Press TV
http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=101149§ionid=351020101
Amid Iran's efforts to settle disputes over its nuclear activities, Foreign Ministry spokesman has explained details about the country's new package to be proposed to the West. . "The proposed package will definitely include Iran's nuclear issue based on an international approach," Hassan Qashqavi told IRIB Sunday.
He said that the "comprehensive and updated" package aims to prepare a ground for Iran to have more fluid interaction with the West.
"We cannot raise the nuclear issue without speaking of an international disarmament. We cannot speak of a Middle East without nuclear weapons while making no words about the more than 200 nuclear warheads of the Zionist regime [Israel]," added the spokesman.
Iran is drawing up a package of proposals, which will be presented to the international community soon with the aim of resolving the main international problems of economic, cultural and moral challenges.
Qashqavi pointed to the ongoing global economic crisis and said, "Iran's proposed package will suggest solutions to the economic crisis based on principles of the Islamic economy."
Iran had earlier provided critics in the West with another package that covered various issues pertinent to politics, security and the economy.
The previous Iranian package had been presented to UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, EU Foreign Policy Chief Javier Solana and the representatives of the 5+1 Group in response to a Western package of incentives delivered to Iran by Solana.
The package extended by the West offered Iran certain economic incentives in exchange for Iran halting its uranium enrichment activities.
Iran is a member of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and is therefore granted the right to develop a civilian nuclear program. On the issue of Western insistence that it seeks to develop nuclear weaponry, Tehran says it has no such plan.
Tuesday, July 21, 2009
US Rejects, Jewish Groups Support Netanyahu’s J’lem Statements
Zalman Nelson Support for PM's J'lem Stand
The battle of words over Jewish rights to build and purchase homes in Jerusalem continued Monday and Tuesday with statements from the U.S. State Department and prominent Jewish groups. Assistant Secretary of State Philip Crowley told members of the media that the U.S. continues to oppose Israeli construction in eastern Jerusalem, but he added that the Jewish state’s rejection of American demands is not a new issue.
“We have made our views to – known to Israel. Our views are not new either, that this kind of construction is the type of thing that should be – is the type of issue that should be subject to permanent status negotiations, and that we are concerned that unilateral actions taken by the Israelis or the Palestinians cannot prejudge the outcome of these negotiations,” Crowley said.
He noted that the State Department is “working hard through George Mitchell and others to create conditions so that you can have a resumption of negotiations that would lead the parties to address these final status issues.” Crowley confirmed that U.S. special envoy to the Middle East George Mitchell will be in the region later this week.
The recent tension began when Israel’s Ambassador to the U.S. Michael Oren was urgently summoned to the State Department over the weekend to hear that Israel must stop a private construction project at the site of the Jewish-owned Shepherd Hotel in eastern Jerusalem.
Rejecting American officials' demand to halt the project, Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu said on Sunday that Jewish residents of Jerusalem, the capital of Israel and the Jewish people, can purchase homes in any area of the city just like Arab residents can.
“Jerusalem is not included in discussions with the U.S. about a settlement freeze,” he said. “This is the policy of an open city, an undivided city that has no divisions according to religion or national affiliation.”
Orthodox Groups Praise Netanyahu
Prime Minister Netanyahu's comments and his stated position on the future of Jerusalem earned him commendation Monday from the National Council of Young Israel (NCYI), a coordinating agency for Orthodox congregations in the U.S. and Canada.
“It is essential that we tell the Israeli government that we support them and stand together with them in their effort to protect the Jewish homeland,” NCYI President Shlomo Mostofsky said in a press statement. “Prime Minister Netanyahu needs to know that hundreds of thousands of American Jews and countless friends of Israel wholeheartedly endorse the idea that Jerusalem is the eternal capital of Israel.”
He praised the prime minister’s “unequivocal declaration that Jerusalem’s sovereignty is not in dispute, and that Israel will not bow to external pressure that attempts to dictate Israeli policy on Jerusalem,” said Mostofsky, who urged American Jews to contact the Israeli Embassy to voice their support for Netanyahu’s position on Jerusalem.
The Orthodox Union (OU) Jewish umbrella organization joined NCYI in supporting Netanyahu and rejecting U.S. pressures. "The Orthodox Union disagrees with the position of the United States that, like Jewish settlement activities in other areas of Judea and Samaria, Israel must not permit new Jewish residency or construction is eastern sections of Jerusalem. We remain partners with you... for the continued preservation of Jerusalem’s unity as the Jewish people’s holy and eternal capital."
In a statement, the OU pledged to “continue our commitment to Israel and Jerusalem through our service programs at our Israel Center in Jerusalem and through our advocacy for Israel’s interests in Washington, DC.”
The Shepherd Hotel property has been owned by Dr. Irving Moskowitz since 1985. The Land of Israel activist has built other projects in eastern Jerusalem as well, most notably the Maaleh HaZeitim neighborhood in what local Arabs have dubbed Ras el-Amud, below and to the south of the Temple Mount.
Jerusalem Heartburn
David Hazony
Commentary Magazine
We knew it would come to this. Over the weekend, the Obama administration showed just how radical the shift in U.S. policy toward Israel has been. It has demanded that the Israeli government withdraw the municipal approval of a building project in the Eastern Jerusalem neighborhood of Sheikh Jarrah. The land that houses the old, run-down Shepherd Hotel, which is to be replaced by an apartment building, was lawfully purchased by Jews. No matter: That part of town is seen by Washington as a “settlement.” Today, U.S. officials made it even clearer when they reportedly told both sides that they see no difference between Eastern Jerusalem and rogue settler outposts in the middle of the West Bank. Understandably, the Israeli government has rejected the directive, and some reports suggest that the Israelis may have deliberately leaked the demand, for it plays to Netanyahu’s image as standing tall against American pressure.
Washington has a longstanding tradition of doublespeak when dealing with Jerusalem. On the one hand, Obama himself couldn’t help but declare his commitment (subsequently retracted) to a unified Jerusalem under Israeli sovereignty while campaigning for office — and he even promised to move the U.S. embassy from Tel Aviv, which is not the capital by any definition of the term, to Jerusalem.
At the same time, he is not the first presidential candidate to make that promise, nor the first one to forget about it when in office, in the process ignoring the express will of Congress. It’s those pesky State Department folks, you see, who keep advising successive presidents that now is not the right time. For 60 years, Israel’s executive, legislative, and judicial branches of government have found their seat in Jerusalem, and Israel’s “closest ally” still keeps its embassy by the beach. At least we Jerusalemites don’t have to worry about all those diplomat vehicles taking our precious parking spots.
It gets weirder. As I have pointed out before, the United States does not appear to recognize Israeli sovereignty over any part of Jerusalem — West or East. A federal-court ruling earlier this month underscores the simple fact that any American citizen born in Jerusalem, regardless of where he lives, gets a U.S. passport with the country listed as simply “Jerusalem.” U.S. citizens living in Jerusalem cannot get help at the U.S. embassy in Tel Aviv; they are directed to the U.S. consulate in Jerusalem, which answers directly to Washington, rather than to the embassy.
Again, this stuff has been going on for a long time. It begins with a fundamental attitude on the part of successive American administrations, really dating back to the 1947 UN partition plan putting the city under “universal” governance. The point is, the reasoning goes, we don’t fully see the logic in giving Israel full sovereignty of Jerusalem. It’s not just about placating the Arabs, although that’s a big part of it; it is, after all, a city of international importance. Why should only Israel have it?
So in the interest of fostering a constructive dialogue with an American diplomatic universe that seems to have no interest whatever in Israel’s position on the subject, I’d like to toss out a few brief reminders.
1. Israel should have Jerusalem, first of all, because it already does. Jews have been a majority of the city consecutively since the middle of the 19th century. There is no issue here of occupation, of a Jewish minority displacing Palestinians in their land. Over the past century and a half, the city was divided for 19 years by an accident of war, split between Israel and Jordan, neither of which occupations having earned international recognition; and then it was reunited.
Thus was born the infamous and irrelevant “Green Line,” something that today exists on maps only. The Jordanians cleansed the eastern city of its Jews and burned down its synagogues. Then the Jews came back in 1967 and gave the city a greater degree of not only economic success but also religious, cultural, and political freedom than it has ever enjoyed under any of the different Muslim, Christian, and pagan regimes that preceded them. Consider, by contrast, the treatment of Jewish holy sites under Palestinian rule: Joseph’s Tomb, for example, was immediately set on fire, as were all the synagogues of the Gaza Strip. At the risk of “prejudicing” the outcome of negotiations through the employment of argument, why on earth should it not be Israel’s?
2. Israel should have Jerusalem because it is more important to Jews than it is to Muslims (or Christians, or anyone else). This may sound vaguely discriminatory or religionist or unpopularly theological or just unfunny, but the fact is that there is a difference between the “most important” holy city and the “third most important” city that is far more than quantitative. This is the geographical heart of biblical Israel, the focus of its golden age of David and Solomon, the political-messianic-metahistorical dream focus of three millennia of Jewish prayer. This is the heart of everything, and that heart beats not on Herzl Boulevard or Jaffa Road by the Central Bus Station but in Eastern Jerusalem, at the site where the First and Second Temples stood for about a thousand years before the glorious Romans burned them down.
3. Israel should have Jerusalem because there is no practical way to divide the city that would satisfy both sides. Never mind the bizarre MTA-subway-style map that would ensue, intertwining all the Jewish and Arab neighborhoods in the city. The real problem is that Israelis and Palestinians have totally irreconcilable views as to how such a division would work in practice — a difference so wide as to make the entire endeavor a pipe dream.
Israelis see any separation as similar to the one Israel has with Egypt and Jordan: a full border, with strict crossings and a fundamental divorce of economic life. This is essential to any deal — the entire idea of giving up land in exchange for peace comes with the heavy baggage of decades of terror attacks. But such a separation, we have been told repeatedly, is anathema to the Palestinians themselves, who rely heavily on Israeli jobs for their living and see any real separation a form of “siege” — turning their territory into a “prison.” (If you don’t believe this, ask yourself how the Gazans would react if Israel were to lift the sea and air restrictions on the Strip: Would they say “we are now free” or “we are still under siege”?) This problem is little discussed but will become a deal breaker the moment anyone starts talking seriously about borders or dividing the city.
Jerusalem is not just a consensus issue in Israel but also a deeply personal one. There is no erasing the thousands of years of yearning for Jerusalem in Jewish texts, nor the heart-wrenching failure of Jewish forces to capture East Jerusalem in 1948, nor the national catharsis of its reunification in the Six Day War, nor over four decades of astonishing development and construction and tourism and flourishing of religious life for all faiths since then. The idea that now, suddenly, a new American president, speaking of “settlements,” will change this reality is not simply offensive and alienating to Israelis only but also to Jews the world over. Rather than recognize his failure in the Middle East so far, Obama is exacerbating it. Israelis do not like to be bullied, and this is far more likely to steel the Israeli public’s resolve against American pressure than weaken it.
Copyright © 1997-2009 Commentary Magazine
All Rights Reserved
.
Commentary Magazine
We knew it would come to this. Over the weekend, the Obama administration showed just how radical the shift in U.S. policy toward Israel has been. It has demanded that the Israeli government withdraw the municipal approval of a building project in the Eastern Jerusalem neighborhood of Sheikh Jarrah. The land that houses the old, run-down Shepherd Hotel, which is to be replaced by an apartment building, was lawfully purchased by Jews. No matter: That part of town is seen by Washington as a “settlement.” Today, U.S. officials made it even clearer when they reportedly told both sides that they see no difference between Eastern Jerusalem and rogue settler outposts in the middle of the West Bank. Understandably, the Israeli government has rejected the directive, and some reports suggest that the Israelis may have deliberately leaked the demand, for it plays to Netanyahu’s image as standing tall against American pressure.
Washington has a longstanding tradition of doublespeak when dealing with Jerusalem. On the one hand, Obama himself couldn’t help but declare his commitment (subsequently retracted) to a unified Jerusalem under Israeli sovereignty while campaigning for office — and he even promised to move the U.S. embassy from Tel Aviv, which is not the capital by any definition of the term, to Jerusalem.
At the same time, he is not the first presidential candidate to make that promise, nor the first one to forget about it when in office, in the process ignoring the express will of Congress. It’s those pesky State Department folks, you see, who keep advising successive presidents that now is not the right time. For 60 years, Israel’s executive, legislative, and judicial branches of government have found their seat in Jerusalem, and Israel’s “closest ally” still keeps its embassy by the beach. At least we Jerusalemites don’t have to worry about all those diplomat vehicles taking our precious parking spots.
It gets weirder. As I have pointed out before, the United States does not appear to recognize Israeli sovereignty over any part of Jerusalem — West or East. A federal-court ruling earlier this month underscores the simple fact that any American citizen born in Jerusalem, regardless of where he lives, gets a U.S. passport with the country listed as simply “Jerusalem.” U.S. citizens living in Jerusalem cannot get help at the U.S. embassy in Tel Aviv; they are directed to the U.S. consulate in Jerusalem, which answers directly to Washington, rather than to the embassy.
Again, this stuff has been going on for a long time. It begins with a fundamental attitude on the part of successive American administrations, really dating back to the 1947 UN partition plan putting the city under “universal” governance. The point is, the reasoning goes, we don’t fully see the logic in giving Israel full sovereignty of Jerusalem. It’s not just about placating the Arabs, although that’s a big part of it; it is, after all, a city of international importance. Why should only Israel have it?
So in the interest of fostering a constructive dialogue with an American diplomatic universe that seems to have no interest whatever in Israel’s position on the subject, I’d like to toss out a few brief reminders.
1. Israel should have Jerusalem, first of all, because it already does. Jews have been a majority of the city consecutively since the middle of the 19th century. There is no issue here of occupation, of a Jewish minority displacing Palestinians in their land. Over the past century and a half, the city was divided for 19 years by an accident of war, split between Israel and Jordan, neither of which occupations having earned international recognition; and then it was reunited.
Thus was born the infamous and irrelevant “Green Line,” something that today exists on maps only. The Jordanians cleansed the eastern city of its Jews and burned down its synagogues. Then the Jews came back in 1967 and gave the city a greater degree of not only economic success but also religious, cultural, and political freedom than it has ever enjoyed under any of the different Muslim, Christian, and pagan regimes that preceded them. Consider, by contrast, the treatment of Jewish holy sites under Palestinian rule: Joseph’s Tomb, for example, was immediately set on fire, as were all the synagogues of the Gaza Strip. At the risk of “prejudicing” the outcome of negotiations through the employment of argument, why on earth should it not be Israel’s?
2. Israel should have Jerusalem because it is more important to Jews than it is to Muslims (or Christians, or anyone else). This may sound vaguely discriminatory or religionist or unpopularly theological or just unfunny, but the fact is that there is a difference between the “most important” holy city and the “third most important” city that is far more than quantitative. This is the geographical heart of biblical Israel, the focus of its golden age of David and Solomon, the political-messianic-metahistorical dream focus of three millennia of Jewish prayer. This is the heart of everything, and that heart beats not on Herzl Boulevard or Jaffa Road by the Central Bus Station but in Eastern Jerusalem, at the site where the First and Second Temples stood for about a thousand years before the glorious Romans burned them down.
3. Israel should have Jerusalem because there is no practical way to divide the city that would satisfy both sides. Never mind the bizarre MTA-subway-style map that would ensue, intertwining all the Jewish and Arab neighborhoods in the city. The real problem is that Israelis and Palestinians have totally irreconcilable views as to how such a division would work in practice — a difference so wide as to make the entire endeavor a pipe dream.
Israelis see any separation as similar to the one Israel has with Egypt and Jordan: a full border, with strict crossings and a fundamental divorce of economic life. This is essential to any deal — the entire idea of giving up land in exchange for peace comes with the heavy baggage of decades of terror attacks. But such a separation, we have been told repeatedly, is anathema to the Palestinians themselves, who rely heavily on Israeli jobs for their living and see any real separation a form of “siege” — turning their territory into a “prison.” (If you don’t believe this, ask yourself how the Gazans would react if Israel were to lift the sea and air restrictions on the Strip: Would they say “we are now free” or “we are still under siege”?) This problem is little discussed but will become a deal breaker the moment anyone starts talking seriously about borders or dividing the city.
Jerusalem is not just a consensus issue in Israel but also a deeply personal one. There is no erasing the thousands of years of yearning for Jerusalem in Jewish texts, nor the heart-wrenching failure of Jewish forces to capture East Jerusalem in 1948, nor the national catharsis of its reunification in the Six Day War, nor over four decades of astonishing development and construction and tourism and flourishing of religious life for all faiths since then. The idea that now, suddenly, a new American president, speaking of “settlements,” will change this reality is not simply offensive and alienating to Israelis only but also to Jews the world over. Rather than recognize his failure in the Middle East so far, Obama is exacerbating it. Israelis do not like to be bullied, and this is far more likely to steel the Israeli public’s resolve against American pressure than weaken it.
Copyright © 1997-2009 Commentary Magazine
All Rights Reserved
.
Jewish housing crisis
Tuesday, July 21, 2009
The latest threat to Middle East peace is not a rocket from Gaza or a terrorist bombing. It is a Jerusalem apartment project -- at least that's the view in Foggy Bottom. Last week, the State Department delivered a demarche to Israel's ambassador to the United States, Michael Oren, to halt construction on 20 residential units on the site of the Shepherd Hotel, which stands on the edge of an Arab neighborhood in East Jerusalem.
The State Department's fit over these 20 new units contrasts with the official silence of the United States on the vast number of Palestinian dwellings being constructed illegally in Jerusalem. According to the 2003 book, "Illegal Construction in Jerusalem" by Justus Reid Weiner, a senior Palestinian official boasted that they built 6,000 homes without permits in four years. Some of these homes have been funded by some foreign sources with little interest in promoting peace.
On Sunday, Shin Bet chief Yuval Diskin revealed that Qatar-based Sheikh Yousuf Qaradawi gave $21 million to a charity funded by Hamas to buy land and build houses in Jerusalem. Mr. Qaradawi is an Egyptian and longtime Hamas supporter who believes that suicide terror attacks are "evidence of God's justice." In a Jan. 9, 2009, sermon that aired on al Jazeera, he said, "Oh Allah, take this oppressive, Jewish, Zionist band of people. Oh Allah, do not spare a single one of them. Oh Allah, count their numbers, and kill them, down to the very last one."
Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas added his voice to the dispute yesterday, claiming that, "the holy city is today facing real dangers, while there are attempts to turn it into a full Jewish city by changing its Islamic and Christian landmarks." Mr. Abbas should study more history. Jerusalem is more open and religiously free under Israel's administration than it has ever been before. The holy sites of all faiths are protected equally under the law, which was not the case before the city was unified 40 years ago. Arab troops turned the Jewish Quarter in East Jerusalem into a "graveyard" when they invaded in 1948, according to Arab Legion commander Abdallah el-Tal.
Today, in united Jerusalem, hundreds of Muslims gather every Friday at the al-Aqsa Mosque on the Temple Mount to pray openly and freely. One may well ask where in the Arab world hundreds of Jews would be welcome to pray publicly, especially on a Muslim holy site. For that matter, one may well ask where in the Arab world are there even hundreds of Jews.
This latest dispute comes on the heels of Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton's admonition that "natural growth" -- her euphemism for Jewish babies -- was not to be permitted on the West Bank. But there was no official word on the reproductive rights of Palestinians in Israel. This lopsided approach to the peace process has generated deep suspicion among Israelis. A poll published last month in the Jerusalem Post showed that only 6 percent of Israelis believe that President Obama's policies are pro-Israel, while 50 percent believe they are pro-Palestinian.
Last week, Mr. Obama convened a meeting of prominent Jewish-American leaders to assure them that he is a friend of Israel. But as the saying goes, with friends like these. . . .
Israel envoy: UNIFIL cooperated with Lebanese infiltrating Israel
Shlomo Shamir, Haaretz Correspondent
United Nations peacekeeping troops in Lebanon did nothing to stop a group of Lebanese citizens from crossing the border into Israel, said Israel's envoy to the international body. Hezbollah "allowed" 12 Lebanese civilians to infiltrate a few dozen meters into Israeli territory on Mount Dov on Saturday near Shaba Farms, raising a Lebanese flag. They returned to Lebanon shortly thereafter. The Israel Defense Forces said it did not respond because the civilians were unarmed and not dangerous.
In a letter of complaint to UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon, envoy Gabriela Shalev said that witnesses had also reported seeing the troops cooperating with the infiltrators.
Advertisement
This type of action "demonstrate[s] an escalation and a pattern of behavior in Lebanon, that must be confronted," Shalev wrote. She added is a clear violation of UN Security Council resolution 1701., which brought a cease-fire to the 2006 war between Hezbollah and Israel.
The border between Israel and Lebanon in the area is not fenced. IDF lookouts said the group, which included children, also had a Hezbollah flag, but did not raise it.
Israeli forces were placed on alert and the IDF informed UNIFIL command of the matter, asking them to intervene. By the time the UNIFIL force went to the site, the group was on its way back to Lebanese territory.
Government officials dealing with the Lebanon issue say UNIFIL soldiers encounter armed Hezbollah fighters or are detained by them, but the incidents do not appear in the reports submitted to the Security Council.
On Saturday it was reported that that area residents prevented UNIFIL soldiers from searching an abandoned building near the building that blew up last week, in which it is believed Hezbollah stored weapons, against the UN resolution.
A government source in Jerusalem said UNIFIL learned a few months ago about the cache of Katyusha rockets that exploded in the southern Lebanese village of Hirbet Salim last Tuesday.
The source said UNIFIL had precise information about the cache and a number of other installations where Hezbollah is storing rockets, but that UNIFIL had done nothing.
A discussion is scheduled in the UN Security Council for late August on renewing UNIFIL's mandate in southern Lebanon; Israel hopes last week's explosion will show the need to strengthen UNIFIL. Israel believes that UNIFIL could sharpen its rules of engagement and act more forcefully with the Lebanese army in southern Lebanese villages. .
United Nations peacekeeping troops in Lebanon did nothing to stop a group of Lebanese citizens from crossing the border into Israel, said Israel's envoy to the international body. Hezbollah "allowed" 12 Lebanese civilians to infiltrate a few dozen meters into Israeli territory on Mount Dov on Saturday near Shaba Farms, raising a Lebanese flag. They returned to Lebanon shortly thereafter. The Israel Defense Forces said it did not respond because the civilians were unarmed and not dangerous.
In a letter of complaint to UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon, envoy Gabriela Shalev said that witnesses had also reported seeing the troops cooperating with the infiltrators.
Advertisement
This type of action "demonstrate[s] an escalation and a pattern of behavior in Lebanon, that must be confronted," Shalev wrote. She added is a clear violation of UN Security Council resolution 1701., which brought a cease-fire to the 2006 war between Hezbollah and Israel.
The border between Israel and Lebanon in the area is not fenced. IDF lookouts said the group, which included children, also had a Hezbollah flag, but did not raise it.
Israeli forces were placed on alert and the IDF informed UNIFIL command of the matter, asking them to intervene. By the time the UNIFIL force went to the site, the group was on its way back to Lebanese territory.
Government officials dealing with the Lebanon issue say UNIFIL soldiers encounter armed Hezbollah fighters or are detained by them, but the incidents do not appear in the reports submitted to the Security Council.
On Saturday it was reported that that area residents prevented UNIFIL soldiers from searching an abandoned building near the building that blew up last week, in which it is believed Hezbollah stored weapons, against the UN resolution.
A government source in Jerusalem said UNIFIL learned a few months ago about the cache of Katyusha rockets that exploded in the southern Lebanese village of Hirbet Salim last Tuesday.
The source said UNIFIL had precise information about the cache and a number of other installations where Hezbollah is storing rockets, but that UNIFIL had done nothing.
A discussion is scheduled in the UN Security Council for late August on renewing UNIFIL's mandate in southern Lebanon; Israel hopes last week's explosion will show the need to strengthen UNIFIL. Israel believes that UNIFIL could sharpen its rules of engagement and act more forcefully with the Lebanese army in southern Lebanese villages. .
Monday, July 20, 2009
Background Information from the Municipality of Jerusalem Regarding the Shepherd Hotel Building
The Local Planning Committee of the Jerusalem Municipality operates according to equal criteria for all issues of construction permits, without regard to race, creed, gender, religion, or national identity of the resident or property owner. The acquisition of the land that includes the Shepherd Hotel was legal and received the necessary renovation and construction. The Municipality of Jerusalem’s Planning Committee looks only at the congruence of the planning and the law. According to the High Court of Israel, Jews, Muslims, and Christians alike can purchase land in all parts of the city of Jerusalem. For example, there are Arab residents living in French Hill. The Municipality acts in full transparency and has presented the plans, including to the representatives of the British and US Consulates in Jerusalem. Not only were 20 apartments approved, but a number of conditions that include the preservation of the historic structure were prescribed by the committee.
Naftali Levi, Deputy Director of the Department of Building Licensing and Enforcement at the Municipality of Jerusalem, released the following background information on the Shepherd Hotel building in Hebrew earlier today:
History:
The building was built in the 1930s for the Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin Al-Husayni, who was a leader of the Arab Palestinian movement in the 1920s and 1930s and of three waves of riots during this period.
Once the British Mandate government deported him, the building was confiscated by the British and became a military outpost for the British Army. At the end of the period of the British Mandate, the building was transferred to the ownership of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, which expanded the original structure without affecting it and the building served as the Shepherd Hotel.
Following the Six Day War, the hotel became property of the Government of Israel. It was used by the Ministry of Justice and as a district courthouse.
On November 5th 1985, C and M properties purchased the building and surrounding land from the Government of Israel. With the beginning of the first Intifada in 1987, the Border Police rented the building and stayed there for about 15 years before moving to their new building alongside Highway 1.
Since then and to now, the property has been abandoned.
Legal Background:
The land use of this building is part of Plan 2591. This plan was approved in 1982 by the Jerusalem District Committee of the Interior Ministry and stated new planning provisions for the entire neighborhood of Shiek Jarah (an area of 310,000 square meters) including residential areas, recreational areas, public buildings, public institutions, and roads. Following the zoning in this plan, the land use of the property that includes the Shepherd Hotel is for residential use.
Building License Request 08/787
Following the zoning of Plan 2591, on November 6th 2008 a request was made to permit construction by the owners of the property, C and M Properties Ltd.
On July 2 2009 the Local Planning Committee of the Jerusalem Municipality approved the request, which included the destruction of the existing buildings on the property, except for the historic structure designated for preservation, and the establishment of two new residential buildings, which include 20 apartments. The project includes underground parking, flat roofs, and a total of two floors above the parking level. The property is zoned for up to 4 floors of residential building. The proposed building plan is for 9 meters above ground level. The area of construction above ground is 3,604.19 square meters and the area for construction underground is 5,769 square meters.
It should be emphasized that as a condition for the building license, the owner must fulfill several conditions decided by the Committee. Before receiving the license, the owner cannot start any kind of work on the location.
מח' מידע ואינטרנט – אגף תקשורת
Naftali Levi, Deputy Director of the Department of Building Licensing and Enforcement at the Municipality of Jerusalem, released the following background information on the Shepherd Hotel building in Hebrew earlier today:
History:
The building was built in the 1930s for the Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin Al-Husayni, who was a leader of the Arab Palestinian movement in the 1920s and 1930s and of three waves of riots during this period.
Once the British Mandate government deported him, the building was confiscated by the British and became a military outpost for the British Army. At the end of the period of the British Mandate, the building was transferred to the ownership of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, which expanded the original structure without affecting it and the building served as the Shepherd Hotel.
Following the Six Day War, the hotel became property of the Government of Israel. It was used by the Ministry of Justice and as a district courthouse.
On November 5th 1985, C and M properties purchased the building and surrounding land from the Government of Israel. With the beginning of the first Intifada in 1987, the Border Police rented the building and stayed there for about 15 years before moving to their new building alongside Highway 1.
Since then and to now, the property has been abandoned.
Legal Background:
The land use of this building is part of Plan 2591. This plan was approved in 1982 by the Jerusalem District Committee of the Interior Ministry and stated new planning provisions for the entire neighborhood of Shiek Jarah (an area of 310,000 square meters) including residential areas, recreational areas, public buildings, public institutions, and roads. Following the zoning in this plan, the land use of the property that includes the Shepherd Hotel is for residential use.
Building License Request 08/787
Following the zoning of Plan 2591, on November 6th 2008 a request was made to permit construction by the owners of the property, C and M Properties Ltd.
On July 2 2009 the Local Planning Committee of the Jerusalem Municipality approved the request, which included the destruction of the existing buildings on the property, except for the historic structure designated for preservation, and the establishment of two new residential buildings, which include 20 apartments. The project includes underground parking, flat roofs, and a total of two floors above the parking level. The property is zoned for up to 4 floors of residential building. The proposed building plan is for 9 meters above ground level. The area of construction above ground is 3,604.19 square meters and the area for construction underground is 5,769 square meters.
It should be emphasized that as a condition for the building license, the owner must fulfill several conditions decided by the Committee. Before receiving the license, the owner cannot start any kind of work on the location.
מח' מידע ואינטרנט – אגף תקשורת
“Honest Broker” – John Podhoretz' clarification of terminology
Commentary magazine
July/August 2009
The Turn Against Israel
By John Podhoretz, Editor
BARACK OBAMA began the first week of June 1 with a series of interviews on the eve of his journey to Cairo to deliver his address to the “Muslim world." In all of them, he spoke of the Israeli-Palestinian situation and the central importance of resolving it as part of his aim of beginning anew with the Arab and Muslim nations that have grown so disenchanted with the Unites States. To National Public Radio, the President made a point of invoking the ties that bind America to Israel and the “special relationship” between the two nations before asserting that part of being a good friend is being honest and I think there have been times where we are not as honest as we should be about the fact that the current direction, the current trajectory, in the region is profoundly negative, not only for Israeli interests but also U.S. interests. And that’s part of a new dialogue that I’d like to see encouraged in the region.” he President is, of course, entirely right about how “profoundly negative” the “current direction, the current trajectory, in the region” is for American and Israeli interests. A theocratic regime committed in word and spirit to Israel’s destruction is relentlessly marching ahead with the development of nuclear weaponry. The conclusion of its march poses not only a threat to Israel’s existence but portends a Persian Gulf arms race with implications that ought to terrify everyone. This is precisely the kind of “new dialogue” Israel and the United States should be pursuing in the Middle East — honesty about the trajectory of Iran.
But, of course, honest discourse about Iran was not the fearless truth Barack Obama wished to bestow upon Israel or the Muslim world. Rather, his honesty solely concerned the trajectory “settlements”— which is to say, those acres between Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea on which people now live that have not been declared part of the state of Israel by the international community. The President’s honesty compelled him to inform his friend these acres of earth have been improperly and illegally built upon, and that their existence imperils the creation of the Palestinian state he believes is a political and moral necessity.
Obama’s notion that presidents before him have not been “as honest as we should be” about the settlements is a peculiar one. Every occupant of the Oval Office since Richard Nixon has spoken unfavorably about them. Indeed, when it comes to policy specifics, it is hard to see exactly how Obama has ushered in a new era of “honesty” in the U.S.-Israel relationship.
And yet there is no question that we have entered a new era, one that I expect will be characterized by tensions and unpleasantness of a kind unseen since the days when George II. W. Bush was president, James A. Baker III was secretary of state and the hostility toward Israel oozed from both men like sweat from an intrepid colonial traveler’s brow as he journeyed across the Rub-al-Khali.
One tiny detail gives the game away: Obama’s very use of the word “honest” It was carefully chosen, and is pregnant with meaning. In the matter of relations between nations, the adjective, “honest” is often deployed to denote animosity. When, for example, a State Department official describes a discussion between diplomats as “open and honest;’ that description is presumed to mean that the proceedings were heated and confrontational.
And in the relations between the United States and Israel, “honest” has a provenance that cannot be ignored, It is most often used as part of a two-word phrase whose euphemistic purpose has long been to criticize American closeness to Israel and assert that any such intimacy needs to be abandoned in favor of a more distant, distinctly cooler posture.
The phrase is “honest broker;’ as in, “the United States should serve as an honest broker in the Middle East.” It goes back at least 30 years, and seems first to have entered the realm of American cliché in tribute to President Jimmy Carter’s role in the Camp David peace process between Israel and Egypt. The success of that negotiation led to calls for the United States to continue to serve as an “honest broker” when it came to the relations between Israel and the 21 other Arab countries that, unlike Egypt, continued to refuse to recognize its existence.
Therein lay the flaw in the “honest broker” idea whereby it was exposed for the disingenuous notion it was. For Israel’s only offense to those nations was its very existence. There can be no honest deal-brokering if one party refuses to accept the reality of another. The term suggested each party had equal weight and equal standing, but that was precisely not the case with Israel and the Arab states. The Arab nations had the geopolitical weight; Israel had the moral standing.
What the honest-brokers actually meant when they said that the United States should play an uncommitted role was that we ought to keep our distance from Israel in order to maintain good relations with Arab states. Many of these nations, after all, not only sat atop mammoth oil reserves but whose potentates were also genial and lovely hosts, in contrast to the informal and stiff-necked sabras who simply didn’t know how to act in a courtly fashion toward the starched foreign-service officers who served as the nation’s emissaries.
It was only in the l990s, when Yasir Arafat was parachuted into the West Bank from his exile in Tunis and reinvented as a negotiating partner for Israel, that the phrase began once again to find purchase. For now, at last, there was a deal to be brokered; the Palestinians were now at the table, eager to claim the land Israel had taken in war. Those who advocated for the Palestinian cause argued that the only way such a thing was going to happen would be if the United States were to serve as an “honest broker - that is to say, implicitly, as the representative of the Palestinians in the negotiation. Indeed, effectively, that is what the Clinton administration did do, so well that it all but designed a Palestinian state, induced then-Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak to accept it, and then went into slack-jawed shock when Yasir Arafat rejected it and started a terror war instead,
Nonetheless, those in the “honest broker” camp believed the Clinton administration compromised by its acceptance of the phrase “special relationship” and Clinton’s own expressions of closeness to the assassinated Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin. Such is the nature of those who hunger for the “honest broker” role - nothing less than a breach with Israel will do.
The honest brokers presume that the United States has tilted in Israel’s direction for all sorts of reasons, all of them corrupt, corrupted, and corrupting. The government is always being manipulated, according to the “honest-brokers” by the all-powerful Israel lobby, the all-powerful neo-conservatives or the all-powerful born-again Christians. Also claimed is that Presidents hunger for the Jewish vote in Florida and Pennsylvania, and therefore betray America’s true interests. For the honest-brokers, then, American support for Israel is always viewed as dishonest.
PEOPLE will argue about the text of Obama’s Cairo address as long as he is president, because he is to plain-spoken clarity what blue-hued cotton candy is to nutrient. But, the message he was delivering to his own State Department, to his own diplomats who will be carrying out his policies, was plain: The goal of American foreign policy in the Middle East is now the creation of a Palestinian state. Very little will be expected of the Palestinians in the creation of that state; Hamas should renounce terror and recognize Israel, but a failure to do so will not kill the deal. Violence should be foresworn, but even that is of secondary importance to the state itself.
A great deal is, however, expected of Israel. Settlements are to be frozen, including their “natural growth?’ Israel must bolster the Palestinian economy, provide Palestinians with jobs and make things better in Gaza. Israel is to give; the Palestinians are to receive. Israel’s giving is to be accompanied by a promise of reduced violence. Palestinian receiving will be accompanied by Israel’s surrender of more territory beyond the entirety of Gaza and the near-entirety of the West Bank already in Palestinian hands. Israel, the president asserts, will be better off if all this happens. Trust him. He’s Israel’s friend. A better friend than anyone else, remember, because he’s willing to be honest about Israel’s need to sacrifice itself on the altar of nothing more than a promise, and maybe not even that.
And so the turn against Israel that so many predicted (except for the 80% of American Jews who voted for Obama with such zeal and devotion – jsk) during the 2008 campaign is coming to pass—with a smile, and a nod, and an invocation of a word that actually means something very different from friendship. It might even mean its opposite.
July/August 2009
The Turn Against Israel
By John Podhoretz, Editor
BARACK OBAMA began the first week of June 1 with a series of interviews on the eve of his journey to Cairo to deliver his address to the “Muslim world." In all of them, he spoke of the Israeli-Palestinian situation and the central importance of resolving it as part of his aim of beginning anew with the Arab and Muslim nations that have grown so disenchanted with the Unites States. To National Public Radio, the President made a point of invoking the ties that bind America to Israel and the “special relationship” between the two nations before asserting that part of being a good friend is being honest and I think there have been times where we are not as honest as we should be about the fact that the current direction, the current trajectory, in the region is profoundly negative, not only for Israeli interests but also U.S. interests. And that’s part of a new dialogue that I’d like to see encouraged in the region.” he President is, of course, entirely right about how “profoundly negative” the “current direction, the current trajectory, in the region” is for American and Israeli interests. A theocratic regime committed in word and spirit to Israel’s destruction is relentlessly marching ahead with the development of nuclear weaponry. The conclusion of its march poses not only a threat to Israel’s existence but portends a Persian Gulf arms race with implications that ought to terrify everyone. This is precisely the kind of “new dialogue” Israel and the United States should be pursuing in the Middle East — honesty about the trajectory of Iran.
But, of course, honest discourse about Iran was not the fearless truth Barack Obama wished to bestow upon Israel or the Muslim world. Rather, his honesty solely concerned the trajectory “settlements”— which is to say, those acres between Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea on which people now live that have not been declared part of the state of Israel by the international community. The President’s honesty compelled him to inform his friend these acres of earth have been improperly and illegally built upon, and that their existence imperils the creation of the Palestinian state he believes is a political and moral necessity.
Obama’s notion that presidents before him have not been “as honest as we should be” about the settlements is a peculiar one. Every occupant of the Oval Office since Richard Nixon has spoken unfavorably about them. Indeed, when it comes to policy specifics, it is hard to see exactly how Obama has ushered in a new era of “honesty” in the U.S.-Israel relationship.
And yet there is no question that we have entered a new era, one that I expect will be characterized by tensions and unpleasantness of a kind unseen since the days when George II. W. Bush was president, James A. Baker III was secretary of state and the hostility toward Israel oozed from both men like sweat from an intrepid colonial traveler’s brow as he journeyed across the Rub-al-Khali.
One tiny detail gives the game away: Obama’s very use of the word “honest” It was carefully chosen, and is pregnant with meaning. In the matter of relations between nations, the adjective, “honest” is often deployed to denote animosity. When, for example, a State Department official describes a discussion between diplomats as “open and honest;’ that description is presumed to mean that the proceedings were heated and confrontational.
And in the relations between the United States and Israel, “honest” has a provenance that cannot be ignored, It is most often used as part of a two-word phrase whose euphemistic purpose has long been to criticize American closeness to Israel and assert that any such intimacy needs to be abandoned in favor of a more distant, distinctly cooler posture.
The phrase is “honest broker;’ as in, “the United States should serve as an honest broker in the Middle East.” It goes back at least 30 years, and seems first to have entered the realm of American cliché in tribute to President Jimmy Carter’s role in the Camp David peace process between Israel and Egypt. The success of that negotiation led to calls for the United States to continue to serve as an “honest broker” when it came to the relations between Israel and the 21 other Arab countries that, unlike Egypt, continued to refuse to recognize its existence.
Therein lay the flaw in the “honest broker” idea whereby it was exposed for the disingenuous notion it was. For Israel’s only offense to those nations was its very existence. There can be no honest deal-brokering if one party refuses to accept the reality of another. The term suggested each party had equal weight and equal standing, but that was precisely not the case with Israel and the Arab states. The Arab nations had the geopolitical weight; Israel had the moral standing.
What the honest-brokers actually meant when they said that the United States should play an uncommitted role was that we ought to keep our distance from Israel in order to maintain good relations with Arab states. Many of these nations, after all, not only sat atop mammoth oil reserves but whose potentates were also genial and lovely hosts, in contrast to the informal and stiff-necked sabras who simply didn’t know how to act in a courtly fashion toward the starched foreign-service officers who served as the nation’s emissaries.
It was only in the l990s, when Yasir Arafat was parachuted into the West Bank from his exile in Tunis and reinvented as a negotiating partner for Israel, that the phrase began once again to find purchase. For now, at last, there was a deal to be brokered; the Palestinians were now at the table, eager to claim the land Israel had taken in war. Those who advocated for the Palestinian cause argued that the only way such a thing was going to happen would be if the United States were to serve as an “honest broker - that is to say, implicitly, as the representative of the Palestinians in the negotiation. Indeed, effectively, that is what the Clinton administration did do, so well that it all but designed a Palestinian state, induced then-Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak to accept it, and then went into slack-jawed shock when Yasir Arafat rejected it and started a terror war instead,
Nonetheless, those in the “honest broker” camp believed the Clinton administration compromised by its acceptance of the phrase “special relationship” and Clinton’s own expressions of closeness to the assassinated Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin. Such is the nature of those who hunger for the “honest broker” role - nothing less than a breach with Israel will do.
The honest brokers presume that the United States has tilted in Israel’s direction for all sorts of reasons, all of them corrupt, corrupted, and corrupting. The government is always being manipulated, according to the “honest-brokers” by the all-powerful Israel lobby, the all-powerful neo-conservatives or the all-powerful born-again Christians. Also claimed is that Presidents hunger for the Jewish vote in Florida and Pennsylvania, and therefore betray America’s true interests. For the honest-brokers, then, American support for Israel is always viewed as dishonest.
PEOPLE will argue about the text of Obama’s Cairo address as long as he is president, because he is to plain-spoken clarity what blue-hued cotton candy is to nutrient. But, the message he was delivering to his own State Department, to his own diplomats who will be carrying out his policies, was plain: The goal of American foreign policy in the Middle East is now the creation of a Palestinian state. Very little will be expected of the Palestinians in the creation of that state; Hamas should renounce terror and recognize Israel, but a failure to do so will not kill the deal. Violence should be foresworn, but even that is of secondary importance to the state itself.
A great deal is, however, expected of Israel. Settlements are to be frozen, including their “natural growth?’ Israel must bolster the Palestinian economy, provide Palestinians with jobs and make things better in Gaza. Israel is to give; the Palestinians are to receive. Israel’s giving is to be accompanied by a promise of reduced violence. Palestinian receiving will be accompanied by Israel’s surrender of more territory beyond the entirety of Gaza and the near-entirety of the West Bank already in Palestinian hands. Israel, the president asserts, will be better off if all this happens. Trust him. He’s Israel’s friend. A better friend than anyone else, remember, because he’s willing to be honest about Israel’s need to sacrifice itself on the altar of nothing more than a promise, and maybe not even that.
And so the turn against Israel that so many predicted (except for the 80% of American Jews who voted for Obama with such zeal and devotion – jsk) during the 2008 campaign is coming to pass—with a smile, and a nod, and an invocation of a word that actually means something very different from friendship. It might even mean its opposite.
Sunday, July 19, 2009
How West Bank Jews are defying Obama!
Aaron Klein
© 2009 WorldNetDaily
President Obama meets with Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas in the Oval Office May 28
JERUSALEM – Activists here have launched a campaign using Barack Obama's name to construct Jewish housing projects on West Bank hilltops in defiance of the U.S. president's demands for a halt to all Jewish building in the strategic territory. "Mr. President, your policy that aims to destroy the Jewish communities of Judea, Samaria and eastern Jerusalem will no longer go unchallenged," states a press release from the Obama Hilltop Project. "We aim to rally the worldwide pro-Israel community to support the rebirth of these communities and counter your unjust, illegal policies."
The goal is to increase the Jewish presence in the West Bank, beginning with the re-establishment of the town of Homesh, which was one of four Jewish communities evacuated by Israel during the country's 2005 retreat from the Gaza Strip.
Critics pointed out the West Bank evacuations served no practical purpose other than to send a signal to West Bank Jews they might be next on the chopping block. Homesh was not taken over by the Palestinians, and the Israeli army continued to operate there. Indeed, the Israeli court system recently has ruled Jews can still be present in Homesh, leading to the establishment there of a Torah center.
Now activists are looking for donations of any amount to help them expand Homesh, including a new hilltop community to be named after Obama.
(Story continues below)
Those making online donations are being encouraged to also send a formal letter to Obama making the White House aware of the effort to support Jewish growth in the West Bank.
Get the latest book from the man who talks to terrorists – Aaron Klein's "The Late Great State of Israel," from the author of "Schmoozing With Terrorists."
The letter states: "Mr. President, your current foreign policy contradicts the most sacred values of the Jewish Nation. It is written in our holy Torah, 'The Lord your God will bring you into the land that your ancestors possessed, and you will possess it; he will make you more prosperous and numerous than your ancestors." (Deuteronomy, 26:3-5). Good people throughout the world will continue to support Jewish building and growth in all parts of our sacred land of Israel."
The effort is being supported by multiple organizations, including Shalom International, the Jewish community of Hebron and the Homesh First Movement.
"We are aware of the fact that Obama is very interested in the issue of our presence in Judea and Samaria. So we will call a hilltop there in the name of Obama in his honor," David Ha'Ivri, a spokesman for the West Bank's regional Jewish council, told WND.
The Obama administration recently demanded Israel halt all settlement activity, including natural growth, in apparent abrogation of a deal made by President Bush to allow for natural growth.
The deal was forged just prior to Israel's 2005 retreat from the Gaza Strip. It was confirmed by Sharon aide Dov Weissglas in 2005 and in a Wall Street Journal column last week by Elliott Abrams, a former deputy national security adviser to Bush who reportedly negotiated the arrangement. The deal was in line with an official letter from Bush the year before stating Israel cannot be expected to withdraw from the entire West Bank and that the Jewish state would retain major settlement
blocs there.
The West Bank borders major Israeli cities and is within rocket-firing range of Jerusalem, Tel Aviv and Israel's international airport.
Military strategists long have estimated Israel must maintain the West Bank to defend itself from any ground invasion. Terrorist groups have warned if Israel withdraws, they will launch rockets from the West Bank into Israeli cities.
Many villages in the West Bank, which Israelis commonly refer to as the "biblical heartland," are mentioned throughout the Torah.
The book of Genesis says Abraham entered Israel at Shechem (Nablus) and received God's promise of land for his offspring. He later was buried in Hebron.
The nearby town of Beit El, anciently called Bethel, meaning "house of God," is where Scripture says the patriarch Jacob slept on a stone pillow and dreamed of angels ascending and descending a stairway to heaven. In that dream, God spoke directly to Jacob and reaffirmed the promise of territory.
And in Exodus, the holy tabernacle rested in Shiloh, believed to be the first area the ancient Israelites settled after fleeing Egypt.
© 2009 WorldNetDaily
President Obama meets with Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas in the Oval Office May 28
JERUSALEM – Activists here have launched a campaign using Barack Obama's name to construct Jewish housing projects on West Bank hilltops in defiance of the U.S. president's demands for a halt to all Jewish building in the strategic territory. "Mr. President, your policy that aims to destroy the Jewish communities of Judea, Samaria and eastern Jerusalem will no longer go unchallenged," states a press release from the Obama Hilltop Project. "We aim to rally the worldwide pro-Israel community to support the rebirth of these communities and counter your unjust, illegal policies."
The goal is to increase the Jewish presence in the West Bank, beginning with the re-establishment of the town of Homesh, which was one of four Jewish communities evacuated by Israel during the country's 2005 retreat from the Gaza Strip.
Critics pointed out the West Bank evacuations served no practical purpose other than to send a signal to West Bank Jews they might be next on the chopping block. Homesh was not taken over by the Palestinians, and the Israeli army continued to operate there. Indeed, the Israeli court system recently has ruled Jews can still be present in Homesh, leading to the establishment there of a Torah center.
Now activists are looking for donations of any amount to help them expand Homesh, including a new hilltop community to be named after Obama.
(Story continues below)
Those making online donations are being encouraged to also send a formal letter to Obama making the White House aware of the effort to support Jewish growth in the West Bank.
Get the latest book from the man who talks to terrorists – Aaron Klein's "The Late Great State of Israel," from the author of "Schmoozing With Terrorists."
The letter states: "Mr. President, your current foreign policy contradicts the most sacred values of the Jewish Nation. It is written in our holy Torah, 'The Lord your God will bring you into the land that your ancestors possessed, and you will possess it; he will make you more prosperous and numerous than your ancestors." (Deuteronomy, 26:3-5). Good people throughout the world will continue to support Jewish building and growth in all parts of our sacred land of Israel."
The effort is being supported by multiple organizations, including Shalom International, the Jewish community of Hebron and the Homesh First Movement.
"We are aware of the fact that Obama is very interested in the issue of our presence in Judea and Samaria. So we will call a hilltop there in the name of Obama in his honor," David Ha'Ivri, a spokesman for the West Bank's regional Jewish council, told WND.
The Obama administration recently demanded Israel halt all settlement activity, including natural growth, in apparent abrogation of a deal made by President Bush to allow for natural growth.
The deal was forged just prior to Israel's 2005 retreat from the Gaza Strip. It was confirmed by Sharon aide Dov Weissglas in 2005 and in a Wall Street Journal column last week by Elliott Abrams, a former deputy national security adviser to Bush who reportedly negotiated the arrangement. The deal was in line with an official letter from Bush the year before stating Israel cannot be expected to withdraw from the entire West Bank and that the Jewish state would retain major settlement
blocs there.
The West Bank borders major Israeli cities and is within rocket-firing range of Jerusalem, Tel Aviv and Israel's international airport.
Military strategists long have estimated Israel must maintain the West Bank to defend itself from any ground invasion. Terrorist groups have warned if Israel withdraws, they will launch rockets from the West Bank into Israeli cities.
Many villages in the West Bank, which Israelis commonly refer to as the "biblical heartland," are mentioned throughout the Torah.
The book of Genesis says Abraham entered Israel at Shechem (Nablus) and received God's promise of land for his offspring. He later was buried in Hebron.
The nearby town of Beit El, anciently called Bethel, meaning "house of God," is where Scripture says the patriarch Jacob slept on a stone pillow and dreamed of angels ascending and descending a stairway to heaven. In that dream, God spoke directly to Jacob and reaffirmed the promise of territory.
And in Exodus, the holy tabernacle rested in Shiloh, believed to be the first area the ancient Israelites settled after fleeing Egypt.
Sheikh Khatib: We'll never give up al-Aqsa
Islamic Movement leader tells Arab children Israeli occupation of Jerusalem must end
Sharon Roffe-Ofir
YNET News
Thousands of Arab children headed to Jerusalem Saturday to celebrate the annual festival of the Al-Aqsa Children's Fund initiative, which prompts Muslim youngsters to donate their allowance in favor of the mosque and Islamic Movement institutions.The movement's Northern Branch's Deputy Chairman, Sheikh Kamel Khatib, spoke to the children and stressed that Muslims will never give up any parts of the holy Muslim site.
About 200 buses packed with children from Arab communities nationwide headed to Jerusalem since early morning hours. The children presented the cashboxes from their communities, and Islamic Movement officials estimated that a total of NIS 3 million (roughly $750,000) was raised this year. The event was attended by movement heads, sheikhs, and Arab dignitaries, including Sheikh Khatib who arrived with his four children.
'A big lie'
In his speech to the youngsters, Khatib said: "We have no partners here at the mosque," referring to Internal Security Minister Yitzhak Aharonovich's recent visit to the site. "The al-Aqsa Mosque is a holy and occupied place, just like the whole of Jerusalem, which was occupied by the IDF in 1967. The occupation must be removed from the mosque in particular, and from Jerusalem in general."
"The Jews should not be thinking that they can build their Temple on the ruins of the al-Aqsa Mosque," Khatib said. "This day won't come. Those who dream that we, the Muslims, will renounce part of the al-Aqsa mosque should know that their dream will not see the light."
The Al-Aqsa Children's Fund initiative was launched eight years ago and has become increasingly popular among Islamic Movement members. Homes of movement members are equipped with cashbox that the children contribute to daily.
Police officials seized the money raised by the movement last year, claiming it was meant to fund Hamas. Northern Branch activists say that the move was tantamount to theft.
"They stole the children's money, and the time has come to pay it back," Khatib told Ynet. "The claim that we collected money for Hamas is a big lie. The money is aimed for one and only objective – the al-Aqsa Mosque."
Saturday, July 18, 2009
A brief guide to the differences between Palestinian Authority, Syrian, and Iranian Strategies toward the West
RubinReports
Barry Rubin
Here's a brief guide to the differences between Palestinian Authority (PA), Syrian, and Iranian strategies toward the United States and the West. While expressing it in a succinct and perhaps amusing way to make it easier to grasp, I really do believe this is an accurate depiction and distinction. Palestinian Authority line: We benefit greatly from the fact that Western leaders race around talking about how much we are suffering and how desperate we are for change. In reality, though, we are telling you to go solve the problem for us. Pressure Israel to give us what we want. We aren't going to do anything. On the contrary, we have great patience and prefer to wait a century rather than to make any concessions.
Iranian regime line: We're going to do whatever we want. You are declining, we are getting stronger. Soon we will have nuclear weapons. You want to talk? Sure, we'll talk. We'll make commitments and not keep them. So what are you going to do about it? Nothing? We thought so!
Syrian line: We are very powerful! No matter what the regional issue is you cannot do anything without our help: Iraq, Iran, Lebanon, Palestinians, terrorism, etc. You name it. You need us. So give us what we want and we will help you. (Though of course even if you give us what we want--say, control over Lebanon--we still won't help you.)
Syria interesting facts 1: A great example of this Syrian behavior was when Iran kidnapped and then released some British navy personnel. The Syrian government claimed credit for the release--though clearly Damascus had nothing to do with it--and the British government actually said "thank you."
Syria interesting facts 2: Syria does sometimes, however, try the gambit of wanting to be helpful but needing to get some reward in order to be able to do so. The classic example was when the government begged for night-vision goggles from the Europeans for the supposed purpose of stopping arms smuggling into Lebanon (which, of course, the regime itself was supervising). Then it turned the night goggles over to Hizballah to use in fighting Israel..
Barry Rubin
Here's a brief guide to the differences between Palestinian Authority (PA), Syrian, and Iranian strategies toward the United States and the West. While expressing it in a succinct and perhaps amusing way to make it easier to grasp, I really do believe this is an accurate depiction and distinction. Palestinian Authority line: We benefit greatly from the fact that Western leaders race around talking about how much we are suffering and how desperate we are for change. In reality, though, we are telling you to go solve the problem for us. Pressure Israel to give us what we want. We aren't going to do anything. On the contrary, we have great patience and prefer to wait a century rather than to make any concessions.
Iranian regime line: We're going to do whatever we want. You are declining, we are getting stronger. Soon we will have nuclear weapons. You want to talk? Sure, we'll talk. We'll make commitments and not keep them. So what are you going to do about it? Nothing? We thought so!
Syrian line: We are very powerful! No matter what the regional issue is you cannot do anything without our help: Iraq, Iran, Lebanon, Palestinians, terrorism, etc. You name it. You need us. So give us what we want and we will help you. (Though of course even if you give us what we want--say, control over Lebanon--we still won't help you.)
Syria interesting facts 1: A great example of this Syrian behavior was when Iran kidnapped and then released some British navy personnel. The Syrian government claimed credit for the release--though clearly Damascus had nothing to do with it--and the British government actually said "thank you."
Syria interesting facts 2: Syria does sometimes, however, try the gambit of wanting to be helpful but needing to get some reward in order to be able to do so. The classic example was when the government begged for night-vision goggles from the Europeans for the supposed purpose of stopping arms smuggling into Lebanon (which, of course, the regime itself was supervising). Then it turned the night goggles over to Hizballah to use in fighting Israel..
Israeli figures:CPI makes 0.9% leap against predictions
Consumer Price Index published by Central Bureau of Statistics much higher than early assessments, which spoke of 0.3-0.5% rise. CPI up 3.6% in past 12 months
Gil Kol
YNET News
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3747407,00.html
Surprise: The Consumer Price Index jumped 0.9% in June, following a 0.4% rise in May and an accumulated increase of 1.9% in the previous three months, the Central Bureau of Statistics reported Wednesday.. Early assessments for June spoke of a 0.3-0.5% rise in the CPI. This is the fourth monthly increase in a row despite the recession in the Israeli market.
Footwear and clothing prices made a 12.2% leap in June, transportation and communication prices rose 2.6%, the Cost of Building Index was up 0.1%, and health services were 0.6% more expensive. Fruits and vegetables, on the other hand, became 3.6% cheaper.
Since the beginning of the year, the CPI has risen 2.1%. In the past 12 months (June 2009 compared to June 2008), the CPI rose 3.6%.
The rise in the CPI is not expected to affect Bank of Israel Stanley Fischer's decision as to the interest rate, which is likely to remain 0.5%. The Bank of Israel has signaled that it is focusing on fighting the recession and encouraging productive activity in the economy.
Bank of Israel economists believe that the inflation will not go beyond the target set by the bank – 1-3%. Fischer is expected to wait for positive figures before raising the interest rate, in light of a 3.9% shrinkage in the national product in the first quarter of 2009, the damage caused to the productive activity and the rise in unemployment.
According to estimates presented by economists at different investment banks, the inflation level in 2009 is expected to total about 3%.
Yair Hasson contributed to this report
Comment: We own a small business in Israel, our numbers continue to decline yet we are beginning to see the bottom. Sales have seemingly stabilized and with some disposable income Israelis will begin to visit stores located inside and outside the malls-we are thankful for a recovery soon.
Gil Kol
YNET News
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3747407,00.html
Surprise: The Consumer Price Index jumped 0.9% in June, following a 0.4% rise in May and an accumulated increase of 1.9% in the previous three months, the Central Bureau of Statistics reported Wednesday.. Early assessments for June spoke of a 0.3-0.5% rise in the CPI. This is the fourth monthly increase in a row despite the recession in the Israeli market.
Footwear and clothing prices made a 12.2% leap in June, transportation and communication prices rose 2.6%, the Cost of Building Index was up 0.1%, and health services were 0.6% more expensive. Fruits and vegetables, on the other hand, became 3.6% cheaper.
Since the beginning of the year, the CPI has risen 2.1%. In the past 12 months (June 2009 compared to June 2008), the CPI rose 3.6%.
The rise in the CPI is not expected to affect Bank of Israel Stanley Fischer's decision as to the interest rate, which is likely to remain 0.5%. The Bank of Israel has signaled that it is focusing on fighting the recession and encouraging productive activity in the economy.
Bank of Israel economists believe that the inflation will not go beyond the target set by the bank – 1-3%. Fischer is expected to wait for positive figures before raising the interest rate, in light of a 3.9% shrinkage in the national product in the first quarter of 2009, the damage caused to the productive activity and the rise in unemployment.
According to estimates presented by economists at different investment banks, the inflation level in 2009 is expected to total about 3%.
Yair Hasson contributed to this report
Comment: We own a small business in Israel, our numbers continue to decline yet we are beginning to see the bottom. Sales have seemingly stabilized and with some disposable income Israelis will begin to visit stores located inside and outside the malls-we are thankful for a recovery soon.
Business news:Shopping malls see 5.4% drop in sales
Commercial centers lose NIS 113 million in proceeds in first half of 2009 compared to first six months of last year; recovery recorded throughout June
Gali Berger, Calcalist
YNET News
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3746941,00.html
The first half of 2009 recorded a 5.4% drop in the sales of shopping centers in Israel compared to the first half of the previous year, according to data compiled by the Retail Information System (RIS). The fashion industry's sales fell by 7%. The overall sales of stores which are members of RIS, compared to similar stores, totaled NIS 1.8 billion (about $459 million) in the first half of the year – a drop of NIS 113 million ($29 million) compared to the first half of 2008. About NIS 90 million ($23 million) of the lost earnings are ascribed to the fashion industry.
While the first quarter of 2009 was badly affected by the recession and the late winter and left the goods on the shelves, the second quarter saw a recovery and a 14% rise in sales, although we are still talking about a 5.5% drop compared to the second quarter of 2008.
An examination of the data with values adjusted to the Consumer Price Index presents a more negative picture. According to RIS data, the fashion industry saw a real drop of about 13% in sales in the first four months of the year, compared to the same period in 2008. April saw a real drop of 18%. In May, the real drop stood at only 2.4% - a significant improvement compared to the previous four months.
June's results, which reflect a 5.7% drop, show that we are still in the midst of a recession but that the trend of sharp declines has been stopped. The real test will take place in the coming months.
June's sales results are relatively encouraging, with a moderate drop of 0.9% in the sales of commercial centers compared to June 2008. Nonetheless, the fashion industry recorded last month a 3.6% drop in sales, despite aggressive sales campaigns – both on the part of the chains and on the part of the malls' m
Gali Berger, Calcalist
YNET News
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3746941,00.html
The first half of 2009 recorded a 5.4% drop in the sales of shopping centers in Israel compared to the first half of the previous year, according to data compiled by the Retail Information System (RIS). The fashion industry's sales fell by 7%. The overall sales of stores which are members of RIS, compared to similar stores, totaled NIS 1.8 billion (about $459 million) in the first half of the year – a drop of NIS 113 million ($29 million) compared to the first half of 2008. About NIS 90 million ($23 million) of the lost earnings are ascribed to the fashion industry.
While the first quarter of 2009 was badly affected by the recession and the late winter and left the goods on the shelves, the second quarter saw a recovery and a 14% rise in sales, although we are still talking about a 5.5% drop compared to the second quarter of 2008.
An examination of the data with values adjusted to the Consumer Price Index presents a more negative picture. According to RIS data, the fashion industry saw a real drop of about 13% in sales in the first four months of the year, compared to the same period in 2008. April saw a real drop of 18%. In May, the real drop stood at only 2.4% - a significant improvement compared to the previous four months.
June's results, which reflect a 5.7% drop, show that we are still in the midst of a recession but that the trend of sharp declines has been stopped. The real test will take place in the coming months.
June's sales results are relatively encouraging, with a moderate drop of 0.9% in the sales of commercial centers compared to June 2008. Nonetheless, the fashion industry recorded last month a 3.6% drop in sales, despite aggressive sales campaigns – both on the part of the chains and on the part of the malls' m
Rabbis who bear false witness against Israel
David Bedein
Fri Jul 16 2009
Protesting a blockade of Gaza where there is no blockade
Jerusalem; The PLO and Hamas web sites have worked over time in the last few days, proclaiming that Philadelphia Rabbis Arthur Waskow and Rabbi Shai Gluskin had organized a fast day on Thursday (see www. FastforGaza.net) to protest what Rabbis Waskow and Gluskin describe the Israeli "blockade" of Gaza, with claims that Israel is not allowing food and humanitarian supplies into Gaza. The only fly in the ointment is that there is no Israeli "blockade" of Gaza. What is going on is that Israel restricts munitions and building material into Gaza that could be used for the war effort against Israel.
Only two weeks ago, Palestinian and Israeli business people gathered for a meeting of the Israeli Palestinian Chamber of Commerce, with the report that Israel now exports two billion shekels of products to Gaza and thirteen billion shekels worth of products to Palestinians who live in Judea and Samaria on the west bank.
Last week, more than a dozen reporters visited the Sufa Trade junction where Israeli products of all kinds are shipped into Gaza. Some of the items were luxury items - like 10,000 bottles of Head and Shoulders Shampoo, along with every food product and medical supplies imaginable.
Yet the Palestinian information machine grinds out daily reports of deprivation and hunger in Gaza, ascribing it to Israel's "blockade", with stories that Israel simply does not allow food and medical supplies into Gaza to feed the 1.2 million residents of Gaza, half of whom dwell in UN refugee camps for more than 60 years. under the premise and promise of the "right of return" to their villages that they lost in the 1948 war in southern Israel - making them the only refugee population that the UN refuses to resettle.
Rabbi Waskow was asked to respond to the fact that no blockade exists, but would not return the phone call. Reached at his home, Rabbi Gluskin said that he was too busy to respond to the question as to where it was that he had heard of an Israeli "blockade" of humanitarian supplies to Gaza.
Yet Rabbi Waskow and Rabbi Gluskin have managed to recruit 55 Rabbis from around the United States to join them in a fast to protest an action which Israel is not taking against the Palestinian population.
It will be instructive to see how many of these 55 Rabbis show up at the Sufa junction to observe the daily routine of Israeli trucks delivering food and medical supplies to GAza.
Fri Jul 16 2009
Protesting a blockade of Gaza where there is no blockade
Jerusalem; The PLO and Hamas web sites have worked over time in the last few days, proclaiming that Philadelphia Rabbis Arthur Waskow and Rabbi Shai Gluskin had organized a fast day on Thursday (see www. FastforGaza.net) to protest what Rabbis Waskow and Gluskin describe the Israeli "blockade" of Gaza, with claims that Israel is not allowing food and humanitarian supplies into Gaza. The only fly in the ointment is that there is no Israeli "blockade" of Gaza. What is going on is that Israel restricts munitions and building material into Gaza that could be used for the war effort against Israel.
Only two weeks ago, Palestinian and Israeli business people gathered for a meeting of the Israeli Palestinian Chamber of Commerce, with the report that Israel now exports two billion shekels of products to Gaza and thirteen billion shekels worth of products to Palestinians who live in Judea and Samaria on the west bank.
Last week, more than a dozen reporters visited the Sufa Trade junction where Israeli products of all kinds are shipped into Gaza. Some of the items were luxury items - like 10,000 bottles of Head and Shoulders Shampoo, along with every food product and medical supplies imaginable.
Yet the Palestinian information machine grinds out daily reports of deprivation and hunger in Gaza, ascribing it to Israel's "blockade", with stories that Israel simply does not allow food and medical supplies into Gaza to feed the 1.2 million residents of Gaza, half of whom dwell in UN refugee camps for more than 60 years. under the premise and promise of the "right of return" to their villages that they lost in the 1948 war in southern Israel - making them the only refugee population that the UN refuses to resettle.
Rabbi Waskow was asked to respond to the fact that no blockade exists, but would not return the phone call. Reached at his home, Rabbi Gluskin said that he was too busy to respond to the question as to where it was that he had heard of an Israeli "blockade" of humanitarian supplies to Gaza.
Yet Rabbi Waskow and Rabbi Gluskin have managed to recruit 55 Rabbis from around the United States to join them in a fast to protest an action which Israel is not taking against the Palestinian population.
It will be instructive to see how many of these 55 Rabbis show up at the Sufa junction to observe the daily routine of Israeli trucks delivering food and medical supplies to GAza.
Friday, July 17, 2009
Hillary Is Wrong About the Settlements
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124588743827950599.html
The U.S. and Israel reached a clear understanding about natural growth.
By ELLIOTT ABRAMS
Despite fervent denials by Obama administration officials, there were indeed agreements between Israel and the United States regarding the growth of Israeli settlements on the West Bank. As the Obama administration has made the settlements issue a major bone of contention between Israel and the U.S., it is necessary that we review the recent history. In the spring of 2003, U.S. officials (including me) held wide-ranging discussions with then Prime Minister Ariel Sharon in Jerusalem. The "Roadmap for Peace" between Israel and the Palestinians had been written. President George W. Bush had endorsed Palestinian statehood, but only if the Palestinians eliminated terror. He had broken with Yasser Arafat, but Arafat still ruled in the Palestinian territories. Israel had defeated the intifada, so what was next?
We asked Mr. Sharon about freezing the West Bank settlements. I recall him asking, by way of reply, what did that mean for the settlers? They live there, he said, they serve in elite army units, and they marry. Should he tell them to have no more children, or move?
We discussed some approaches: Could he agree there would be no additional settlements? New construction only inside settlements, without expanding them physically? Could he agree there would be no additional land taken for settlements?
As we talked several principles emerged. The father of the settlements now agreed that limits must be placed on the settlements; more fundamentally, the old foe of the Palestinians could -- under certain conditions -- now agree to Palestinian statehood.
In June 2003, Mr. Sharon stood alongside Mr. Bush, King Abdullah II of Jordan, and Palestinian Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas at Aqaba, Jordan, and endorsed Palestinian statehood publicly: "It is in Israel's interest not to govern the Palestinians but for the Palestinians to govern themselves in their own state. A democratic Palestinian state fully at peace with Israel will promote the long-term security and well-being of Israel as a Jewish state." At the end of that year he announced his intention to pull out of the Gaza Strip.
The U.S. government supported all this, but asked Mr. Sharon for two more things. First, that he remove some West Bank settlements; we wanted Israel to show that removing them was not impossible. Second, we wanted him to pull out of Gaza totally -- including every single settlement and the "Philadelphi Strip" separating Gaza from Egypt, even though holding on to this strip would have prevented the smuggling of weapons to Hamas that was feared and has now come to pass. Mr. Sharon agreed on both counts.
These decisions were political dynamite, as Mr. Sharon had long predicted to us. In May 2004, his Likud Party rejected his plan in a referendum, handing him a resounding political defeat. In June, the Cabinet approved the withdrawal from Gaza, but only after Mr. Sharon fired two ministers and allowed two others to resign. His majority in the Knesset was now shaky.
After completing the Gaza withdrawal in August 2005, he called in November for a dissolution of the Knesset and for early elections. He also said he would leave Likud to form a new centrist party. The political and personal strain was very great. Four weeks later he suffered the first of two strokes that have left him in a coma.
Throughout, the Bush administration gave Mr. Sharon full support for his actions against terror and on final status issues. On April 14, 2004, Mr. Bush handed Mr. Sharon a letter saying that there would be no "right of return" for Palestinian refugees. Instead, the president said, "a solution to the Palestinian refugee issue as part of any final status agreement will need to be found through the establishment of a Palestinian state, and the settling of Palestinian refugees there, rather than in Israel."
On the major settlement blocs, Mr. Bush said, "In light of new realities on the ground, including already existing major Israeli populations centers, it is unrealistic to expect that the outcome of final status negotiations will be a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949." Several previous administrations had declared all Israeli settlements beyond the "1967 borders" to be illegal. Here Mr. Bush dropped such language, referring to the 1967 borders -- correctly -- as merely the lines where the fighting stopped in 1949, and saying that in any realistic peace agreement Israel would be able to negotiate keeping those major settlements.
On settlements we also agreed on principles that would permit some continuing growth. Mr. Sharon stated these clearly in a major policy speech in December 2003: "Israel will meet all its obligations with regard to construction in the settlements. There will be no construction beyond the existing construction line, no expropriation of land for construction, no special economic incentives and no construction of new settlements."
Ariel Sharon did not invent those four principles. They emerged from discussions with American officials and were discussed by Messrs. Sharon and Bush at their Aqaba meeting in June 2003.
They were not secret, either. Four days after the president's letter, Mr. Sharon's Chief of Staff Dov Weissglas wrote to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice that "I wish to reconfirm the following understanding, which had been reached between us: 1. Restrictions on settlement growth: within the agreed principles of settlement activities, an effort will be made in the next few days to have a better definition of the construction line of settlements in Judea & Samaria."
Stories in the press also made it clear that there were indeed "agreed principles." On Aug. 21, 2004 the New York Times reported that "the Bush administration . . . now supports construction of new apartments in areas already built up in some settlements, as long as the expansion does not extend outward."
In recent weeks, American officials have denied that any agreement on settlements existed. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton stated on June 17 that "in looking at the history of the Bush administration, there were no informal or oral enforceable agreements. That has been verified by the official record of the administration and by the personnel in the positions of responsibility."
These statements are incorrect. Not only were there agreements, but the prime minister of Israel relied on them in undertaking a wrenching political reorientation -- the dissolution of his government, the removal of every single Israeli citizen, settlement and military position in Gaza, and the removal of four small settlements in the West Bank. This was the first time Israel had ever removed settlements outside the context of a peace treaty, and it was a major step.
It is true that there was no U.S.-Israel "memorandum of understanding," which is presumably what Mrs. Clinton means when she suggests that the "official record of the administration" contains none. But she would do well to consult documents like the Weissglas letter, or the notes of the Aqaba meeting, before suggesting that there was no meeting of the minds.
Mrs. Clinton also said there were no "enforceable" agreements. This is a strange phrase. How exactly would Israel enforce any agreement against an American decision to renege on it? Take it to the International Court in The Hague?
Regardless of what Mrs. Clinton has said, there was a bargained-for exchange. Mr. Sharon was determined to break the deadlock, withdraw from Gaza, remove settlements -- and confront his former allies on Israel's right by abandoning the "Greater Israel" position to endorse Palestinian statehood and limits on settlement growth. He asked for our support and got it, including the agreement that we would not demand a total settlement freeze.
For reasons that remain unclear, the Obama administration has decided to abandon the understandings about settlements reached by the previous administration with the Israeli government. We may be abandoning the deal now, but we cannot rewrite history and make believe it did not exist.
Mr. Abrams, a senior fellow for Middle Eastern Studies at the Council on Foreign Relations, handled Middle East affairs at the National Security Council from 2001 to 2009.
Printed in The Wall Street Journal, page A15
Copyright 2009 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved
The U.S. and Israel reached a clear understanding about natural growth.
By ELLIOTT ABRAMS
Despite fervent denials by Obama administration officials, there were indeed agreements between Israel and the United States regarding the growth of Israeli settlements on the West Bank. As the Obama administration has made the settlements issue a major bone of contention between Israel and the U.S., it is necessary that we review the recent history. In the spring of 2003, U.S. officials (including me) held wide-ranging discussions with then Prime Minister Ariel Sharon in Jerusalem. The "Roadmap for Peace" between Israel and the Palestinians had been written. President George W. Bush had endorsed Palestinian statehood, but only if the Palestinians eliminated terror. He had broken with Yasser Arafat, but Arafat still ruled in the Palestinian territories. Israel had defeated the intifada, so what was next?
We asked Mr. Sharon about freezing the West Bank settlements. I recall him asking, by way of reply, what did that mean for the settlers? They live there, he said, they serve in elite army units, and they marry. Should he tell them to have no more children, or move?
We discussed some approaches: Could he agree there would be no additional settlements? New construction only inside settlements, without expanding them physically? Could he agree there would be no additional land taken for settlements?
As we talked several principles emerged. The father of the settlements now agreed that limits must be placed on the settlements; more fundamentally, the old foe of the Palestinians could -- under certain conditions -- now agree to Palestinian statehood.
In June 2003, Mr. Sharon stood alongside Mr. Bush, King Abdullah II of Jordan, and Palestinian Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas at Aqaba, Jordan, and endorsed Palestinian statehood publicly: "It is in Israel's interest not to govern the Palestinians but for the Palestinians to govern themselves in their own state. A democratic Palestinian state fully at peace with Israel will promote the long-term security and well-being of Israel as a Jewish state." At the end of that year he announced his intention to pull out of the Gaza Strip.
The U.S. government supported all this, but asked Mr. Sharon for two more things. First, that he remove some West Bank settlements; we wanted Israel to show that removing them was not impossible. Second, we wanted him to pull out of Gaza totally -- including every single settlement and the "Philadelphi Strip" separating Gaza from Egypt, even though holding on to this strip would have prevented the smuggling of weapons to Hamas that was feared and has now come to pass. Mr. Sharon agreed on both counts.
These decisions were political dynamite, as Mr. Sharon had long predicted to us. In May 2004, his Likud Party rejected his plan in a referendum, handing him a resounding political defeat. In June, the Cabinet approved the withdrawal from Gaza, but only after Mr. Sharon fired two ministers and allowed two others to resign. His majority in the Knesset was now shaky.
After completing the Gaza withdrawal in August 2005, he called in November for a dissolution of the Knesset and for early elections. He also said he would leave Likud to form a new centrist party. The political and personal strain was very great. Four weeks later he suffered the first of two strokes that have left him in a coma.
Throughout, the Bush administration gave Mr. Sharon full support for his actions against terror and on final status issues. On April 14, 2004, Mr. Bush handed Mr. Sharon a letter saying that there would be no "right of return" for Palestinian refugees. Instead, the president said, "a solution to the Palestinian refugee issue as part of any final status agreement will need to be found through the establishment of a Palestinian state, and the settling of Palestinian refugees there, rather than in Israel."
On the major settlement blocs, Mr. Bush said, "In light of new realities on the ground, including already existing major Israeli populations centers, it is unrealistic to expect that the outcome of final status negotiations will be a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949." Several previous administrations had declared all Israeli settlements beyond the "1967 borders" to be illegal. Here Mr. Bush dropped such language, referring to the 1967 borders -- correctly -- as merely the lines where the fighting stopped in 1949, and saying that in any realistic peace agreement Israel would be able to negotiate keeping those major settlements.
On settlements we also agreed on principles that would permit some continuing growth. Mr. Sharon stated these clearly in a major policy speech in December 2003: "Israel will meet all its obligations with regard to construction in the settlements. There will be no construction beyond the existing construction line, no expropriation of land for construction, no special economic incentives and no construction of new settlements."
Ariel Sharon did not invent those four principles. They emerged from discussions with American officials and were discussed by Messrs. Sharon and Bush at their Aqaba meeting in June 2003.
They were not secret, either. Four days after the president's letter, Mr. Sharon's Chief of Staff Dov Weissglas wrote to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice that "I wish to reconfirm the following understanding, which had been reached between us: 1. Restrictions on settlement growth: within the agreed principles of settlement activities, an effort will be made in the next few days to have a better definition of the construction line of settlements in Judea & Samaria."
Stories in the press also made it clear that there were indeed "agreed principles." On Aug. 21, 2004 the New York Times reported that "the Bush administration . . . now supports construction of new apartments in areas already built up in some settlements, as long as the expansion does not extend outward."
In recent weeks, American officials have denied that any agreement on settlements existed. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton stated on June 17 that "in looking at the history of the Bush administration, there were no informal or oral enforceable agreements. That has been verified by the official record of the administration and by the personnel in the positions of responsibility."
These statements are incorrect. Not only were there agreements, but the prime minister of Israel relied on them in undertaking a wrenching political reorientation -- the dissolution of his government, the removal of every single Israeli citizen, settlement and military position in Gaza, and the removal of four small settlements in the West Bank. This was the first time Israel had ever removed settlements outside the context of a peace treaty, and it was a major step.
It is true that there was no U.S.-Israel "memorandum of understanding," which is presumably what Mrs. Clinton means when she suggests that the "official record of the administration" contains none. But she would do well to consult documents like the Weissglas letter, or the notes of the Aqaba meeting, before suggesting that there was no meeting of the minds.
Mrs. Clinton also said there were no "enforceable" agreements. This is a strange phrase. How exactly would Israel enforce any agreement against an American decision to renege on it? Take it to the International Court in The Hague?
Regardless of what Mrs. Clinton has said, there was a bargained-for exchange. Mr. Sharon was determined to break the deadlock, withdraw from Gaza, remove settlements -- and confront his former allies on Israel's right by abandoning the "Greater Israel" position to endorse Palestinian statehood and limits on settlement growth. He asked for our support and got it, including the agreement that we would not demand a total settlement freeze.
For reasons that remain unclear, the Obama administration has decided to abandon the understandings about settlements reached by the previous administration with the Israeli government. We may be abandoning the deal now, but we cannot rewrite history and make believe it did not exist.
Mr. Abrams, a senior fellow for Middle Eastern Studies at the Council on Foreign Relations, handled Middle East affairs at the National Security Council from 2001 to 2009.
Printed in The Wall Street Journal, page A15
Copyright 2009 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved
Israel: The Israeli Navy and Iran
The Israeli submarine Dolphin surfaces
Stratfor
Summary
Israeli submarines and surface combatants reportedly have been transiting the Suez Canal since June, with the latest passage occurring July 14 when two Israeli corvettes entered the Red Sea. The recent activity has been characterized as unprecedented, although it is thought to have been planned for some time. While the move may merely be a reminder to Iran that Israel is capable of unilateral military action, the Israeli navy faces real limitations conducting operations off the Iranian coast.The Israeli Saar 5-class corvettes Eilat and Hanit passed through the Suez Canal into the Red Sea July 14, according to Egyptian port authorities. Reports claim that the Hanit, which was struck by an antiship missile off the coast of Lebanon in 2006, also crossed into the Red Sea through the canal and returned to the Mediterranean in June. In addition, on July 3, an Israeli Dolphin-class submarine transited the canal (on the surface) for maneuvers in the Gulf of Aqaba, near Eilat. The sub returned two days later, ending a deployment that allegedly was planned months in advance.
Israel Defense Forces (IDF) Chief of Staff Lt. Gen. Gabi Ashkenazi reportedly ordered the transits before the Egyptians arrested on July 9 some 25 al Qaeda-linked militants suspected of planning attacks on ships passing through the Suez Canal, and after an assessment that Egyptian authorities had addressed the threat against shipping in the canal (as reported, the sequence of events does not entirely add up).
Image removed by sender. map: israel's naval access to iran
While Ashkenazi’s original deployment plan reportedly predates the Iranian elections, it is certainly no coincidence that the Suez transits are being repeated and played up in the regional press. They can serve a political role by supplementing Israel’s increasingly bellicose rhetoric about the clerical regime and its nuclear ambitions, reminding Iran that Israel also has the means to strike from the sea.
Most of the Israeli navy is based on the Mediterranean coast at Haifa and Ashdod. There is also a small and vulnerable naval installation at Eilat that hosts patrol boats used to combat local smuggling. The Israeli navy is the smallest of the three branches of the IDF, consisting of some 9,500 active officers and sailors (about a third of the latter are conscripted) and operating three diesel-electric submarines and three corvettes (all of the Saar 5 class). The remainder of the fleet is composed of patrol and coastal combatants. This severely limits Israel’s naval options in the Gulf of Oman — nearly 2,500 nautical miles from Eilat on the Gulf of Aqaba and more than 2,500 nautical miles from the larger Israeli naval stations on the Mediterranean coast.
Without underway replenishment or a nearby port, the Saar 5-class corvettes would likely be operating at or beyond the limits of their endurance in the Gulf of Oman (Israel does not officially have any underway replenishment ships and it would have difficulty finding a friendly port in the neighborhood). While the corvettes are known to train with Israel’s naval commandos and their capability to embark a helicopter could be useful, they have only limited land-attack capability. In addition, weight and financial constraints have reportedly prevented these ships from being fully armed with their planned complement of weapon systems.
This leaves Israel’s small submarine fleet. Specially built in Germany for Israel, each boat has four larger 650mm torpedo tubes in addition to the standard six 533mm tubes. These are thought to be for an indigenous submarine-launched cruise missile, probably nuclear-capable. In other words, these submarines are a part of the Israeli nuclear deterrent and therefore a national asset of strategic significance.
Unlike the Saar 5-class corvettes, these submarines could reach the Gulf of Oman and remain on station for a period of time before returning — perhaps as long as a week to several weeks. However, these are small boats with 30-man crews and limited weapons capacity (a mix of about 20 torpedoes, Harpoon antiship missiles and cruise missiles). A good portion of this capacity would be dedicated to antisubmarine and antiship weapons for self-defense, so each submarine would likely only be able to launch a handful of cruise missiles.
And the target set for a cruise-missile strike would also be limited. Because of its range, cruise missiles launched from Israeli subs in the Gulf of Oman would be able to reach only a few hundred miles from their launch points, which would preclude targeting some important nuclear sites as well as Tehran itself.
Generally, cruise missiles — especially those launched from submarines — are also poor at penetrating hardened facilities because of their limited payload. Even one modified for the purpose would likely have less than optimum effect, which would mean that hardened installations like Natanz, where Iran uses cascades to enrich uranium, would likely be left largely intact following a cruise-missile strike (unless, of course, Israel chose to use nuclear warheads, which seems unlikely at this point). Unless Israel had pinpoint, actionable intelligence on unhardened but critical targets within range of its cruise missiles, it is difficult to see how such a strategy would achieve the Israeli objective of eviscerating Iran’s nuclear program.
The limitations of capacity and range also apply to other Israeli sub-attack scenarios, including special operations. Only a small complement of naval commandos could be embarked aboard each sub, and without aviation support, they would be limited to targets along the coastline.
Israel could try to impose a limited naval blockade on Iran. If all three submarines are in good operational condition, a rotation could hypothetically establish a continual submarine presence outside the Strait of Hormuz. But submarines are not ideal blockade enforcers unless they intend only to sink ships. They cannot approach and board suspected vessels. This limited menu of submarine options makes escalation of force difficult. And even if Iran attempted to break the blockade (which is unlikely), the submarines would have to fire on merchant traffic with limited magazines of torpedoes and missiles that could not be replenished at sea.
The question is not only one of capability but also of purpose and consequence. A limited strike that did not meaningfully set back Iran’s nuclear program would only harden the clerical regime’s resolve. Tehran is likely to take any direct challenges seriously — even a blockade — which could invite new attacks on Israeli territory by Iranian proxy Hezbollah. Even a limited blockade could hurt Iran economically, but it would leave the primary Israeli concern untouched, and Tehran is unlikely to surrender its nuclear program under such indirect Israeli pressure.
But since the Iranian presidential election, the United States, Europe and Russia as well as Israel are rethinking their standing policies on Iran. While this reevaluation is going on, it is important to consider all options that might be on the table and their implications.
Stratfor
Summary
Israeli submarines and surface combatants reportedly have been transiting the Suez Canal since June, with the latest passage occurring July 14 when two Israeli corvettes entered the Red Sea. The recent activity has been characterized as unprecedented, although it is thought to have been planned for some time. While the move may merely be a reminder to Iran that Israel is capable of unilateral military action, the Israeli navy faces real limitations conducting operations off the Iranian coast.The Israeli Saar 5-class corvettes Eilat and Hanit passed through the Suez Canal into the Red Sea July 14, according to Egyptian port authorities. Reports claim that the Hanit, which was struck by an antiship missile off the coast of Lebanon in 2006, also crossed into the Red Sea through the canal and returned to the Mediterranean in June. In addition, on July 3, an Israeli Dolphin-class submarine transited the canal (on the surface) for maneuvers in the Gulf of Aqaba, near Eilat. The sub returned two days later, ending a deployment that allegedly was planned months in advance.
Israel Defense Forces (IDF) Chief of Staff Lt. Gen. Gabi Ashkenazi reportedly ordered the transits before the Egyptians arrested on July 9 some 25 al Qaeda-linked militants suspected of planning attacks on ships passing through the Suez Canal, and after an assessment that Egyptian authorities had addressed the threat against shipping in the canal (as reported, the sequence of events does not entirely add up).
Image removed by sender. map: israel's naval access to iran
While Ashkenazi’s original deployment plan reportedly predates the Iranian elections, it is certainly no coincidence that the Suez transits are being repeated and played up in the regional press. They can serve a political role by supplementing Israel’s increasingly bellicose rhetoric about the clerical regime and its nuclear ambitions, reminding Iran that Israel also has the means to strike from the sea.
Most of the Israeli navy is based on the Mediterranean coast at Haifa and Ashdod. There is also a small and vulnerable naval installation at Eilat that hosts patrol boats used to combat local smuggling. The Israeli navy is the smallest of the three branches of the IDF, consisting of some 9,500 active officers and sailors (about a third of the latter are conscripted) and operating three diesel-electric submarines and three corvettes (all of the Saar 5 class). The remainder of the fleet is composed of patrol and coastal combatants. This severely limits Israel’s naval options in the Gulf of Oman — nearly 2,500 nautical miles from Eilat on the Gulf of Aqaba and more than 2,500 nautical miles from the larger Israeli naval stations on the Mediterranean coast.
Without underway replenishment or a nearby port, the Saar 5-class corvettes would likely be operating at or beyond the limits of their endurance in the Gulf of Oman (Israel does not officially have any underway replenishment ships and it would have difficulty finding a friendly port in the neighborhood). While the corvettes are known to train with Israel’s naval commandos and their capability to embark a helicopter could be useful, they have only limited land-attack capability. In addition, weight and financial constraints have reportedly prevented these ships from being fully armed with their planned complement of weapon systems.
This leaves Israel’s small submarine fleet. Specially built in Germany for Israel, each boat has four larger 650mm torpedo tubes in addition to the standard six 533mm tubes. These are thought to be for an indigenous submarine-launched cruise missile, probably nuclear-capable. In other words, these submarines are a part of the Israeli nuclear deterrent and therefore a national asset of strategic significance.
Unlike the Saar 5-class corvettes, these submarines could reach the Gulf of Oman and remain on station for a period of time before returning — perhaps as long as a week to several weeks. However, these are small boats with 30-man crews and limited weapons capacity (a mix of about 20 torpedoes, Harpoon antiship missiles and cruise missiles). A good portion of this capacity would be dedicated to antisubmarine and antiship weapons for self-defense, so each submarine would likely only be able to launch a handful of cruise missiles.
And the target set for a cruise-missile strike would also be limited. Because of its range, cruise missiles launched from Israeli subs in the Gulf of Oman would be able to reach only a few hundred miles from their launch points, which would preclude targeting some important nuclear sites as well as Tehran itself.
Generally, cruise missiles — especially those launched from submarines — are also poor at penetrating hardened facilities because of their limited payload. Even one modified for the purpose would likely have less than optimum effect, which would mean that hardened installations like Natanz, where Iran uses cascades to enrich uranium, would likely be left largely intact following a cruise-missile strike (unless, of course, Israel chose to use nuclear warheads, which seems unlikely at this point). Unless Israel had pinpoint, actionable intelligence on unhardened but critical targets within range of its cruise missiles, it is difficult to see how such a strategy would achieve the Israeli objective of eviscerating Iran’s nuclear program.
The limitations of capacity and range also apply to other Israeli sub-attack scenarios, including special operations. Only a small complement of naval commandos could be embarked aboard each sub, and without aviation support, they would be limited to targets along the coastline.
Israel could try to impose a limited naval blockade on Iran. If all three submarines are in good operational condition, a rotation could hypothetically establish a continual submarine presence outside the Strait of Hormuz. But submarines are not ideal blockade enforcers unless they intend only to sink ships. They cannot approach and board suspected vessels. This limited menu of submarine options makes escalation of force difficult. And even if Iran attempted to break the blockade (which is unlikely), the submarines would have to fire on merchant traffic with limited magazines of torpedoes and missiles that could not be replenished at sea.
The question is not only one of capability but also of purpose and consequence. A limited strike that did not meaningfully set back Iran’s nuclear program would only harden the clerical regime’s resolve. Tehran is likely to take any direct challenges seriously — even a blockade — which could invite new attacks on Israeli territory by Iranian proxy Hezbollah. Even a limited blockade could hurt Iran economically, but it would leave the primary Israeli concern untouched, and Tehran is unlikely to surrender its nuclear program under such indirect Israeli pressure.
But since the Iranian presidential election, the United States, Europe and Russia as well as Israel are rethinking their standing policies on Iran. While this reevaluation is going on, it is important to consider all options that might be on the table and their implications.
Info gathering on the exiled
ABRAHAM RABINOVICH , THE JERUSALEM POST
King Jehoiachin was only 18 years old and had occupied the throne of Judah barely three months when he was led off into Babylonian captivity in 598 BCE together with his wives, his mother, his servants, his eunuchs and thousands of "the chief men of the land."
But what happened to them when they reached Babylon?And what happened there to the tens of thousands of others who joined them in exile when the First Temple was destroyed a decade later? The Bible tells us of the return to Judah half a century later but virtually nothing of what the expellees experienced in Babylon itself. It tells us even less about the fate of the northern tribes of Israel - the "10 lost tribes" - which had been marched out of history by the Assyrians a century earlier.
However, scholars have been able to gain a measure of access to these missing years from cuneiform documents unearthed in Iraq in the last century, including a trove illicitly dug up in the final years of Saddam Hussein's regime and only now nearing publication. The documents are innocuous - business records, land deeds, tax accounts - but together are able to shed light, feeble but suggestive, on this central period in Jewish history
"We have been able to make history out of dry documents," says Prof. Israel Eph'al of the Hebrew University, an epigrapher and historian of the ancient Near East.
Early last century, archeologists digging in Babylon, the capital of Babylonia, uncovered cuneiform tablets in a vaulted chamber beneath the ruins of an ancient structure believed by some to have been the base of the fabled "Hanging Gardens" of Babylon. These tablets, deciphered in the 1930s by German Assyriologist Ernst Weidner, detailed the storage of oil and other commodities and their distribution. Four of the badly damaged tablets concerned the supply of oil to "Jehoiachin, king of Judah" and his five sons. The date is five years after he was taken captive. The fact that he was being provisioned by the Babylonian authorities and that he retained his royal title suggests that he was being treated with deference even though he had been taken captive because his father, Jehoiakim, had rebelled against Babylon. Favorable treatment is also suggested by the fact that at 23 he already has five sons, indicating that the young royal was not deprived of the wives who had accompanied him.
The major source regarding the exiles in Babylonia to date is a cuneiform archive found in the 1890s by a University of Pennsylvania expedition at the site of ancient Nippur. The area, 180 kilometers southeast of Baghdad, has seen heavy fighting since the Allied incursion in 2003. The archive consisted of extensive business records maintained by the Bit Murashu family over three generations. The business details are mundane, but the people and communities mentioned in the more than 700 documents depict a rural region in which 30 percent of the population has non-Babylonian names, according to a study by Prof. Ron Zadok of Tel Aviv University.
"The Babylonians resettled many nations on their territory," says Eph'al, "not just the Jews."
In fact, only 3 percent of Bit Murashu clients had clearly Jewish names, mainly names that began or ended with "yahu," a theophoric element that embeds the name of the Hebrew God. Since some exiles are known to have adopted Babylonian names, clouding their ethnic origin, the actual figure might be higher than 3 percent.
THE JEWS in this area were at the opposite end of the social spectrum from the exiled royals and their hangers-on in the capital. "Some were small farmers who leased land," says Eph'al. "Some were low-ranking clerks. Some were fishermen. We have the record of one fisherman so poor he did not own a net and had to rent one."
The most notable aspect illuminated by the Bit Murashu documents is the ethnic cohesion maintained by all the exile groups, plainly with Babylonian encouragement. "The Bit Murashu documents show at least 10 settlements in the vicinity of Nippur whose inhabitants were defined according to their land of origin," says Eph'al.
Two exile settlements named in other documents were Ashkelon and Gaza, housing expellees from those Philistine cities seized by Nebuchadnezzar, the king who captured Jerusalem and destroyed the First Temple. The two towns lived in greater harmony on the banks of the Euphrates than they have more recently on the Mediterranean shore.
These ethnic groupings constituted landsmanschaften, similar to the associations established in the United States last century by Jewish immigrants originating from the same European region. The prophet Ezekiel, who was among the exiles, preached in a village named in the Bible as Tel Aviv. Eph'al notes that the translation from the original Akkadian is not "spring hill" as in the Hebrew name of the Israeli metropolis, but a site that had been wasted in a great flood.
A promising new cache of documents attesting to
< Info gathering...
the Jewish presence in Babylon has come to light only in the past decade after the cuneiform tablets, apparently illicitly excavated in the wake of the first Gulf War, reached private collectors in the West who made them accessible to scholars. Among the settlements inscribed on these documents is al-Iahudu, the City of Judah, a name used in antiquity as a designation for Jerusalem. Some 120 individuals bearing Jewish names have been identified among the 600 persons mentioned in the documents. Two-thirds of the Jewish names are from al-Iahudu and the rest from nearby. The contents of only three of the approximately 100 documents have been published so far, but the rest are expected to be published within a year or so. The site of al-Iahudu has been tentatively identified by an American scholar as ancient Borsippa (today's Birs Nimrud) on the Euphrates, about 110 kilometers southwest of Baghdad.
THE MOST dramatic evidence of the communal cohesion maintained by the Jewish exiles in Babylon is the way those who returned to Zion organized themselves. (It is not clear what percentage of the exiles chose to return to Judah after Babylon fell to the Persians and what percentage chose to remain.) Those whose families had been associated with the Jerusalem temple before the exile now identified themselves once more as priests, singers, gatekeepers and temple servants in anticipation of the rebuilding of the temple, as described in the books of Ezra and Nehemiah. Others organized themselves by town of origin.
"These are the people who came up from among the captive exiles in Babylon, and that returned to Jerusalem and Judah, each to his own city" (Ezra 2:1).
The Jews are the only ethnic group among the many in Babylonian exile known to have returned to their homeland, except for one other group from Neirab in northern Syria. The Jews who remained behind in Babylonia were without exception the only group to preserve their identity and way of life down through the ages until their dispersal in the current generation. Babylonian Jewry would not only survive and prosper for 2,500 years but would for centuries serve as the spiritual center of world Judaism, the place where the Babylonian Talmud was forged. The Jewish community in Babylon would be strongly reinforced a few centuries after the exile, notes Eph'al, when many residents of Judah fled eastward during the Roman period to escape severe drought and famine.
The difference between the Babylonian exile and the Assyrian exile is stark. Both nations exiled populations to punish them or to forestall the possibility of revolt. But the Assyrians, described by Eph'al as creators of "the world's first empire," also needed manpower to service their rapidly expanding realm. Their aim was to harness the exiles to this task as efficiently as possible and this meant exploiting them as individuals rather than as communities. "The Assyrian kings were determined to assimilate the deported populations," says Eph'al. "They enforced mingling of the populations and their 'Assyrianization.'"
UNLIKE THE Babylonians, the Assyrians depleted conquered areas entirely of their original population and replaced them with deportees from elsewhere, as was done in Samaria after the Israelites were uprooted.
The exiles were not treated as prisoners of war once the transfer was completed but as productive assets. They made the 1,000-kilometer trek from Israel and Judah to Assyria and Babylon over several months, not in a straight line across the desert but via the Fertile Crescent. The route crossed the Euphrates at Carchemish, on the Turkish-Syrian border of today. They traveled in groups of less than 1,000, says Eph'al, with administrators along the way charged with providing them with food. "We have a letter from a district governor complaining that many more people arrived than he had been told to prepare provisions for."
Some of the exiles to Assyria, particularly craftsmen and builders, were settled in new cities. Others were directed to sparsely settled rural areas. Parts of the defeated Israelite army were incorporated directly into the Assyrian army. Fifty captured chariots and their drivers were integrated as an organic unit into the Assyrian armored corps under King Sargon. One cuneiform tablet identifies an Israelite named Hilkiah as being in charge of scores of soldiers. Some scholars have identified a group of soldiers in Sennacherib's elite royal guard, depicted in an Assyrian relief in the king's palace, as Judahites because their dress resembles that of the Jewish defenders of Lachish shown in another relief in the same building. In some of the Assyrian records, titles are added to Jewish names like "holder of reins," "charioteer," "guardsman" (bodyguard to the king), or "chief accountant." Many were settled around the Assyrian capital of Nineveh, near present-day Mosul in northern Iraq.
Over the course of several generations under Assyrian rule, the Israelites - the bulk of the Jewish people - were in effect killed off as Jews with kindness. There is scholarly speculation that some managed to join the Jews of Babylonia to the south or even the returnees to Jerusalem. The bulk, however, simply disappeared into the population mass of Mesopotamia, a loss to Jewish demography that would grow exponentially with the millennia. In time, the legend of the "lost tribes" would lead to claims that they were progenitors of the Afghan Pashtuns, Japanese, Ethiopian Jews, the English or even American Indians. A less fanciful if more jarring notion is that the lost Israelites stayed put in Mesopotamia and that their DNA lies just below the skin of many of the current inhabitants of Iraq and Iran, perhaps even that of some of the current leadership.
abra@netvision.net.il
This article can also be read at http://www.jpost.com /servlet/Satellite?cid=1246443825291&pagename=JPArticle%2FShowFull
What Happened to the Suicide Bombers of Jerusalem?
Nasty, fanatical old men, not human emotions, decided who died and when.
By Christopher Hitchens
Slate
Park Hotel bombing in Netanya, Israel in 2002. Click image to expand.The Passover suicide bombing in 2002 in Netanya, IsraelIt is sometimes important to write about the things that are not happening and the dogs that are not barking. To do so, of course, can provide an easy hostage to fortune, which is why a lot of columnists prefer not to risk it. For all I know, some leering fanatic is preparing to make me look silly even as I write. But I ask anyway: Whatever happened to the suicide bombers of Jerusalem?
Print This ArticlePRINTDiscuss in the FrayDISCUSSEmail to a FriendE-MAILGet Slate RSS FeedsRSSShare This ArticleRECOMMEND...Single PageSINGLE PAGE
Yahoo! BuzzFacebook FacebookPost to MySpace!MySpaceMixx MixxDigg DiggReddit RedditDel.icio.us del.icio.usFurl FurlMa.gnolia.com Ma.gnoliaSphere SphereStumble UponStumbleUponCLOSE
It's not that long since the combination of self-immolation and mass murder was a regular event on Israeli soil. Different people drew radically different conclusions from the campaign, which had a nerve-racking effect not just on Israeli Jews but on Israeli Arabs and Druze—who were often among the casualties—and on visiting tourists. It was widely said by liberals, including people as eminent as Tony Blair's wife, Cherie Blair, that the real cause of such a lurid and awful tactic was despair: the reaction of a people under occupation who had no other avenue of expression for their misery and frustration.
Well, surely nobody will be so callous as to say that there is less despair among Palestinians today—especially since the terrible events in the Gaza Strip and the return to power of the Israeli right wing as well as the expansion of Jewish-zealot settler activity. And yet there is no graph on which extra despair can be shown to have eventuated in more suicide. Indeed, if there is any correlation at all, it would seem to be in reverse. How can this be?
Of the various alternative explanations, one would be the success of the wall or "fence" that Israel has built or is building, approximating but not quite conforming to the "green line" of the 1967 frontier. Another would be the ruthless campaign of "targeted assassinations," whereby Israeli agents took out important leaders of Hamas and Islamic Jihad, the two organizations most committed to "martyrdom operations." A third might be the temporary truces or cease-fires to which Hamas (but not Islamic Jihad) have from time to time agreed.
But, actually, none of these would explain why the suicide campaign went into remission. Or, at least, they would not explain why it went into remission if the original cause was despair. If despair is your feeling, then nothing can stop you from blowing yourself up against the wall as a last gesture against Israeli colonial architecture. If despair dominates your psyche, then targeted assassinations of others are not going to stop you from donning the shroud and the belt and aiming yourself at paradise, even if only at a roadblock. If despair is what has invaded your mind, why on earth would you care about this or that short-term truce?
"It's Not Pretty"
Arlene Kushner
In fact, a good deal of what I'm going to write about here is downright ugly, if not totally obscene.
According to The Times (London) a deal is being worked out in which an Israeli strike on Iran would be facilitated by the international community in return for Israeli concessions on settlements and "peace negotiations."
Don't know if it's true or not, but the first thing that ran through my mind, quite honestly, was that this might, after all, be the quid pro quo that Netanyahu has hinted at -- when he has suggested that he might make decisions he otherwise would not because in these "extraordinary times" he must consider our security first. The next thing that I thought was that this, if true, is both obscene and insane. And a few other unmentionable things to boot. (Note to Dick: My "exasperation" is REALLY showing now.)
Is the world doing us a favor to "allow" us to attack Iran? It is Israel that will be doing the world a favor, as the whole world, starting with Obama, has proven itself to be craven, and breathtakingly, narrow-mindedly self-serving, with regard to Iran.
~~~~~~~~~~
I'm no military strategist, and I cannot, in the end, make informed judgments as to how much would be gained with regard to international support for our efforts. It could be that this support would provide critical elements that might seriously improve our ability to achieve military success. But from my gut, as a non-military strategist, I have the desire to see us tell the world where to get off.
One thing does seem to be the case: We're preparing to hit Iran. Whether it turns out we actually do or not, we are getting ready.
There are hints, and various articles afloat, that suggest that things are simmering still inside of Iran and the position of the mullahs is not what it was just a short time ago. So there is just a tiny, tiny sense that we don't know yet how this will play out. (Sandra?)
~~~~~~~~~~
Back to Obama. With all I wrote about that meeting, and the diligence I devoted to giving an accurate picture, I ended up omitting one piece of information that had leaked early:
As Barak Ravid wrote in Ha'aretz: "Obama told the leaders that he wants to help Israel overcome its demographic problem by reaching an agreement on a two-state solution, but that in order to do so, Israel would need "to engage in serious self-reflection."
He's pushing us in order to "help" us? Right... The condescension of his tone. The insult of it!
And the idea of the least self-reflective of men (he doesn't need to self-reflect, for he's perfect) saying this to Jews, who are the most self-reflective of people -- neurotically, agonizingly so. It's a parody, really.
~~~~~~~~~~
And yet, in spite of this, the American Jewish Committee put out a statement (thanks to all who sent it) by Jason Isaacson, its director of government and international affairs, who was at the Obama meeting: “The President could not have been clearer that his primary motivation in seeking to re-energize an Israeli-Palestinian peace process is Israel’s long-term security.”
In my humble opinion, Jason Isaacson should hang his head in shame. How could he possibly believe this, when it's clear how Obama is courting the Arab/Muslim world?
Isaacson also said: “Nor could he have been clearer in the priority he assigns to building international unity against Iran’s drive for nuclear weapons capability.” And here we have the hint of the "link" between our concessions and "building international unity." Apparently this is all right with Isaacson.
If this is a representative sample of American Jewish "leadership" than American Jews are in even more trouble than I thought.
~~~~~~~~~~
Barak Ravid has written another article about Obama, this one concerning the "peace plan" that he is expected to be unveiling soon. It will provide a "framework" for negotiations, and a "binding timetable," in order to obligate the parties to make progress.
Been there. Done that. Didn't he notice that this was sort of what Bush had in mind? It ain't gonna work. How do you, from the outside "bind" two parties to make an agreement by a certain date when they cannot come to terms?
But here's where it gets a bit vague: "A senior Western diplomat" says the US is only interested in pursuing this after the settlement issue and the matter of pro-Israel gestures from the Arab states are resolved. Remember, I wrote about this: What we seem to be seeing is that if we don't resolve the settlement issue with Obama, then he won't pressure us with a timetable.
~~~~~~~~~~
Sounds crazy, of course, but what this means is that he needs to know first that there's a certain amount of readiness to offer concessions, for he realizes that otherwise his plan is dead in the water. But his plan is dead in the water anyway.
Let's follow this a bit. There has been talk about some sort of "compromise" with us with regard to allowing us to complete housing construction in Judea and Samaria that has already been contracted or begun. Ravid says that the US shifted its position on a total freeze partly because of a recognition that it's not possible. But there is also another reason:
"...the refusal on the part of the moderate Arab states, led by Saudi Arabia, to make significant normalization gestures toward Israel. In all probability, when the Americans understood that in any event they would not obtain substantial gestures from the Arabs, they decided to reach a compromise with Israel."
Well, then. US diplomats are eager to show there is "achievement" in the "process" by getting us to compromise on the housing issue. But it apparently doesn't occur to them that if the Arabs won't agree to any steps toward normalization, they are also not going to move towards "peace."
www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1100581.html
~~~~~~~~~~
As obscene as anything I'm writing about today is this, and it's more difficult because it's a source of internal shame:
Major Roi Klein died three years ago in the Second Lebanon war, the noblest of heroes. He threw himself on a hand grenade, thereby absorbing the impact of its explosion into his own body and saving the soldiers under his command. The epitome of all that is selfless, his last words (as befits a believing Jew) were "Shema Yisrael." The State posthumously awarded him the Medal of Valor.
Here you see Roi with his family:
להפסיק את הליך הריסת ביתו של רס
His widow and children live in the Hayovel neighborhood of the community of Eli, near Ariel, in Samaria, about 30 minutes from Jerusalem. This neighborhood has received government services for more than a decade, but never was fully "authorized."
Peace Now and Yesh Din, two anti-Zionist organizations on the far left, took themselves to the High Court with the claim that 11 houses in the Hayovel neighborhood were on Arab-owned land. According to local residents, part of one house, only, extends onto Arab land, and the rest were built on state land. Claims are often made and sometimes verification is not as easy as it should be. (There have been other Peace Now charges that were later demonstrated to be false.) At any rate, the Court ruled with Peace Now.
Eleven houses in Eli are due to be destroyed. One of them is the Klein home.
This is simply wrong, wrong, wrong. Sometimes it's an issue of human decency, and not legality. This is how the State treats the widow of a genuine hero?
~~~~~~~~~~
Following the ruling, the Land of Israel Legal Forum sent an appeal to Defense Minister Ehud Barak, asking him to honor Major Klein by authorizing his family's home as legal.
"Will your hand, as that responsible for destroying the home of this hero of Israel, not tremble as you sign the demolition order?" asked Forum chairman Nachi Eyal. "If there remains any significance to 'our duty to the fallen' - now is the time to prove it."
The letter said: "With your signature, you could turn his home 'legal,' but you refuse... The law does not require you to destroy the home of a hero of Israel who gave his life for his people. If there is any legal way to prevent this travesty, you must make use of it."
Please, see this site for a petition to sign, to save the Klein house:
http://www.atzuma.co.il/petition/be770/1/
100,000 signatures are being sought -- about 30,000 have been secured so far. It's in Hebrew. Scroll down to the form. The first field is for your complete name (and it will accept it in English) and the third is for your city. Both are required. (The second, for your age, is optional.) Then hit the Hebrew word "chatimah" (signature) which is in red, at an angle on the form, to register your name on the petition.
~~~~~~~~~~
I'm reading reports of major fires raging in the hills outside of Jerusalem. Haven't seen it with my own eyes yet, but will undoubtedly be deeply saddened when I do. These wooded hills outside of Jerusalem are so beautiful, and the trees so valued. Arson is strongly suspected. Firefighters from all over the country have been called in.
~~~~~~~~~~
see my website www.ArlenefromIsrael.info
In fact, a good deal of what I'm going to write about here is downright ugly, if not totally obscene.
According to The Times (London) a deal is being worked out in which an Israeli strike on Iran would be facilitated by the international community in return for Israeli concessions on settlements and "peace negotiations."
Don't know if it's true or not, but the first thing that ran through my mind, quite honestly, was that this might, after all, be the quid pro quo that Netanyahu has hinted at -- when he has suggested that he might make decisions he otherwise would not because in these "extraordinary times" he must consider our security first. The next thing that I thought was that this, if true, is both obscene and insane. And a few other unmentionable things to boot. (Note to Dick: My "exasperation" is REALLY showing now.)
Is the world doing us a favor to "allow" us to attack Iran? It is Israel that will be doing the world a favor, as the whole world, starting with Obama, has proven itself to be craven, and breathtakingly, narrow-mindedly self-serving, with regard to Iran.
~~~~~~~~~~
I'm no military strategist, and I cannot, in the end, make informed judgments as to how much would be gained with regard to international support for our efforts. It could be that this support would provide critical elements that might seriously improve our ability to achieve military success. But from my gut, as a non-military strategist, I have the desire to see us tell the world where to get off.
One thing does seem to be the case: We're preparing to hit Iran. Whether it turns out we actually do or not, we are getting ready.
There are hints, and various articles afloat, that suggest that things are simmering still inside of Iran and the position of the mullahs is not what it was just a short time ago. So there is just a tiny, tiny sense that we don't know yet how this will play out. (Sandra?)
~~~~~~~~~~
Back to Obama. With all I wrote about that meeting, and the diligence I devoted to giving an accurate picture, I ended up omitting one piece of information that had leaked early:
As Barak Ravid wrote in Ha'aretz: "Obama told the leaders that he wants to help Israel overcome its demographic problem by reaching an agreement on a two-state solution, but that in order to do so, Israel would need "to engage in serious self-reflection."
He's pushing us in order to "help" us? Right... The condescension of his tone. The insult of it!
And the idea of the least self-reflective of men (he doesn't need to self-reflect, for he's perfect) saying this to Jews, who are the most self-reflective of people -- neurotically, agonizingly so. It's a parody, really.
~~~~~~~~~~
And yet, in spite of this, the American Jewish Committee put out a statement (thanks to all who sent it) by Jason Isaacson, its director of government and international affairs, who was at the Obama meeting: “The President could not have been clearer that his primary motivation in seeking to re-energize an Israeli-Palestinian peace process is Israel’s long-term security.”
In my humble opinion, Jason Isaacson should hang his head in shame. How could he possibly believe this, when it's clear how Obama is courting the Arab/Muslim world?
Isaacson also said: “Nor could he have been clearer in the priority he assigns to building international unity against Iran’s drive for nuclear weapons capability.” And here we have the hint of the "link" between our concessions and "building international unity." Apparently this is all right with Isaacson.
If this is a representative sample of American Jewish "leadership" than American Jews are in even more trouble than I thought.
~~~~~~~~~~
Barak Ravid has written another article about Obama, this one concerning the "peace plan" that he is expected to be unveiling soon. It will provide a "framework" for negotiations, and a "binding timetable," in order to obligate the parties to make progress.
Been there. Done that. Didn't he notice that this was sort of what Bush had in mind? It ain't gonna work. How do you, from the outside "bind" two parties to make an agreement by a certain date when they cannot come to terms?
But here's where it gets a bit vague: "A senior Western diplomat" says the US is only interested in pursuing this after the settlement issue and the matter of pro-Israel gestures from the Arab states are resolved. Remember, I wrote about this: What we seem to be seeing is that if we don't resolve the settlement issue with Obama, then he won't pressure us with a timetable.
~~~~~~~~~~
Sounds crazy, of course, but what this means is that he needs to know first that there's a certain amount of readiness to offer concessions, for he realizes that otherwise his plan is dead in the water. But his plan is dead in the water anyway.
Let's follow this a bit. There has been talk about some sort of "compromise" with us with regard to allowing us to complete housing construction in Judea and Samaria that has already been contracted or begun. Ravid says that the US shifted its position on a total freeze partly because of a recognition that it's not possible. But there is also another reason:
"...the refusal on the part of the moderate Arab states, led by Saudi Arabia, to make significant normalization gestures toward Israel. In all probability, when the Americans understood that in any event they would not obtain substantial gestures from the Arabs, they decided to reach a compromise with Israel."
Well, then. US diplomats are eager to show there is "achievement" in the "process" by getting us to compromise on the housing issue. But it apparently doesn't occur to them that if the Arabs won't agree to any steps toward normalization, they are also not going to move towards "peace."
www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1100581.html
~~~~~~~~~~
As obscene as anything I'm writing about today is this, and it's more difficult because it's a source of internal shame:
Major Roi Klein died three years ago in the Second Lebanon war, the noblest of heroes. He threw himself on a hand grenade, thereby absorbing the impact of its explosion into his own body and saving the soldiers under his command. The epitome of all that is selfless, his last words (as befits a believing Jew) were "Shema Yisrael." The State posthumously awarded him the Medal of Valor.
Here you see Roi with his family:
להפסיק את הליך הריסת ביתו של רס
His widow and children live in the Hayovel neighborhood of the community of Eli, near Ariel, in Samaria, about 30 minutes from Jerusalem. This neighborhood has received government services for more than a decade, but never was fully "authorized."
Peace Now and Yesh Din, two anti-Zionist organizations on the far left, took themselves to the High Court with the claim that 11 houses in the Hayovel neighborhood were on Arab-owned land. According to local residents, part of one house, only, extends onto Arab land, and the rest were built on state land. Claims are often made and sometimes verification is not as easy as it should be. (There have been other Peace Now charges that were later demonstrated to be false.) At any rate, the Court ruled with Peace Now.
Eleven houses in Eli are due to be destroyed. One of them is the Klein home.
This is simply wrong, wrong, wrong. Sometimes it's an issue of human decency, and not legality. This is how the State treats the widow of a genuine hero?
~~~~~~~~~~
Following the ruling, the Land of Israel Legal Forum sent an appeal to Defense Minister Ehud Barak, asking him to honor Major Klein by authorizing his family's home as legal.
"Will your hand, as that responsible for destroying the home of this hero of Israel, not tremble as you sign the demolition order?" asked Forum chairman Nachi Eyal. "If there remains any significance to 'our duty to the fallen' - now is the time to prove it."
The letter said: "With your signature, you could turn his home 'legal,' but you refuse... The law does not require you to destroy the home of a hero of Israel who gave his life for his people. If there is any legal way to prevent this travesty, you must make use of it."
Please, see this site for a petition to sign, to save the Klein house:
http://www.atzuma.co.il/petition/be770/1/
100,000 signatures are being sought -- about 30,000 have been secured so far. It's in Hebrew. Scroll down to the form. The first field is for your complete name (and it will accept it in English) and the third is for your city. Both are required. (The second, for your age, is optional.) Then hit the Hebrew word "chatimah" (signature) which is in red, at an angle on the form, to register your name on the petition.
~~~~~~~~~~
I'm reading reports of major fires raging in the hills outside of Jerusalem. Haven't seen it with my own eyes yet, but will undoubtedly be deeply saddened when I do. These wooded hills outside of Jerusalem are so beautiful, and the trees so valued. Arson is strongly suspected. Firefighters from all over the country have been called in.
~~~~~~~~~~
see my website www.ArlenefromIsrael.info
Chaos and Unity
David Suissa
http://www.jewishjournal.com/ opinion/article/chaos_and_unity_20090714/
Israel is not a great country for neat freaks. The place is all mixed up. The trivial mixes with the existential, the silliness with the deadly serious, the sacred with the irreverent.
Every impulse gets a hearing, and every hearing gets an argument. This messiness was obvious to me during my two weeks in the Holy Land. And it was captured perfectly one morning on the front page of the Jerusalem Post. Study this page and you’ll understand Israel.
On the top left was a controversy over an annual “water fight” event in Tel Aviv — yes, people frolicking with water guns — right next to a story on the looming geopolitical battle between the United States and Russia.
The Tel Aviv frolickers were battling their critics, who were outraged that anyone would think of holding a water fight in a drought-ridden country. The frolickers countered that they would use only water from a public fountain to “prove that you can have fun while conserving water.”
Just below the water drama was a story about how Israel was preparing itself for a nuclear attack. “In Face of Iranian Threat, IAF to Train Overseas,” the headline blared. The story reported that “Saudi Arabia green-lights IAF flyover” (which Israel denied), as well as Vice President Biden’s statement that the United States “won’t stop Israeli attacks on nuclear facilities” (which his boss later contradicted).
Israel has a large Russian population, so it wasn’t surprising to see a story on “Decoding Russia: A Six-Step Plan, as Obama heads to Moscow.”
Right next to the Russian story was one on Israeli and Palestinian teens collaborating on a “song of peace.”
Below the fold were three stories on the Israel-Palestinian conflict. On the left was Prime Minister Netanyahu uttering to his cabinet, for the first time, the “two states for two peoples” formula, which Washington had urged him to do. But lest you get too encouraged by that news, another story on the far right reported that “new home buyers [are] still offered incentives to move to settlements.”
And lest you get too discouraged by that news, the story in the middle reported that Israel had approved the transfer of 1,000 Kalashnikov rifles to the Palestinian security forces to help them fight terrorism.
In all those stories, there were vigorous internal debates and disagreements.
Open the paper and the mess continues: A story on a petition filed by Peace Now calling for the dismantling of the illegal outpost of Migron, right next to one on the Palestinian Prime Minister saying that “Jews would be welcome in a future Palestinian state,” right next to a controversial decision not to send ambulances into Arab villages without a police escort.
By now you’re probably thinking: “Hey, there’s nothing new here. Israeli society has always been chaotic and full of contradictions and disagreements. Those are the hallmarks of a robust democracy.”
Well, yes. That’s why it was fascinating for me to see that, in Israel today, there is one thing that almost all Israelis agree on.
It has to do with President Obama.
Over my two weeks there, I talked to all kinds of people — cab drivers, peaceniks, right-wing hawks, religious and secular Jews, artists, academics, bellboys, rabbis and more — and asked them how they felt about Obama and the “conflict with the Palestinians.”
Just about everyone I spoke with is wary of the American president. They think his obsession with a settlement freeze has overshadowed much bigger threats (like a nuclear Iran) and much bigger obstacles to peace (like a terror state in Gaza). They see him as naïve at best and abusive at worst — abusing a friendly ally to curry favor with the Arab and Muslim worlds.
What I found most fascinating was that in a country that argues about everything, I couldn’t find anyone — not even opposition parties in the Knesset — who would argue that a radical settlement freeze should be the centerpiece of the peace process.
Many Israelis I spoke with aren’t pleased that Obama has ignored previous understandings with the Sharon government that allowed for “natural growth” in the settlement blocks. Even those who are against the settlements have seen how the relentless U.S. pressure on Israel has given the Palestinians the perfect excuse to be even more intransigent, and pulled the two sides even further apart.
Above all, unlike many Jews in America who are still under the Obama spell, Israelis understand that a total settlement freeze is extreme and absurd. How do you tell a family in Efrat that they need to get special permission from the leader of the free world if they want to add a bedroom or bathroom to their house?
By focusing on freezing Jewish bedrooms while a Persian madman is focusing on nuking 6 million Jews, Obama has frozen the hearts of Israelis. A recent poll in the Jerusalem Post backed up what I saw: Only 6 percent of Israelis consider him pro-Israel.
I’m sure the president saw something “neat” in pressuring Israel for a perfect freeze. But in his zeal to bring neatness to a messy conflict, President Obama has pulled off a double miracle — he has united the Jews and made things even messier.
David Suissa, an advertising executive, is founder of OLAM magazine, Meals4Israel.com and Ads4Israel.com. He can be reached at dsuissa@olam.org .
© Copyright 2009 The Jewish Journal and JewishJournal.com
All rights reserved. JewishJournal.com is hosted by Nexcess.net
http://www.jewishjournal.com/ opinion/article/chaos_and_unity_20090714/
Israel is not a great country for neat freaks. The place is all mixed up. The trivial mixes with the existential, the silliness with the deadly serious, the sacred with the irreverent.
Every impulse gets a hearing, and every hearing gets an argument. This messiness was obvious to me during my two weeks in the Holy Land. And it was captured perfectly one morning on the front page of the Jerusalem Post. Study this page and you’ll understand Israel.
On the top left was a controversy over an annual “water fight” event in Tel Aviv — yes, people frolicking with water guns — right next to a story on the looming geopolitical battle between the United States and Russia.
The Tel Aviv frolickers were battling their critics, who were outraged that anyone would think of holding a water fight in a drought-ridden country. The frolickers countered that they would use only water from a public fountain to “prove that you can have fun while conserving water.”
Just below the water drama was a story about how Israel was preparing itself for a nuclear attack. “In Face of Iranian Threat, IAF to Train Overseas,” the headline blared. The story reported that “Saudi Arabia green-lights IAF flyover” (which Israel denied), as well as Vice President Biden’s statement that the United States “won’t stop Israeli attacks on nuclear facilities” (which his boss later contradicted).
Israel has a large Russian population, so it wasn’t surprising to see a story on “Decoding Russia: A Six-Step Plan, as Obama heads to Moscow.”
Right next to the Russian story was one on Israeli and Palestinian teens collaborating on a “song of peace.”
Below the fold were three stories on the Israel-Palestinian conflict. On the left was Prime Minister Netanyahu uttering to his cabinet, for the first time, the “two states for two peoples” formula, which Washington had urged him to do. But lest you get too encouraged by that news, another story on the far right reported that “new home buyers [are] still offered incentives to move to settlements.”
And lest you get too discouraged by that news, the story in the middle reported that Israel had approved the transfer of 1,000 Kalashnikov rifles to the Palestinian security forces to help them fight terrorism.
In all those stories, there were vigorous internal debates and disagreements.
Open the paper and the mess continues: A story on a petition filed by Peace Now calling for the dismantling of the illegal outpost of Migron, right next to one on the Palestinian Prime Minister saying that “Jews would be welcome in a future Palestinian state,” right next to a controversial decision not to send ambulances into Arab villages without a police escort.
By now you’re probably thinking: “Hey, there’s nothing new here. Israeli society has always been chaotic and full of contradictions and disagreements. Those are the hallmarks of a robust democracy.”
Well, yes. That’s why it was fascinating for me to see that, in Israel today, there is one thing that almost all Israelis agree on.
It has to do with President Obama.
Over my two weeks there, I talked to all kinds of people — cab drivers, peaceniks, right-wing hawks, religious and secular Jews, artists, academics, bellboys, rabbis and more — and asked them how they felt about Obama and the “conflict with the Palestinians.”
Just about everyone I spoke with is wary of the American president. They think his obsession with a settlement freeze has overshadowed much bigger threats (like a nuclear Iran) and much bigger obstacles to peace (like a terror state in Gaza). They see him as naïve at best and abusive at worst — abusing a friendly ally to curry favor with the Arab and Muslim worlds.
What I found most fascinating was that in a country that argues about everything, I couldn’t find anyone — not even opposition parties in the Knesset — who would argue that a radical settlement freeze should be the centerpiece of the peace process.
Many Israelis I spoke with aren’t pleased that Obama has ignored previous understandings with the Sharon government that allowed for “natural growth” in the settlement blocks. Even those who are against the settlements have seen how the relentless U.S. pressure on Israel has given the Palestinians the perfect excuse to be even more intransigent, and pulled the two sides even further apart.
Above all, unlike many Jews in America who are still under the Obama spell, Israelis understand that a total settlement freeze is extreme and absurd. How do you tell a family in Efrat that they need to get special permission from the leader of the free world if they want to add a bedroom or bathroom to their house?
By focusing on freezing Jewish bedrooms while a Persian madman is focusing on nuking 6 million Jews, Obama has frozen the hearts of Israelis. A recent poll in the Jerusalem Post backed up what I saw: Only 6 percent of Israelis consider him pro-Israel.
I’m sure the president saw something “neat” in pressuring Israel for a perfect freeze. But in his zeal to bring neatness to a messy conflict, President Obama has pulled off a double miracle — he has united the Jews and made things even messier.
David Suissa, an advertising executive, is founder of OLAM magazine, Meals4Israel.com and Ads4Israel.com. He can be reached at dsuissa@olam.org .
© Copyright 2009 The Jewish Journal and JewishJournal.com
All rights reserved. JewishJournal.com is hosted by Nexcess.net
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)