Quislings of American governance join them, ignoring their own peril.
As I have said for years, hopefully G-d's patience has worn thin and will take retribution upon the nations and their leaders for trying to destroy His handiwork and his people.
"NEVER FORGET! NEVER FORGIVE!"
.
Lieberman calls Annapolis a "photo-op"
HerGil Hoffman
THE JERUSALEM POST
Nov. 26, 2007
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Strategic Affairs Minister Avigdor Lieberman is convinced that no major diplomatic steps will be taken at the Annapolis summit, the Israel Beiteinu leader told The Jerusalem Post at the Knesset on Monday.
. Lieberman said he was glad to hear reports that Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has ruled out the formation of a Palestinian state until Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas regained control over the Gaza Strip from Hamas.
"This will be the biggest headline that will come out of Annapolis," Lieberman said, expressing satisfaction that his efforts to minimize the potential damage to Israel from the summer had apparently succeeded.
Lieberman said he did not expect Abbas to overthrow Hamas in the Gaza Strip.
"There is no chance that he can regain control of Gaza," Lieberman said in an interview with the Knesset Channel. "As long as he is not in control o Gaza, he cannot claim to represent anyone. In the West Bank, it's our security forces that are in control. Because he is so weak, our minimum requests are more than he can accomplish."
Lieberman summarized Annapolis as "A terrific cocktail party and a fantastic photo-op" with "no chance of a breakthrough."
Opposition leader Binyamin Netanyahu was more concerned than Lieberman that Israel will make dangerous concessions at Annapolis. He told the Liked faction in the Knesset that Israel had given up the policy of insisting on Palestinian reciprocity.
"For real dialogue and real peace, strong partners were necessary on both sides but neither Olmert nor Abbas fit that bill," Netanyahu said. "The Palestinian Authority is weak and unwilling to lift a finger to stop terror. This process will unfortunately not lead to peace but to the dangers of more concessions that will threaten the essential interests of Israel. We require different partners and a different government."
When one member of the faction suggested that Israel was being victimized by American pressure, Netanyahu said he disagreed.
"I don't think there is any American pressure," Netanyahu said. "There is only Israeli submission. If an Israeli leader had said Israeli security requires standing up for A, B, C or D, I don't think the current US president would have stood in his way."
.
THE JERUSALEM POST
Nov. 26, 2007
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Strategic Affairs Minister Avigdor Lieberman is convinced that no major diplomatic steps will be taken at the Annapolis summit, the Israel Beiteinu leader told The Jerusalem Post at the Knesset on Monday.
. Lieberman said he was glad to hear reports that Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has ruled out the formation of a Palestinian state until Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas regained control over the Gaza Strip from Hamas.
"This will be the biggest headline that will come out of Annapolis," Lieberman said, expressing satisfaction that his efforts to minimize the potential damage to Israel from the summer had apparently succeeded.
Lieberman said he did not expect Abbas to overthrow Hamas in the Gaza Strip.
"There is no chance that he can regain control of Gaza," Lieberman said in an interview with the Knesset Channel. "As long as he is not in control o Gaza, he cannot claim to represent anyone. In the West Bank, it's our security forces that are in control. Because he is so weak, our minimum requests are more than he can accomplish."
Lieberman summarized Annapolis as "A terrific cocktail party and a fantastic photo-op" with "no chance of a breakthrough."
Opposition leader Binyamin Netanyahu was more concerned than Lieberman that Israel will make dangerous concessions at Annapolis. He told the Liked faction in the Knesset that Israel had given up the policy of insisting on Palestinian reciprocity.
"For real dialogue and real peace, strong partners were necessary on both sides but neither Olmert nor Abbas fit that bill," Netanyahu said. "The Palestinian Authority is weak and unwilling to lift a finger to stop terror. This process will unfortunately not lead to peace but to the dangers of more concessions that will threaten the essential interests of Israel. We require different partners and a different government."
When one member of the faction suggested that Israel was being victimized by American pressure, Netanyahu said he disagreed.
"I don't think there is any American pressure," Netanyahu said. "There is only Israeli submission. If an Israeli leader had said Israeli security requires standing up for A, B, C or D, I don't think the current US president would have stood in his way."
.
Abbas aide says joint statement imminent
Herb Keinon
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
An elusive joint Israeli-Palestinian statement on the contours of future peace talks is within reach, a senior member of the Palestinian delegation said Monday, hours before a high-stakes international conference on the Mideast was to open.
. "We will reach a joint paper today or tomorrow," Yasser Abed Rabbo, a senior aide to Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, told The Associated Press. "There is a persistent American effort to have this statement."
After months of trying to forge a joint outline, Israel and the Palestinians have made an 11th-hour push in recent days to come up with a statement for presentation at the gathering, which is to be the first time that Israel, a large group of Arab states and international envoys from around the world sit down together to try to re-launch a peace process.
But Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni and Palestinian negotiator Ahmad Qurei failed to agree Sunday night on a joint statement, Israel Radio reported.
The two met for unscheduled talks in the foreign minister's Washington hotel to try, albeit unsuccessfully, to reach an agreement on the declaration.
Livni had earlier met US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to discuss the issue of the joint declaration and Rice hosted the foreign minister and Qurei for dinner after their talks Sunday night.
Earlier Sunday, Livni said that regardless of whether a joint document would emerge, the Annapolis conference would launch a negotiating process that would deal with the core issues. The statements to be delivered on Tuesday were meant to launch that process, she said.
US President George Bush's national security adviser, Stephen Hadley, said the joint statement was not as important as it might have seemed when it was first broached. The two sides took the unexpected step of seeking negotiations, and the declaration no longer needed to serve as a vehicle to prod them to do so, Hadley said.
"If we get something, if they can agree on some things as an input to the negotiations, that would be fine," Hadley said. "But I think it is really no longer on the critical path to a successful conference."
Livni said the conference would be a defining moment in the Middle East, clearly casting those who came to the meeting as "moderates" and those who did not as "extremists."
"We are going to an event in which the whole Arab world is participating, which is meant to support the process between Israel and the Palestinians," she said. "There are those who are coming to Annapolis and those who are yelling and saying that it is forbidden to make peace."
Those in the later category, she said, included Hamas and Iran.
Livni said Israel had learned from the collapse of the Camp David talks in 2000 that the Palestinians would not be able to reach an agreement with Israel without Arab support. At the same time, however, she said the countries at the conference would not be involved in the bilateral Israeli-Palestinian negotiations. Their role, she said, was to support the process, not to become involved in the negotiations.
The foreign minister noted that Abbas was instrumental in getting the Saudis to participate in the conference, convincing them that Israel was going to Annapolis "meaning business."
As well as the topic of the joint Israeli-Palestinian declaration, another key issue that remains a source of deep disagreement a day before the conference is whether the Golan Heights will be on the meeting's agenda.
Syria released a statement on Sunday announcing its participation in the conference by saying that it had accepted a US invitation to attend after the Syrian track was placed "on the conference agenda in accordance with decisions of international laws and the Arab Peace Initiative."
One senior government official said that while the focus of the Annapolis conference was on the Palestinian-Israeli bilateral track, it was not inconceivable that out of this process, other bilateral tracks - such as an Israeli-Syrian track - could emerge.
Olmert told reporters accompanying him Sunday that if "conditions ripen," Israel would look favorably on negotiations with Syria. He said that Israel had always been in favor of Damascus's participation in the Annapolis conference, and added that the US had made no promises to Syria to ensure their participation.
Syria's official news agency, SANA, said Syria would be represented at the Annapolis conference by Deputy Foreign Minister Faisal al-Miqdad. The decision was made "after the Syria track was added to the conference agenda," SANA said.
Syria has long said it would only attend the meeting if the Golan Heights were on the agenda.
The decision to send a deputy foreign minister and not the country's top diplomat appeared to indicate that Syria was not entirely confident the conference would address the Golan, which Israel captured in the Six Day War.
Livni said that while the Golan would not be on the Annapolis meeting's agenda, the Syrians would surely raise the issue Tuesday afternoon at one of the three workshops in Annapolis dealing with the issue of "comprehensive peace." She likewise said that others might raise the issue of Jerusalem, a reference to Saudi Arabia.
"Everybody can talk about what they want," she said.
The State Department press office would not confirm reports in the Syrian media that the US had committed to officially putting the Golan Heights on the agenda, let alone sent a written confirmation. However, State Department officials, like Israeli officials, have left open the possibility that Syria could introduce the issue of its own accord during one of the conference sessions.
"We think Annapolis represents an opportunity for all those who would like to make meaningful steps toward peace, to come and represent their views," a State Department official said Sunday, noting that an official agenda had not yet been released. "Annapolis attendees are entitled to express their views and their national interests as they see them."
The White House has also welcomed broader Arab participation, of which Syrian participation is a key component.
"We welcome the attendance of so many countries from the region and around the world," said National Security Council spokesman Gordon Johndroe. "This large number signals broad support for Israeli-Palestinian peace efforts."
Later Sunday, Bush pledged his commitment to a two-state solution.
"I remain personally committed to implementing my vision of two democratic states, Israel and Palestine, living side by side in peace and security," Bush said in a statement released by the White House.
Bush added that the conference would signal international support for the Israelis' and Palestinians' intention to commence negotiations on the establishment of a Palestinian state and the realization of peace between the two peoples.
"The broad attendance at this conference by regional states and other key international participants demonstrates the international resolve to seize this important opportunity to advance freedom and peace in the Middle East," continued the statement.
Meanwhile, Nabil Sha'ath, a close adviser to Abbas, said on Sunday afternoon in Washington that the two sides were going to make another effort later in the day to draw a joint declaration of principles. He said he thought it was unlikely that they would make dramatic progress in three hours when they had failed to do so over the previous 50 days, but that he was still guardedly optimistic about the Annapolis summit.
He added that even if a joint statement could not be agreed upon, "we will engage on the basis of the terms of reference" previously agreed on by the two sides.
Sha'ath said he was optimistic because he saw a real opportunity for progress, and plainly 48 countries had been seeking invitations for Annapolis because they realized how important it was to solve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
"I don't expect any more [from the summit] than an immediate restart of the negotiating process between Israel and the Palestinians, and hopefully eventually Israel and the Syrians," he said.
He added that success in the diplomatic endeavor would strengthen both Abbas and Olmert and the support for their leadership by their respective peoples.
Nabil Abu Radeinah, another adviser to Abbas, was far less optimistic. He said he did not think the Israelis were serious about peacemaking, and noted that despite seven or eight meetings between Olmert and Abbas, the two sides had not been able to agree "on a single word" in the planned joint declaration.
Olmert and Livni were to be joined in Washington on Sunday night by Defense Minister Ehud Barak, who arrived following a brief trip to New York for meetings. Olmert was accompanied by his wife Aliza.
Olmert is scheduled to meet with US President George W. Bush on Monday for the first of three meetings in as many days. Bush is also scheduled to hold a meting with Abbas that same day.
On Tuesday the three will hold trilateral talks in Annapolis, and Olmert will again huddle with the US president on Wednesday, in a meeting expected to focus on Iran.
Meanwhile, Rice is hosting a dinner reception for the participants of the conference at the State Department on Monday evening.
Hilary Leila Krieger and AP contributed to this report.
.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
An elusive joint Israeli-Palestinian statement on the contours of future peace talks is within reach, a senior member of the Palestinian delegation said Monday, hours before a high-stakes international conference on the Mideast was to open.
. "We will reach a joint paper today or tomorrow," Yasser Abed Rabbo, a senior aide to Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, told The Associated Press. "There is a persistent American effort to have this statement."
After months of trying to forge a joint outline, Israel and the Palestinians have made an 11th-hour push in recent days to come up with a statement for presentation at the gathering, which is to be the first time that Israel, a large group of Arab states and international envoys from around the world sit down together to try to re-launch a peace process.
But Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni and Palestinian negotiator Ahmad Qurei failed to agree Sunday night on a joint statement, Israel Radio reported.
The two met for unscheduled talks in the foreign minister's Washington hotel to try, albeit unsuccessfully, to reach an agreement on the declaration.
Livni had earlier met US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to discuss the issue of the joint declaration and Rice hosted the foreign minister and Qurei for dinner after their talks Sunday night.
Earlier Sunday, Livni said that regardless of whether a joint document would emerge, the Annapolis conference would launch a negotiating process that would deal with the core issues. The statements to be delivered on Tuesday were meant to launch that process, she said.
US President George Bush's national security adviser, Stephen Hadley, said the joint statement was not as important as it might have seemed when it was first broached. The two sides took the unexpected step of seeking negotiations, and the declaration no longer needed to serve as a vehicle to prod them to do so, Hadley said.
"If we get something, if they can agree on some things as an input to the negotiations, that would be fine," Hadley said. "But I think it is really no longer on the critical path to a successful conference."
Livni said the conference would be a defining moment in the Middle East, clearly casting those who came to the meeting as "moderates" and those who did not as "extremists."
"We are going to an event in which the whole Arab world is participating, which is meant to support the process between Israel and the Palestinians," she said. "There are those who are coming to Annapolis and those who are yelling and saying that it is forbidden to make peace."
Those in the later category, she said, included Hamas and Iran.
Livni said Israel had learned from the collapse of the Camp David talks in 2000 that the Palestinians would not be able to reach an agreement with Israel without Arab support. At the same time, however, she said the countries at the conference would not be involved in the bilateral Israeli-Palestinian negotiations. Their role, she said, was to support the process, not to become involved in the negotiations.
The foreign minister noted that Abbas was instrumental in getting the Saudis to participate in the conference, convincing them that Israel was going to Annapolis "meaning business."
As well as the topic of the joint Israeli-Palestinian declaration, another key issue that remains a source of deep disagreement a day before the conference is whether the Golan Heights will be on the meeting's agenda.
Syria released a statement on Sunday announcing its participation in the conference by saying that it had accepted a US invitation to attend after the Syrian track was placed "on the conference agenda in accordance with decisions of international laws and the Arab Peace Initiative."
One senior government official said that while the focus of the Annapolis conference was on the Palestinian-Israeli bilateral track, it was not inconceivable that out of this process, other bilateral tracks - such as an Israeli-Syrian track - could emerge.
Olmert told reporters accompanying him Sunday that if "conditions ripen," Israel would look favorably on negotiations with Syria. He said that Israel had always been in favor of Damascus's participation in the Annapolis conference, and added that the US had made no promises to Syria to ensure their participation.
Syria's official news agency, SANA, said Syria would be represented at the Annapolis conference by Deputy Foreign Minister Faisal al-Miqdad. The decision was made "after the Syria track was added to the conference agenda," SANA said.
Syria has long said it would only attend the meeting if the Golan Heights were on the agenda.
The decision to send a deputy foreign minister and not the country's top diplomat appeared to indicate that Syria was not entirely confident the conference would address the Golan, which Israel captured in the Six Day War.
Livni said that while the Golan would not be on the Annapolis meeting's agenda, the Syrians would surely raise the issue Tuesday afternoon at one of the three workshops in Annapolis dealing with the issue of "comprehensive peace." She likewise said that others might raise the issue of Jerusalem, a reference to Saudi Arabia.
"Everybody can talk about what they want," she said.
The State Department press office would not confirm reports in the Syrian media that the US had committed to officially putting the Golan Heights on the agenda, let alone sent a written confirmation. However, State Department officials, like Israeli officials, have left open the possibility that Syria could introduce the issue of its own accord during one of the conference sessions.
"We think Annapolis represents an opportunity for all those who would like to make meaningful steps toward peace, to come and represent their views," a State Department official said Sunday, noting that an official agenda had not yet been released. "Annapolis attendees are entitled to express their views and their national interests as they see them."
The White House has also welcomed broader Arab participation, of which Syrian participation is a key component.
"We welcome the attendance of so many countries from the region and around the world," said National Security Council spokesman Gordon Johndroe. "This large number signals broad support for Israeli-Palestinian peace efforts."
Later Sunday, Bush pledged his commitment to a two-state solution.
"I remain personally committed to implementing my vision of two democratic states, Israel and Palestine, living side by side in peace and security," Bush said in a statement released by the White House.
Bush added that the conference would signal international support for the Israelis' and Palestinians' intention to commence negotiations on the establishment of a Palestinian state and the realization of peace between the two peoples.
"The broad attendance at this conference by regional states and other key international participants demonstrates the international resolve to seize this important opportunity to advance freedom and peace in the Middle East," continued the statement.
Meanwhile, Nabil Sha'ath, a close adviser to Abbas, said on Sunday afternoon in Washington that the two sides were going to make another effort later in the day to draw a joint declaration of principles. He said he thought it was unlikely that they would make dramatic progress in three hours when they had failed to do so over the previous 50 days, but that he was still guardedly optimistic about the Annapolis summit.
He added that even if a joint statement could not be agreed upon, "we will engage on the basis of the terms of reference" previously agreed on by the two sides.
Sha'ath said he was optimistic because he saw a real opportunity for progress, and plainly 48 countries had been seeking invitations for Annapolis because they realized how important it was to solve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
"I don't expect any more [from the summit] than an immediate restart of the negotiating process between Israel and the Palestinians, and hopefully eventually Israel and the Syrians," he said.
He added that success in the diplomatic endeavor would strengthen both Abbas and Olmert and the support for their leadership by their respective peoples.
Nabil Abu Radeinah, another adviser to Abbas, was far less optimistic. He said he did not think the Israelis were serious about peacemaking, and noted that despite seven or eight meetings between Olmert and Abbas, the two sides had not been able to agree "on a single word" in the planned joint declaration.
Olmert and Livni were to be joined in Washington on Sunday night by Defense Minister Ehud Barak, who arrived following a brief trip to New York for meetings. Olmert was accompanied by his wife Aliza.
Olmert is scheduled to meet with US President George W. Bush on Monday for the first of three meetings in as many days. Bush is also scheduled to hold a meting with Abbas that same day.
On Tuesday the three will hold trilateral talks in Annapolis, and Olmert will again huddle with the US president on Wednesday, in a meeting expected to focus on Iran.
Meanwhile, Rice is hosting a dinner reception for the participants of the conference at the State Department on Monday evening.
Hilary Leila Krieger and AP contributed to this report.
.
Sunday, November 25, 2007
Yaalon Says Politicians Know: To Be Coddled, Go Left
Hillel Fendel
Former IDF Chief of Staff Lt.-Gen. (ret.) Moshe Yaalon accuses the media of protecting politicians who adopt left-wing policies.
. In an interview with Army Radio on Sunday morning, Yaalon said, "Politicians have learned that if they go towards steps such as disengagement, convergence [i.e., withdrawal from Judea and Samaria], and folding, then the central current of public dialogue - and I'm talking chiefly about the media - will raise them up."
Yaalon was the Chief of Staff from 2002 until 2005. Then-Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and his Defense Minister Sha'ul Mofaz did not extend Yaalon's three-year term, in a departure from custom, and he concluded his term in June 2005, just 11 weeks before the expulsion/withdrawal from Jewish Gaza began. Yaalon had expressed some opposition to the plan.
"The phrase 'to etrog a politician' [meaning, to treat him very protectively, as one does with an etrog fruit during the Sukkot holiday] is not something I made up," Yaalon said. "It was made up by a journalist [Amnon Abramovitch]. I call upon some of those who are thought to be leading journalists - and there is no small degree of corruption there [in the media] that, I feel, causes politicians to understand that if they want to be 'etrog-ed' and 'forgiven' in matters of substance and professional failures, it’s a good idea for them to take certain approaches."
Without ever mentioning Prime Minister Olmert's name, Yaalon said, "I definitely think we are now in a similar instance."
Army Radio, in an attempt to be even-handed, quoted unnamed "senior diplomatic elements" who said, "There is only one problem with this theory, not to mention the paranoia of Yaalon. The Prime Minister presented, before the elections and the investigations, a daring and ambitious program based on leaving the territories, and was even elected on this platform. All attempts to cast doubt on his motives for the diplomatic process are doomed to fail."
Police Push Off Announcement
Unlike the above "diplomatic elements," the police have also linked their several ongoing criminal investigations of the Prime Minister with his diplomatic efforts. A few days ago, the police took the unusual step of announcing four days in advance that this Sunday [today] they would announce whether or not they recommend indicting Olmert regarding the Bank Leumi privatization scandal. The police did not explain why they felt it necessary to inform the public in advance - nor why they wished to announce their recommendations on the day Olmert leaves for an important international summit in Annapolis.
However, due to pressure from Olmert's office and fears that the announcement would mar the Annapolis summit, the police stated on Saturday night that they would announce their recommendations this coming Thursday instead. Some pundits ventured that Olmert would not mind a "no indictment" recommendation on the eve of his departure for the U.S., and that therefore he must have received indications that the police recommendation was not in his favor.
More from the Yaalon Interview: "A State Won't Solve Palestinian Corruption"
General Yaalon says that many Palestinians themselves feel that what they need now is not a state and not Jerusalem, but education and an end to corruption. "We should not talk about territorial concessions at all. What we have to talk about is developing businesses from the bottom up, and not giving more money to the rich Palestinians. Talking now about [giving them] Jerusalem will solve their problems? Will it change their corrupt culture, or their law and order? If they can't solve these problems, then what are we doing talking with them?"
No Giving in to Terrorist Ransom Demands
The ex-Chief of Staff also said that the very idea of freeing terrorist prisoners for captured soldiers is a mistake: "We once declared that we would not give in to demands in exchange for hostages, and that's what stopped these kidnappings. The fact that we keep on giving in to these kidnappings encourages more and more of them. I call upon the government not to give in any more, and to not open this matter for debate again."
.
Former IDF Chief of Staff Lt.-Gen. (ret.) Moshe Yaalon accuses the media of protecting politicians who adopt left-wing policies.
. In an interview with Army Radio on Sunday morning, Yaalon said, "Politicians have learned that if they go towards steps such as disengagement, convergence [i.e., withdrawal from Judea and Samaria], and folding, then the central current of public dialogue - and I'm talking chiefly about the media - will raise them up."
Yaalon was the Chief of Staff from 2002 until 2005. Then-Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and his Defense Minister Sha'ul Mofaz did not extend Yaalon's three-year term, in a departure from custom, and he concluded his term in June 2005, just 11 weeks before the expulsion/withdrawal from Jewish Gaza began. Yaalon had expressed some opposition to the plan.
"The phrase 'to etrog a politician' [meaning, to treat him very protectively, as one does with an etrog fruit during the Sukkot holiday] is not something I made up," Yaalon said. "It was made up by a journalist [Amnon Abramovitch]. I call upon some of those who are thought to be leading journalists - and there is no small degree of corruption there [in the media] that, I feel, causes politicians to understand that if they want to be 'etrog-ed' and 'forgiven' in matters of substance and professional failures, it’s a good idea for them to take certain approaches."
Without ever mentioning Prime Minister Olmert's name, Yaalon said, "I definitely think we are now in a similar instance."
Army Radio, in an attempt to be even-handed, quoted unnamed "senior diplomatic elements" who said, "There is only one problem with this theory, not to mention the paranoia of Yaalon. The Prime Minister presented, before the elections and the investigations, a daring and ambitious program based on leaving the territories, and was even elected on this platform. All attempts to cast doubt on his motives for the diplomatic process are doomed to fail."
Police Push Off Announcement
Unlike the above "diplomatic elements," the police have also linked their several ongoing criminal investigations of the Prime Minister with his diplomatic efforts. A few days ago, the police took the unusual step of announcing four days in advance that this Sunday [today] they would announce whether or not they recommend indicting Olmert regarding the Bank Leumi privatization scandal. The police did not explain why they felt it necessary to inform the public in advance - nor why they wished to announce their recommendations on the day Olmert leaves for an important international summit in Annapolis.
However, due to pressure from Olmert's office and fears that the announcement would mar the Annapolis summit, the police stated on Saturday night that they would announce their recommendations this coming Thursday instead. Some pundits ventured that Olmert would not mind a "no indictment" recommendation on the eve of his departure for the U.S., and that therefore he must have received indications that the police recommendation was not in his favor.
More from the Yaalon Interview: "A State Won't Solve Palestinian Corruption"
General Yaalon says that many Palestinians themselves feel that what they need now is not a state and not Jerusalem, but education and an end to corruption. "We should not talk about territorial concessions at all. What we have to talk about is developing businesses from the bottom up, and not giving more money to the rich Palestinians. Talking now about [giving them] Jerusalem will solve their problems? Will it change their corrupt culture, or their law and order? If they can't solve these problems, then what are we doing talking with them?"
No Giving in to Terrorist Ransom Demands
The ex-Chief of Staff also said that the very idea of freeing terrorist prisoners for captured soldiers is a mistake: "We once declared that we would not give in to demands in exchange for hostages, and that's what stopped these kidnappings. The fact that we keep on giving in to these kidnappings encourages more and more of them. I call upon the government not to give in any more, and to not open this matter for debate again."
.
Fight the Pressure
Here’s a site where they make it easy for you to call US officials and ask them not to pressure Israel into concessions at the Annapolis “peace in our time” conference; their system uses the internet to automatically connect your calls for free, and they have suggested messages for you to read:
First go to:http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=28021_Fight_the_Pressure&only
Then perform the following:
1. Hit FIGHT THE PRESSURE
2. Hit 'California calls ..........'
3. A page will open up that allows you to leave free messages for the protection of Jerusalem and Israel.
Please pass on this message; let's not leave this 'for someone else to do'.
1. Remember that it is not territory that the Arabs want but are only using this as a means to get rid of Israel.
2. Remember that Hamas has warned that 'when Israel leaves Judea and Samaria' Hamas will step in and
destroy Israel.
3. Remember that Iran has stated that when the Coalition leaves Iraq, Iran will step in and 'fill the vacuum'.
That country already holds sway over Syria which is also in Lebanon, and it will not hesitate to overrun the Jordan, Egypt, and Israel. Thus the entire region will become a haven for al Qaeda which is already in Gaza.
Much of Europe already has a large belligerent Muslim population which has affected the character of many of its countries. The U.S. is also facing a demanding Muslim population as well with a large percentage of them in favor of sharia. Forty-five percent of British-born Muslims want sharia as well.
Know that those who have been invited to the Annapolis conference are not Israel's friends. Sec'y of State Rice has taken the liberty of placing much of Israel 'on the table' in order to entice Israel's enemies to attend. She has already announced that Israel will be pressured for 'major concessions'.
4. Remember that Rice coerced Israel into abandoning the Philadelphi Corridor and Rafah and this created greater danger to Israel as terrorists and weapons had easy passage from Egypt.
5. Remember that the Arabs have not been pressured to live up to any of the initial demands upon them: disarming and disbanding terrorist groups' ; Abbas refused the first demands and has not been taken to task about this.
6. Remember that Abbas is not a 'moderate' but a protege of Arafat and a terrorist as well. Abbas funded the
1972 Munich massacre of 11 Israeli Olympic athletes.
7. Remember that Abbas is a Holocaust denier and wrote his doctorate in Russia on the subject.
8. Remember that Hamas inherited arms that had been provided the PA before it fled Gaza and is using them against Israel.
9. Remember that the Arabs deny any Jewish connections to Har HaBayit and have been systematically destroying foundations of the Temple, carting away tons of valuable archeological material - a fact that has angered scientists.
10.. Remember that Jews have legal rights to this land, legally and religiously. The League of Nations unanimously declared that what is today Jordan and all of Palestine were to be the Jewish homeland but Churchill illegally lopped off nearly 80 % of the land and created Jordan which was know as 'eastern Palestine' - for Arabs only. The 20+ % which remained was to be the Jewish state but the British curtailed Jewish settlement and immigration while permitting Arab immigration from surrounding countries.
11. Remember that the Arabs supported the Nazis during WWll - an extension of the terrorism that they carried on against Jews for many decades prior to that.
12. Remember that the Arabs have had several opportunities to have a state and have refused because they want to destroy Israel and have all of the lanD.
13. Remember that we are the one country in the region to be threatened with destruction by Iran and the
U.S. needs Israel as a loyal ally against a nuclear Iran.
REMEMBER THE ABOVE AND KNOW THAT ISRAEL MUST TAKE CONTROL OF HER OWN DESTINY AND NOT RELY UPON 'GOOD FRIENDS' WHOSE OWN INTERESTS MAY NOT ALWAYS COINCIDE WITH HERS.
REMEMBER THAT THOSE ISRAELI LEADERS WHO WILL REPRESENT HER IN ANNAPOLIS ALSO HAVE THEIR OWN INTERESTS AND THAT THEY, TOO, DO NOT COINCIDE WITH THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE STATE. THERE IS BROAD OPPOSITION TO THE CONCESSIONS THAT THEY ARE WILLING TO MAKE AND THIS WOULD ENDANGER THE VERY EXISTENCE OF THE STATE OF ISRAEL. WE CANNOT PERMIT THIS TO HAPPEN. KNOW THAT THE SAFETY OF JEWS WORLDWIDE IS CONNECTED TO ISRAEL.
REMEMBER THAT WE MUST REMEMBER! THE NEXT DAYS ARE CRITICAL AND WE MUST ALL BE ACTIVE.
PLEASE USE THE ABOVE PROVIDED SITE TO LEAVE A MESSAGE AGAINST U.S. PRESSURE AGAINST ISRAEL.
.
First go to:http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=28021_Fight_the_Pressure&only
Then perform the following:
1. Hit FIGHT THE PRESSURE
2. Hit 'California calls ..........'
3. A page will open up that allows you to leave free messages for the protection of Jerusalem and Israel.
Please pass on this message; let's not leave this 'for someone else to do'.
1. Remember that it is not territory that the Arabs want but are only using this as a means to get rid of Israel.
2. Remember that Hamas has warned that 'when Israel leaves Judea and Samaria' Hamas will step in and
destroy Israel.
3. Remember that Iran has stated that when the Coalition leaves Iraq, Iran will step in and 'fill the vacuum'.
That country already holds sway over Syria which is also in Lebanon, and it will not hesitate to overrun the Jordan, Egypt, and Israel. Thus the entire region will become a haven for al Qaeda which is already in Gaza.
Much of Europe already has a large belligerent Muslim population which has affected the character of many of its countries. The U.S. is also facing a demanding Muslim population as well with a large percentage of them in favor of sharia. Forty-five percent of British-born Muslims want sharia as well.
Know that those who have been invited to the Annapolis conference are not Israel's friends. Sec'y of State Rice has taken the liberty of placing much of Israel 'on the table' in order to entice Israel's enemies to attend. She has already announced that Israel will be pressured for 'major concessions'.
4. Remember that Rice coerced Israel into abandoning the Philadelphi Corridor and Rafah and this created greater danger to Israel as terrorists and weapons had easy passage from Egypt.
5. Remember that the Arabs have not been pressured to live up to any of the initial demands upon them: disarming and disbanding terrorist groups' ; Abbas refused the first demands and has not been taken to task about this.
6. Remember that Abbas is not a 'moderate' but a protege of Arafat and a terrorist as well. Abbas funded the
1972 Munich massacre of 11 Israeli Olympic athletes.
7. Remember that Abbas is a Holocaust denier and wrote his doctorate in Russia on the subject.
8. Remember that Hamas inherited arms that had been provided the PA before it fled Gaza and is using them against Israel.
9. Remember that the Arabs deny any Jewish connections to Har HaBayit and have been systematically destroying foundations of the Temple, carting away tons of valuable archeological material - a fact that has angered scientists.
10.. Remember that Jews have legal rights to this land, legally and religiously. The League of Nations unanimously declared that what is today Jordan and all of Palestine were to be the Jewish homeland but Churchill illegally lopped off nearly 80 % of the land and created Jordan which was know as 'eastern Palestine' - for Arabs only. The 20+ % which remained was to be the Jewish state but the British curtailed Jewish settlement and immigration while permitting Arab immigration from surrounding countries.
11. Remember that the Arabs supported the Nazis during WWll - an extension of the terrorism that they carried on against Jews for many decades prior to that.
12. Remember that the Arabs have had several opportunities to have a state and have refused because they want to destroy Israel and have all of the lanD.
13. Remember that we are the one country in the region to be threatened with destruction by Iran and the
U.S. needs Israel as a loyal ally against a nuclear Iran.
REMEMBER THE ABOVE AND KNOW THAT ISRAEL MUST TAKE CONTROL OF HER OWN DESTINY AND NOT RELY UPON 'GOOD FRIENDS' WHOSE OWN INTERESTS MAY NOT ALWAYS COINCIDE WITH HERS.
REMEMBER THAT THOSE ISRAELI LEADERS WHO WILL REPRESENT HER IN ANNAPOLIS ALSO HAVE THEIR OWN INTERESTS AND THAT THEY, TOO, DO NOT COINCIDE WITH THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE STATE. THERE IS BROAD OPPOSITION TO THE CONCESSIONS THAT THEY ARE WILLING TO MAKE AND THIS WOULD ENDANGER THE VERY EXISTENCE OF THE STATE OF ISRAEL. WE CANNOT PERMIT THIS TO HAPPEN. KNOW THAT THE SAFETY OF JEWS WORLDWIDE IS CONNECTED TO ISRAEL.
REMEMBER THAT WE MUST REMEMBER! THE NEXT DAYS ARE CRITICAL AND WE MUST ALL BE ACTIVE.
PLEASE USE THE ABOVE PROVIDED SITE TO LEAVE A MESSAGE AGAINST U.S. PRESSURE AGAINST ISRAEL.
.
Why is Annapolis a Priority?
"Priorities for the United States right now should be three or four major crises that are reaching the near acute stage," said David Wurmser, former adviser to Dick Cheney on Middle East issues. Wurmser cited nuclear crises in Iran and North Korea, instability in Pakistan and the radicalization of the Venezuelan government as high priority issues.. He expressed amazement at seeing "a secretary of state almost tearing a hole in the atmosphere flying to Israel and the Palestinian territories trying to negotiate a peace treaty." (1. Is it to hide the failure of the Bush administration's "War on Terror"? 2. Make the name for the outgoing president with another useless Mideast agreement, riding on the symbolism of Anwar Sadat's visit to Jerusalem 30 years ago? 3. Deep-rooted anti-Semitism entrenched in the blood of American political elite? 4. Or the rising 'stench' of petro-dollars, due to a devious deal made with Arabs?)
Tragi-Comedy or Ambush. 40 countries, among them Syria and Saudi Arabia, have received invitations to attend the Annapolis conference. Mahmoud Abbas has said that the PA will not attend the conference if representatives from the Arab League are not present. Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has made several "good-will gestures" in an effort to placate the PA. (Not a one gesture came from Arabs and no end of terror in sight! Why is Olmert so eager to betray the Jews' future? Why is the US so keen to sell Israel out?)
Still the Same Game Plan. In the course of recent negotiations, Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni asked the head of the Palestinian Authority's negotiating team, Ahmed Qureia (Abu Ala), to accept Israel as a Jewish state, reminding him that it was accepted as such by UN Resolution 181 on November 29, 1947, for the partition of the Land of Israel. – The partition which Arabs did not recognized! Therefore, legally and historically, they have no right to claim the land they have rejected. PLO still aims to obtain control of all Jewish land - Palestine, including Jordan! Please view:
http://www.unitedjerusalem.com/HISTORICAL_PERSPECTIVES/Maps_and_History/maps_and_history.asp
Food for Thought. by Steven Shamrak
Under the Road Map plan, the PA's main obligation was to put an end to terrorism. It has not happened! Why is Olmert's government so eager to give up the Jewish land to enemies, who have no intention of honouring any agreement, thus legalizing their bogus claim to Jewish land?
'Gesture' or Act of Treason. Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has approved the supply of 50 Russian armored vehicles, BTR-60PB, BTR-70 or BTR-80 – combat vehicles are armed with turret heavy machine gun mounts designed to hit targets on the ground and low-flying air targets, to the PA as a "good-will gesture." Olmert also approved the passage of 1,000 guns and 2 million bullets to PA forces. (In the West Bank Fatah does not need to dig tunnels to Jordan to smuggle weapons. Olmert is eagerly supplying them to terrorists and they will 'export' them to Israel by killing Jews!)
The Word of a Snake. Ido Zoldan, 29, of Shavei Shomron, was killed at the wheel of his car in a drive-by shooting in N. West Bank Monday night, Nov. 19, claimed by Fatah-Al Aqsa Brigades. The attack took place hours after Abbas met with Israeli PM Ehud Olmert and assured him that his organization could and would combat Arab terror.
Jew-Hating America. The number of hate-motivated offences committed against Jews in USA are the highest compare to any other group (per capita and often in absolute term) in 2006: Anti-Black 3,136; Anti-Jewish 1,027; Anti-White 1,008; Anti-Male Homosexual 881; Anti-Hispanic 770; Anti-Female Homosexual 192; Anti-Islamic 191 (Americans still hate Jews more than Muslims.) http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/hc2006/table1.html
Quote of the Week:
"Abbas has no mandate to take decisions on behalf of the Palestinian people." - the Hamas leader, Mahmoud al-Zahhar. - They are an artificially forged people and no one has a legal mandate to represent them. Well, whom Israel is negotiating with and why?
Failure is a Success? Prime Minister Ehud Olmert told the visiting French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner that the upcoming Mideast peace conference could not possibly fail because the very existence of such an endeavour is a success in itself. (What a masterful spin! In this case, the policy of Israel's government is not a failure or treason, but unadulterated stupidity!)
Profit from Gas Chambers was not Enough! Fifty German companies have been selling nuclear equipment to Iran. The transferred nuclear equipment is worth approximately $150 million.
An Accident or Spying Mission? A Russian cargo plane strayed into Israel Air Force airspace last week after taking off from Ben Gurion International Airport.
Hamas New missiles for Next War. (Debka) Stocks of primitive Qassam missiles are low because Hamas has stopped making them and is now fully engaged in setting up the production of a new generation of missiles upgraded to a range of up to 25 km, armed with 3-kilo warheads - one-and a half times the range of the types in current use and more than double their explosive power - and greater accuracy. Production lines are also going up in several towns on the West Bank. The new missiles bring half a million Israelis within range of Hamas fire. (Must Israel wait?)
Shamble of ME Agreements. Israel and the Palestinians have agreed to a new plan that skips over the first stage of the Road map – eliminating terror and dismantling the settlements - according to PM Ehud Olmert. (They "Agreed to Disagree"! The agreements signed by Israel's enemies, including the peace treaties, have not been honored. The pretence of peace negotiations only hinders the actions needed to bring peace to Israel!)
Olmert Must Go. A majority of Israelis believe that the Knesset should suspend or topple Prime Minister Ehud Olmert due to the criminal investigations against him. A majority (53%) agreed with the statement that the main reason Olmert was seeking an agreement with PA President Mahmoud Abbas was because he was worried about his personal and political future and not about Israel's national interest. Even 57% of Kadima and Labor supporters disagreed with the statement. 55% believe the territory would be used to fire rockets at Israelis and 65% believe there is a high or very high chance that Hamas would take control of the area. (Security of a country should not depend on current public opinion polls, but democracy MUST!)
.
Tragi-Comedy or Ambush. 40 countries, among them Syria and Saudi Arabia, have received invitations to attend the Annapolis conference. Mahmoud Abbas has said that the PA will not attend the conference if representatives from the Arab League are not present. Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has made several "good-will gestures" in an effort to placate the PA. (Not a one gesture came from Arabs and no end of terror in sight! Why is Olmert so eager to betray the Jews' future? Why is the US so keen to sell Israel out?)
Still the Same Game Plan. In the course of recent negotiations, Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni asked the head of the Palestinian Authority's negotiating team, Ahmed Qureia (Abu Ala), to accept Israel as a Jewish state, reminding him that it was accepted as such by UN Resolution 181 on November 29, 1947, for the partition of the Land of Israel. – The partition which Arabs did not recognized! Therefore, legally and historically, they have no right to claim the land they have rejected. PLO still aims to obtain control of all Jewish land - Palestine, including Jordan! Please view:
http://www.unitedjerusalem.com/HISTORICAL_PERSPECTIVES/Maps_and_History/maps_and_history.asp
Food for Thought. by Steven Shamrak
Under the Road Map plan, the PA's main obligation was to put an end to terrorism. It has not happened! Why is Olmert's government so eager to give up the Jewish land to enemies, who have no intention of honouring any agreement, thus legalizing their bogus claim to Jewish land?
'Gesture' or Act of Treason. Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has approved the supply of 50 Russian armored vehicles, BTR-60PB, BTR-70 or BTR-80 – combat vehicles are armed with turret heavy machine gun mounts designed to hit targets on the ground and low-flying air targets, to the PA as a "good-will gesture." Olmert also approved the passage of 1,000 guns and 2 million bullets to PA forces. (In the West Bank Fatah does not need to dig tunnels to Jordan to smuggle weapons. Olmert is eagerly supplying them to terrorists and they will 'export' them to Israel by killing Jews!)
The Word of a Snake. Ido Zoldan, 29, of Shavei Shomron, was killed at the wheel of his car in a drive-by shooting in N. West Bank Monday night, Nov. 19, claimed by Fatah-Al Aqsa Brigades. The attack took place hours after Abbas met with Israeli PM Ehud Olmert and assured him that his organization could and would combat Arab terror.
Jew-Hating America. The number of hate-motivated offences committed against Jews in USA are the highest compare to any other group (per capita and often in absolute term) in 2006: Anti-Black 3,136; Anti-Jewish 1,027; Anti-White 1,008; Anti-Male Homosexual 881; Anti-Hispanic 770; Anti-Female Homosexual 192; Anti-Islamic 191 (Americans still hate Jews more than Muslims.) http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/hc2006/table1.html
Quote of the Week:
"Abbas has no mandate to take decisions on behalf of the Palestinian people." - the Hamas leader, Mahmoud al-Zahhar. - They are an artificially forged people and no one has a legal mandate to represent them. Well, whom Israel is negotiating with and why?
Failure is a Success? Prime Minister Ehud Olmert told the visiting French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner that the upcoming Mideast peace conference could not possibly fail because the very existence of such an endeavour is a success in itself. (What a masterful spin! In this case, the policy of Israel's government is not a failure or treason, but unadulterated stupidity!)
Profit from Gas Chambers was not Enough! Fifty German companies have been selling nuclear equipment to Iran. The transferred nuclear equipment is worth approximately $150 million.
An Accident or Spying Mission? A Russian cargo plane strayed into Israel Air Force airspace last week after taking off from Ben Gurion International Airport.
Hamas New missiles for Next War. (Debka) Stocks of primitive Qassam missiles are low because Hamas has stopped making them and is now fully engaged in setting up the production of a new generation of missiles upgraded to a range of up to 25 km, armed with 3-kilo warheads - one-and a half times the range of the types in current use and more than double their explosive power - and greater accuracy. Production lines are also going up in several towns on the West Bank. The new missiles bring half a million Israelis within range of Hamas fire. (Must Israel wait?)
Shamble of ME Agreements. Israel and the Palestinians have agreed to a new plan that skips over the first stage of the Road map – eliminating terror and dismantling the settlements - according to PM Ehud Olmert. (They "Agreed to Disagree"! The agreements signed by Israel's enemies, including the peace treaties, have not been honored. The pretence of peace negotiations only hinders the actions needed to bring peace to Israel!)
Olmert Must Go. A majority of Israelis believe that the Knesset should suspend or topple Prime Minister Ehud Olmert due to the criminal investigations against him. A majority (53%) agreed with the statement that the main reason Olmert was seeking an agreement with PA President Mahmoud Abbas was because he was worried about his personal and political future and not about Israel's national interest. Even 57% of Kadima and Labor supporters disagreed with the statement. 55% believe the territory would be used to fire rockets at Israelis and 65% believe there is a high or very high chance that Hamas would take control of the area. (Security of a country should not depend on current public opinion polls, but democracy MUST!)
.
Rallies are planned for this week to support Israel and reject the Annapolis conference, its 'guest list' , and the demands to be made of Israel.
Here is a short list of 8 MKs who must hear from as many people as possible - that they must resign and bring down the government before it is too late. . Olmert, Livni, and Barak are headed for Annapolis and are capable of capitulating to the assembled - our enemies. We will be held to their promises even though they do not represent what is in the best interest of the country. Please contact the following and forward this message to others - with the request that they do the same.
Telephone blitz list of MKs to call, fax or e-mail about leaving the government now.
Name Party e-mail Phone #s Fax
David Azoulay Shas dazoulay@knesset.gov.il 6408184,5 6753908
Ze’ev Boim Kadima zboim@knesset.gov.il 6408439, 40 6496062
Zeev Elkin Kadima zelkin@knesset.gov.il 6408145,6 6496438
Israel Hasson Yis Beitenu ihasson@knesset.gov.il 6408119,20 6496585
Avig Liberman Yis Beitenu aliberman@Knesset.gov.il 6408388,9 6408921
Alex Miller Yis Beitenu amiller@knesset.gov.il 6408017,8 6496479
Yitzchak Vaknin Shas yvaknin@knesset.gov.il 6408106 6496079
Eli Yishai Shas eyishai@knesset.gov.il 6408406,7 6662909
The people who answer these phones are the parliamentary aides to the MKs.
.
Telephone blitz list of MKs to call, fax or e-mail about leaving the government now.
Name Party e-mail Phone #s Fax
David Azoulay Shas dazoulay@knesset.gov.il 6408184,5 6753908
Ze’ev Boim Kadima zboim@knesset.gov.il 6408439, 40 6496062
Zeev Elkin Kadima zelkin@knesset.gov.il 6408145,6 6496438
Israel Hasson Yis Beitenu ihasson@knesset.gov.il 6408119,20 6496585
Avig Liberman Yis Beitenu aliberman@Knesset.gov.il 6408388,9 6408921
Alex Miller Yis Beitenu amiller@knesset.gov.il 6408017,8 6496479
Yitzchak Vaknin Shas yvaknin@knesset.gov.il 6408106 6496079
Eli Yishai Shas eyishai@knesset.gov.il 6408406,7 6662909
The people who answer these phones are the parliamentary aides to the MKs.
.
Understanding the obvious: U.S. policy toward Israel
07/27/2007 -original post date-this is re-post
Sometimes we fail to notice the most important and obvious facts, precisely because they are right before our eyes, or because they are unpleasant to acknowledge.
There is one overriding fact about American policy toward Israel that has been ignored in this way. Anyone who seeks a basic understanding of American moves has to take it into account, and yet partisans of both sides have missed it, perhaps because it is so obvious, or perhaps because it is inconvenient for their pet ideas.
In 1975, US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger told the Iraqi foreign minister, in a secret meeting:
We can't negotiate about the existence of Israel, but we can reduce its size to historical proportions. I don't agree that Israel is a permanent threat. How can a nation of three million be a permanent threat? They have a technical advantage now. But it is inconceivable that peoples with wealth and skill and the tradition of the Arabs won't develop the capacity that is needed. So I think in ten to fifteen years, Israel will be like Lebanon-- struggling for existence, with no influence in the Arab world. (see Kissinger tells Iraqis, "We Can Reduce Israel's Size")
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Exposure of this Machiavellian conversation produced shock in some quarters. Kenneth Stein was unable to say if this represented United States Policy or Kissinger's opinion or if Kissinger was simply trying to entice the Iraqis back into the US orbit. It should have surprised nobody.
Kissinger was expressing, in a cynical way, the core of US Middle East policy since 1967: to barter Israeli land for a peace deal, and to use US influence on Israel to gain influence in the Arab world. It was always the public policy of the United States, through administrations of both parties and under every presidency. In fact, it was also the openly declared policy of Israel in 1967.
Kenneth Stein agonized over whether or not Kissinger really meant what he had said:
Kissinger's statement to Hammadi that the U.S. envisioned Israel as becoming small and non-threatening like Lebanon may have been U.S. foreign policy, or his personal view, or ingratiating diplomacy, or some combination of the three...
But Stein also quoted a statement by Nixon to Syrian President Assad:
President Richard Nixon told Syrian president Hafez al-Assad that Washington was committed to seeing an "Israeli withdrawal from all the occupied territories" (cited by Stein as taken from "Letter from President Ford to Prime Minister Rabin, September 1, 1975," reproduced in Michael Widlanski, Can Israel Survive A Palestinian State? (Jerusalem: Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies, 1990).
For some reason, Stein doubted if that too was the policy of the United States. However, both secret and public documents and utterances have made it clear that United States policy regarding Israel since the Six Day War was centered around the idea that the United States must get Israel to withdraw from the occupied territories in order to satisfy the Arab states.
U.S. diplomats and legislators, beginning in 1967, bemoaned the fact that Israel had achieved the Six Day War victory without U.S. aid, and therefore the United States had no way to force its withdrawal. This is revealed, for example, in Senate Foreign Relations subcommittee hearings held on June 9, 1967:
It is a fact, is it not, that neither Soviet Russia nor the United States has given any material amounts of arms to Israel, and, if that is true, are they not relatively independent in their thinking at this point?
Secretary Rusk. No, we have provided tanks and Hawk missiles and certain other kinds of equipment to Israel, but their principal arms supplier has been France...
The Israeli air force is almost all French supplied.
It should be clear that "reducing the size of Israel" was always a goal of the United States since June 1967. On May 23, 1967, President Johnson had made a statement regarding US commitment to the territorial integrity of all nations, seemingly with the intention of reassuring Israel.. Following the June war, this statement was repeated, but now that Israel had conquered chunks of Jordanian, Egyptian and Syrian territory, it took on a new meaning: The US would pressure Israel to withdraw from the conquered territories in return for peace. In a State Department telegram sent on June 12 to the US Embassy in Israel, the following wording was included:
As far as the attitude of the US is concerned, our principal points of departure are (a) President Johnson's reaffirmation on May 23 of long-standing American policy that "the United States is firmly committed to the support of the political independence and territorial integrity of all the nations of the area"; ...(c) the vital interest of the United States in its own relations with the Arab and Muslim world, a relationship in which Israel itself has an important stake...
Source: 273. Telegram From the Department of State to the Embassy in Israel/1/ Washington, June 12, 1967, 10:37 p.m. /1/Source: National Archives and Records Administration, RG 59, Central Files 1967-69, POL 27-14 ARAB-ISR. Secret; Nodis.
Ambassador Barbour replied on June 13 that he had apprised Israeli Foreign Minister Abba Eban of these positions:
As to United States points of departure I mentioned President's reaffirmation on May 23 of our commitment to support the political independence and territorial integrity of all nations in the area, the necessity to establish a regime of peace eliminating claims by either side of the right to infringe on the rights of others because of belligerency...
Source; 277. Telegram From the Embassy in Israel to the Department of State/1/ Tel Aviv, June 13, 1967, 1730Z. /1/Source: National Archives and Records Administration, RG 59, Central Files 1967-69, POL 27-14 ARAB-ISR. Secret; Priority; Nodis. Received at 3:16 p.m.
Yet again, from the same file, in response to Saudi and Aramco pressure on the U.S. regarding Israeli withdrawal, the following text was included in a telegram sent, also on June 13, from the U.S. State Department to the U.S. Embassy in Saudi Arabia:
3. In connection problems growing out of recent Arab-Israel hostilities, you may call attention addressee governments to long-standing USG support for territorial integrity and political independence of all states of the Near East. This position was re-stated by President Johnson today. The USG desires the maintenance of friendly ties with all the countries of the region. In our view it is of the first importance for all to take steps now to assure that there is an end to the periodic hostilities and the state of belligerency which have marked Near Eastern history in the last two decades. The USG is fully prepared to join the other states to work for lasting arrangements which will serve permanently to reduce tensions in this region.
Source: 282. Telegram From the Department of State to the Embassy in Saudi Arabia/1/ [Washington, June 13, 1967, 9:54 p.m. /1/Source: National Archives and Records Administration, Central Files 1967-69, POL 27 ARAB-ISR. Secret...]
And, from a later file of declassified documents, we have this statement:
The tough question is whether we'd force Israel back to 4 June borders if the Arabs accepted terms that amounted to an honest peace settlement. Secretary Rusk told the Yugoslav Foreign Minister: "The US had no problem with frontiers as they existed before the outbreak of hostilities. If we are talking about national frontiers--in a state of peace--then we will work toward restoring them. But we all know that could lead to a tangle with the Israelis.
Source: 455. Memorandum From the President's Special Assistant (Rostow) to President Johnson/1/ Washington, October 3, 1967. /1/Source: Johnson Library, President's Appointment File, October 4, 1967. Secret; Nodis.
There was, therefore, every reason for both President Nixon and Henry Kissinger to make the statements they had made about Israeli withdrawal, and they were by no means expressing their private opinions, but rather the stated policies of the United States government.
The Johnson administration, distracted by Vietnam was not able to begin any peace moves or force Israeli withdrawal. The Arab states under the leadership of Nasser were too intransigent to make even a show of peaceful intentions, and adopted the Khartoum resolutions. At the time, the United States had no leverage whatever on Israel, since it had not supplied the arms with which the Six Day War was won, and had in fact, reneged on its promise to support Israel's navigation rights when it was put to the test. In order to force Israeli withdrawal, the United States would first need to gain some leverage on Israel. The US adopted a two fold approach to regaining its standing in the Middle East. The first part was to make Israel dependent upon it for arms and diplomatic backing, while at the same time working for a permanent peace settlement and Israeli withdrawal. The "peace settlement" part would be satisfactory to the pro-Israel faction that was generally in charge in the White House, while the Israeli withdrawal part would satisfy the rank and file career diplomats of the State Department, who never were known for excessive love for Israel or people of the Jewish persuasion. The opportunity to pin down Israeli dependence on the US arose soon after the Six Day War, when the US supplied the first A-4 Skyhawk aircraft to replace Israel's war losses. The war of attrition soon escalated Israeli dependence, as the US had (albeit with seeming reluctance) begun to supply Phantom interceptors. This could be justified as necessitated by the need to confront Soviet aircraft and pilots which were flying missions for the Egyptians.
This policy could be marketed to supporters of Israel as a pro-Israel policy that sought peace, and would, as Kissinger noted even to the Iraqis, oppose the destruction of Israel. It could be marketed to Arab states and their supporters as US opposition to annexation of Arab territory, and "reduction of Israel's size," as Kissinger put it. The first, most complete public expression of the policy was the Harold H. Saunders testimony of 1975, which explicitly called for a settlement of the Palestinian issue through Israeli territorial concessions. Implementation of the policy was aided by the fact that Israel lost the backing of France, which meant that it had neither a diplomatic champion nor an arms supplier, and was greatly dependent on the US. Yitzhak Rabin, when he was ambassador to the US, understood and emphasized that US support for Israel was due only to the perception that such support served US strategic interests. The US supports Israel in order to use return of the territories conquered in the Six Day War to gain favor with Arab states. This policy worked admirably for many years.
By 1975, the US had gained the needed leverage on Israel by its role in the Yom Kippur War, in which it had agreed to resupply Israel through the air-lift. The Yom Kippur war made it clear to Israel that the scale of military engagements in the Middle East had altered radically since 1967, and that it could therefore no longer be militarily independent. The quantities of arms and materiel consumed in a few short days of fighting demanded an industrial capacity that could not be provided in a practical way by increasing the capacity of the Israeli military industries, and the technological innovations required were beyond the capabilities of Israel. Kissinger persuaded Nixon to resupply the Israelis in 1973, and Kissinger then used the leverage purchased by resupply to push for Israeli withdrawals in Sinai. Anwar Sadat was apparently the only one who had read the Middle East policy map correctly. He understood that if he could move Egypt into the American orbit and offer a "diplomatic horizon," he could get back the Sinai peninsula.
For the US, this policy yielded the Israeli-Egyptian peace treaty, US displacement of Russian influence in Egypt, and eventually, the Jordanian - Israeli peace treaty and the Oslo process. In a masterly stroke, President Carter cemented both Israeli and Egyptian dependence on the US with large foreign aid deals. Carter was ultimately frustrated because he couldn't "land the big one." Menachem Begin wasn't going to talk about Palestinian independence if he didn't have to. PLO opposition to the Egyptian peace move kept the West Bank and Gaza safe for Begin and settlerocracy. Carter chose to blame it all on Israel, but if the PLO had come through then, it is doubtful that even Begin would have had a choice.
It has been very important for the United States to maintain Israeli dependence. The torpedoing of the LAVIE interceptor project in the 80s was a great victory for US policy and another nail in the coffin of Israeli political independence, although perhaps not an essential one.
In the 1980s and after the first Iraq war, the administration of the other George Bush tried to continue the land for peace policy. They thought they had a "go," first with the so-called "Jordanian option" that was torpedoed by the Shamir government, and then with the breakthrough acceptance of Resolution 242 by the Palestinians in 1988, implicitly recognizing the right of Israel to exist. Each attempt to kindle a peace process clashed head on with the obstinacy of Itzhak Shamir, who pretended he didn't understand what it was all about. Shamir was finally dragged, kicking and screaming, to the Madrid conference.
The election of Yitzhak Rabin as Prime Minister renewed the prospects for peace. Rabin understood the implications of US policy and always had understood them. The break up of the USSR and the brilliant victory of the US in the first Iraq war, as well as the relative weakness of the PLO, made all the omens favorable. The result was peace with Jordan and the start of the Oslo process. Successive Israeli Prime Ministers since Rabin have also understood the ultimate fate of Israeli settlement project, though Benjamin Netanyahu tried to fight it.
What Kissinger told the Iraqis was apparently, a slightly "adapted" version of actual US policy. If it was shocking to some people, it is because they never understood and didn't want to understand what had been declared plainly many times. The same policy has been spelled out again quite recently by George Bush in his speech on the Middle East, and more recently by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice in an interview with Sawa television. Israel will have to withdraw from the West Bank.
Some conclusions are obvious from the above. In effect, the entire 40 year year period since the Six Day war has been a full featured version of the little episode of the 1956 Suez Campaign, in which Israel was quickly forced to return conquered territory in return for flimsy guarantees that proved worthless. This time however, the U.S. seem to have resolved that it would not pressure Israel unduly until and unless it could extract a peace agreement from the Arab side. But if such agreements were forthcoming, Israel would need to return all, or most of territories.
The Israeli government always knew the score, even if it tried to forget it. Initially, Israel was in earnest about returning all or most of the land conquered in return for peace. Following the Khartoum resolutions however, and later, after the infamous UN Zionism is Racism resolution, it appeared safe to assume that Arab peace partners, other than Egypt, would never present themselves, and that Israel could take it for granted that the US would look the other way while Israel built settlements and created "facts on the ground," ignoring the hypothetical day of reckoning that might come if and when the Arabs side ever opted for peace. From the point of view of the supporters of settlement, American support for Israel was a Faustian deal, and they would rather not think that one day the devil might come to get his due.
The "territorial integrity" and "land for peace" policy of the US has been largely ignored by many pro-Israel and pro-Palestinian analysts and statesmen, despite the fact it is a matter of public record. For Greater Israel enthusiasts, there was no point in emphasizing the huge gamble involved in pouring billions of dollars into the settlements. Likewise, when it is out of power, it is very convenient for the Israeli right to label any Israeli politician who is in power, and must offer concessions in line with U.S. policy, as a traitor or at least a wimp.
The penny-ante pundits on the sidelines do not understand this game. When a Sharon or Netanyahu actually gets into power, the amateur kibbitzers expect that they are going to do something different. They will annex the West Bank perhaps, or rebuild the Temple. When this doesn't happen, because it can't happen, the pundits of the right cry "traitor" and "incompetent" and "corrupt" at their own previously adored leaders, and turn to more extreme politicians.
The process began with Menachem Begin, who was unalterably opposed to surrendering a single clod of earth, as he repeated many times, and was promptly roped in to giving up all of the Sinai peninsula. "From here," as Sharon was later to remark upon assuming office, "it does not look the same as it did from there."
The stalwart of the right, Benjamin Netanyahu, was singing a somewhat different tune by the time he got to the Wye River Memorandum. The Sharon bogeyman in office became the architect of disengagement. It will be observed that even Avigdor Lieberman in the cabinet, looks quite a bit different than he did when he was in the opposition. He does not object to negotiations with Mahmoud Abbas too strenuously. Nobody has remarked on the absurdity of the fact that Benjamin Netanyahu out of office, is now to the right of Avigdor Lieberman. It is all determined by the obvious need of the Israeli government to fall in line, more or less, with US policy.
For standard anti-Zionists of all kinds, it is very convenient to point to the large amounts of foreign aid given to Israel. Of course, that aid is given to ensure that Israel will remain compliant with US wishes, and prevent a repetition of the Six Day War scenario, which was a nightmare for the US State Department after all. Out of noplace seemingly, an independent regional player had appeared, and was in a position to dictate the course of affairs. An imperialist power cannot allow that.
For Arab, anti-U.S. rhetoricians, it is hardly convenient to point out that the US has a vested interested in peace in the Middle East, and much more profitable to claim that the US is pro-Israel, a claim that US statesmen and politicians must back up for reasons of domestic politics, as well as to keep the confidence of the Israeli government. Everyone in the US government probably remembers the unfortunate announcement of Robert McCloskey, prior to the Six Day War, that the US would remain neutral in thought word and deed, and nobody wants to repeat that fiasco. But the truth is, that stripped of niceties, the policy that President Bush enunciated in his recent Middle East speech is not much different from the policy that Kissinger explained to the Iraqi foreign minister: Land for peace. The land is real enough. The nature of the peace is open to negotiation. As Kissinger also remarked at the time
:I have told friends that peace isn't a final end. Wars begin elsewhere between countries that are at peace.
. That was a pretty broad hint. If the US can get peace, it will force Israeli withdrawal, and it will not examine this peace too closely to see if it is permanent.
The realities of the Middle East have changed in the past forty years, though U.S. policies and perceptions have not. This creates problems for the U.S. In this period, a stubborn lobby in support of settlements grew up in Israel. Their opposition to peace and concessions was seemingly validated to many Israelis by the breakdown of the Oslo process, and by the disastrous aftermath of disengagement.
At the same time, the cause of disaffection with the United States among Muslim countries, and Arab countries among them, is no longer only support for Israeli retention of territories. Rather, because of the rise of radical Islam, it is becoming more and more the case that the Israeli presence in the Middle East is branded as a Western colonial implant. Any peace that is sponsored by the United States, no matter what the settlement, is by definition a disaster for the local enemies of the United States. Therefore, trying to make peace between Israel and the Muslim/Arab world is no longer the panacea for America that it was in past decades. In addition, European countries, Russia and China stand ready to take up the slack where American influence wanes. Russia no longer has the odium of atheistic communism associated with it, whcih deterred conservative regimes in the past.
An additional complication is that Americans have become increasingly entangled in Iraq. In their desperation, some delude themselves into believing that making peace between Israel and the Palestinians will somehow help their cause in Iraq. This idea was apparently injected into the Iraq Study Group report by expert advisor Ray Close. For Middle Easterners, Americans are inscrutable occidentals. It is impossible to understand why Americans would think Al Qaeda, Shi'a or Sunni extremists would really be touched to the core of their humanitarian souls and stop blowing up mosques because the Palestinian problem was "settled." Rather, these extremists are bending every effort to ensure that the only acceptable "settlement" of the problem would be eradication of Israel. Any genuine moves toward peace would cause them to redouble their explosive efforts, and any settlement that left a Jewish state intact would be portrayed as "betrayal" of the Palestinian people.
Ami Isseroff
Post script: I usually don't comment on discussions in a Web Log, but this one is of special interest. No Bill Narvey, I don't advocate annexing the West Bank. In terms you might understand, I will say that if God wanted Israel to annex the West Bank, He would not have put so many Arabs there. Self determination must apply to both peoples. I have never changed my views on that and I never will. It is a matter of principle. If Israel wants allies, it will have to seek the road of peace. The dependence on the USA is part of the price that Israel is paying for keeping the territories.
And for Mr. Barzetta, what Israel has that you apparently need is knowledge. You are an ignorant bigot.
Mr. Barzetta is an important lesson for Israelis who think all Americans will love us forever. There are many Barzettas in the State Deparment and elsewhere. I left his racist comment as an exhibit for those who insist that anti-Semitism is just a figment of Jewish paranoia. The Jews, as Ben-Gurion said, are a paranoid nation that is persecuted.
And Brian. I am Jewish, and not an Arab. My country is real, but it is Israel and not Israel. And there aren't tweny million Jews in USA!
If you like this post ? click to Reddit!
add to del.icio.us Add to digg - digg it
Original text copyright by the author and MidEastWeb for Coexistence, RA. Posted at MidEastWeb Middle East Web Log at http://www.mideastweb.org/log/archives/00000609.htm where your intelligent and constructive comments are welcome. Distributed by MEW Newslist. Subscribe by e-mail to mew-subscribe@yahoogroups.com. Please forward by email with this notice and link to and cite this article. Other uses by permission.
.
Sometimes we fail to notice the most important and obvious facts, precisely because they are right before our eyes, or because they are unpleasant to acknowledge.
There is one overriding fact about American policy toward Israel that has been ignored in this way. Anyone who seeks a basic understanding of American moves has to take it into account, and yet partisans of both sides have missed it, perhaps because it is so obvious, or perhaps because it is inconvenient for their pet ideas.
In 1975, US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger told the Iraqi foreign minister, in a secret meeting:
We can't negotiate about the existence of Israel, but we can reduce its size to historical proportions. I don't agree that Israel is a permanent threat. How can a nation of three million be a permanent threat? They have a technical advantage now. But it is inconceivable that peoples with wealth and skill and the tradition of the Arabs won't develop the capacity that is needed. So I think in ten to fifteen years, Israel will be like Lebanon-- struggling for existence, with no influence in the Arab world. (see Kissinger tells Iraqis, "We Can Reduce Israel's Size")
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Exposure of this Machiavellian conversation produced shock in some quarters. Kenneth Stein was unable to say if this represented United States Policy or Kissinger's opinion or if Kissinger was simply trying to entice the Iraqis back into the US orbit. It should have surprised nobody.
Kissinger was expressing, in a cynical way, the core of US Middle East policy since 1967: to barter Israeli land for a peace deal, and to use US influence on Israel to gain influence in the Arab world. It was always the public policy of the United States, through administrations of both parties and under every presidency. In fact, it was also the openly declared policy of Israel in 1967.
Kenneth Stein agonized over whether or not Kissinger really meant what he had said:
Kissinger's statement to Hammadi that the U.S. envisioned Israel as becoming small and non-threatening like Lebanon may have been U.S. foreign policy, or his personal view, or ingratiating diplomacy, or some combination of the three...
But Stein also quoted a statement by Nixon to Syrian President Assad:
President Richard Nixon told Syrian president Hafez al-Assad that Washington was committed to seeing an "Israeli withdrawal from all the occupied territories" (cited by Stein as taken from "Letter from President Ford to Prime Minister Rabin, September 1, 1975," reproduced in Michael Widlanski, Can Israel Survive A Palestinian State? (Jerusalem: Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies, 1990).
For some reason, Stein doubted if that too was the policy of the United States. However, both secret and public documents and utterances have made it clear that United States policy regarding Israel since the Six Day War was centered around the idea that the United States must get Israel to withdraw from the occupied territories in order to satisfy the Arab states.
U.S. diplomats and legislators, beginning in 1967, bemoaned the fact that Israel had achieved the Six Day War victory without U.S. aid, and therefore the United States had no way to force its withdrawal. This is revealed, for example, in Senate Foreign Relations subcommittee hearings held on June 9, 1967:
It is a fact, is it not, that neither Soviet Russia nor the United States has given any material amounts of arms to Israel, and, if that is true, are they not relatively independent in their thinking at this point?
Secretary Rusk. No, we have provided tanks and Hawk missiles and certain other kinds of equipment to Israel, but their principal arms supplier has been France...
The Israeli air force is almost all French supplied.
It should be clear that "reducing the size of Israel" was always a goal of the United States since June 1967. On May 23, 1967, President Johnson had made a statement regarding US commitment to the territorial integrity of all nations, seemingly with the intention of reassuring Israel.. Following the June war, this statement was repeated, but now that Israel had conquered chunks of Jordanian, Egyptian and Syrian territory, it took on a new meaning: The US would pressure Israel to withdraw from the conquered territories in return for peace. In a State Department telegram sent on June 12 to the US Embassy in Israel, the following wording was included:
As far as the attitude of the US is concerned, our principal points of departure are (a) President Johnson's reaffirmation on May 23 of long-standing American policy that "the United States is firmly committed to the support of the political independence and territorial integrity of all the nations of the area"; ...(c) the vital interest of the United States in its own relations with the Arab and Muslim world, a relationship in which Israel itself has an important stake...
Source: 273. Telegram From the Department of State to the Embassy in Israel/1/ Washington, June 12, 1967, 10:37 p.m. /1/Source: National Archives and Records Administration, RG 59, Central Files 1967-69, POL 27-14 ARAB-ISR. Secret; Nodis.
Ambassador Barbour replied on June 13 that he had apprised Israeli Foreign Minister Abba Eban of these positions:
As to United States points of departure I mentioned President's reaffirmation on May 23 of our commitment to support the political independence and territorial integrity of all nations in the area, the necessity to establish a regime of peace eliminating claims by either side of the right to infringe on the rights of others because of belligerency...
Source; 277. Telegram From the Embassy in Israel to the Department of State/1/ Tel Aviv, June 13, 1967, 1730Z. /1/Source: National Archives and Records Administration, RG 59, Central Files 1967-69, POL 27-14 ARAB-ISR. Secret; Priority; Nodis. Received at 3:16 p.m.
Yet again, from the same file, in response to Saudi and Aramco pressure on the U.S. regarding Israeli withdrawal, the following text was included in a telegram sent, also on June 13, from the U.S. State Department to the U.S. Embassy in Saudi Arabia:
3. In connection problems growing out of recent Arab-Israel hostilities, you may call attention addressee governments to long-standing USG support for territorial integrity and political independence of all states of the Near East. This position was re-stated by President Johnson today. The USG desires the maintenance of friendly ties with all the countries of the region. In our view it is of the first importance for all to take steps now to assure that there is an end to the periodic hostilities and the state of belligerency which have marked Near Eastern history in the last two decades. The USG is fully prepared to join the other states to work for lasting arrangements which will serve permanently to reduce tensions in this region.
Source: 282. Telegram From the Department of State to the Embassy in Saudi Arabia/1/ [Washington, June 13, 1967, 9:54 p.m. /1/Source: National Archives and Records Administration, Central Files 1967-69, POL 27 ARAB-ISR. Secret...]
And, from a later file of declassified documents, we have this statement:
The tough question is whether we'd force Israel back to 4 June borders if the Arabs accepted terms that amounted to an honest peace settlement. Secretary Rusk told the Yugoslav Foreign Minister: "The US had no problem with frontiers as they existed before the outbreak of hostilities. If we are talking about national frontiers--in a state of peace--then we will work toward restoring them. But we all know that could lead to a tangle with the Israelis.
Source: 455. Memorandum From the President's Special Assistant (Rostow) to President Johnson/1/ Washington, October 3, 1967. /1/Source: Johnson Library, President's Appointment File, October 4, 1967. Secret; Nodis.
There was, therefore, every reason for both President Nixon and Henry Kissinger to make the statements they had made about Israeli withdrawal, and they were by no means expressing their private opinions, but rather the stated policies of the United States government.
The Johnson administration, distracted by Vietnam was not able to begin any peace moves or force Israeli withdrawal. The Arab states under the leadership of Nasser were too intransigent to make even a show of peaceful intentions, and adopted the Khartoum resolutions. At the time, the United States had no leverage whatever on Israel, since it had not supplied the arms with which the Six Day War was won, and had in fact, reneged on its promise to support Israel's navigation rights when it was put to the test. In order to force Israeli withdrawal, the United States would first need to gain some leverage on Israel. The US adopted a two fold approach to regaining its standing in the Middle East. The first part was to make Israel dependent upon it for arms and diplomatic backing, while at the same time working for a permanent peace settlement and Israeli withdrawal. The "peace settlement" part would be satisfactory to the pro-Israel faction that was generally in charge in the White House, while the Israeli withdrawal part would satisfy the rank and file career diplomats of the State Department, who never were known for excessive love for Israel or people of the Jewish persuasion. The opportunity to pin down Israeli dependence on the US arose soon after the Six Day War, when the US supplied the first A-4 Skyhawk aircraft to replace Israel's war losses. The war of attrition soon escalated Israeli dependence, as the US had (albeit with seeming reluctance) begun to supply Phantom interceptors. This could be justified as necessitated by the need to confront Soviet aircraft and pilots which were flying missions for the Egyptians.
This policy could be marketed to supporters of Israel as a pro-Israel policy that sought peace, and would, as Kissinger noted even to the Iraqis, oppose the destruction of Israel. It could be marketed to Arab states and their supporters as US opposition to annexation of Arab territory, and "reduction of Israel's size," as Kissinger put it. The first, most complete public expression of the policy was the Harold H. Saunders testimony of 1975, which explicitly called for a settlement of the Palestinian issue through Israeli territorial concessions. Implementation of the policy was aided by the fact that Israel lost the backing of France, which meant that it had neither a diplomatic champion nor an arms supplier, and was greatly dependent on the US. Yitzhak Rabin, when he was ambassador to the US, understood and emphasized that US support for Israel was due only to the perception that such support served US strategic interests. The US supports Israel in order to use return of the territories conquered in the Six Day War to gain favor with Arab states. This policy worked admirably for many years.
By 1975, the US had gained the needed leverage on Israel by its role in the Yom Kippur War, in which it had agreed to resupply Israel through the air-lift. The Yom Kippur war made it clear to Israel that the scale of military engagements in the Middle East had altered radically since 1967, and that it could therefore no longer be militarily independent. The quantities of arms and materiel consumed in a few short days of fighting demanded an industrial capacity that could not be provided in a practical way by increasing the capacity of the Israeli military industries, and the technological innovations required were beyond the capabilities of Israel. Kissinger persuaded Nixon to resupply the Israelis in 1973, and Kissinger then used the leverage purchased by resupply to push for Israeli withdrawals in Sinai. Anwar Sadat was apparently the only one who had read the Middle East policy map correctly. He understood that if he could move Egypt into the American orbit and offer a "diplomatic horizon," he could get back the Sinai peninsula.
For the US, this policy yielded the Israeli-Egyptian peace treaty, US displacement of Russian influence in Egypt, and eventually, the Jordanian - Israeli peace treaty and the Oslo process. In a masterly stroke, President Carter cemented both Israeli and Egyptian dependence on the US with large foreign aid deals. Carter was ultimately frustrated because he couldn't "land the big one." Menachem Begin wasn't going to talk about Palestinian independence if he didn't have to. PLO opposition to the Egyptian peace move kept the West Bank and Gaza safe for Begin and settlerocracy. Carter chose to blame it all on Israel, but if the PLO had come through then, it is doubtful that even Begin would have had a choice.
It has been very important for the United States to maintain Israeli dependence. The torpedoing of the LAVIE interceptor project in the 80s was a great victory for US policy and another nail in the coffin of Israeli political independence, although perhaps not an essential one.
In the 1980s and after the first Iraq war, the administration of the other George Bush tried to continue the land for peace policy. They thought they had a "go," first with the so-called "Jordanian option" that was torpedoed by the Shamir government, and then with the breakthrough acceptance of Resolution 242 by the Palestinians in 1988, implicitly recognizing the right of Israel to exist. Each attempt to kindle a peace process clashed head on with the obstinacy of Itzhak Shamir, who pretended he didn't understand what it was all about. Shamir was finally dragged, kicking and screaming, to the Madrid conference.
The election of Yitzhak Rabin as Prime Minister renewed the prospects for peace. Rabin understood the implications of US policy and always had understood them. The break up of the USSR and the brilliant victory of the US in the first Iraq war, as well as the relative weakness of the PLO, made all the omens favorable. The result was peace with Jordan and the start of the Oslo process. Successive Israeli Prime Ministers since Rabin have also understood the ultimate fate of Israeli settlement project, though Benjamin Netanyahu tried to fight it.
What Kissinger told the Iraqis was apparently, a slightly "adapted" version of actual US policy. If it was shocking to some people, it is because they never understood and didn't want to understand what had been declared plainly many times. The same policy has been spelled out again quite recently by George Bush in his speech on the Middle East, and more recently by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice in an interview with Sawa television. Israel will have to withdraw from the West Bank.
Some conclusions are obvious from the above. In effect, the entire 40 year year period since the Six Day war has been a full featured version of the little episode of the 1956 Suez Campaign, in which Israel was quickly forced to return conquered territory in return for flimsy guarantees that proved worthless. This time however, the U.S. seem to have resolved that it would not pressure Israel unduly until and unless it could extract a peace agreement from the Arab side. But if such agreements were forthcoming, Israel would need to return all, or most of territories.
The Israeli government always knew the score, even if it tried to forget it. Initially, Israel was in earnest about returning all or most of the land conquered in return for peace. Following the Khartoum resolutions however, and later, after the infamous UN Zionism is Racism resolution, it appeared safe to assume that Arab peace partners, other than Egypt, would never present themselves, and that Israel could take it for granted that the US would look the other way while Israel built settlements and created "facts on the ground," ignoring the hypothetical day of reckoning that might come if and when the Arabs side ever opted for peace. From the point of view of the supporters of settlement, American support for Israel was a Faustian deal, and they would rather not think that one day the devil might come to get his due.
The "territorial integrity" and "land for peace" policy of the US has been largely ignored by many pro-Israel and pro-Palestinian analysts and statesmen, despite the fact it is a matter of public record. For Greater Israel enthusiasts, there was no point in emphasizing the huge gamble involved in pouring billions of dollars into the settlements. Likewise, when it is out of power, it is very convenient for the Israeli right to label any Israeli politician who is in power, and must offer concessions in line with U.S. policy, as a traitor or at least a wimp.
The penny-ante pundits on the sidelines do not understand this game. When a Sharon or Netanyahu actually gets into power, the amateur kibbitzers expect that they are going to do something different. They will annex the West Bank perhaps, or rebuild the Temple. When this doesn't happen, because it can't happen, the pundits of the right cry "traitor" and "incompetent" and "corrupt" at their own previously adored leaders, and turn to more extreme politicians.
The process began with Menachem Begin, who was unalterably opposed to surrendering a single clod of earth, as he repeated many times, and was promptly roped in to giving up all of the Sinai peninsula. "From here," as Sharon was later to remark upon assuming office, "it does not look the same as it did from there."
The stalwart of the right, Benjamin Netanyahu, was singing a somewhat different tune by the time he got to the Wye River Memorandum. The Sharon bogeyman in office became the architect of disengagement. It will be observed that even Avigdor Lieberman in the cabinet, looks quite a bit different than he did when he was in the opposition. He does not object to negotiations with Mahmoud Abbas too strenuously. Nobody has remarked on the absurdity of the fact that Benjamin Netanyahu out of office, is now to the right of Avigdor Lieberman. It is all determined by the obvious need of the Israeli government to fall in line, more or less, with US policy.
For standard anti-Zionists of all kinds, it is very convenient to point to the large amounts of foreign aid given to Israel. Of course, that aid is given to ensure that Israel will remain compliant with US wishes, and prevent a repetition of the Six Day War scenario, which was a nightmare for the US State Department after all. Out of noplace seemingly, an independent regional player had appeared, and was in a position to dictate the course of affairs. An imperialist power cannot allow that.
For Arab, anti-U.S. rhetoricians, it is hardly convenient to point out that the US has a vested interested in peace in the Middle East, and much more profitable to claim that the US is pro-Israel, a claim that US statesmen and politicians must back up for reasons of domestic politics, as well as to keep the confidence of the Israeli government. Everyone in the US government probably remembers the unfortunate announcement of Robert McCloskey, prior to the Six Day War, that the US would remain neutral in thought word and deed, and nobody wants to repeat that fiasco. But the truth is, that stripped of niceties, the policy that President Bush enunciated in his recent Middle East speech is not much different from the policy that Kissinger explained to the Iraqi foreign minister: Land for peace. The land is real enough. The nature of the peace is open to negotiation. As Kissinger also remarked at the time
:I have told friends that peace isn't a final end. Wars begin elsewhere between countries that are at peace.
. That was a pretty broad hint. If the US can get peace, it will force Israeli withdrawal, and it will not examine this peace too closely to see if it is permanent.
The realities of the Middle East have changed in the past forty years, though U.S. policies and perceptions have not. This creates problems for the U.S. In this period, a stubborn lobby in support of settlements grew up in Israel. Their opposition to peace and concessions was seemingly validated to many Israelis by the breakdown of the Oslo process, and by the disastrous aftermath of disengagement.
At the same time, the cause of disaffection with the United States among Muslim countries, and Arab countries among them, is no longer only support for Israeli retention of territories. Rather, because of the rise of radical Islam, it is becoming more and more the case that the Israeli presence in the Middle East is branded as a Western colonial implant. Any peace that is sponsored by the United States, no matter what the settlement, is by definition a disaster for the local enemies of the United States. Therefore, trying to make peace between Israel and the Muslim/Arab world is no longer the panacea for America that it was in past decades. In addition, European countries, Russia and China stand ready to take up the slack where American influence wanes. Russia no longer has the odium of atheistic communism associated with it, whcih deterred conservative regimes in the past.
An additional complication is that Americans have become increasingly entangled in Iraq. In their desperation, some delude themselves into believing that making peace between Israel and the Palestinians will somehow help their cause in Iraq. This idea was apparently injected into the Iraq Study Group report by expert advisor Ray Close. For Middle Easterners, Americans are inscrutable occidentals. It is impossible to understand why Americans would think Al Qaeda, Shi'a or Sunni extremists would really be touched to the core of their humanitarian souls and stop blowing up mosques because the Palestinian problem was "settled." Rather, these extremists are bending every effort to ensure that the only acceptable "settlement" of the problem would be eradication of Israel. Any genuine moves toward peace would cause them to redouble their explosive efforts, and any settlement that left a Jewish state intact would be portrayed as "betrayal" of the Palestinian people.
Ami Isseroff
Post script: I usually don't comment on discussions in a Web Log, but this one is of special interest. No Bill Narvey, I don't advocate annexing the West Bank. In terms you might understand, I will say that if God wanted Israel to annex the West Bank, He would not have put so many Arabs there. Self determination must apply to both peoples. I have never changed my views on that and I never will. It is a matter of principle. If Israel wants allies, it will have to seek the road of peace. The dependence on the USA is part of the price that Israel is paying for keeping the territories.
And for Mr. Barzetta, what Israel has that you apparently need is knowledge. You are an ignorant bigot.
Mr. Barzetta is an important lesson for Israelis who think all Americans will love us forever. There are many Barzettas in the State Deparment and elsewhere. I left his racist comment as an exhibit for those who insist that anti-Semitism is just a figment of Jewish paranoia. The Jews, as Ben-Gurion said, are a paranoid nation that is persecuted.
And Brian. I am Jewish, and not an Arab. My country is real, but it is Israel and not Israel. And there aren't tweny million Jews in USA!
If you like this post ? click to Reddit!
add to del.icio.us Add to digg - digg it
Original text copyright by the author and MidEastWeb for Coexistence, RA. Posted at MidEastWeb Middle East Web Log at http://www.mideastweb.org/log/archives/00000609.htm where your intelligent and constructive comments are welcome. Distributed by MEW Newslist. Subscribe by e-mail to mew-subscribe@yahoogroups.com. Please forward by email with this notice and link to and cite this article. Other uses by permission.
.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)