Artists to refuse to perform in Ariel culture hall

YNET
Merav Yudilovitch

Prominent actors, directors, playwrights send letter to boards of Israeli theaters in protest of plans to put on shows in news culture auditorium beyond Green Line. Yesha Council vows harsh response to 'vile, anti-Zionist' letter A long line of actors and artists from all fields of the theater industry sent a letter to the boards of Israel's repertory theaters announcing they will refuse to perform in the new culture auditorium in Ariel, which is located outside the Green Line. It should be noted that tickets have already been sold to productions that include all of Israel's theaters.


The letter, addressed to the boards of the Cameri, Habima, Beit Lessin, Khan and the Haifa and Beersheba theatres, read: "We wish to express our disgust with the theater's board's plans to perform in the new auditorium in Ariel. The actors among us hereby declare that we will refuse to perform in Ariel, as well as in any other settlement. We urge the boards to hold their activity within the sovereign borders of the State of Israel within the Green Line."


On Wednesday, the Ometz Lesarev (courage to refuse) organization sent a letter to the theaters' boards and actors requesting they refrain from performing in Ariel. In response, the city's mayor, Ron Nachman said, "Culture has nothing to do with politics. If the actors and artists want to deal with politics, let them go to the Knesset. The vileness, baseness and hypocrisy of those who work in culture and call on a boycott of us, is intolerable."


But it seems many in the industry gave in to the organization's calls, and Friday's letter included the signatures of dozens of prominent people in the theater business.


Dramaturgist Vardit Shalfi, one of the letter's initiators, told Ynet on Friday, "Ariel is not a legitimate community, and as such, is against international law and international treaties that the State of Israel has signed. This means anyone performing there would be considered a criminal according to international law. The theater's boards should inform their actors that there are apartheid roads for Jews only that lead into the settlement of Ariel. The moment we perform there, we are giving legitimization to this settlement's existence."


The long list of signatories includes many prominent actors, which could make it difficult for the theaters to decide which shows to put on in Ariel without having to make serious changes to the cast.


The list includes Israel Prize laureate Renee Yerushalmi, actors Yossi Pollack and Itay Tiran, director Ofira Henig, playwrights Joshua Sobol and Savyon Liebrecht and many more.


Yesha Council vows 'harsh response'

Liebrecht said in response: "I object to the settlement enterprise and obviously, when it comes to theater, it is my duty not to be silent. Until there is a signed peace agreement, Ariel is not a legitimate community. I haven't crossed the Green Line in years, and as far as I'm concerned, anyone who has decided to live there and wants to enjoy Israeli culture can come to Kfar Saba or any other Israeli city. I believe that if enough actors and people in the theater business sign the letter, the shows won't go up there."


Israel Prize laureate Renee Yerushalmi said, "I am not against, but for the future of the State of Israel. These days talks are being head about the Israeli-Palestinian future, and we must allow them to take place to see if there is hope for future existence here. Ariel today is beyond the Green Line and therefore we must not cross it. This applies to theater productions as well."


Yesha Council said in response: "Our response to the letter signed by a bunch of anti-Zionist leftists and refusniks will be very harsh. This vile letter, which speaks out against the best of the State's sons who defend them while they are acting on stage, requires a direct, poignant and clear response from the theaters' boards, and this is what we expect. We will announce our future steps in the coming days."


The Habima national theater said in response on Friday: "This is the first time the matter of putting on theater shows beyond the Green Line is raised in Israeli discourse. As a national theater, Habima believes discussing the matter is of the utmost importance, but it also calls for an in-depth examination of all the issues it includes… We are looking into the matter."


Dror Gerber, of the Haifa Theater said, "If the actors are expressing ethical and moral claims in their letter, I consider this problematic. The way to express protest and objection to the occupation is not via boycotting the residents of Ariel. The Haifa Theater was founded in order to bring the art of theater to all the citizens of the State of Israel."


Tzipi Pines of Beit Lessin said, "I personally object to the occupation and support peace, but there are people living in Ariel who I respect, and I respect their desire to consume culture."


The Cameri said in response: "We are against boycotts and will perform anywhere where there are people who desire culture and wish to see Israeli theater."

Comment: How many of these "entertainers" even know, comprehend or otherwise are aware of the arguments for and against the "so-called" green line? So, following their expression of upset, they are dismissing out of hand their fellow Israeli citizens who do not live their lives where they think they should! How many individuals,over the years, have sat in their audiences, many with different politics, yet the actors et al supported their shekels for coming to be entertained.This action shows how ignorant and/or arrogant the entertainers are here in Israel.

"The Good Fight"

Arlene Kushner

That's what we -- Israelis and all those who love Israel -- must take on. The situation is enough to make one tear one's hair out. But the antidote is hard work to combat the threats and the insanity. ALet's begin with a piece on the dangers of the US training of PA security forces, which I wrote with David Bedein, and which has now been put up in the JPost. It is exceedingly relevant with regard to current prospects for "peace negotiations" and the issue of demilitarization of a Palestinian state.

There is considerable evidence that the PA forces, no matter how trained, will not reliably take on Hamas. What is more, there is genuine concern that these forces might in time actually turn on Israel.

http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Op-EdContributors/Article.aspx?id=185979

~~~~~~~~~~

I spoke yesterday about contacting your elected officials in Congress regarding incitement in PA textbooks.

The issue of the US training of PA forces is yet another one about which they are lacking information. In the main, they have been told that this training is going swimmingly well. Anyone seeking more information, after reading the article, is invited to contact me.


For your Congresspersons:



http://www.house.gov/house/MemberWWW_by_State.shtml



For your Senators:



http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm



~~~~~~~~~~



Please see an excellent "tell-it-like-it-is" article by Khaled Abu Toameh, writing in Hudson-NY: "Abbas & Fayyad: Do They Have a Mandate?"

The answer, of course, is that they do not. Says Abu Toameh:

"A president whose term in office expired a long time ago, and a prime minister who won about 2% of the vote when he ran in an election, have now been invited by the US Administration to hold direct peace talks with Israel on behalf of the Palestinians.

"...The 18-member PLO Executive Committee, which met in Ramallah last week to approve the Palestinians' participation in the direct talks with Israel, is dominated by unelected veteran officials.

"Only nine PLO officials attended the meeting. The PLO constitution requires a minimum of 12 members for a quorum. This means that, contrary to reports in the Palestinian and international media, Abbas and Fayyad do not have the support of the PLO committee to negotiate directly with Israel.

"With regards to the Central Council of Fatah, it remains unclear whether its 21 members ever endorsed the US invitation to hold direct talks with Israel.

"So here is a president whose term in office expired in January 2009 -- and who has won the backing of only some of his traditional loyalists -- preparing to negotiate with Israel about extremely important issues such as borders, refugees, Jerusalem, settlements and security.

"As if it is not enough that Abbas and Fayyad do not have a real mandate from their people, now they are going to lose what is left of their credibility as they appear to have "succumbed" to the outside pressure.

"...Over the past few months, Abbas and Fayyad had been telling their people that there would be no direct talks with Israel unless their conditions are fulfilled. Now, however, they...and are being pressured to the negotiating table by Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.

"...How can any Palestinian buy an agreement from them after they told their people that they are going to the talks only
because the Americans and Europeans threatened to cut off financial aid?

"Any agreement Abbas and Fayyad bring back home will be seen by many Palestinians as the fruit of 'extortion' and 'threats' and not as the result of peace talks that were conducted in good faith.

"Leaders who do not have a clear mandate from their people will not be able to strike any deal with Israel, particularly when it concerns explosive issues such as Jerusalem, refugees and settlements...

"Abbas and Fayyad are nonetheless not stupid. The two are well aware of the fact that they do not have a mandate to sign any agreement with Israel. This is why they will search for any excuse to withdraw from the direct talks and blame Israel for the failure of the peace process."

www.hudson-ny.org/1502/abbas-fayyad-mandate

~~~~~~~~~~

For a taste of PA intransigence, it would be hard to beat this. The PA cabinet chaired by Prime Minister Fayyad met, reports WAFA (the PLO news agency,) and approved the decision to go ahead with negotiations, based on the Quartet statement.

The full cabinet statement included condemnation of all Israeli "violations." Included was condemnation of "the settlements' plans in East Jerusalem such as building a huge elevator system which connects the Jewish square in East Jerusalem's
Old City' and the western wall."

Of course it is nonsense to call these "the settlement's plans" -- this phrase is meaningless. But there is talk (by the Municipality? a ministry? not sure) about putting in an elevator between the Jewish Quarter (the Rova) and the plaza in front of the Kotel. Anyone who has been there knows what a huge set of steps there is between the two -- steps that inhibit movement for the elderly or disabled. What a lovely thing this would be.

~~~~~~~~~~

One particular e-mail has been forwarded to me in recent days more frequently than any other e-mail I've ever received. I've been astonished at the frequency with which it has come into my In-box.

The e-mail I'm referring to says at the top something like "Can you guess where these pictures were taken?" Then after a string of some 20 or more pictures, the "answer" is provided: "Gaza."

The problem is that there is no person's name attached to this, no organization or site. No identification that might be used to confirm what is being said. And, quite simply, there is no way to know if these really are pictures of Gaza. I myself, and some others I consulted with, have some doubts.

The idea, of course, is to show how luxurious Gaza is, even as there are claims of suffering there. Certainly I know Gaza in its totality is not as dreary, as slum-like and down-and-out as some would have us believe. And I have readily shared pictures of a Gaza market filled with goods, the new swimming pool and more. But in all of these instances I confirmed their validity.

What it seemed to me is that some of the pictures in this sequence were from Gaza, while others -- of the more "glitzy' and upscale buildings -- seemed likely not.

And yet, thousands upon thousands of people are accepting this as a given veracity. One of the dangers of the Internet.

My advice, across the board, is not to share material unless it can be validated and confirmed. There is enough legitimate material that can be confirmed to combat the lies coming from the other side without relying upon what is dubious and may be fallacious. Our integrity in fighting that good fight depends upon our reliability as we present information. If we are not careful, we can -- inadvertently and unintentionally -- undermine our own case

~~~~~~~~~~

"The Good News Corner"

Certain parts of the country are currently adrift in storks, and will be for some time yet.

Israel is the crossroads for many birds in migration, and right now it's stork migration time, with the birds heading south. At the moment, at the height of the migration, some 31,000 storks are in the south. They flew over the Beit She'an valley and then landed in the Negev, where they will rest before continuing on to east Africa for the winter. By the end of the migration, which takes six weeks, some 350,000 storks will have been in Israel. This is an annual event.

When the birds were expected over the Beit She'an area, experts from the Society for the Protection of Nature in Israel advised farmers to plow their fields to uncover rodents so the birds could prey on them -- thereby benefiting both birds and farmers.

The SPNI, working with the Air Force, is monitoring the flight of these birds, which can cause a hazard if they collide with air craft.

Incredibly, all of the various species of birds who will migrate over Israel this fall and winter will total 500 million.

~~~~~~~~~~

see my website www.ArlenefromIsrael.info

Yesha Challenges Netanyahu to Sign Pledge to Renew Building

Tzvi Ben Gedalyahu
A7 News

Leaders of Judea and Samaria have challenged Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu to fulfill his promise publically and declare the renewal of building on September 26, when the 10-month freeze ends, before he leaves next week for ”direct talks” with the Palestinian Authority,.

“Evading the approval of tenders on September 26 is equivalent to continuing the building freeze. This is the day of judgment,” they stated. In a letter to Prime Minister Netanyahu, with copies to Cabinet ministers and Knesset Members, the Council of Jewish Communities in Judea and Samaria (Yesha) reminded the Prime Minister of his public comment after the building freeze began, when he said, “Even if Abu Mazen (PA Chairman Mahmoud Abbas) comes in another eight months and tells me ‘peace now,” we will begin to build as we did before” the freeze.

The Yesha leaders want a similar public declaration that building will renew and noted that simply not extending the freeze officially is not a solution to the problem of lack of public and private facilities for Jews in Judea and Samaria.

They wrote, “There should be no doubt. The main significance of ending the freeze and returning to building “as before” is not fulfilled simply by not renewing the freeze but rather by immediate approval of tenders for building projects that already have passed the bureaucratic process and are waiting only for the political signature of the Defense Minister [Ehud Barak]. These tenders must be signed and approved on September 26 [when the freeze expires] in order to enable a return to normal life as you promised.

The letter included a New Year’s greeting and incorporated the needed signature for approving construction with the traditional Rosh HaShanah blessing that one “be inscribed” for a good year.

“Happy New Year. May you be inscribed for a good year, and it is our opinion that the most important ’inscription’ for the future of the nation will be the “good inscription [play on the word for signature in Hebrew which is the same as inscription] for tenders for building and continuing development of life in Judea and Samaria,” the letter concluded.

Historical Fiction

Israel is not a colonialist state.

Dore Gold

The argument that Israel is a colonialist entity is often marshaled to undermine the Jewish state’s legitimacy. The theme has certainly permeated Western academia, almost uncritically. For decades, it has been employed against Israel in one international forum after another. In 1973, the U.N. General Assembly gave initial momentum to this idea when it condemned the “unholy alliance between Portuguese colonialism, South African racism, Zionism, and Israeli imperialism.”

That association of Israel with colonialist regimes set the stage in 1975 for the most insidious resolution ever adopted in the General Assembly against Israel, which stated that Zionism was a form of racism. It helped cement the Afro-Asian bloc behind both the resolution and the movement to delegitimize Israel. Even when, in 1991, the General Assembly finally overturned the resolution, comparisons between Zionism and colonialism persisted, arguably becoming even more strident.Speaking in Johannesburg in 2008, Azmi Bishara, a former member of the Knesset, explained another way that accusing Israel of being a colonialist entity has real political utility. Bishara, who today does not miss an opportunity to question Israel’s legitimacy before audiences abroad, explained that two points had to be established to show that Israel was an apartheid state: first, that Israel practiced racial separation; and second, that it was a product of colonialism.

Of course, anyone who visits the emergency rooms in Israeli hospitals, or the classrooms at any Israeli university, or the voting booths on election day, to say nothing of the Knesset itself, would see both Jewish and Arab doctors, patients, professors, students, voters, and parliamentarians mixing together in a way that utterly disproves the charge of apartheid. That leaves Bishara with mainly the claim of colonialism to make his case.

Unlike the charge of racial separation, the tag “colonialist” cannot be refuted simply by looking around modern Israel. It is a historical charge about how Israel came to exist: In effect, it amounts to the claim that Israel was established as an outpost of another distant power imposing itself on the territory and its native inhabitants. But the fact is that while modern Israel succeeded the 1922 British Mandate for Palestine, it was created by neither the British nor any other occupying power.

The Jews were already asserting their right to self-determination well before the British and the French dismantled the Ottoman Empire. For example, the Jewish people had already re-established their majority in Jerusalem by 1863. Decades later, Britain and the rest of the League of Nations considered Jewish rights in Palestine beyond their power to bestow because those rights were already there to be accepted. Thus the League of Nations gave recognition to “the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine.” In other words, it recognized a pre-existing right. It called for “reconstituting” the Jewish people’s national home. And the rights recognized by the League of Nations in 1922 were preserved by its successor organization, the United Nations, which in Article 80 of its charter acknowledged all rights of states and peoples that existed before 1945.

The accusation that Israel has colonialist roots because of its connection to the British Mandate is ironic, since most of the Arab states owe their origins to the entry and domination of the European powers. Prior to World War I, the Arab states of Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, and Jordan did not exist, but were only districts of the Ottoman Empire, under different names. They became states as a result of European intervention, with the British putting the Hashemite family in power in two of these countries.

Saudi Arabia and the smaller Gulf states, meanwhile, emerged from treaties that their leaders signed with Britain. By means of those treaties, the British recognized the legitimacy of local Arab families to rule what became states like Kuwait, Bahrain, and Qatar. A similar British treaty with the al-Saud family in 1915 set the stage for the eventual emergence of Saudi Arabia in 1932.

Moreover, during Israel's War of Independence, Arab armies benefited directly from European arms and training—and even manpower. The Arab Legion initially fought in Jerusalem with British officers, while the skies of the Egyptian Sinai were protected from the Israeli Air Force by the Royal Air Force. Indeed, Israeli and British aircraft clashed in 1949.

William Roger Louis, one of the foremost historians of British imperial strategy, uncovered an extremely revealing document from the British foreign office that puts into perspective Israel’s relationship with the European colonial powers at its birth. In his 1984 book, The British Empire in the Middle East, 1945-1951, he describes a meeting on July 21, 1949 of senior British officials at the end of Israel’s War of Independence. Sir John Troutbeck, head of the British Middle East Office, said, “We were in a position to control the Arab governments but not Israel.” He then expressed fear that “the Israelis might drag the Arab States into a neutral bloc and even attempt to turn us out of Egypt.” The original Foreign Office document also expressed concern that the British would lose their airbases in Iraq. In 1956, Israel briefly made common cause with Britain and France against Nasser’s Egypt, but this could not alter the fact that, for the imperial powers, Israel was an obstacle, not an outpost.

Nevertheless, in recent years, the effort to portray Israel as a colonial entity has expanded. For many Palestinian spokesmen, in particular, it became important to deny the historical ties of the Jewish people to their land and to portray them as recent colonialist arrivals to the region—in contrast to the Palestinians, who were portrayed as the authentic native population.

This effort reached an audacious peak when Yasser Arafat denied that the Temple had ever existed in Jerusalem at the end of the July 2000 Camp David Summit with President Clinton. Many of his deputies—from Saeb Erekat to Mahmoud Abbas—have since picked up the same theme. Speaking on November 12, 2008, at a U.N. General Assembly “Dialogue of Religions and Cultures,” the Palestinian prime minister, Salam Fayyad, addressed the historical connections of Islam and Christianity to Jerusalem, but noticeably did not say a single word about Judaism's ties to the Holy City.

In a similar vein, Arafat used to tell Western audiences that the Palestinians are descendents of the Jebusites, with ancient roots in the land. But in Palestinian society, one establishes one’s status by claiming to be a relative latecomer, whose ancestors were from the Arabian families that accompanied the Second Caliph Umar bin al-Khatttab when he conquered and colonized Byzantine Palestine in the seventh century. Even at that time, the Jews were still a plurality—and, perhaps along with the Samaritans, a majority—in the land, six hundred years after the Romans destroyed their ancient Temple and the Second Jewish Commonwealth. This emerges from Professor Moshe Gil’s monumental 800-page A History of Palestine: 634-1099.

Ascertaining the truth has never been the objective of those trying to paint Israel with a colonialist brush. They have been determined simply to conclude that the Jews came as an alien force to Palestine, to advance European interests, rather than see them as a people recovering their historical homeland, where they had deep, indigenous roots.

Dore Gold is an Israeli statesman who has served in various diplomatic positions under several Israeli governments. He is the current President of the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs.

Abbas & Fayyad: Do They Have a Mandate?

Khaled Abu Toameh
August 24, 2010

A president whose term in office expired a long time ago, and a prime minister who won about 2% of the vote when he ran in an election, have now been invited by the US Administration to hold direct peace talks with Israel on behalf of the Palestinians.

Mahmoud Abbas, the president, and Salam Fayyad, his prime minister, have even won the "backing" of two key decision-making bodies that are largely controlled by their supporters: the PLO Executive Committee and the Fatah Central Committee. The 18-member PLO Executive Committee, which met in Ramallah last week to approve the Palestinians' participation in the direct talks with Israel, is dominated by unelected veteran officials.

Only nine PLO officials attended the meeting. The PLO constitution requires a minimum of 12 members for a quorum. This means that, contrary to reports in the Palestinian and international media, Abbas and Fayyad do not have the support of the PLO committee to negotiate directly with Israel.

With regards to the Central Council of Fatah, it remains unclear whether its 21 members ever endorsed the US invitation to hold direct talks with Israel.

Elections for the committee were held on July 8, 2009. The results of the vote, which has been denounced by many Fatah officials as unfair, was that only Abbas loyalists were elected.

Some of the committee members have even issued contradictory statements over the past few weeks regarding the direct talks. In the beginning, most of them seemed to oppose such talks unless Israel agreed to stop settlement construction and recognized the 1967 lines as the future borders of a Palestinian state.

Now, however, most of the committee members appear to have changed their minds -- clearly as a result of immense US pressure on Abbas and the Palestinian leadership.

It is not easy for a committee member who receives his or her salary from the Palestinian government to speak out in public on controversial matters.

So here is a president whose term in office expired in January 2009 -- and who has won the backing of only some of his traditional loyalists -- preparing to negotiate with Israel about extremely important issues such as borders, refugees, Jerusalem, settlements and security.

As if it is not enough that Abbas and Fayyad do not have a real mandate from their people, now they are going to lose what is left of their credibility as they appear to have "succumbed" to the outside pressure.

Abbas is in power because George W. Bush and Condaleeza Rice back then told him to stay, even though his term in office had expired.

Fayyad, who ran in the January 2006 parliamentary election at the head of the Third Way list, won only two seats. His number two, Hanan Ashrawi, has since abandoned him, making him the head of a one-man list.

Abbas was forced to appoint Fayyad as prime minister only because of pressure from the Americans and Europeans, who threatened to suspend financial aid to the Palestinian Authority if the Palestinian president failed to comply.

Fayyad's government was never approved by the Palestinian parliament, known as the Palestinian Legislative Council, as required by the Palestinian Basic Law. Parliamentary life in the Palestinian territories has anyway been completely paralyzed ever since Hamas forced the Palestinian Authority out of the Gaza Strip.

Officials in Ramallah say that the Palestinian leadership is being dragged, against its will, to the negotiating table with Israel. They say that the only reason the Palestinians agreed to hold unconditional talks with Israel is because of threats and pressure from the Americans and Europeans.

Over the past few months, Abbas and Fayyad had been telling their people that there would be no direct talks with Israel unless their conditions are fulfilled. Now, however, they have been forced to drop all their conditions and are being pressured to the negotiating table by Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.

Besides, who said that Abbas and Fayyad would be able to sell any agreement to a majority of Palestinians? How can any Palestinian buy an agreement from them after they told their people that they are going to the talks only because the Americans and Europeans threatened to cut off financial aid?

Any agreement Abbas and Fayyad bring back home will be seen by many Palestinians as the fruit of "extortion" and "threats" and not as the result of peace talks that were conducted in good faith.

Leaders who do not have a clear mandate from their people will not be able to strike any deal with Israel, particularly when it concerns explosive issues such as Jerusalem, refugees and settlements. The Palestinian leadership's decision to negotiate directly with Israel unconditionally has already enraged many Palestinians across the political spectrum.

Abbas and Fayyad are nonetheless not stupid. The two are well aware of the fact that they do not have a mandate to sign any agreement with Israel. This is why they will search for any excuse to withdraw from the direct talks and blame Israel for the failure of the peace process.

Under the current circumstances, it would have been better had the US Administration thought twice before issuing the invitation for the peace talks.

Ayalon: Israel will react to Iran attack accordingly

JPOST.COM STAFF
08/24/2010

Deputy FM addresses Iranian people in Farsi radio broadcast; calls on Iranian people to protest 'aggressive dictatorial regime' that denies its citizens their civil rights.

Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon said that regional war initiated by Iran was a distinct possibility, adding that "Israel is committed to defending its citizens and if attacked will act accordingly." The comments, released Tuesday, came in a Farsi language broadcast on Israel Radio in which Ayalon addressed the people of Iran, taking calls and answering questions . The broadcast was originally aired on Monday. "A fear exists that Iran – as it becomes more pressured by sanctions – will goad those under its patronage in Hizbullah and Hamas to initiate military action against Israel. There’s also a possibility that Iran will make a military move against the Arab Gulf states and harm the flow of oil to the world, in which case the entire situation will degrade into widespread confrontations. Remember that the sanctions are aimed against Iran’s efforts to arm itself with nuclear weapons, and if they don’t elicit results, the United States and other nations might consider other options."
Ayalon emphasized the fact that Israel's problems with Iran were not with the country's people, but rather with the Islamic Republic's regime.

"Israel bears no animosity towards the Iranian people. We have deep respect and aspire to cooperate with them to bring about a better reality in the region. The problem is intrinsic to the Iranian regime and its conduct, particularly regarding the nuclear issue. This is a regime that calls for 'Death to the United States, Great Britain and Israel'. The Iranian regime spreads instability, supports terror, and oppresses its own people. It is impossible to accept atomic weapons in the hands of such a regime.

"The Iranian reactor constitutes a tremendous danger to the stability of the entire region and to world peace in general because, besides nuclear armaments, Iran is also developing a missile system that threatens countries beyond the Middle East, such as Europe. Nuclear weapons in Iran’s hands will enable it to threaten all the Arab governments with its present means (subversive elements in various countries, agents, and so forth). Even now it controls bodies that function as a state within a state, in Lebanon, Yemen, the Palestinian Authority, and other places."

Ayalon called on the "oppressed" Iranian people to protest the dictatorial regime's repeated violations of its citizen's civil rights.

"This is an aggressive dictatorial regime, and all progressive elements throughout the world should take action against it, if only for that reason. Israel congratulates the Iranian people for their efforts to liberate themselves from the burden of the oppressive regime. At international forums, Israel has raised the issue of the suffering of the Iranian people and the cruelty of the regime ruling them. That is the main thing we can do for such an illustrious nation suffering from oppression. But in the end, it is the Iranian people themselves who must take their fate in their own hands and act to achieve their rights. The more the citizens of Iran increase their protest activities, the higher the international support will be."

Jewish Fields and Crops Burned

My Right Word

First, there were stories about Jews uprooting Arab olive trees.

As I wrote there, I couldn't get any information more than the Arab announcement. No confirmation. Have you seen any evidence of their tale? We have a name, Abdelhameed Muhsen, but I don't have his phone number. But I was at Achiyah this morning. And do you know what I saw? I saw lots of Jewish land burnt. Saplings destroyed. In between Achiyah and Esh Kodesh.

The photographic evidence:

a) looking north-east from Achiyah, along the ridge is Jaloud. There's the last Jewish house (at present) in the lower-left corner and the Arab village a few hundred meters on. And in the lower right-hand corner, already you can see the remnants of the third (!) fire in the past 8 days set by Arabs.



b) the burned area there at the bottom of the slope:


c) a close-up of the charred remnants:


d) to the east, the extent of the damage:


e) to the north-east and on the ridge is Kuzra, an Arab village, and center below, more damaged area:


f) Esh-Kodesh on the horizon and the end of the blackened wadi:


Did you hear or see of this series of incidents?

"On What Premises?"

Arlene Kushner

I wrote yesterday about the fact that the Quartet had, in the end, not mentioned pre-conditions in its call for negotiations released on Friday. Almost. But this turns out not quite to be so.

In today's JPost, Khaled Abu Toameh writes that the PLO Executive Committee, which met Friday night, supported talks because they were being held on the basis of a Quartet statement made earlier this year. The Quartet statement referred to was made in Moscow on March 19, 2010. And, indeed, the Quartet statement released on Friday states:

"The Quartet reaffirms its full commitment to its previous statements, including in Trieste on 26 June 2009, in New York on 24 September 2009, and its statement in Moscow on 19 March 2010 which provides that direct, bilateral negotiations that resolve all final status issues should 'lead to a settlement, negotiated between the parties...'"

This is the old "inclusion by allusion" technique. The Quartet did not have to declare that there were pre-conditions, it merely had to declare its commitment to an earlier statement that implied there were such pre-conditions. Friday's statement simply says that there should be direct bilateral negotiations to resolve all issues, etc. This is slippery (and not accidentally so). One must look at the Moscow statement in its entirety to know what's really being referred to.

The text of that statement can be found here:

http://sofiaecho.com/2010/03/19/875958_middle-east-quartets-march-19-statement-in-moscow

While it specifically says there are no pre-conditions to negotiations, it also says:

"The Quartet urges the government of Israel to freeze all settlement activity, including natural growth, dismantle outposts erected since March 2001; and to refrain from demolitions and evictions in East Jerusalem."

And, further, that:

"Recalling that the annexation of East Jerusalem is not recognized by the international community, the Quartet underscores that the status of Jerusalem is a permanent status issue that must be resolved through negotiations between the parties and condemns the decision by the government of Israel to advance planning for new housing units in East Jerusalem."

The readiness of the PLO Executive Committee to move ahead with negotiations is premised, then, on these statements.

And understand that when "East Jerusalem" is referred to, this is not a geographic designation but a political one, referring to everything over the Green Line, so that new housing units in Gilo or French Hill would be prohibited.

~~~~~~~~~~

Meanwhile, MK Ophir Akunis has released an official Likud statement saying that the American statement calling for talks without pre-conditions is a huge victory for Israel:

"It took a year and a half to persuade the international community and the Palestinians that direct dialogue is the only way to reach a solution to the conflict. This is further proof that when you stand up for your principles and do not give in, you can attain diplomatic achievements."

Well... I'm totally on board for our standing up for our principles, and I do believe that standing strong can lead to diplomatic achievements.

But I am not yet convinced that we've genuinely achieved a diplomatic success here. It seems to me, rather, that there is a stalemate -- because the premises on which the two ostensible negotiating partners will be proceeding will not be the same. We will proceed under the assumption that there are no pre-conditions. But the first time we begin to build in eastern Jerusalem (may it be!) Abbas and the PLO will scream and holler that the Quartet said we should not be doing this and we've undermined everything (and perhaps made it impossible to proceed).

This, I would suggest, is a paradigm for the entire anticipated "negotiating process." We and the PA are so far apart on our goals and intentions that there will be neither a meeting of the minds nor genuine negotiations of any meaningful sort.

~~~~~~~~~~

At today's Cabinet meeting, PM Netanyahu made the following statement:

"We are coming to talks from a real desire to achieve a peace agreement between the two peoples, while safeguarding Israel's national interests, foremostly security. I know that there is a considerable skepticism after 17 years having passed since the beginning of the Oslo process. It is possible to understand why this doubtfulness exists. We are seeking to surprise the critics and the skeptics, but in order to do this we need a real partner on the Palestinian side. It is possible to succeed with a hand extended in peace, but only if someone on the other likewise extends one. If we discover that we have a real partner on the Palestinian side, sincere and serious in negotiations, negotiations which will require both sides to take necessary measures, not only the Israeli side but also the Palestinian side, if we discover we have such a partner, we will be able to shortly reach a historic peace agreement between the two peoples.

"This agreement will be based on three initial components: First of all, on real and sustainable security arrangements on the ground; secondly, upon recognition of Israel as the national state of the Jewish People, and this means that the solution of a problem like the demand for return will be realized in the territory of the Palestinian state; and the third component,
the end to the conflict. We are discussing a peace agreement between Israel and a demilitarized Palestinian state. This state, if it should be established after this process, is due to end the conflict and not to be a façade for its continuation by other means...."

~~~~~~~~~~

While it is difficult indeed at times to accept with equanimity the apparent eagerness of our prime minister to negotiate with the Palestinian Arabs, I remain convinced that he is -- as I have discussed on several previous occasions -- playing a very calculated game, walking a tightrope. He does not wish to appear to be the "stumbling block to peace" before the international community -- although the Arabs will do all in their power to counter with charges that make it appear that he is. He plays the game, while setting out stipulations that he very clearly knows are not only important for us but will be rejected outright by the Arabs, thereby insuring that their state does not come into being.

The insistence, alone, of our being recognized as a Jewish state, with "refugees" to be resettled outside of Israel, is a deal-killer. While, by expressing intention that any deal must be end of conflict and not "a façade for its continuation by other means," he is demonstrating awareness of the devious PLO "strategy of stages" and his determination that we not become enmeshed in these Arab plans.

While Netanyahu will be charged with setting out unreasonable demands, it is not because he is genuinely intransigent, but because he is calling the Arabs' bluff. They are totally without sincerity with regard to establishing a peaceful state that would exist at our border.

The trick here is for him to remain strong in his stipulations and red lines, and to avoid falling into a trap devised by either the Arabs or Obama. A tall order, which requires us both to pray a great deal and to express support in a variety of ways.

~~~~~~~~~~

Another way to play this would be to simply say that the PA is still inciting jihad among its young people and supporting Hamas financially, and thus we cannot negotiate now. But this -- which would require great courage and nerves of steel -- is not Netanyahu's style and we would be ill-advised to expect this of him.

His desire to appear before the international community as the cooperative party does have a logic: There is a possibility that when talks fail, the Arabs will charge us with being uncooperative and head for the Security Council. Netanyahu wants to be able to say: Us? I was pushing for direct talks but they dragged their feet. They have no legitimate right to claim redress.

~~~~~~~~~~

One additional comment from Dr. Aaron Lerner, of IMRA. Security interests may be very important in our considerations now, but he is a bit uneasy in finding too much emphasis on this. He wrote today:

"Israel's 'national interests' go well beyond security.

"Israel has a 'national interest,' for example, that for generations to come, Jews will continue to be able to pray at ancient sites sacred to Judaism in places such as Jerusalem, Bethlehem and Hebron...

"Put simply, if the IDF had a special gizmo that could satisfactorily protect Israel's national security interests with Israel finding itself on the '67 lines - including the complete division of Jerusalem, Israel still would have national interests to address on the other side of that line.'

http://imra.org.il/story.php3?id=49109

Let us never forget this!

~~~~~~~~~~
The New York Times the other day informed its readers that the US had "convinced" Israel that there is at least a year until Iran would be able to go nuclear, and that thus there was no reason to rush in bombing Iran. Obama's chief nuclear advisor on nuclear issues, Gary Samore, was quoted as saying, "A year is a very long time."

Well, never mind that a year is a very short time indeed. I read the report from the Times and thought it strange, for this is, as I've been reading it, pretty much what our intelligence has been indicating for quite a while. So now the US has "informed" us of this? Actually, as I've been reading it, the US estimates gave Iran more time, and our people have been saying, no, only a year to two more.

Then along came Jeffrey Goldberg, writing in the Atlantic, confirming my sense of the situation. Goldberg observes that there is no Israeli quoted in the Times article, confirming or denying what it says.

I mention this here only because the Times article created something of a splash.

~~~~~~~~~~

The IDF has announced that Chief of Staff Gabi Ashkenazi will be replaced by Major General Yoav Galant, currently head of the IDF Southern Command. Galant will be the first Chief of Staff to have begun his military career in the Navy. He moved over to the IDF, however, when he was appointed commander of the Jenin Brigade and then later became commander of the Gaza Division.

According to Yaakov Katz, writing in the JPost: "A strong charismatic commander with vast field and combat experience, Galant is well respected throughout the IDF." Galant was organizer of the Cast Lead operation in Gaza, during which time "he insisted on visiting the Gaza Strip during the operation and spending time with battalion and company commanders in the field." He clashed with a more hesitant Ashkenazi, pushing for movement deeper into Gaza.

We can only hope that this report rings true (especially in the light of a major "incident" within the IDF regarding the replacement for Ashkenazi, which I will not explore here, but which had the regrettable effect of tarnishing the IDF image). We desperately need a well respected, highly competent and courageous leader at the helm of the IDF.

~~~~~~~~~~
see my website www.ArlenefromIsrael.info

Will an IDF Withdrawal from the West Bank Mean a Safe Haven for Extremist Groups?

Col. Richard Kemp

* To stand any real chance of success, every insurgent or terrorist movement needs a safe haven to operate from. Israel has had more than a flavor of what it can mean to leave hostile groups in control of lands adjacent to its own borders in southern Lebanon and in Gaza. Any similar move to totally cede control to the Palestinians of the West Bank or a part of Jerusalem would carry immense risk. * Some might argue that a modern high-tech state can monitor hostile activities outside its borders. But surveillance and intelligence collection against a deeply embedded, secretive, extremist network operating within a dense civilian population is the most difficult target, and no national intelligence organization can be confident that it will have a high success rate against such a target.

* It has been suggested that an international force, perhaps a NATO force, should replace the IDF presence in the West Bank, an idea that raises a number of very serious questions. Where are the NATO troops going to come from and how long are they going to stay? Some nations are simply not prepared to put their troops into undue danger.

* What would happen to those who were prepared to take part in such a force when the going got tough, as it inevitably would? Think of Lebanon in 1983 when suicide bomb attacks killed 300 troops and led to the withdrawal of the French and American peacekeeping forces, or al-Qaeda's attack in Madrid which led to the withdrawal of Spanish forces from the Iraq campaign. Just how sure could we be that the electorates in contributing countries would allow their militaries to remain deployed in the West Bank under these kinds of pressures.

* To what extent would a NATO mission get in the way of a vital Israeli effort to protect their own people? Finally, a failed NATO mission and a West Bank under extremist control, flourishing under a security vacuum there, would encourage and strengthen violent jihadists everywhere in the world.



The Implications for Asymmetrical Activity by Extremist Groups

To stand any real chance of success, every insurgent or terrorist movement needs a safe haven to operate from - one that is outside the control of the state being targeted and preferably in a land that is free from interference by the target state or its allies, whether due to geography, the protection of a friendly regime, or operating within a failed state. The Vietnam conflict was a classic example of the use of a safe haven. More recently, in the Iraq campaign, Sunni extremists had a safe haven in Syria which was their main logistic support base and a pipeline for suicide bombers flowing into Iraq. They also used extensive support networks in Iran, which also provided a safe haven for Shi'ite insurgents attacking coalition forces, as well as through the Iranian Revolutionary Guards and Hizbullah, which provided training, organization, munitions, and direction.

Today the Afghan Taliban's safe haven and support base is in Pakistan, although the second largest extremist group engaged in Afghanistan, Hizb-i-Islami, has its main base in Iran itself. In March, General Petraeus, the Head of U.S. Central Command, in testimony to the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee, revealed that Tehran is letting al-Qaeda leaders travel freely between Pakistan and Afghanistan, effectively using Iranian territory as a safe haven, while permitting them also to hold meetings in Iran to plan terrorist attacks against U.S. and other Western targets.

Israel has had more than a flavor of what it can mean to leave hostile groups in control of lands adjacent to its own borders in southern Lebanon and in Gaza. Any similar move to totally cede control to the Palestinians of the West Bank or a part of Jerusalem may have considerable attraction for any peace process, and that is certainly the view of many in the international community. But both prospects would carry immense risk from the perspective of asymmetrical activities against Israel.

Some might argue that a modern high-tech state can monitor hostile activities outside its borders. Yet we've seen many failures of intelligence in relation to offensive activities by conventional forces and war plans by nation-states which are generally relatively easy to identify and monitor. But surveillance and intelligence collection against a deeply embedded, secretive, extremist network operating within a dense civilian population is the most difficult target, and no national intelligence organization can be confident that it will have a high success rate against such a target.

Despite many spectacular successes, including the killing in Pakistan of al-Qaeda's number three, Mustafa Abu al-Yazid, the unrivalled technological supremacy of the U.S. military has failed to effectively dent the Taliban's ability to smuggle munitions and infiltrate large groups of fighters across the Afghan border. I do not for a moment underestimate the difficulties this entails. Jordan's support or effectiveness in countering extremist activity directed at Israel from the West Bank could not be counted upon, and extremists would also seek to destabilize Jordan, an important stepping stone to the destruction of Israel.

We can look again at Pakistan and Afghanistan to get an insight here. NATO puts in a significant effort to coordinate cross-border security measures with the government of Pakistan. Some of this is successful some of the time. Some elements of the Pakistan government have different agendas, supporting the Taliban when it suits them or at least turning a blind eye, but Pakistan itself is suffering a very serious, dangerous, and worsening insurgency from its own Taliban. Despite the contrary views of some, its own Taliban, closely linked to the Afghanistan Taliban, is intent on bringing down Pakistan's government, a goal shared by al-Qaeda leaders in Pakistan, and despite efforts on both sides of the border, insurgents operate with relative freedom. The importance of safe havens to extremists is well understood by the Pakistan military. One of their greatest fears is that NATO forces will withdraw precipitously from Afghanistan, leaving a vacuum from which their own insurgency could be supported and strengthened. That, of course, leaves a prospect of a nuclear-armed state falling into the hands of extremists.


Questions Surrounding a Prospective NATO Peacekeeping Deployment

It has been suggested that an international force, perhaps a NATO force should replace the IDF presence in the West Bank. While I would not exclude that idea in principle, it raises a number of very serious questions. First of all, where are the NATO troops going to come from and how long are they going to stay? Let us not forget the difficulties that NATO has had for years and still has in mustering forces for the war in Afghanistan - and this is for a campaign that is NATO's declared main effort and its only real, current, live operation. Many of the troops that are there are restricted by significant national caveats, including restricting deployments to the safest areas. Some nations are simply not prepared to put their troops into undue danger. Unfortunately, undue danger goes hand in glove with war and with the toughest peacekeeping operations, and the West Bank would fall clearly into that category. Some NATO nations can't operate after dark and they leave the insurgents to control the night, with all the implications that this has.

There is a significant risk that in trying to develop and maintain good relations with all parties, the peacekeepers would instead become the enemy of both sides. Potential contributors to the international forces would know that. What would happen to those who were prepared to take part when the going got tough, as it inevitably would? Think of Lebanon in 1983 when suicide bomb attacks killed 300 troops and led to the withdrawal of the French and American peacekeeping forces. An extremist with global reach will not have forgotten al-Qaeda's attack in Madrid twenty years later which led to the withdrawal of Spanish forces from the Iraq campaign. And let us not for a moment assume that sinister, yet powerful, hands would not turn their attention onto the peacekeeping forces in the West Bank, especially if they showed signs of succeeding in their mission to bring lasting peace into the region. Iran has a track record of stiffening the resolve of insurgent groups that show any sign of faltering in their aggression against Israel, and a track record of attacking Western forces using their proxies.

Just how sure could we be that the electorates in contributing countries would allow their militaries to remain deployed in the West Bank under these kinds of pressures, and how effective would NATO be as a peacekeeping force in the demanding circumstances that we are considering? The only previous success that NATO is able to claim in this field, and it is by no means uncontroversial, was in Kosovo, which also in practice was a far less complex situation.

NATO is, of course, not peacekeeping in Afghanistan, but we can get some insight from its activities there. I've already mentioned the national caveats. Similar difficulties apply to differing national rules of engagement and tactical procedures, including a very wide variety of constraints on air support. Would a NATO mission be ready and able to take on insurgents, and if not, to what extent would they then get in the way of a vital Israeli effort to do so to protect their own people?

After seven years in Afghanistan, how effectively has NATO taken control of the insurgency there? In the six-month period up to March 2010 the number of attacks against NATO forces increased by over 80 percent over the same period in the previous year, and in the same time frame, attacks on the civilian population in Afghanistan were up by over 70 percent. And how assiduous has NATO been in its civilian reconstruction and governance efforts, a critical element of its role in Afghanistan? Reconstruction has been notable by its relative inability to gain traction and provide essential depth for the military element of the counter-insurgency campaign.

In many ways peacekeeping is far tougher and more challenging than fighting as combatants. It is one thing to act robustly against people that are attacking you and your comrades. It is quite another to put your troops' lives on the line when it is not them but others who are in danger. Dutch forces have fought gallantly and effectively in Afghanistan. They've been brave and they've taken many casualties, but Srebrenica cannot be forgotten. More than 8,000 civilians were massacred there in 1995 under the eyes of Dutch UN peacekeepers.

To conclude, I would neither exclude the possibility of an IDF withdrawal from the West Bank nor their replacement with a NATO force, but before either can be seriously contemplated there are some fundamental questions to be resolved. These issues are critical to NATO, the West as a whole, and the entire Middle East because a failed NATO mission and a West Bank under extremist control, flourishing under a security vacuum there, would encourage and strengthen violent jihadists everywhere in the world

"Up to No Good"

Arlene Kushner

The US plans afoot to bring Netanyahu and Abbas to Washington to kick off direct negotiations are most definitely not a harbinger of anything good.

Yesterday, in a briefing for the press, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, accompanied by special envoy George Mitchell, announced that:

"Since the beginning of this Administration, we have worked with the Israelis and Palestinians and our international partners to advance the cause of comprehensive peace in the Middle East, including a two-state solution which ensures security and dignity for Israelis and Palestinians. The President and I are encouraged by the leadership of Prime Minister Netanyahu and
President Abbas and fully share their commitment to the goal of two states - Israel and Palestine, living side by side in peace and security. "After proximity talks and consultations with both sides, on behalf of the United States Government, I've invited Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu and Palestinian Authority President Abbas to meet on September 2nd in Washington, D.C. to re-launch direct negotiations to resolve all final status issues, which we believe can be completed within one year.

"President Obama has invited President Mubarak of Egypt and King Abdullah of Jordan to attend in view of their critical role in this effort. Their continued leadership and commitment to peace will be essential to our success. The President will hold bilateral meetings with the four leaders followed by a dinner with them on September 1st. The Quartet Representative Tony Blair has also been invited to the dinner in view of his important work to help Palestinians build the institutions of their future state, an effort which must continue during the negotiations. I've invited Prime Minister Netanyahu and President Abbas to join me here at the State Department on the following day for a trilateral meeting to re-launch direct negotiations."

See here for the full briefing with press questions:

www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2010/08/146156.htm

~~~~~~~~~~

Also on Friday, the Quartet (the US, the UN, the EU, and Russia) issued a statement, which said in part:

The representatives of the Quartet reaffirm their strong support for direct negotiations between the Israelis and the Palestinians to resolve all final status issues. The Quartet reaffirms its full commitment to its previous statements...which [provide] that direct, bilateral negotiations that resolve all final status issues should "lead to a settlement, negotiated between the parties, that ends the occupation which began in 1967 and results in the emergence of an independent, democratic, and viable Palestinian state living side by side in peace and security with Israel and its other neighbors.

"The Quartet expresses its determination to support the parties throughout the negotiations, which can be completed within one year, and the implementation of an agreement. The Quartet again calls on both sides to observe calm and restraint, and to refrain from provocative actions and inflammatory rhetoric. Welcoming the result of the Arab Peace Initiative Committee in Cairo on July 29, the Quartet notes that success will require sustained regional and international support for the negotiations and the parallel process of Palestinian state-building and the pursuit of a just, lasting and comprehensive regional peace...The Quartet Principals intend to meet with their colleagues from the Arab League in September in New York to review the situation. Accordingly, the Quartet calls on the Israelis and the Palestinians to join in launching direct negotiations on September 2 in Washington, D.C. to resolve all final status issues and fulfill the aspirations of both parties."

www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2010/08/146146.htm

~~~~~~~~~~

What does one say to this except "Oi vey"?

Anyone who has even a modicum of genuine understanding of the situation here (which leaves out a whole lot of people) is able to recognize that this latest effort towards a "two-state solution" is going to go nowhere, but is likely to cause many headaches for us and possibly generate additional violence before it arrives.

An independent, viable, democratic Palestinian state living in peace and security next to Israel, to be established within a year...

The PA is not peaceful, continuing as it does to utilize textbooks that promote jihad and otherwise honor terrorists. Not to mention that a major part of its budget goes to Gaza and ends up in Hamas hands.

It is not democratic. One or two elections do not a democracy make. Never mind that the PA is past due for elections, and that Abbas's term has expired. There is no free press in the PA, next to no human rights.

And viable? This is a joke, when we're talking about the entity that receives more funds per capita than any other group in the world.

But these problems will all be corrected within a year.

Oh, and the small matter of Hamas -- which controls Gaza and is eager to take over a PA state in Judea and Samaria as well -- will be dispensed with. I've lost track of how many times Abbas said that a deal has to include all the Palestinian people?

Can it truly be that the Quartet is doing anything but spouting words here? Can they possibly take their own declaration seriously?

~~~~~~~~~~

From the Israeli perspective, what I see most troubling is the Quartet reference to the Arab Peace Initiative, which -- in supporting, among other things, "right of return" -- is a plan for the slow destruction of Israel, and to the end of the "occupation," which means Israel pulling back to pre-67 lines.

I am further unhappy with a kick-off in Washington, which puts our prime minister under additional pressure.

~~~~~~~~~~

The PLO Executive Committee met on Friday night and, according to WAFA, the official PLO news agency, voted to accept Secretary Clinton's invitation, based on the Quartet statement.

However, the PLO also noted that if Israel didn't "halt all settlement activities, it consequently threatens the continuity of direct negotiations."

http://english.wafa.ps/?action=detail&id=14669

~~~~~~~~~~

And here I stop to note that the Quartet statement did not include this pre-condition, as earlier rumors predicted it would. What had been said is that the US would then follow with a statement without pre-conditions. My assumption is that matters were resolved this way, instead, with no separate US statement.

But the PLO has implicitly laid out that same pre-condition in any event. And negotiator Saeb Erekat, according to the Palestinian news agency Ma'an, was explicit about this today:

"The Palestinian leadership will pull out of peace talks if the Israeli government announces additional settlement construction projects [outside] the 1967 borders (sic), senior Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat confirmed Saturday.

"'If the Israeli government decides, on 26 September, to continue to permit the submission of settlement bids, then there will be no talks,' Erekat said, adding that the stance was reached during the PLO Executive Committee meeting Friday that formally accepted the US invitation to re-start direct talks.

"...Erekat's statement appeared to broaden the demand, however, in stating that any settlement announcement in the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, would be considered provocation. The initial partial moratorium did not include the occupied holy city."

www.maannews.net/eng/ViewDetails.aspx?ID=309683

~~~~~~~~~~

And so here's the deal: If indeed the meeting takes place on September 2, the Palestinians may be counting on Obama to pressure Netanyahu into extending that freeze -- which would be an unmitigated disaster for us. This is one reason why the fact that the meeting is in Washington is such bad news. The turf on which a meeting is held has significant psychological impact.

Or, alternatively, they may simply plan on using this as their out, while blaming us for the failure of the talks.

A great deal will fall to us in the next couple of weeks, with regard to all of this -- and you'll be hearing from me about it. It is imperative that Netanyahu stay strong with regard to not continuing the freeze. The sense I'm getting is that he knows that this would not be a politically viable move here in Israel, but nothing can be left to wishful thinking or chance.

~~~~~~~~~~

What I find interesting is that there has been no direct public statement regarding the talks (that I've uncovered) by PA president Mahmoud Abbas himself, although Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu put out a statement welcoming this opportunity. Perhaps more on Netanyahu's approach later, but here I focus on Abbas.

Clinton said there was consultation with both parties before the invitation was extended. And indeed this is the way such things are done, to insure success of an event of major proportions. But Mitchell, at the press conference, made it clear that "consultation" didn't mean securing acceptance in this instance -- if was, rather, more a matter of letting the parties know what was coming. The PLO didn't even meet to decide whether to accept the invitation until Friday night.

We will presume for the moment that Abbas ultimately will show up in Washington by September 2. But his failure to demonstrate public enthusiasm about this meeting is a large piece of the story. If Abbas does show up, he will have come kicking and screaming.

I hate being tiresome and repeating what's been said before, but it seems I have no choice here: Abbas's reluctance, in and of itself, assures failure. While he may be pushed to sit at the table, he is not going to negotiate anything that includes reasonable compromise, and the net result of the talks will be only failure. More's the pity that Obama et al don't -- or choose not to -- comprehend this.

~~~~~~~~~~

see my website www.ArlenefromIsrael.info

The policeman's a good guy

David Wilder
August 20, 2010

A couple of months ago I had a little shouting match with some of the border police next to Ma'arat HaMachpela, the tomb of the Patriarchs and Matriarchs. After a little while - when we had reached a dead-end - one of the regular police, a little older than the others, came over put an arm around my shoulders, pulled me over to the side and explained to me why I was wrong and they were right. I listened, and finally acquiesced to their demands, and the issue came to an end. This might sound fairly normal and logical, but then again, it must be remembered that this is Hebron. Had the same incident occurred seven or eight years ago, I am sure the ending would have been quite different. The relationship between police and civilians in this holy city was very different. Back then if a police officer approached me, it would not have been to put an arm around my shoulder, it would have been to handcuff, arrest, and start legal proceedings against me - and who knows what else.

However, things have changed. That's not to say that we live in utopia, but at present I certainly do not look at our local police force as enemies. I can truthfully say that I consider some of the police officers to be friends - and to a great degree, the emotions are mutual. Last week a policeman called me a Tzaddik (righteous person). Now, I bear witness that I'm surely not righteous, but hearing those words from a policeman in Hebron left me with the impression that we really are approaching the days of the Messiah!

It should be kept in mind that such episodes cannot be taken for granted. Not too long ago the relationship between police and Hebron citizens could easily have been defined as something similar to open warfare. The police were used as an extended arm of the Israeli political system, and utilized to victimize, oppress and even terrorize us. It wasn't enough that the community had to deal with Arab terror and leftist harassment. Every once in a while, while looking back through photos eight and nine years old, it's difficult to believe that we really had to deal with such brutality. And of course, people in the community didn't 'turn the other cheek,' causing major confrontations, which were quite messy, to say the least.

A few years ago, as the political scene began to change, so did the people comprising Hebron's police force. I was very surprised and to be honest, very suspicious. But over a period of time it became clear that somewhere, someone decided to attempt to change the rancid atmosphere which poisoned the relationship between the police and Hebron's Jewish population. And I can quite happily say that for the most part, it has worked.

For example, yesterday afternoon, Hebron's police sponsored a 'Police-Community Day.' True, not all the kids attended; it was very hot, some were on vacation, and others still have trouble digesting the fact that the police are not out to get us. But a nice group did show up, and enjoyed a fascinating exhibit of police dogs in action, were able to play-drive in a police car (complete with siren -every boy's dream), wear a police vest, carry around a police baton and receive a police hat.

I know this might not sound like much, but to even attempt to carry out such a program in Hebron would once have been thought of as something out of 'Alice in Wonderland.' But it did happen, and I enjoyed it very much.

Alas, innocence is a thing of the past. I'm very well aware that conflict can still arise. So what? Tension between police and civilians is not exclusive to Hebron. It's fairly common all over the world. In Hebron we face, frequently, unique situations which are liable to cause friction between the people in blue uniforms and the civilians. But today, I know that I'm dealing with normal, rational people who are not looking to break our bones because we're Jews living in Hebron - and that's very very important. I can only hope and pray that such a rapport continues, because it makes life much more pleasant and relaxed when you know that the policeman walking down the street really is a nice guy.

"Short and Sweet"

Arlene Kushner

Short, because my time pre-Shabbat is limited this week, and not because there is little to write about -- there's plenty.

Sweet because I begin with a great piece by commentator George Will -- "Skip the lecture on Israel's 'risks for peace.'" He speaks on our behalf with exquisite understanding:

"In the intifada that began in 2000, Palestinian terrorism killed more than 1,000 Israelis. As a portion of U.S. population, that would be 42,000, approaching the toll of America's eight years in Vietnam. During the onslaught, which began 10 Septembers ago, Israeli parents sending two children to a school would put them on separate buses to decrease the chance that neither would return for dinner. Surely most Americans can imagine, even if their tone-deaf leaders cannot, how grating it is when those leaders lecture Israel on the need to take 'risks for peace.' "During Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu's July visit to Washington, Barack Obama praised him as 'willing to take risks for peace.' There was a time when that meant swapping "land for peace" -- Israel sacrificing something tangible and irrecoverable, strategic depth, in exchange for something intangible and perishable, promises of diplomatic normality...

"The creation of Israel did not involve the destruction of a Palestinian state, there having been no such state since the Romans arrived. And if the Jewish percentage of the world's population were today what it was when the Romans ruled Palestine, there would be 200 million Jews. After a uniquely hazardous passage through two millennia without a homeland, there are 13 million Jews.

"In the 62 years since this homeland was founded on one-sixth of 1 percent of the land of what is carelessly and inaccurately called "the Arab world," Israelis have never known an hour of real peace. Patronizing American lectures on the reality of risks and the desirableness of peace, which once were merely fatuous, are now obscene." (emphasis added)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/18/AR2010081804691.html?wpisrc=nl_pmopinions

~~~~~~~~~~

A couple of brief corrections from yesterday's posting:

I wrote, that:

"Berman says that the enrichment plants are the real backbone of Iranian efforts to develop nuclear weapons capability; his own well-informed speculation is that these reactors would be Israel's primary targets."

That was my paraphrase of Berman's statement. I have been advised that enrichment plants are not technically the same as reactors, and so, if there is an error here, it is mine, and certainly not Berman's.

And then, I referred to the situation in Iraq 19 years ago. But we hit the Osirak reactor 29 years ago, in 1981. Guess time flies when you're having fun, or something.

(Thanks, Jeff)

~~~~~~~~~~

After Shabbat there will be more to say about Quartet plans for "peace" negotiations and the issue of our hitting Iran.

For now I leave you with a link to a lovely video about the atmosphere, with regard to Jewish-Arab relations, in Hadassah hospital. I've written from time to time about how a visit to one of our hospitals most vigorously puts the lie to charges that we are an apartheid state. This video is from the video newsmagazine "Israel Up Close": http://www.israelupclose.org/

~~~~~~~~~~

And a laugh before Shabbat from Dry Bones. The White House has put out material indicating that Obama prays every day and is a Christian, because a percentage of Americans are convinced he is Muslim. This is the Dry Bones response:

Obama's Religion : Dry Bones cartoon.

~~~~~~~~~~

see my website www.ArlenefromIsrael.info

Obama to attend Mideast talks in Washington

YNET News

World powers to invite Israelis and Palestinians to begin direct talks on September 2 in US capital, diplomatic source says. According to new draft, negotiations expected to conclude in 12 months Reuters
08.20.10, 07:10 / Israel News

World powers facing a fateful deadline in the Middle East peace process will invite Israelis and Palestinians to begin direct talks on September 2 in Washington, a diplomatic source said on Thursday.



Envoys from the so-called Quartet of powers – the United States, the European Union, Russia and the United Nations – have been discussing a draft statement inviting the two sides to talks intended to conclude a treaty in one year, diplomatic sources said.


Opinion
Postpone peace for later / Gadi Taub
Op-ed: To save Zionism, we can make do with unilateral withdrawal, long-term truce
Full story

Envoys from the Quartet agreed to the details on Thursday, one source told Reuters. A formal statement is slated to be issued on Friday.



"They've got an agreement that the talks will start on September 2 in Washington," said the source, speaking on condition of anonymity.



The Israelis and Palestinians were expected to agree to attend, and President Barack Obama would be present at the talks, the source said.



The White House declined to comment late on Thursday. Obama is currently on vacation in Massachusetts.



The Quartet said in June that peace talks would be expected to conclude in 24 months, but the new draft says 12 months. The Palestinian Authority government intends to have established all the attributes of statehood by mid-2011.



Diplomats say the idea that a unilateral declaration of statehood could win support if talks do not start or collapse in the next 12 months is gaining interest.



The peace process resumed in May after a hiatus of 19 months but is stalled over the terms of an upgrade from indirect talks mediated by US envoy George Mitchell to direct negotiations.



Israel insists it is ready for direct talks provided there are no preconditions. The Palestinians are ready provided there is a clear agenda. Israel says an agenda means preconditions.



Resolving the snag over terms is crucial, diplomats say.



The "invitation to talks" statement by the Quartet has been awaited since Monday.


Face to face

Obama wants face-to-face talks started well before September 26, when Israel's 10-month moratorium on Jewish settlement building in the occupied West Bank is due to end. Full-scale return to settlement construction could sink the talks for good.



US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton spoke by telephone with the Quartet representative, former British Prime Minister Tony Blair, as well as Jordanian Foreign Minister Nasser Judeh Thursday as Washington kept up pressure for talks to resume.



State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley said: "We believe we are getting very close to an agreement to enter into direct negotiations. We think we're well positioned to get there. But we continue to work on the details of this process."



Clinton also spoke to Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak about the peace process on Thursday afternoon, Crowley noted.



The Quartet draft reaffirms a "full commitment to its previous statements." Quartet statements from Moscow, Trieste and New York this year called for a halt to settlement building.



The draft, however, does not explicitly repeat that demand, which would be rejected by right-wingers in Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's center-right coalition.



It simply says that direct, bilateral negotiations that resolve all final status issues should "lead to a settlement, negotiated between the parties, that ends the occupation ... and results in" a state at peace with Israel.



It says negotiations "can be completed within one year." Success will require the sustained support of Arab states, it adds.



Netanyahu may benefit from a move to direct talks, countering the notion abroad that he is not a genuine peace-seeker.



Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, by contrast, has a lot to lose politically. He could be destroyed if he emerged from the process after months of talking as a failed appeaser.



If accepted by Netanyahu as the basis for talks, the Quartet invitation could give Abbas the backing he needs.



Few Palestinians or Israelis believe direct talks would lead to a peace treaty soon, or that one would be quickly implemented if it were ever agreed.



In Israel's coalition, attention is focused on the September 26 settlement moratorium deadline, with a majority of Netanyahu's inner cabinet opposed to extending the settlement freeze, but a minority seeking some compromise that Abbas could swallow.



One idea is to allow building in big established settlements that Israel expects to keep in a peace deal but not in those it would hand over in a land swap with the Palestinians.

Israel: The Canary in the Coalmine

Norma Zager

“I will insist the Hebrews have [contributed] more to civilize men than any other nation. If I was an atheist and believed in blind eternal fate, I should still believe that fate had ordained the Jews to be the most essential instrument for civilizing the nations…” John AdamsWhy in the world should anyone care about Israel? Even many Jewish people are “over it.”



I mean what’s the point? Sure they invent great stuff there, but there are Jews everywhere so who needs Israel? It just causes more trouble for us all. Aren’t most people convinced without Israel the world would be one big party?



I can visualize the celebration. Ding-dong the Jews are dead.



Ahmadinejad and Kim Jong Il dancing in the streets. Every disease would suddenly be eradicated. Everyone would be rich and no more children would be murdered in Darfur. No women would be stoned in Afghanistan.



Those darn Jews. All these problems, and if they would only go way, we could all be so darn happy.



Talking to someone the other day the subject of Israel was broached.

My support for Israel is well known, but my reasons perhaps not, so I will explain.



Aside from the fact I feel compelled as a Jew to honor the hope that Israel represented to the survivors of the Holocaust, the real purpose Ari and I fight so vehemently to ensure its survival is not religious.



Surprised?



The existence of Israel is proof that even after the greatest evil man has known, for one brief fleeting moment, the world’s better nature glowed with compassion and gave the Jewish people back their homeland. This is the symbolic flame of goodness that burns inside man.



Israel is, and will remain, the last hope that evil can be stopped. If the people and country most reviled in the world can survive surrounded by such enemies, it will serve as proof of mankind’s better nature.



Israel is a light among nations and that light is goodness. It is concrete evidence that no matter how evil seeks to destroy its opposite, good will always overcome.



True and unfortunate that too many often suffer before evil is stopped, but the better nature of man always remains victorious and standing in the end.



It is interesting that most of the world’s religions identify the Jewish people as the lawgivers. The Torah is a basis for law among civilized cultures. The Ten Commandments are the core principals of humanity and human treatment toward one another. Yes, we were designated to deliver the laws. However, we were also designated to be the canary in the coalmine of civilization.



Why are the Jewish people so hated? It is because the Lord, or whatever divine spirit controls our world, selected them. Jews are the living proof of God’s protection and mercy on earth.



After all the serious attempts to wipe them off the earth, the fact they are still here despite all odds speaks volumes. Their existence has little to do with tenacity on the their part, but a purpose and design far greater.



If Israel is destroyed it will signal the victory of evil and the end of goodness.



From that moment on humankind will begin a slow but unstoppable deterioration into the depths of self-destruction.



Israel is not about religious shrines, not about the tiny piece of land on which it sits, or even the craziness and political everyday foibles that occur among its politicians.



It is a light, a beam and indisputable proof we are destined for good. That man’s better nature is dominant and must be so. That as we evolve, we evolve to a higher state that separates us further from the animals.



You don’t have to be religious to care if Israel survives. Christian, Muslim, Atheist, it matters not. Purpose transcends all spirituality.


The relationship between the US and Israel is symbiotic.



The United States has always been a force for good. We are the protectors. We fight the playground bullies. We protect the hated, the outcast, the Israel.



We don’t always care as much about the law as the law’s effect on man.



We place kindness and human dignity above all else.



This is why America has thrived and became the greatest nation.



Why it grew so quickly to overcome all others.



And sadly, why it now is falling from Grace.



America needs to stand by Israel, because Americans want their country to do so. It is in the DNA and at their core.



Their feelings transcend religious differences and are based on the principals of our founding fathers. Their hopes for what this nation should, could and would become.



Israel can never be totally protected in the world. It is destined to play its role as the hated, the stepchild, the despised, as a reminder of our responsibility toward safeguarding goodness and human dignity.



Whether one is deeply religious, spiritual or believes in nothing at all, no one can ever deny evil’s existence.



To some it has a name, many names, but whatever its title, it is a power to be reckoned with forever.



As long as humankind exists, good and evil will battle for the souls of man and within him.



Israel is living proof our side is still winning.



I will give Rabbi Menachem Mendle the last word.



“Intolerance lies at the core of evil. Not the intolerance that results from any threat or danger. But intolerance of another being who dares to exist. Intolerance without cause. It is so deep within us, because every human being secretly desires the entire universe to himself. Our only way out is to learn compassion without cause. To care for each other simply because that 'other' exists.


© “Postcards from Israel—Postcards from America,” August, 2010

Contact: aribussel@gmail.com

The ‘disengagement’ disaster, five years on

Jeff Jacoby

http://www.JewishWorldReview.com | Five years ago this week, the Gaza Strip was forcibly purged of its Jews. In the largest non-combat operation in the history of the Israeli Defense Forces, 50,000 troops were deployed to expel some 9,000 residents and destroy the 21 pioneering communities in which some of them had lived for nearly four decades. (Four communities in northern Samaria on the West Bank were also evacuated.) The name given to this expulsion by Israel's government, then headed by Ariel Sharon, was "disengagement." The name implied, and a majority of Israelis appeared to believe, that by totally withdrawing from Gaza they would no longer be trapped in a dysfunctional relationship with Gaza's hostile and sometimes violent Arabs.

"What will we have gained by destroying thriving communities, dividing Israeli society, and embittering some of our most idealistic citizens?" one thoughtful Israeli commentator, Yossi Klein Halevi, wrote at the time in The Jerusalem Post. "The most obvious . . . gain is what we will lose: We will be freeing ourselves from more than a million Palestinians."

Many Israelis -- and many supporters of Israel internationally -- bought this argument, persuaded, perhaps, by the Sharon government's sweeping vision of the blessings that would flow from so radical an act of ethnic self-cleansing. "It will be good for us and will be good for the Palestinians," forecast then-Deputy Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, who was to succeed Sharon a few months later. "It will bring more security, greater safety, much more prosperity, and a lot of joy for all the people that live in the Middle East." Olmert prayed that with disengagement, "a new morning of great hope will emerge in our part of the world," and that Israelis and Palestinians together would make the Middle East "what it was destined to be from the outset, a paradise for all the world."

Had any of this actually come to pass, the trauma and destruction of the Gaza expulsion might have been justifiable. In fact, disengagement was a staggering failure, a disaster in every respect. It was seen by most Palestinians not as a courageous act of goodwill and an invitation to peace, but as a retreat under fire, much like the Israeli flight from southern Lebanon five years earlier. It led therefore not to less terrorism but to more, as Palestinian militants vastly expanded their arsenal of rockets, guns, and explosives, and launched thousands of attacks over the border into Israel.

Far from encouraging Palestinian moderation, disengagement energized Gaza's most extreme and hateful irredentists. Five months after the Jewish residents left, Hamas swept to victory in the Palestinian Authority elections; a year later, it seized total control in Gaza, routing Fatah in a savage civil war.

The fruit of disengagement was not the "new morning of great hope" that Sharon and Olmert -- and their countless enablers in the West -- envisioned. Instead, it was an erosion of respect for Israeli strength and deterrence. It was the Second Lebanon War of 2006 and the three-week Israel-Hamas war that began at the end of 2008. It was the entrenchment of Iran, via Hamas and Hezbollah, on Israel's northern and southern borders. It was the burning of Gaza's synagogues and the trashing of its famous greenhouses. It was the kidnapping of Gilad Shalit, who has been a hostage in Gaza for more than four of the five years since Israel abandoned the territory to its enemies. It was the further blackening of Israel's international reputation. It was the immiseration of Gaza's Palestinians under a fundamentalist Hamas dictatorship.

Most Israelis who supported disengagement now express regret. But too many of them remain in the grip of the "peace process" delusion -- the Oslo chimera that peace with the Palestinians is achievable through diplomacy, concessions, and transfers of land. It isn't, and Israel and its friends must start saying so. Rather than endlessly professing its willingness to negotiate and its appetite for a "two-state solution," Israel should tell the truth: Peace will never be possible with "partners" that refuse to accept the permanent legitimacy of Jewish sovereignty in the Middle East.

Disengagement was an abomination for a lot of reasons, but for one above all: It began from the premise that any future Palestinian state must be wiped clean of Jews. Did Israel really need to learn the hard way that peace will never lie down that road?

PA town square memorial honors suicide terrorist and his attack as "heroic"

http://palwatch.org/main.aspx?fi=157&doc_id=2816

by Itamar Marcus and Barbara Crook

On June 11, 2002, a Palestinian suicide terrorist walked into a restaurant in the Tel Aviv suburb of Herzliya, and detonated a bomb that killed 15-year-old Hadar Hershkovitz and injured 16 others.
The town square in the West Bank town of Madama where the terrorist lived features a monument honoring "the heroic Martyrdom-Seeker" and his "heroic Herzliya operation." The monument has pictures of the suicide terrorist and of Yasser Arafat.

The text above the terrorist's picture is a verse from the Quran, urging Muslims to fight the non-believers and promising that Allah will "lay them low":

[Picture of suicide terrorist and Arafat on monument in town square in West Bank town Madama. [PA TV, May 15, 2010]
"Fight them, and Allah will punish them by your hands,
lay them low and give you victory over them,
and heal the hearts of a believing people." [Quran, 9,15]

Below his picture are the words:
"The heroic Shahada - Seeker (Martyrdom- Seeker, PA term of honor for suicide terrorists) Omar Muhammad Ziyada (Abu Samed) who carried out
the heroic Herzliya operation
on June 11, 2002"

In December 2009 and again in March 2010, PMW reported on the naming of another square after the terrorist Dalal Mughrabi, who killed 37 in a bus hijacking in 1978. World condemnation was unequivocal:

US State Department Spokesperson Phillip Crowley:
"We also strongly condemn the glorification of terrorists. Honoring terrorists who have murdered innocent civilians, either by official statements or by the dedication of public places, hurts peace efforts and must end. We will continue to hold Palestinian leaders accountable for incitement." [April 8, 2010]

US Ambassador Alejandro D. Wolff, U.S. Deputy Representative to the UN, in the Security Council:
"We strongly condemn the glorification of terrorists, either through official statements or by the dedication of public places." [April 14, 2010]

US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, commented on the naming of the square after Mughrabi:
"... glorifies violence and renames a square after a terrorist who murdered innocent Israelis, it insults the families on both sides who have lost loves ones over the years in this conflict." [AIPAC Conference, March 22, 2010]