Welcome!
My most recent postings are below. Access others at Current Postings. Check out informational resources: Background Info, The Other Face of Israel , Useful Websites, and more.
Key Postings brings you previous postings on themes that merit on-going consideration.
If you have questions, or wish to be on my list, contact me, Arlene Kushner: akushner@netvision.net.il. Bookmark this site!
_______________________________________________________________
Read "Moral Atrocity" -- biting British commentary on Goldstone Report.
_______________________________________________________________
November 19, 2009
"UN Human Rights Violation!"
As those of you who read my postings regularly are probably aware, Anne Bayefsky, director of Eye on the UN, is a diligent and responsible critic of the UN, and a reliable source of information on its activities. I am in communication with her from time to time, and rely on her information. She is passionate, and dedicated.
Bayefsky -- who holds credentials as a UN observer by virtue of her position as director of the Institute on Human Rights and the Holocaust at New York's Touro College (an NGO) -- was present in the UN in New York on November 5, when the General Assembly voted to endorse the Goldstone Report.
Outside the General Assembly chamber a microphone is set up for delegates to speak. After the Goldstone vote, the delegate from Libya and the Palestinian observer both utilized this mike in order to speak in support of the Report. Bayefsky then approached the empty podium where the mike stood. She did not anticipate problems, she said, as representatives of NGOs have used this mike in the past without incident.
~~~~~~~~~~
Bayefsky spoke for about five minutes, impromptu. She called the U.N. a "laughingstock" for focusing on Israel and ignoring Hamas human rights violations; she said the lack of balance in the report made it a travesty of justice.
As she finished speaking, she was surrounded by UN guards, who brought her to their office, confiscated her credentials, and escorted her out of the building. Bayefsky reported to Fox news that, as she was brought out of the building, a security officer told her, "the Palestinian ambassador [Permanent Observer of Palestine to the United Nations Riyad Mansour] is very upset at the statement you made." According to Inner City Press, when Mansour, who had walked away, was told that a representative of a pro-Israel NGO had spoken, he asked, "Did we capture them?"
Bayefsky currently awaits either the return of her credentials or a hearing in January or February before the Committee on NGOs. If she must go before the Committee -- which is chaired by Sudan -- she figures her chances are nil. Right now she is being prevented from attending significant meetings. "The frenzy of anti-Israel activity is going on right now," she said. "There's a reason they're keeping me away - this is no accident."
The UN is presenting a very different story, it should be noted. There were claims that her pass had not been revoked, and that there was action against her because she approached the mike without permission and this cannot be permitted.
~~~~~~~~~~
This happened on November 5. I cannot explain why Eye on the UN, where I secured the bulk of this information, only released it today. (Perhaps there had been hope of securing a quiet resolution to the matter.)
I also garnered information at http://www.foxnews.com:80/story/0,2933,575666,00.html (put out today) and http://www.innercitypress.com:80/unga3goldstone110509.html (released on Nov. 5).
~~~~~~~~~~
Sometimes matters are not as they seem, and sometimes they surprise us.
Today, for example, I was just a tad surprised when the news reported that French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner, who is here now, told the Post that our plans to build in Gilo, as regrettable as they might be, did not have to be an obstacle to returning to negotiations.
Kouchner, who has not been a friend, seems to have chosen to refrain from leveling harsh criticism at us and instead to implicitly chastise the Palestinians for refusing to come back to the table.
Apparently he was unmoved by Ahmed Qurei's designation of the Gilo building plans as the "final nail in the peace process's coffin." And it seems he was unruffled even though Saeb Erekat called our plans a "provocation against the international community."
Kouchner said he knew this wasn't a political decision. And he's right. This didn't reach Netanyahu's desk -- it was routinely processed.
Just possibly this time the Palestinians have overplayed their hand, trying the patience even of their supporters.
~~~~~~~~~~
We are still stymied here as to why Gilo, in particular, has made such big news. An American friend tells me that it has made considerable press in the US. Strange, with all that is going on.
Please know that it's not only the residents of Gilo who are reacting -- Israelis in general are irked. As analyst Herb Keinon has pointed out, the way Obama has handled this situation indicates a "continued misreading and misunderstanding of the Israeli public."
After all, writes Keinon, this is not about "a far-flung settlement overlooking Nablus, nor even in one of the settlement blocs like Gush Etzion, nor even a Jewish complex in one of the Arab neighborhoods of the capital, but in Gilo, one of the large new neighborhoods built in the city following the Six Day War.
"...many Israelis [are] clearly dismayed that the US - like Europe - now seems to be considering as settlements the post-1967 neighborhoods in Jerusalem."
Obama had called for a complete settlement freeze that included east Jerusalem, which Netanyahu rejected. "By continuing to press the issue, Obama - who recently showed nascent signs of wanting to engage the Israeli public out of an understanding that if you want to get Israel to make concessions, Israel will need to trust the US president - risks further alienating the Israeli public. According to a Jerusalem Post poll conducted in August, only four percent of Israelis consider him to be pro-Israel."
Says Keinon, one of the assumptions that Obama made when taking office was that the Israeli public was anti-settlement.
"But [the assumption was] mistaken. The Israeli public does not hate the settlements...the large settlement blocs, such as Ma'aleh Adumim and Gush Etzion...are well within the Israeli consensus. And the public certainly doesn't view the neighborhoods of Jerusalem...as 'settlements.'
"Pressing a construction freeze in those areas was widely viewed by the public as an unreasonable demand, especially when it was not accompanied by any demands on the Arabs or Palestinians.
"Rather than rallying around Obama, Israelis have - according to polls that shows Netanyahu's popularity rising - rallied around Netanyahu. And no issue will make them rally even further around the prime minister than Jerusalem."
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1258566462450&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
~~~~~~~~~~
In spite of the focus on Gilo, there actually are a number of matters to report with regard to housing in Jerusalem:
[] A new Jewish housing community -- a private venture on privately owned Jewish land -- is being constructed in Nof Zion, situated adjacent to the Jabel Mukaber neighborhood of eastern Jerusalem, on the Armon Hanatziv ridge. The first stage of building, close to 100 units, is already complete and residents began to move in some months ago.
Ariel Jerozolimksi
Yesterday, the cornerstone was laid for the second stage of building. Construction is slated to begin in six months, and will ultimately add 125 apartments to the community.
Some 100 people gathered for the cornerstone ceremony. MK Danny Danon (Likud) was there. "I have a message for President Obama," he told the crowd. "Take your hands of Jerusalem. Jerusalem belongs to the Jewish people and we have every right to live and raise our children here."
Participating as well was a group of Americans -- lead by NY State Assemblyman Dov Hikind -- completing a tour of Judea and Samaria, and Jerusalem, with an eye towards coming to live here.
[] Also yesterday, in spite of local resistance -- including rock-throwing -- five illegal housing structures were demolished in the eastern Jerusalem neighborhoods of Issawiya and Silwan. This is in addition to two demolished just days before and another 14 slated for demolition. The Municipality of Jerusalem reports that these buildings were all constructed without necessary permits, and at least one was on land designated for a road. The Arab residents claim they cannot get permits.
[] The Jerusalem Municipality has announced plans for the construction of more than 5,000 new housing units for Arab residents of the city:
Construction of 2,000 housing units in Tel Adasah, in north Jerusalem, and 2,500 units in a-Swahra, near Jabel Mukaber, were to begin following final approval by relevant municipal committees, while construction of 500 new housing units in Dir-al-Amud, near Beit Safafa, were in the advanced stages of planning.
~~~~~~~~~~
An observation here: Obama has said that "Settlement building does not contribute to Israel's security."
In point of fact there are issues of security -- maintaining strategic depth around Jerusalem and holding on to the high places in Samaria, from which rockets could be shot at our airport, etc.
But what this teaches us is actually a broader and very important lesson: We should not, we must not, make our case based on security alone. We have rights to build and live in Judea and Samaria born of our heritage in the land and international law going back to the Mandate.
It is time we spoke in these terms.
~~~~~~~~~~
"The Good News Corner"
I have been wanting to write about the economic miracle of Israel, and the amazing entrepreneurship demonstrated by Israelis. Here, instead, I provide you with a video clip of an interview of the co-author of a book called Start-Up Nation. We demonstrate some unique characteristics that do us proud.
http://www.cnbc.com:80/id/15840232?video=1311023934&play=1
~~~~~~~~
November 18, 2009
"Slip-sliding in the PA"
No standing firm on the ground for these guys. With what I suppose they imagine to be nimble steps, they move this way and that. Except that their steps, seen from here, are shamefully clumsy.
Today Saeb Erekat, PA negotiator, declared that Israel was twisting Palestinian words, as they never said they were going to declare a state unilaterally.
No? You could have fooled me.
All they want, he explained, is to preserve the two-state solution, as one state is not an option. And, since negotiations are stalemated (through no fault of theirs, of course), they want the Security Council to endorse the two-state solution, with the border of the new Palestinian state set at the Green (pre-'67) Line.
This strikes me as patently ridiculous. Every mention within the international community of the two-state solution or anything akin to it -- Oslo, which was formally signed, the informally agreed-to Road Map, etc., specifies that the details must be determined via negotiations.
Even SC Resolution 242, which doesn't even mention Palestinians, never mind address a "two-state solution," says Israel's borders must be determined via negotiations.
And let's look back even further than this: When Israel signed an armistice agreement with Jordan in 1949, it stated explicitly that the armistice line that was being established (which is the Green Line) would not prejudice negotiations in the future to determine the final border for Israel. The Green Line wasn't it.
~~~~~~~~~~
At least one Israeli government source is cited as saying that the statement by Erekat is an effort to backtrack after it became apparent that the EU and the US were not supportive of a unilaterally declared state. Slip-sliding...
But I'm seeing something else, as well: "One state is not an option..."
Yet not long ago leaders in the PA were saying that if the negotiations weren't going to progress, it was time to think about one state. Of course, in voicing this threat, they were envisioning a "bi-national state" that would render it impossible for Israel to be a Jewish state -- that would, ultimately, be Arab/Muslim in nature.
But then matters shifted. WE said, well, if negotiations aren't going to progress, and there are going to be unilateral declarations from the PA, we might unilaterally move to assume full sovereignty over significant parts of Judea and Samaria. That would make the bulk of Judea and Samaria, which the Palestinians covet, very Jewish indeed, and block the very possibility of forming a viable Palestinian state.
So they, slip-sliding, said, uh oh, let's reverse tactics.
What we learn from this is the value of making offensive moves and not appeasing.
~~~~~~~~~~
There might have been some advantage to the unilateral declaration of a Palestinian state, however.
MK Uri Ariel, of the right wing Ihud Leumi (National Union), is one of those who sees it this way:
"I pray for Mahmoud Abbas, the president of the Palestinian Authority, to declare a state unilaterally. That is the only way we can finally annul the wretched Oslo accord, which exacted a price in blood and brought the PLO terrorists into the state of Israel.
“A statement of this nature means that the government will have no choice but to annex all of the communities in Judea and Samaria. In practice, it will have to annex the entire region and formally turn it into a part of the state of Israel.”
Everything is so much in flux, it's difficult to predict what will come next. But it remains extremely unlikely that we'll extend sovereignty over even parts of Judea and Samaria except in response to some PA stance that essentially voids Oslo. More's the pity.
At very least there has been a paradigm shift of sorts -- as Israel is making it increasingly clear that return to the Green Line is not an option.
~~~~~~~~~~
And, as the PA leaders continue to slip-slide, we must not forget the option of "armed resistance," which they maintain is their right. This past August, Fatah (the major constituent party of the PA) held a congress, its first in 20 years. This provided the party with an opportunity to genuinely moderate, by adjusting its constitution to eliminate the call for violence. That, however, is not what happened. They continue to embrace this option.
~~~~~~~~~~
And it happens that I see the following news item as having a connection to their embrace of this option:
The PA is calling an international conference, which will be attended by representatives of such countries as Spain, Canada, Britain, Ireland, South Africa, and Sweden who are involved in international legal systems.
A major goal they intend to advance in the course of the conference: Securing a change in the status of their terrorists in Israeli prisons to "prisoners of war."
According to Israel National News, this will enable them to secure more "rights" for the prisoners under the Geneva Conventions. But frankly I find it hard to believe that it would be possible to provide them with any more rights. As it is, I'm ashamed that these terrorists are treated as well as they are. They not only can have family visitations, but also conjugal rights. And they can actually earn a degree from an Israeli university while sitting in our prisons.
I would suggest the possibility that what they really want is to redefine terrorism down. Terrorism, what terrorism? Our brave soldiers are merely engaging in "resistance against the occupation," which is their right under international law. Watch and see.
~~~~~~~~~~
Sources in the Netanyahu government are claiming that there is no crisis with the US over our building in Gilo. Although surprised at the intensity of the US response (with the US saying it is "dismayed" about this), these sources maintain that it is understood that there will be no building freeze in Jerusalem. This reaction, they say, is a show for PA consumption.
I'm not sure if this take is quite accurate. Obama has actually given an interview to Fox news, in which he criticized the plans to build in Gilo, saying this makes it more difficult to re-start negotiations and "embitters" the Palestinians. Embitters? Give me a break.
~~~~~~~~~~
A question occurs to me here:
The statement about how it's understood that there is no freeze in Jerusalem makes it clear that we are abiding by some informal and very quiet agreement regarding a freeze at least in major settlement blocs in Judea and Samaria (whatever the parameters with regard to completing units for which tenders have already been issued).
This was supposed to be done to make the PA happy, so negotiations could begin. Obviously, Obama is still hoping -- oi! is he hoping -- this will happen. But if the PA is intransigent, and there are no negotiations, precisely how long do we wait before we say the deal is off? This is the danger inherent in these open-ended arrangements.
~~~~~~~~~~
The articles about Fort Hood keep coming, and just when I think I've read enough, one appears that is significant enough to merit being shared. (Thanks, Dick B)
This powerful piece has a significantly different tone because it is written by an ex-army man. Lieutenant Colonel Allen B West (US Army, Ret) was actually a Battalion Commander at Fort Hood and is now running for Congress in FL.
He wrote:
"...A military installation, whether it is Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine, or Coast Guard, is supposed to be a safe sanctuary for our Warriors and their families. It is intended to provide a home whereby our "Band of Brothers and Sisters" can find solace and bond beyond just the foxhole, but as family units.
"A military installation is supposed to be a place where our Warriors train for war, to serve and protect our Nation.
"On Thursday, 5 November 2009 Ft Hood became a part of the battlefield in the war against Islamic totalitarianism and state sponsored terrorism.
"There may be those who feel threatened by my words and would even recommend they not be uttered. To those individuals I say step aside because now is not the time for cowardice. Our Country has become so paralyzed by political correctness that we have allowed a vile and determined enemy to breach what should be the safest place in America, an Army post.
"...Saudi Arabia is sponsoring radical Imams who enter into our prisons and convert young men to a virulent Wahabbist ideology….one resulting in four individuals wanting to destroy synagogues in New York with plastic explosives. Thank God the explosives were dummy. They are sponsoring textbooks which present Islamic-centric revisionist history in our schools.
"We must recognize that there is an urgent need to separate the theo-political radical Islamic ideology out of our American society. We must begin to demand surveillance of suspected Imams and mosques that are spreading hate and preaching the overthrow of our Constitutional Republic……that speech is not protected under First Amendment, it is sedition and, if done by an American, treason.
"There should not be some 30 Islamic terrorist training camps in America. That has nothing to do with First Amendment Freedom of Religion. The Saudis are not our friends and any American political figure who believes such is delusional.
"When tolerance becomes a one way street it certainly leads to cultural suicide. We are on that street. Liberals cannot be trusted to defend our Republic, because their sympathies obviously lie with their perceived victim, Major Nidal Malik Hasan.
"I make no apologies for these words, and anyone angered by them, please, go to Ft Hood and look into the eyes of the real victims. The tragedy at Ft Hood Texas did not have to happen. Consider now the feelings of those there and on every military installation in the world. Consider the feelings of the Warriors deployed into combat zones who now are concerned that their loved ones at home are in a combat zone.
"Ft Hood suffered an Islamic jihadist attack, stop the denial, and realize a simple point.
"The reality of your enemy must become your own."
Share this man's words broadly, my friends.
~~~~~~~~~~
"The Good News Corner"
From many places on the earth, there are Jews who come home to Israel. In some cases, individuals whose ancestors were Jews come here to reclaim their heritage and join with us.
See this video of descendants of the Jews of Kaifeng, China, come to Israel to re-connect with their Jewish roots and convert formally to Judaism.
http://www.youtube.com:80/watch?v=edhtdoPukk0 (Thanks, Cheryl)
~~~~~~~~~~
November 17, 2009
"An Eruption of Reason?"
Well, some reason, anyway -- and from a surprising source.
The PA had appealed to the EU for support in their efforts to unilaterally declare a state. I was certain that the response would be encouraging and enthusiastic. After all, the EU has been deeply enamored of the Palestinians for years, exhibiting a political bias in their favor and lavishing upon them huge sums of money for which they demand insufficient accountability.
But no! I was wrong. This is what Carl Bildt -- the foreign minister of Sweden, which currently holds the rotating EU presidency -- said today:
"The conditions are not there as of yet...I would hope that we would be in a position to recognize a Palestinian state, but there has to be one first, so I think that is somewhat premature."
Forgive me if I take a moment to savor this. "There has to be one first..." Chickens coming home to roost. All these years in which the PA leaders did zilch to build the solid basis for a state has perhaps caught up with them. They imagined, perhaps, that they could coast forever -- constructing a virtual state diplomatically without actually producing one.
Methinks that the response was a self-protective one, at bottom. Ultimately the EU would look silly if it backed a state that doesn't have its act together and would fail to function.
But oh, the disappointment in Ramallah must be huge right now. (Although Abbas, predictably, says he'll keep at it.)
~~~~~~~~~~
In point of fact, the Palestinians have been there, and done that, before.
In 1988, the Palestinian National Council (the legislative body of the PLO, which at that time met in Algeria) proclaimed an independent state, which was endorsed by the UN General Assembly. This was via Resolution 43/177, which "acknowledged the proclamation of the State of Palestine by the Palestine National Council...and affirmed the need to enable the Palestinian people to exercise their sovereignty over their territory occupied since 1967."
What happened subsequent to this was nothing. Because there was no state. You will note, please, that there is no representative from Palestine in the General Assembly, only a Palestinian with observer (non-voting) status.
~~~~~~~~~~
To declare a state unilaterally a second time would not be terribly smart. In fact, right now it seems that this whole gambit is likely to weaken the PA, and diminish whatever respect it has in the street and internationally. Abbas has backed himself out on a limb and cannot climb down without looking foolish.
Ultimately this may strengthen Hamas, which will have a field day with the failure of the PA to garner international support.
The State Department has come out solidly for formation of a Palestinian state only via negotiations, and the EU has declared itself prepared to help get the PA back to the table. But if the PA does return to the negotiating table -- even though we haven't, in line with absolute PA demands, frozen all building activity in Judea and Samaria and Jerusalem -- its position will be diminished by virtue of the fact that it was coerced.
Arabs, culturally, are very big on issues of pride and face. On at least two occasions already, Abbas has been upset with Obama for pushing him to take positions he didn't want to. Once in September, when Abbas met with Netanyahu on the sidelines of the UN, after swearing he wouldn't. And a second time weeks later, when Abbas, at US prompting, withdrew a motion in the UN Human Rights Council on the Goldstone Report, which caused him considerable flack in the Arab world and prompted a quick reversal. He's barely recovered from that.
If the PA refuses to come back to the negotiating table, there would be stalemate, which would not sit well at all in a number of Western capitals, most notably Washington DC. What I wonder at this point is whether Abbas is willing, or able, to be coerced into backing down.
~~~~~~~~~~
You might be interested in seeing a piece by Jonathan Schnazer of the Jewish Policy Center, regarding ways in which a unilateral declaration of statehood could backfire on the PA.
www.jewishpolicycenter.org/1502/unilaterally-declaring-a-state-could-backfire-on
~~~~~~~~~~
Now as to a decision, or policy statement, that does not reflect a whole lot of reason. (Can't expect too much reason in one day, I guess.)
US Envoy Mitchell, acting on behalf of his government, has brought pressure to bear on us to stop building in the southern Jerusalem neighborhood of Gilo. Gilo? It seems strange that the US should focus on this neighborhood in particular (but see more below).
Gilo is fully within the municipal borders of Jerusalem and is constructed on land that had been Jewishly purchased (there is no suggestion that it rests on Arab land). It made news repeatedly some eight years ago when there was shooting at residential housing along its southern periphery by terrorists in adjacent Beit Jala.
While it is beyond the Green Line, so are numerous other neighborhoods of Jerusalem -- Ramat Eshkol, French Hill, Pisgat Zeev, etc. From our perspective, this is irrelevant as it falls within full Israeli sovereignty and is an integral part of the city.
~~~~~~~~~~
The pressure from Mitchell in this regard has had no effect on Israeli policy. Just today Jerusalem's Construction and Planning Committee approved the building of 850 new housing units, and Interior Minister Eli Yeshai signed the approval.
Said Jerusalem mayor Nir Barkat, in a statement released by his office:
"Israeli law does not discriminate between Arabs and Jews, or between east and west of the city. The demand to cease construction just for Jews is illegal, also in the US and any other enlightened place in the world.
"It is inconceivable that the US government would demand a construction freeze in the US based on race, religion or sex, and the attempt to demand this from Jerusalem constitutes a double standard and is unacceptable. The Jerusalem Municipality will continue to enable construction in every part of the city for Jews and Arabs alike."
Bravo!
~~~~~~~~~~
And here we have a PA response to this, from Saeb Erekat:
"We condemn this in the strongest possible terms. It shows that it is meaningless to resume negotiations when this goes on."
Meaningless, huh? Does this provide a clue regarding whether the PA will ultimately back down and come to the negotiating table?
I want to get this straight: If they can't get Gilo, there's no point negotiating a Palestinian state?
~~~~~~~~~~
The British government also objected, saying:
"The Foreign Secretary has been very clear that a credible deal involves Jerusalem as a shared capital. Expanding settlements on occupied land in east Jerusalem makes that deal much harder. So this decision on Gilo is wrong and we oppose it."
So let's take a look at a map. (The Green Line is yellow here.) Gilo is not even in the east of Jerusalem. It is, as I said, beyond the Green Line to the south. Everything that was not in Israeli possession before '67 is being called "east Jerusalem." And the presumption being made is that it all belongs to the Arabs.
In their dreams.
~~~~~~~~~~
"In their dreams" is pretty much what Gilo residents have to say about this, as well. YNet is reporting that people in the neighborhood are furious about the US demands, which they see as totally out of line.
Most interesting was this quote from Meir Turgeman, a Jerusalem council member, who blames what's happening on "collaborators who went and leaked it out."
He explained:
"I don't believe that the Americans are up to date on the construction situation in Gilo and they aren't interested in it either. This came from within. There are people in this country and on the city council who are collaborating with external bodies who don't have Jerusalem's best interests at heart.
"There hasn't been construction in the Gilo neighborhood in over 10 years. What brought it on the agenda now all of a sudden? This is a good and diverse neighborhood. An example of Arabs and Jews living together in peace for many years.
"If anyone supports this and freezes construction in Gilo, the neighborhood's residents will go out and fight. We will not sit quietly and we will not allow any government to hurt Gilo."
So, Bravo! a second time.
~~~~~~~~~~
Yesterday I wrote about the way in which former president Clinton misused demographic data to make the case that we must give the Palestinians a state before our Jewish state is swallowed up. That argument has been thoroughly debunked. To begin with, there was an over-estimation in the number of Palestinians in Judea and Samaria, and Gaza. An over-estimation to the tune of about 1 million people. In addition, Palestinian birthrates have either stabilized or dropped (during various time periods), while Jewish birthrates have increased.
To see details and have access to various articles on the subject, see:
http://www.israeldemography.com:80/ (Thank you Michael W.)
~~~~~~~~~~
One more article (of the probably dozens I've seen) on the Fort Hood jihad massacre. This by Charles Krauthammer, who speaks of "Medicalizing mass murder."
"...Presto! Secondary post-traumatic stress disorder, a handy invention to allow one to ignore the obvious.
"And the perfect moral finesse. Medicalizing mass murder not only exonerates. It turns the murderer into a victim, indeed a sympathetic one. After all, secondary PTSD, for those who believe in it (you won't find it in DSM-IV-TR, psychiatry's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual), is known as 'compassion fatigue.' The poor man -- pushed over the edge by an excess of sensitivity."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/12/AR2009111209824.html
~~~~~~~~~~
Then you might want to see what was put out on this by Caroline Glick's "Latma" website of satirical video clips:
http://www.carolineglick.com/e/2009/11/video---latma-on-ft-hood-attac.php
~~~~~~~~~~
Iran, Iran, Iran. The story that was horrendous gets more horrendous, as IAEA inspectors conclude Iran may have more hidden nuclear plants. And still Obama waivers.
~~~~~~~~~~
November 16, 2009
"Responding with Strength"
The Palestinian claims continue:
They're preparing their state for unilateral independence. Abbas has already spoken to UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon. PA leaders have already approached the EU and they plan to take the issue to the Security Council. Etc. etc.
~~~~~~~~~~
But now we're starting to see our government's response to these threats. At yesterday morning's Cabinet meeting there was a stiffening of positions.
Silvan Shalom (Likud), Deputy Prime Minister, who's been singing a less conciliatory song of late, said:
"I think the Palestinians need to know that unilateral moves will not yield the results they hope for. Every action will receive an appropriate Israeli response."
While Minister of Infrastructure Uzi Landau (Yisrael Beitenu) declared:
"The unilateral Palestinian move is a hostile initiative. I think it is brazen. The initiative is meant to torpedo any chance for negotiations. It must be made clear that any unilateral declaration on their part that is meant to deteriorate the chances for negotiations needs to be accompanied from our side with annexation of territories in Judea and Samaria."
~~~~~~~~~~
Broadly, what he was referring to were the Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria -- not all of Judea and Samaria, which would include areas that are heavily Arab-populated. Within Jewish-populated Judea and Samaria are some major community blocs, a few cities, a scattering of smaller villages, and that small part of Hevron that we control, with Kiryat Arba immediately adjacent.
Caroline Glick, in her column last Friday, made a similar suggestion. She said that -- in response to the various pressures and attempts to diminish us that we currently endure -- it's time to incorporate into Israel all Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria, plus the Jordan Valley, which is crucial for our security.
Technically, the process would not be one of annexation, for these areas are part of unclaimed Mandate land. All we need to do is claim them, by extending Israel's civil law to these regions -- just as we extended civil law to eastern Jerusalem and the Golan. (Communities in Judea and Samaria today are administered under Israeli military law.)
While ALL of the land is ours from the river to the sea, extending Israeli civil law to areas such as Ramallah would be a "tad" difficult now. This could have, and should have, been done in 1967.
But how marvelous it would be if we made it clear to the world that Gush Etzion, and Ma'aleh Adumim, Ariel, and Shilo, and Beit El, and Jewish Hevron (see below) and Kiryat Arba, etc. etc. are all fully under Israeli sovereignty. That there could be no expectation, ever, of our returning to pre-67 lines. And how wonderful for the residents of these areas, finally and at long last, to be governed under the same laws that govern residents of Tel Aviv.
What Landau was suggesting was something that would be done only in response to a unilateral Palestinian action.
But to have this mentioned in a Cabinet meeting... a move in the right (double entendre intended) direction.
~~~~~~~~~~
That Prime Minister Netanyahu was thinking roughly along the same lines was made clear later in the day yesterday.
For the past two days a major Forum has been held here in Jerusalem, run by the Saban Center for Middle East Policy (which is part of the Brookings Institute in Washington DC and is directed by Martin Indyk).
Last night Netanyahu addressed the Forum. His talk included this:
"There is no substitute for negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian Authority and any unilateral attempts outside that framework will unravel the existing agreements between us and could entail unilateral steps by Israel."
~~~~~~~~~~
Today, Landau, in cooperation with Transportation Minister Yisrael Katz, has carried this one step further, proposing legislation with regard to extending our sovereignty. The full content of that proposed legislation has not been spelled out (if indeed it is even worked out), but what seems clear is that it is conceptualized as a response to a Palestinian unilateral move.
But now Landau was a bit more specific, and a great deal more expansive, in terms of what areas he is talking about: "Israeli sovereignty over all of area C." (Citation from to the Post.)
This refers to the division of Judea and Samaria agreed upon with the Oslo Accords: Area A = full PA control, Area B = PA civic control and Israeli military control, and Area C = full Israeli control. This encompasses an area far greater than that of all the Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria combined -- which comprise less than 5% of the whole.
Designed as it would be to counter Palestinian unilateral action, it would render a Palestinian state an impossibility.
I hasten to caution, however, that unless we're pushed a whole lot harder, something like this is not likely to go very far in the Knesset. In fact, it's most likely to go nowhere. More's the pity.
But I like it that this is entering the political discourse.
~~~~~~~~~~
I would like here, in this context, to recommend an article by Timna Katz, "Love of the Land: The Testing Ground of Shdema":
"The lesson of Oslo is tragic but profound. Oslo turned the 'peace process' into the country’s supreme value and goal. To keep this process going, the Israeli leadership was prepared to sacrifice almost every Jewish and Zionist truth. It exchanged the old values and ideals for a realpolitik that served the enemy’s narrative and goals. Even when the results of Oslo proved to be the polar opposites of its intended goals -- war instead of peace, increased Arab rejectionism instead of increased Arab acceptance, international isolation instead of international normalization – Israel continued down the same disastrous path. The one and only justification against total capitulation to Arab demands that Israel mustered was the ‘security’ card: Israel can’t immediately relinquish all of Yesha because she has no choice but to defend herself against ‘terrorism’.
"While the damage of the above approach has been great, its bankruptcy has become so evident that even current leaders who continue to dance to the Oslo tune have started to pay lip service to the old values and truths: that the Land of Israel belongs to the Jewish People and Jews cannot be ‘occupiers’ in the Biblical heartland and cradle of their civilization."
http://rickscafamerican.blogspot.com/2009/11/love-of-land-testing-ground-of-shdema.html
~~~~~~~~~~
Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman has predicted that the chances that a unilaterally-declared Palestinian state would receive Security Council sanction are very low. In addressing the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee today, he said:
"...the Americans also understand that unilateralism buries any chance for peace. They will be very uncomfortable with such a move." And indeed, US senators visiting here today expressed displeasure with PA intimations of unilateralism and the expectation that the US would veto this.
Leiberman then reiterated the government position:
"Any unilateral move will be met with a unilateral move on our part. We have a lot to do in response."
And he made a very significant point:
"Unilaterally declaring a state is a violation of the agreements [the PLO] signed with Israel, and Israel will also be freed of its obligations."
~~~~~~~~~~
What irks me the most is the way in which the PA continues its eternal role as victim -- in this instance painting itself as the negotiating partner ever-eager for peace that has had to confront an intransigent Israel.
Consider this statement today by Ahmed Qurei, member of the PLO Executive Committee and former PA prime minister:
"So far we have made negotiations our top priority, but this has led nowhere apart from additional settlements, creating facts on the ground and reinforcing the process of Judaizing Jerusalem."
"...as people living under occupation, we are committed to looking into other options. Diplomacy is an option, turning to the UN is an option, the popular struggle is an option. All options are available and we have many possibilities."
~~~~~~~~~~
I will remind one and all that:
[] The PLO is still committed to Israel's destruction, having never amended its charter.
[] The PA during the entire period of Oslo has supported terrorism in one guise or another.
[] The PA textbooks are still rife with incitement.
[] The PA idea of negotiations is to make intractable demands without conceding anything. They are still seeking return to pre-67 lines (including in Jerusalem) and return of "refugees."
[] The PA was twice offered a state in negotiations and twice turned it down.
[] Since the formation of the PA via Oslo over 15 years ago, this authority has neither built proper infrastructure nor established the civic underpinnings for a responsible and self-sufficient state.
Note: The PLO is the over-arching umbrella organization that ostensibly speaks for all Palestinians; it negotiated the Oslo Accords. The PA is the (theoretically interim) administrative entity established by Oslo. In reality the two are broadly overlapping.
~~~~~~~~~~
Former president Bill Clinton also spoke at the Saban Forum. He talked turkey to the Palestinians, telling them, "Take where we are and the reformulation of the settlement issue and find a way [to move forward]," by which he meant it was time for them to stop making a federal case about the fact that Obama had insisted on a settlement freeze and then backed off on that.
But he also threw statements at us -- in an attempt to push us along -- that were either inaccurate or unreasonable. First, he used the demographic card, telling us that because Palestinians are having children at a faster rate, our Jewish state is at risk. But this argument has been disproved by statistics in recent years.
And then he said that it was only a matter of time before Hamas would be able to put a GPS system on its rockets launched into Israel. "The trajectory of technology is not your friend, … you need to get this done and you do have partners."
This facile warning, this attempt to frighten us into an agreement, on the face of it is nonsense, because we're currently supposed to be negotiating with the PA in Judea and Samaria, and Hamas in Gaza is outside the loop in any event.
Why do ostensible leaders (or former leaders) persist in ignoring this elephant in the room?
~~~~~~~~~~
"The Good News Corner"
This past Shabbat we read "Chaye Sarah" as our Torah portion. It tells of the death of Sarah and the purchase by Avraham of a field, which held a cave, for Sarah's burial. This was in Hevron, and Avraham paid Ephron the Hittite 400 silver shekels for it. (Bresheit 23:16) All of our patriarchs and matriarchs, with the exception of Rachel, are buried there, in the Ma'arat HaMachpela. (The original double cave is hidden way beneath the current structure.)
It is customary in recent years to visit Hevron during the Shabbat of this reading. But this year was incredible: 20,000 people came. They were hosted by families in Hevron and in adjacent Kiryat Arba. They slept in yeshiva buildings and in tents.
Surely this is something akin to a miracle, and echoes the theme of the awakening of our people that is emerging slowly now.
For more about the Machpela: http://www.machpela.com/. Enter the site, take the tours.
~~~~~~~~~~
November 12, 2009
"No Closer"
...to understanding what is going on. Not happy about what I'm seeing. But also certain that what I'm seeing is not the whole story, and that until we know that story judgment is impossible.
From Washington, PM Netanyahu flew to Paris, where he met with President Sarkozy. News reports today have it that Netanyahu delivered a message to Syrian president Bashar Assad that he would be willing to resume negotiations with Syria at any time and any place, without preconditions. Assad is supposed to be in Paris to meet with Sarkozy today and presumably will get this message.
Huh? you may be asking. What?
Assad is the one who has been putting out feelers regarding seeking "peace" in recent days, but has explained that achieving peace doesn't come only via negotiations, it also involves "resistance."
Syria was the destination point for the horrendous collection of weapons confiscated on the arms ship Francop. Just as Syria has fostered the smuggling of weapons across its border to Hezbollah in Lebanon, in violations of the embargo on arms to Hezbollah. And Assad has declared how solid is his nation's relationship with Iran.
Does Netanyahu really see it as constructive to have peace negotiations with Syria now? Does he think there may be the opportunity to reach an honest agreement that is beneficial to us?
~~~~~~~~~~
I may be one of the last hold-outs on the right. It's possible that Netanyahu has flipped. It's possible he has sold out. (I know I'm likely to hear from people who tell me it's obvious he has.) But I'm going to say what I said the other day: I don't know. I am nervous as hell, but will not yet judge because my information is insufficient.
I remain ever mindful of the broader context -- including the need for support with regard to Iran -- that must be factored into the equation. It's a big step from selling Israel out to playing a game in order to position Israel better at a very threatening time. That game is dangerous, but Netanyahu may be proceeding with appropriate intent. May. We have not yet heard about anything that he has actually conceded or caved on. No concessions he has made. It's all worried speculation. And a lot of secrecy.
Consider this: Assad's unequivocal demand is to have the Golan Heights returned to Syria. Matter of national pride and all that. He always says there will be no peace with Israel without that.
Netanyahu knows this very well. He knows that this is a pre-condition that Assad insists upon, whether formally or not. Yet he says he is willing to enter negotiations with Syria if there are no pre-conditions. Does he expect at the get-go that his offer will be rejected by Assad? Is he planning a "pretend" negotiation that will lead nowhere?
Or...is he prepared to relinquish the Golan under the "right" circumstances?
According to the newspaper al-Arabiya , Netanyahu said in Paris that he would relinquish the Golan in return for peace. The prime minister's office absolutely denies this.
~~~~~~~~~~
The Golan is legally part of Israel proper, governed under Israeli civil law. That makes its status different legally from that of Judea and Samaria. Netanyahu cannot simply sign away the Golan -- the process would be stringent.
I will not review here in detail all of the many reasons why we should never, ever give up the Golan. But if this issue becomes serious, you can bet I'll come back to it.
~~~~~~~~~~
Let us, for the moment, return to our other headache, the Palestinians:
A senior official in Fatah announced today that the PA Central Elections Committee is going to recommend that the elections (for president and the legislature), scheduled for January 24, be postponed because it would not be possible for Palestinians in Gaza to vote.
Gee, what a surprise.
~~~~~~~~~~
Understand please that Abbas has not resigned. He simply declared with great drama that he was weary and would not run in the next elections. So... if the elections are postponed until who-knows-when, for the interim he is still PA president.
And factor this in, as well: According to the newspaper Asharq Al-Awsat in London (as cited in IMRA), the Fatah Central Committee has declared itself firmly in favor of Abbas as the candidate for the presidency. (Abbas has been pumping for this sort of endorsement.)
What is more, according to this paper, in the event that Abbas does decide not to run when the election is finally held, there is no support within the Central Committee for the candidacy of Marwan Barghouti, who is a member of the Central Committee now, but serving five life sentences in an Israeli prison. (The assumption is made, repeatedly, that he'll get out in the course of a trade, and thus be able to function politically within the PA.)
This is interesting, as Barghouti is frequently touted as a possible successor to Abbas and the man best able to make things happen. There are even left-wing Israelis who have -- ludicrously -- pumped for this.
~~~~~~~~~~
Lastly we have this: According to the Palestinian news agency Maan, Hamas leader Dr Aziz Ad-Dweik has announced that by the end of this month Hamas will sign the reconciliation agreement brokered by Egypt. Egypt has penciled into the margins of the agreement some reservations voiced by Hamas -- what, specifically, was not explained, but we know that attending to Hamas reservations can only lead to greater radicalism. At any rate, Hamas now feels its concerns have been attended to.
Declared Dweik, "By the end of the month you'll hear what will delight your hearts."
The PA already signed the Egyptian proposal, but will have to sign, or initial, the new, adjusted agreement. No problem is anticipated on this score (but who knows). The signing would signal the beginning of the process of establishing a unity coalition.
Then there would be a whole new drama to attend to, with a different dynamic in place.
There are all sorts of heavy implications, regarding the "peace process," establishment of a state, and the training by the US of PA security forces (a big concern). I will visit each of these issues as the situation unfolds.
I am particularly interested in seeing how those supporting a Palestinian state will respond to a Fatah-Hamas coalition (should it evolve), and what sorts of pretzels they'll turn themselves into as they seek to justify it. I hope that the Hamas reservations are sufficiently blatant in their radical perspective so that it will be impossible to claim that Hamas has "moderated."
~~~~~~~~~~
Thank Heaven for Shabbat, especially after this upside-down week. Next posting will be early next week.
~~~~~~~~~~
November 11, 2009
"Round We Go"
November 11 is the day that WWI stopped, 91 years ago. In the US, this day -- which was once Armistice Day -- is now celebrated as Veterans Day, to honor soldiers who served in all American wars. In light of what is going on at this time, honoring the fighting men who give of themselves to protect freedom could not be more appropriate.
~~~~~~~~~~
But here we sit, and there is the sense of going round, of spinning with the rumors and the game-playing. Not being able to tell quite what is the truth of our situation or where we'll end up.
One piece of information I received today -- off the record -- may be encouraging. And while I cannot share the information, I can certainly pass on my tentative sense that it's not all bad.
~~~~~~~~~~
However, there is absolutely nothing optimistic about the declaration by Fatah Central Committee member Mohammad Dahlan that the PA may seek a resolution by the Security Council that would recognize the borders of a Palestinian state. I shared here just days ago the comment by former law professor Ruth Lapidot that there is no agency that recognizes nations, so whether the Palestinians could pull this off at all is debatable.
But at the end of the day, we must hope that Obama, committed to the negotiation process, would veto this as inappropriate.
Abbas -- in a talk he gave at his Mukata headquarters in Ramallah in commemoration of the fifth anniversary of Arafat's death -- echoed Dahlan's theme:
"A Palestinian state is a truth recognized by the world, and we are now leading a battle to have its border recognized."
Sounds like this is the tactic they've settled on for now.
~~~~~~~~~~
But even this is complicated. Khaled Abu Toameh, in a piece today, reported that Al-Quds al-Arabi in London is saying that some members of Fatah are criticizing Fayyad's plan for a state in two years, because they had not been consulted in advance. So their power struggle might at some level undercut plans to advance their state. (Nothing new in that.)
~~~~~~~~~~
Returning to Abbas and his talk at the Mukata: Assuring the crowd that the Palestinian people will not give up, he declared that "our revolution is the most difficult and the longest revolution in history."
He didn't explain why the "revolution" continues, when the people could have had a state in 2000, and again in 2008. His mentor, Arafat, turned down the first offer, and he, the second.
Instead, he delivered the inevitable accusations:
"Israel is violating international law. Israel is behaving like a country above law. The international community must force Israel to stop its violations and end its occupation of the Palestinian territories, including east Jerusalem.
"We gave peace a precious chance, but we see that Israel is continuing to steal land and 'Judaize' Jerusalem. This is in addition to excavation under al-Aksa mosque."
"Judaizing Jerusalem" One of my favorite of the accusations coming from the PA. Is this not an oxymoron, as Jerusalem IS Jewish?
But with the oxymoron, came the libel -- that blatant and ubiquitous lie -- regarding excavations under the mosque. They never quit.
~~~~~~~~~~
Could this, just possibly, be enough to move Obama with regard to his position on Iran?
According to official Iranian media sources, last night, at a meeting of the Committee for Economic and Commercial Cooperation of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, Ahmadinejad placed a challenge before Obama. It's time, he said, for the American president to make good on his promise of "Change."
"The support of both Israel and Iran can't go hand in hand. No change is made unless great choices are made.
"We would welcome the changes, and wait for big and correct decisions to be made… We will clasp any hand that is extended sincerely toward us, but changes should be made in practice."
Put plainly, Ahmadinejad was saying, "Obama, old buddy, it's us or Israel, you can't have both."
Now, it's something of an understatement to say that Obama has bent over backwards overlooking and justifying unacceptable behavior from Muslim nations. But this sort of audacious challenge might be too much for even him.
~~~~~~~~~~
The Security Council held a closed-door debate yesterday about implementation of resolution 1701, which brought our 2006 war in Lebanon to a close. In the course of the discussion, according to one participant, the US accused Iran of violating a UN arms embargo by secretly sending weapons to Syria via the arms ship the Francop.
US deputy ambassador Alejandro Wolff told the council that the concealed arms shipment, "clearly manifested from Iran to Syria" -- in violation of a March 2007 arms embargo -- provides "unambiguous evidence of the destabilizing proliferation of arms in the region."
Israel has released documents -- such as a customs form from the Iranian Armed Forces -- and photos to substantiate the fact that the origin of the arms cache was Iran and that its destination was Syria.
What I want to know is, now that the closed door session is over and the accusation has been made -- what? Where do we see follow-through, penalties, restriction on Iranian activities, or plans for increased sanctions?
Where do we even see a public statement on this by the US?
~~~~~~~~~~
I recommend Daniel Pipe's comments on the events at Fort Hood. Identifying himself as "a charter member of the jihad school of interpretation," which "perceives Hasan's attack as one of many Muslim efforts to vanquish infidels and impose Islamic law," he rejects other explanations of Hasan's actions as "weak, obfuscatory, and apologetic."
What makes his piece stand out is that he lists a number of other jihadist attacks and the lame explanations that were offered with regard to them. For example: "His recent, arranged marriage may have made him stressed" (killing with an SUV in northern California).
Pipes concludes:
"If the jihad explanation is overwhelmingly more persuasive than the victim one, it's also far more awkward to articulate. Everyone finds blaming road rage, Accutane, or an arranged marriage easier than discussing Islamic doctrines. And so, a prediction: what Ralph Peters calls the army's 'unforgivable political correctness' will officially ascribe Hasan's assault to his victimization and will leave jihad unmentioned.
"And thus will the army blind itself and not prepare for its next jihadi attack."
http://www.radicalislam.org/news/sudden-jihad-or-inordinate-stress-ft-hood
Pipes is director of the Middle East Forum.
~~~~~~~~~~
"The Good News Corner"
"Wing of Love" is a wild life park situated in Kibbutz Kfar Menahem in central Israel. But it's a very special park, with a unique mission. Fourteen to 18 year olds with police records live on the premises, and work there, on court order. In the main, they assist with the rehabilitation of protected species of fowl and assist with park maintenance. The goal is for the boys to bond with the animals and each other, in an atmosphere of hope.
Michele Klein, spokeswoman of the park, explained the park's philosophy to ISRAEL21c:
"The boys are under our wing - one wing - because they are also supposed to develop their own wing...they are participating in the process that will allow them to fly the rest of the way on two wings. And this place is meant to be a garden of love for people and animals..."
Volunteers from a variety of fields -- from air force cadets to persons in hi-tech -- work with the boys, providing them with contacts they would not otherwise have.
~~~~~~~~~~
When there is heart disease, blood vessels around the heart either become clogged or die. Now Israeli researchers -- Dr. Britta Hardy and Prof. Alexander Battler of Tel Aviv University -- have developed a protein that can be injected straight into the muscles of the body to stimulate regrowth of tiny blood vessels in just weeks.
"The biotechnology behind our human-based protein therapy is very complicated, but the goal is simple and the solution is straightforward," says Hardy. "We intend to inject our drug locally to heal any oxygen-starved tissue."
Where damaged vessels around the heart are concerned, the hope is to reduce the need for by-pass surgery. But this work was begun in an effort to prevent limb amputation.
~~~~~~~~~~
November 10, 2009
"Now What?"
I really cannot say, as the situation is still too fluid and there remain too many unknowns. It seems fair (and not particularly prescient) to say that we're quite possibly on the cusp of some significant changes -- not necessarily for the good.
~~~~~~~~~~
A sum-up:
Netanyahu's speech to the GA during the day yesterday was replete with comments (painful to read) about how he really truly wants to achieve a peace deal with the Palestinians -- how he'll go to the negotiating table any time, and encourages Abbas to join him there, etc. etc.
The big question, to which I still have no answer, is whether he really truly means it, or is doing damage control -- confident that the Palestinians won't bite.
From a reliable source I today learned that there are people within the administration (although no names were named)pushing Obama to abandon the "peace process" and recognize a Palestinian state .
That might motivate Netanyahu to seek ways to keep the process alive -- or at least to keep it from appearing moribund.
~~~~~~~~~~
While he says he will go to the negotiating table without preconditions, he does stipulate red lines with regard to achieving an agreement. Yesterday he spoke about end of conflict, the need for the Palestinians to recognize us as a Jewish state, and the fact that we will never accept Palestinian "refugees": "The Palestinians must recognize that the fantasy of flooding Israel with refugees is gone.”
And he spoke as well about the need for the Palestinian state to be demilitarized: “We cannot permit another Gaza in the heart of our country.” I mention here, however, that there are serious analysts who claim this would not be possible, that once a sovereign state (again, G-d forbid) were to be established, we could not deny it an army. At any rate, he makes security a priority and if he is serious about this, it is an absolute given that we need high places in Samaria, and the Jordan Valley, and strategic depth provided by communities adjacent to the Green Line -- Ma'aleh Adumim, Gush Etzion, etc.
All of this, as fair and reasonable as it is in terms of our needs and rights (yes, I know we have more rights than these!), is unacceptable to the Palestinians. Thus, as long as these are Netanyahu's red lines, no matter how he protests that he's working hard for a final settlement, and no matter how much he may mean it, the simple unalterable truth is that there will not be one.
~~~~~~~~~~
Netanyahu and Obama met last night for almost two hours. But there was a black-out on the meeting and the standard joint press conference and photo op never materialized. All we can say with some certainty is that Iran and the "peace process" were both discussed.
There was some speculation that the silence either meant that there was no meeting of the minds during discussions and thus nothing positive to report, or that Netanyahu caved in some substantial way and didn't want to make it public. But we don't know this. (See below)
From the White House came a statement about how the president remains committed to our security. That gave me an uneasy feeling (never mind that his concept of Israeli security is not the same as mine), for I've observed that this is a throw-away line -- intended to mollify and reassure -- that frequently accompanies an Israeli concession.
~~~~~~~~~~
Netanyahu even cancelled his routine meeting with Israeli reporters. Clearly he did not want to be questioned. Responding later to comments that the meeting must have gone badly, he said:
"The atmosphere during the meeting with President Obama was very open and very warm. The importance of the visit will be ascertained in the future."
The meeting, he added, had been "positive and to the point," and that it had dealt with the peace process and Israel's security. "We discussed these issues in detail, practically, and out of friendship."
Which tells us what, exactly?
This business of the meeting's importance being "ascertained in the future" leads me full circle to my opening comment about the possibility that we're on the cusp of changes. SOMETHING was decided or agreed upon. The silence did not simply reflect dissension.
While security is an issue raised in the context of forming a Palestinian state, we must remember that it applies as well to Iran -- about which Netanyahu was mum here.
~~~~~~~~~~
Already the Palestinians are backing off with some of their threats. Today PA negotiator Saeb Erekat denied that he ever called for the PA to be dismantled: "I didn't say that. Nobody said that."
Right...
~~~~~~~~~~
You might want to see this incisive article by Elliott Abrams about the complete and total failure of Obama's Middle East policy. While I don't agree with all of it (we shouldn't be too complacent about PA security forces taking on terrorism -- a subject I must return to), he makes several excellent points. At the end of the day we could say that Obama is an equal opportunity president -- he and his secretary of state alienate all parties equally.
Abrams, who is now senior fellow for Middle Eastern studies at the Council on Foreign Relations, has served in a number of positions in government, most recently as Deputy National Security Advisor for George Bush.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/017/187pwixc.asp (Thanks, Cheryl)
~~~~~~~~~~
Netanyahu is now on his way to France, where he will meet with President Sarkozy tomorrow. Not likely to be an easy trip. Today French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner said this:
"What really hurts me, and this shocks us, is that before there used to be a great peace movement in Israel. There was a left that made itself heard and a real desire for peace.
"It seems to me, and I hope that I am completely wrong, that this desire has completely vanished, as though people no longer believe in it."
A fairly vile but not atypical statement. Being ready to make major concessions and surrender Israeli rights is what qualifies one as "for peace."
While Sarkozy has been a disappointment in several respects, his relationship with us is far better than Kouchner's.
~~~~~~~~~~
From one savvy reader has come this comment with regard to the Fort Hood jihad massacre:
"The biggest question of all, and one NO ONE is asking: How many more traitors have infiltrated our military and how demoralizing will it be for our brave young men and women in uniform to be looking over their shoulders in fear of their comrades in arms?"
I thought this worth repeating, and thank you, Micki.
~~~~~~~~~~
In this very regard, David Horowitz (publisher of Front Page Magazine, don't confuse him with the editor of the Jerusalem Post) has provided a no-holds barred analysis of the situation:
"The Ft. Hood killings are the chickens of the left coming home to roost...The fifth column formed out of the unholy alliance between radical Islam and the American left is now entrenched in the White House and throughout our government."
http://frontpagemag.com/2009/11/09/our-brain-dead-country-by-david-horowitz/
~~~~~~~~~~
I also heard from a former associate of mine, who used to do undercover work (in a hijab) in places of Muslim radicalism. She picked up on what I wrote yesterday regarding Anwar al-Awlaki, who served as imam in a mosque in VA that both Hasan and three of the 9/11 terrorists attended. She identified the mosque as the Dar al-Hijrah Mosque in Falls Church, Virginia, which, she said was and is one of the most radical mosques in the US. She found going there scary. (Not, she says, that the one in Silver Spring he was reported to have attended is much better.)
(This lady knows I appreciate her comments, and I won't identify her even by first name.)
~~~~~~~~~~
November 9, 2009
"Responses"
It is clear that Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan has struck a nerve with my readers. I thank all of you who have sent me links to commentary on the Fort Hood jihad massacre.
More and more information is being exposed, in terms of Hasan's radical attitude and associations. It is reported that he, a psychiatrist, actually argued with his patients -- soldiers returned from war -- regarding the worth of their sacrifices. And yet he was not removed, for the system, awash in PC, failed abysmally.
A report from ABC News says Hasan tried to connect with people from al-Qaeda.
~~~~~~~~~~
Here I share, most significantly, a powerful piece by Daniel Greenfield, writing as Sultan Knish:
"He is inside your borders. He works deep inside your political and social structures. Openly he expresses his support for your murderers and enthusiastically promotes his message of hate. The bumper sticker on his car reads, 'Allah is Love', but that love is the 'love' which the Koran 61:4 describes as follows, 'Surely Allah loves those who fight in His way in ranks as if they were a firm and compact wall.'
"...The goal of the Islamists, of many of those very same Imams who ministered to Hasan's religious questions, and the larger Saudi funded Wahhabi organizations that fund and train them, is not to create a single Nidal Malik Hasan eager to die for the Jihad, but to create tens of thousands of Hasans and thousands of Fort Hoods in the United States alone. While they smile and lie through their teeth to the media, they are already working on spinning the incident to their advantage, to play the old game so common in Europe and America of positioning themselves as the alternatives to those 'other' crazy Muslims like Hasan who might be tempted to take weapons in hand, if their recommendations about increasing tolerance are not followed. And the first recommendation of course is to avoid radicalizing Muslims by not attributing the attack to his Islamic beliefs.
"How they must chuckle as they urge law enforcement to suppress the truth about Islamic violence in order to avoid marginalizing and further radicalizing Muslims... even as they themselves promote radicalism, host pro-terrorist speakers and preach the Koran's message of Jihad, death to the unbeliever and a Sharia ruled Caliphate across the earth. How they must laugh as the very law enforcement agencies that are meant to uncover and prevent crimes, instead cover up for their crimes. And they go on taking their invites to the White House, running their Islamic academies and putting out their ideology, one strain for the general American public, and another for their own boys, and beneath it of it one great engine of death humming along as it helps turn out the next Nidal Hasan...
"All the warning signs were there. Not simply for Nidal Malik Hasan, reading and hearing the same call to death over and over again for years, until he reached a decision that is considered praiseworthy within the context of the Koran... but for Islam in general.
"All the warning signs are there. They are in the Koran and in books sold in every Muslim bookstore in America and Europe. They are on tapes and on YouTube. They are in the bodies of their victims and the Muslim killers. They are there in the long flowing black Abayas and beards that mark radicalized Muslims, but they are just as there behind the false smiles of Western born and educated killers like Nidal Malik Hasan who drive around with bumper stickers reading, 'Allah is Love', only for his targets to realize too late that in Islam, love is indivisible from death, and that the worship of Allah is most praiseworthy when it is carried out through Jihad, the murder of infidels.
"The bloody common denominator of all these things is Islam. And while our brave and brilliant politicians insist that we are not at war with Islam, shunning and even imprisoning those who say otherwise, Islam is at war with us and has been since its inception nearly a millennium and a half ago. And will continue to be until we either once again force it back and break its momentum, or until it destroys us all.
"...The warning signs were there. The warning signs are still there. Not just for Nidal Hasan, but for Islam itself. We have seen the bodies and we have buried some of them ourselves, family, friends and fellow countrymen. We have heard the screams. We know what has been. It does not take a prophet to know what is to come.
"All the warning signs are there. The question is what are we going to do about them?"
http://sultanknish.blogspot.com/
~~~~~~~~~~
America, take heed!!
Lest you doubt what Greenfield says:
Anwar al-Awlaki is a US-born Muslim and served as imam at Virginia mosques that were attended by both Hasan and three of the 9/11 terrorists. (You're reading this correctly -- Hasan and 9/11 terrorists attended the same mosques.)
On his website al-Awlaki (who is now in Yemen) has posted praise for Hasan for being a "man of conscience" and doing "the right thing." He explained that no decent Muslim could serve in the US Army, which "is directly invading two Muslim countries and indirectly occupying the rest," unless he intends to "follow the footsteps of men like Nidal."
Hasan's actions, he said, had drawn attention to the essential dilemma of Muslims living in the US, who may find that they are forced to either "betray Islam or betray their nation."
I myself firmly believe that the future of the US depends in good measure on the ability of her citizens to grapple forthrightly with all of this.
~~~~~~~~~~
According to Khaled Abu Toameh in today's Post, a senior PA official said Abbas was surprised by Israeli news reports regarding secret agreements between Fayyad and Obama with regard to unilateral declaration of a state. And a source close to Fayyad said there was no such deal.
I don't know how much credence can be given to the denial of the Fayyad associate. What matters more is this additional wrinkle in the situation:
Apparently Abbas is upset because he says the US is trying to replace him with Fayyad. (There's a reasonable likelihood that this is an accurate perception, as Fayyad is the darling of the Western nations).
Said the PA official:
"The Americans should know that Fayyad is the prime minister and not the president. Any attempt to bypass President Abbas will fail, because he's the only address.
"There's a feeling that the Americans have reached a decision to turn Fayyad into the president of the Palestinian Authority. This has created tensions between the two men."
(In Israel the "only address" is the prime minister, and the presidency is a ceremonial position. In the PA, the prime minister serves at the pleasure of the president.)
Tension between the two men, and a desire by Abbas to undercut any deal that might have been made between Fayyad and Obama, can only serve us well in this instance.
~~~~~~~~~~
Meanwhile, the Post ran another article that attempted to shed light on the legal aspects of such a unilateral declaration. The point presumably of greatest significance is that a unilateral declaration of statehood would represent a material breach of Oslo, which prohibits change in the status of the West Bank and Gaza pending the outcome of permanent status negotiations. (Apparently our changing the status of Gaza "didn't count," as we were surrendering something.)
Frankly, I don't believe for a second that the Palestinians would care if they breached Oslo. And there would certainly be nations that would go along.
The big question is whether Obama would. Dan Diker, foreign policy analyst at the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, is cited as being concerned that the American administration, weary with the stalled negotiations, might be headed in that direction.
Other analysts, however, are more dubious about this because the US was a signatory to Oslo.
~~~~~~~~~~
From my perspective what is most pertinent is this: Hebrew University Professor Emeritus Ruth Lapidot says that there is no international body or institution that recognizes states. Individual countries do so according to their own considerations. Thus, I am assuming, the Security Council, while it might theoretically override resolutions 242 and 373, could not put an official stamp of recognition on a unilaterally declared Palestinian state. Presumably -- barring a very unlikely situation in which some other resolution substituted for this recognition -- there is no way in which international troops would be sent in via chapter 7.
~~~~~~~~~~
Balagan, which means, roughly, confusion, mess, or muddle, is a lovely and oft-used Hebrew word. There is no adequate one-word translation into English. And right now that's what we're seeing with all of the above: a massive balagan.
So if you have found what I've written confusing, take heart. It's not because your capacity to understand is deficient, but rather because the situation is confused in a major way. And who knows what tomorrow brings.
~~~~~~~~~~
Prime Minister Netanyahu did speak at the General Assembly today, although I have no information on what was said.
What I do know is that he was heckled by a couple of people over Gaza. Very sad indeed. Jokingly, he said that he received a better reception at the UN.
~~~~~~~~~~
Tonight Netanyahu and Obama will be meeting at the White House. I confess that I shudder a bit at the prospect.
Ethan Bronner of the NY Times has written, "when Secretary of State Clinton was in Jerusalem last week, she asked Mr. Netanyahu to include in negotiating guidelines specific references to the creation of a Palestinian state within the 1967 borders and Jerusalem. He declined." (Thanks Winkie!)
This is apparently the reason why it took Obama so long to agree to see Netanyahu. The word was that he wanted something in return for the visit, but I trust that this was not it.
We need to pray for the backbone of our prime minister, who is walking into the lion's den. Obama's maximalist position is quite clear. We know what we're dealing with.
~~~~~~~~~~
"The Good News Corner"
My readers are all familiar with the claims being regularly made by Muslims that we are digging under the Al Aksa Mosque on the Temple Mount in an attempt to make it collapse.
Recently, the Western Wall Heritage Foundation held a special tour to which a broad spectrum of officials was invited to see for themselves what sort of excavation work is actually being done. All testified that they saw no sign of digging under the Mount.
Unfortunately, a similar invitation to the Muslim Wakf (Trust) was turned down because "we will not receive approval from settlers to enter a Muslim-owned area." Anything to avoid seeing the reality, I suppose. There are negotiations going on that may help them to change their minds; additionally, representatives of Arab countries may be brought in to witness the excavations first hand.
The good news is what is going on in those excavations. The work, which has been in progress for over four years, begins in the Muslim Quarter of the Old City and connects to the Western Wall tunnels (which run adjacent to and not under the Mount). At this point the digging has gone down 12 meters and it is anticipated will go another four. Important archeological remains from the First Temple have been uncovered.
The tunnels (which are also amazing):
Excavations:
~~~~~~~~~~
November 8, 2009
"Reason for Concern?"
It was in late summer that Salam Fayyad, president of the PA, proposed that a Palestinian state be put in place within two years. He put together a plan for establishing infrastructure and civic underpinnings for this state. His declaration dovetailed with Obama declarations regarding intentions to push forward negotiations that would bring about a state within two years -- except that Obama was talking about negotiations and Fayyad was talking about unilateral initiative.
This has been known -- it is not a surprise. And it has not caused undue concern: since August there has been no movement forward in real terms on the part of Fayyad -- a lot of talk, a lot of plans advanced on paper, but no massive building of infrastructure begun and no administrative reorganization. Leaders in the PA talk a great deal and do next to nothing constructive.
However, today's Haaretz has added additional information that potentially moves Fayyad's plans up a notch in terms of reason for concern.
I say "potentially" because I am not certain that the information is solid, and even more so not certain that matters will play out as projected. There are a host of reasons to discount what is being said (which I will share below).
And yet, I take the possibility seriously enough -- even if is a remote possibility -- so that I want to provide information on what has been said, and advice regarding an appropriate response.
~~~~~~~~~~
What Haaretz says is this (I have added emphasis):
"Concerns are growing in Israel's government over the possibility of a unilateral Palestinian declaration of independence within the 1967 borders, a move which could potentially be recognized by the United Nations Security Council.
"Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu recently asked the administration of U.S. President Barack Obama to veto any such proposal, after reports reached Jerusalem of support for such a declaration from major European Union countries, and apparently also certain U.S. officials.
"The reports indicated that Palestinian Prime Minister Salam Fayyad has reached a secret understanding with the Obama administration over U.S. recognition of an independent Palestinian state. Such recognition would likely transform any Israeli presence across the Green Line, even in Jerusalem, into an illegal incursion to which the Palestinians would be entitled to engage in measures of self-defense.
"...some Israeli officials told Haaretz that alongside the clauses reported in the media...Fayyad's plan also contains a classified, unreleased portion stipulating a unilateral declaration of independence.
"The plan specifies that at the end of a designated period for bolstering national institutions the PA, in conjunction with the Arab League, would file a 'claim of sovereignty' to the UN Security Council and General Assembly over the borders of June 4, 1967 (before the outbreak of the Six-Day War, during which Israel took control of the West Bank and Gaza).
"Fayyad is also seeking a new Security Council resolution to replace Resolutions 242 and 338 in the hope of winning the international community's support for the borders of a Palestinian state and applying stronger pressure on Israel to withdraw from the West Bank.
"...Israeli sources said Netanyahu discussed the proposal in meetings with U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and special Mideast envoy George Mitchell and requested that the U.S. tell Fayyad that it would not support his proposal and would veto it in the Security Council. Netanyahu has yet to receive a clear response from Washington on its stance on Fayyad's plan."
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1126594.html
~~~~~~~~~~
My concern was aroused because of the mention of the Security Council. This international body -- as corrupt and immoral as it is -- has authority within international law. Its resolutions are binding and if passed under chapter 7 authorize enforcement.
SC Resolution 242, passed after the Six Day War in 1967, most specifically says Israel is entitled to secure borders and implies that thus Israel does not have to return to the Green Line. Any withdrawal from Judea and Samaria by Israel would come only within the context of negotiations, which would include termination of all states of belligerency, respect for Israel's sovereignty -- with acknowledgement of Israel's right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force.
Israel has no obligation under 242 to move an inch until these conditions are met. What is more, the negotiations were to be with existing states that had been at war with Israel, and not with Palestinians (who are not mentioned).
As I mentioned just the other day, this was not passed under chapter 7, which means there was no enforcement -- Israel was not perceived within this document as an aggressor that had to be pushed back.
SC Resolution 373 called for a ceasefire at the end of the Yom Kippur War in 1973, and then for immediate negotiations to secure a just peace.
What Haaretz is suggesting Fayyad will be seeking is a UN resolution saying negotiations are not required and that there need not be attention given to providing Israel with secure borders. Instead, a Palestinian state in all land outside the Green Line would be unilaterally declared and accepted as legitimate under international law.
There is no statement within this article suggesting that the resolution approving the state would be under chapter 7; what is implied is more in line with international pressure.
~~~~~~~~~~
Possible reasons why this may all be hot air:
[] It's one more threat, along with all the other threats a desperate PA is tossing out right now.
[] The PA simply will not be ready to come together as a state in less than two years, so that even those supporting the concept of a Palestinian state will recognize that it would be disastrous and make everyone look foolish to precipitously declare one.
[] There is a question as to whether the Security Council would undo significant previous resolutions.
[] This is being floated in part by left wing elements here in Israel who will use this as a reason why we have to concede more in order to preclude this eventuality.
On top of this, we must remember that Fayyad may well not be president in two years, Hamas may have taken over or there may be a unity agreement between Fatah and Hamas, the PA may have been dissolved (more on this below), or we may be at war with the PA.
~~~~~~~~~~
All of this said, I think a bit of preventative action can only be to the good.
The key here, once again, is Obama. If he is absolutely pledged to support only a Palestinian state established via negotiations, there is no cause for concern with regard to this threat. For then he would veto any alternate proposal in the Security Council. What is more, once the PA understood this was his position, it would take the wind -- such as it may be -- out of its sails.
The article indicated that Obama had made no commitment in this regard in response to Netanyahu's request.
Americans must pursue this. A firm and public commitment must be secured from the president stating that the US will honor only a Palestinian state that has been declared via negotiations. He must promise to veto any attempts to establish a state unilaterally via the Security Council.
Communication should go to President Obama and elected representatives in Congress.
Provide the URL for the article and begin by saying there are reports that PA president Fayyad wants to by-pass negotiations with Israel and unilaterally declare a state within all the lands beyond the Green Line -- with the state to be endorsed via a UN SC resolution. And that President Obama might support this.
Using your own words, remind them that:
[] Israel has declared itself ready to come to the negotiating table, while the PA has demanded preconditions -- preconditions that it never demanded before when negotiating with Olmert or Barak.
[] The PA has twice turned down exceedingly generous offers from Israel -- most recently in 2008 from former prime minister Olmert, who offered a sharing of Jerusalem and close to 98% of the West Bank. This leads to a conclusion that the PA leaders do not negotiate in good faith and want no compromise what-so-ever. A unilateral declaration is their way of circumventing the need for them to make any concessions.
[] UN Security Council Resolutions 242 and 373 specifically call for negotiations. What is more 242 recognizes that the Green Line does not provide Israel with secure borders, and that Israel is entitled to security.
Ask that the president commitment himself to recognizing a Palestinian state only via negotiations, and to vetoing in the Security Council any proposal for a Palestinian that is unilaterally established.
President Obama:
Fax: 202-456-2461 White House Comment line: 202-456-1111
e-mail form via: http://www.whitehouse.gov/contact/
For your Congresspersons:
http://www.house.gov/house/MemberWWW_by_State.shtml
And your Senators:
http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm
~~~~~~~~~~
I recommend that you raise this with the leadership of various Jewish organizations and pro-Israel churches as well. If it is the case that Obama is wavering on this issue, he needs to understand that supporting a unilaterally established Palestinian state would be considered a betrayal of Israel and not sit well with a host of his constituents.
~~~~~~~~~~
I am not, it should be noted, advocating here that we promote a Palestinian state via negotiations. I am, rather, advocating that we speak in terms that will be understood by US leaders and resonate with them.
~~~~~~~~~~
As for the Palestinian threat du jour: Khaled Abu Toameh tells us that officials in Ramallah are reporting that Abbas is considering dissolving the PA and declaring the negotiations a failure.
However..."Abbas was now waiting to see if the US and other parties would exert enough pressure on Israel to stop settlement construction and recognize the two-state solution before he makes any decision."
Threat du jour, and also joke du jour.
~~~~~~~~~~
The Guardian (UK) has reported that senior Hezbollah officials are saying that they are rapidly rearming in preparation for a new war with Israel, which they anticipate within months, perhaps in the spring. They are fortifying positions north of the Litani river -- where they would be less vulnerable than they were in 2006. "But," says a Hezbollah commander, "we still have plenty of capabilities in the south." There will be a new strategy for defending the south, they say.
Of note here: It has been announced by Lebanese prime minister-designate Saad al-Hariri that a unity government is about to be formed. Hezbollah and the gov't of Lebanon have finally reached an agreement, after five months of negotiations (during which time there was no functioning government), for Hezbollah to be in the coalition.
This is of considerable significance if and when we do fight in Lebanon again -- for we would be fighting the government and not a terrorist organization.
~~~~~~~~~~
Reports are being released with regard to warning signs that all was not right with Nidal Malik Hasan well before he went on his Fort Hood rampage. Fellow students and an Islamic community leader all knew of doubts Hasan had about fighting in Iraq because it was pitting Muslim against Muslim. Additionally, he was reported to have made a classroom presentation that supported suicide bombing.
According to YNet:
"His fellow students complained to the faculty about Hasan's 'anti-American propaganda,' but said a fear of appearing discriminatory against a Muslim student kept officers from filing a formal written complaint.
"'The system is not doing what it's supposed to do,' said Dr. Val Finnell, who studied with Hasan from 2007-2008..."
Time for America to do a whole lot of soul-searching.
I'm reading that Homeland Security in the US is trying to deflect anti-Muslim anger following the shootings. I would suggest that there is a great deal more to be dealt with.
~~~~~~~~~~
This morning reports were floating of a meeting that would take place between Netanyahu (who had left for Washington) and Obama. But as of this moment there has been no official confirmation. Quite simply, who knows?
Obama, in the meantime, has cancelled his talk at the General Assembly in order to be present at a memorial service for those killed in Fort Hood.
Apparently, a small number of Federation heads will meet with him at the White House. I'd love to know what those Federation leaders will be.
November 7, 2009
Motzei Shabbat (After Shabbat)
"Endless"
As there seem to be an inordinate number of issues of deep concern facing us, I find myself posting daily again (in spite of my determination to do so less frequently). Please Heaven, may matters look a bit brighter soon.
~~~~~~~~~~
Iran. THE topic of greatest significance right now.
It's been obvious from the start that Iran was not going to buy into the deal offered by the UN, in partnership with the US, France and Russia, that would have called for Iran to ship low-enriched uranium out of the country. But we've watched the Iranians conduct themselves in predictable form: dragging out their response.
They still haven't officially given an answer, but today they came one step closer when Iranian parliamentarian Alaeddin Boroujerdi said no uranium was going to be shipped out of the country.
What made news following this was an interview that Russian president Dmitry Medvedev gave to the German Der Spiegel magazine, which suggests that if there is not progress with Iran sanctions may be necessary. This was of interest because Russia has been a major stumbling block with regard to effective sanctions. But I found his very wishy-washy statement to be anything but reassuring:
"If the Iranian leadership takes a less constructive position, then anything is possible in theory...we wouldn't want this to end with international sanctions because sanctions, as a rule, take us in a very complex and dangerous direction. But if there is no movement forward, nobody is ruling out such a scenario."
~~~~~~~~~~
Russia has its own vested interests and is playing its own game right now. Of more concern to me is the US.
Caroline Glick, in her column yesterday, addressed Obama policy vis-a-vis Iran, and her comments merit serious attention:
"On Wednesday morning...scores of thousands of Iranians in cities throughout the country took advantage of the regime's planned demonstrations celebrating the 30th anniversary of the seizure of the US Embassy in Teheran to protest against the regime. These regime opponents willingly placed themselves in front of the batons, tear gas cannons and guns of Iranian regime goons to protest June's stolen presidential election and to call for the overthrow of the mullahs' regime of tyranny and its replacement with a democracy.
"The protesters turned regime supporters' calls for 'Death to America,' and 'Death to Israel' into big, deadly jokes by calling out, 'Death to the Dictator' (that is, supreme ruler Ali Khamenei) and 'Death to Russia.'
"Far from embracing the regime's 30-year war against the US and the nation-state based international system, [they] asked the US to forgive Iran for taking 52 US Embassy personnel hostage in 1979."
And what was Obama's response?
"Obama's pledge not to support the anti-regime protesters was part of a larger message in which the president of the United States effectively groveled at the mullahs' feet and begged them to allow the US to enrich uranium for them.
"Obama said, 'I have made it clear that the United States of America wants to move beyond this past, and seeks a relationship with the Islamic Republic of Iran based upon mutual interests and mutual respect... We have recognized Iran's international right to peaceful nuclear power. We have demonstrated our willingness to take confidence-building steps along with others in the international community....
"And when Khamenei responded to Obama's obsequious bowing and scraping by saying that negotiating with the US was a 'naïve and perverted' enterprise, the Obama administration had nothing to say.
"The White House won't even acknowledge that the Iranians have already rejected the IAEA-brokered deal...Indeed, rather than accept that the Iranians are playing them for fools, administration officials were furious at Israel for Defense Minister Ehud Barak's announcement early last week that their proposed deal with Iran would have little impact on Iran's nuclear weapons program.
"According to Channel 10, the White House demanded that Netanyahu applaud their efforts. They threatened Israel with unspecified sanctions if he failed to announce his support for their pathetic attempts at appeasement. And so he did. And about five minutes after Netanyahu applauded the Americans for their brilliant offer to enrich uranium for Iran, the Iranians rejected their offer as insufficient.
~~~~~~~~~~
And what about the Obama administration's response to the Israel capture of the arms ship Francop? Glick has confirmed my original impression, that there was none of substance:
"[The capture of the ship] has had no discernible impact on American policy. The US did not denounce either Syria or Iran for breaching the UN Security Council resolution barring Iranian arms shipments as well as the Security Council resolution prohibiting nations from arming Hezbollah. The US did not state that in response to what Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu called a 'smoking gun,' it will reconsider its decision to send an ambassador to Damascus or its commitment to appeasing Iran through its nuclear talks in Geneva..."
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1257455195053&pagename=JPArticle%2FShowFull
~~~~~~~~~~
Here it is again, advanced one more step: The threat of Palestinian violence that I've been watching.
According to YNet, a senior Fatah official has now said that if "serious progress was not made soon in peace talks" then Fatah would consider reverting to "popular warfare." This source said an increasing number of Fatah "operatives" were pushing for violent resistance.
Operatives is the terms used in the YNet article. In Israeli lingo it is frequently associated with terrorists. Looks like this means the guys who would commit violent acts are clambering for the word that it's time for the "go ahead."
Said the official:
"We are not talking about terror attacks and weapons, but we are talking about protests and [throwing] stones, like the anti-fence protests, and about strikes and protests by the people, so that the world understands that the next step will be unpleasant and we go back to the way things were before Oslo."
Well, I'm not buying that for a minute. "Violent resistance" suggests a good deal more than strikes and throwing stones. Especially as he alludes to "the next step."
~~~~~~~~~~
Two thoughts occur to me here. The first is that this might be a threat, just as we're seeing other threats from the Palestinians at the moment: If we don't want this to happen, we had better freeze those settlements immediately. Or if Obama doesn't want this, he had better lean mighty hard on us.
I am a bit disinclined to take this as only a threat, however, because this is not an isolated reference to a reversion to violence. And when something is repeated multiple times, there's more of a chance that there's something to it.
But then, I respond to the threat that we'll go back to the way things were before Oslo and I laugh. What the person making this statement wants to do is tell the world that there is a "peace process" that was started with Oslo -- and which theoretically brought improved conditions -- and that the whole thing might be lost if there is not forward progress.
Well, hell, I'd go back to before Oslo any day. And that's not just because it would mean we would not be tied into some concept of a "Palestinian entity" (Oslo did not refer to a Palestinian state). The reality is that the very worst terrorism took place after Oslo -- specifically during the Second Intifada that began in 2000 as Arafat's response to the peace offer made by Ehud Barak, who was then prime minister. Many more Israeli Jews have been killed in terrorist attacks since Oslo than before.
~~~~~~~~~~
Let me return here to the killings in Fort Hood. It's possible to dismiss this incident as the action of one mentally deranged person, and a politically correct atmosphere encourages that interpretation. Not only am I greatly dubious of this take, I would warn Americans to not be complacent with regard to what happened.
Israel National News reports that he shouted Allah Akbar before he began shooting. If this is true, it is damning. As every Israeli knows, this is the cry of the jihadist before he begins a terror rampage.
JINSA -- the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs -- is an agency that demonstrates considerable level-headedness. And JINSA, in its most recent report (# 937), addressing the actions of Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, says, "It is no longer unthinkable."
"JINSA has long followed stories about attacks planned and executed against American military personnel. After the conviction in April of three Muslim men charged with conspiring to kill American soldiers at Ft. Dix...A defense attorney called the sentence 'unusually lengthy' in a case where 'no one was harmed.' The Deputy U.S. Attorney replied, 'These men do not deserve leniency because of the good work of the FBI. They should not receive some benefit because there are not some dead soldiers lying on the ground.'
"We agreed...
"Since then, jihadists waging war in our country killed American soldiers in Arkansas and in Texas. Motivated by religious ideology to believe Americans in general and soldiers in particular, are the enemies of Muslims and of Islam, jihadists are arming, training and conspiring-and now doing-what had been unthinkable in the United States.
"They have to be stopped.
~~~~~~~~~~
I share here as well what was written on the subject, on Frontpage, by Robert Spencer. An authority on jihad, he maintains the highly respected "Jihad Watch" site:
"...Major Hasan’s motive was perfectly clear — but it was one that the forces of political correctness and the Islamic advocacy groups in the United States have been working for years to obscure. So it is that now that another major jihad terror attack has taken place on American soil, authorities and the mainstream media are at a loss to explain why it happened – and the abundant evidence that it was a jihad attack is ignored.
"...he identified himself as Palestinian [though American born] and was a devout Muslim – so what? These things, of course, have no significance if one assumes that Islam is a Religion of Peace and that when a devout Muslim reads the Koran’s many injunctions to wage war against unbelievers, he knows that they have no force or applicability for today’s world. Unfortunately, all too many Muslims around the world demonstrate in both their words and their deeds that they take such injunctions quite seriously. And Nidal Hasan gave some indications that he may have been among them.
"...One of his former colleagues, Col. Terry Lee, recalled Hasan saying statements to the effect of 'Muslims have the right to rise up against the U.S. military'; 'Muslims have a right to stand up against the aggressor'”; and even speaking favorably about people who 'strap bombs on themselves and go into Times Square.'
"...The effect of ignoring or downplaying the role that Islamic beliefs and assumptions may have played in his murders only ensures that – once again – nothing will be done to prevent the eventual advent of the next Nidal Hasan."
http://frontpagemag.com/2009/11/06/jihad-at-fort-hood-by-robert-spencer/
~~~~~~~~~~
I now have the names of the nations that voted with Israel and the US in the General Assembly, against endorsing the Goldstone Report:
Australia, Canada, Czech Republic, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Nauru (a Pacific island nation), the Netherlands, Palau (a Pacific island nation), Panama, Poland, Slovakia, The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and Ukraine. (Thanks, Jeff)
What I see here in this pathetically small grouping of nations of honor is the presence of east European states -- actually outnumbering the western European nations. A reminder, once again, of where our future alliances are likely to be.
~~~~~~~~~~.
November 6, 2009
"Catching Up"
Before Shabbat begins, I want to touch base on a handful of subjects, most mentioned yesterday:
The UN vote on Goldstone was taken, and, as we knew it would, it passed. Attempts by Western nations to negotiate with the Arab states a compromise resolution failed. The Arabs figured they had enough third world votes to put it through and simply proceeded.
The vote: 114-18, with 44 abstentions. Israel and the United States, voted against, of course, as did Italy, the Netherlands, Poland and the Czech Republic. That leaves 12 other states that also voted nay, and I have not yet been able to identify them.
The European vote, disappointingly, was split, with both Britain and France -- craven in their inability to take a stand -- simply abstaining.
~~~~~~~~~~
From our foreign ministry came this response:
"Israel rejects the Assembly's decision, which bears no connection to the reality which Israel faces. In operation Cast Lead, the IDF showed standards of fighting and morality that were higher than those of any of the resolution's initiators.
"Israel will continue to act, like other democracies, to protect its citizens from international terror, as was proven this week.”
~~~~~~~~~~
In point of fact, Israel has now filed an official grievance with UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon and the UN Security Council, following the capture of the arms ship:
"The intended route of the Francop, coupled with the types of weaponry found on board, raise serious concerns that this incident also constitutes a violation of UN Security Council Resolution 1701 and 1373."
Resolution 1373 of 2001, among other things, prohibits states from "providing any form of support, active or passive, to entities or persons involved in terrorist acts" This would apply to Iran, supplying weapons to Hezbollah.
Resolution 1701, hammered out at the end of our most recent war in Lebanon (i.e., our war with Hezbollah) in 2006, was designed to prevent the re-arming of Hezbollah and to keep the area south of the Litani River free of any armed presence except Lebanese army and UNIFIL. It is forbidden to provide any entity in Lebanon with weapons or military equipment. What is more, it is forbidden to allow planes or ships to be utilized in the transport of such weapons.
The Israeli grievance thus also said;
"Iran’s national shipping company (IRISL) has been repeatedly found to be involved in transporting weapons and other banned items in violation of UN Security Council resolutions."
Prime Minister Netanyahu, in his statement after the contents of the ship were uncovered, called what Iran was doing a war crime. What is now being pushed by our diplomats is a position internationally in which countries would refuse to work with the Iranian shipping line at all (which would serve to severely weaken Iran).
I hope you will not hold your breath waiting for an appropriate UN response. Better chastise us than go after Iran.
~~~~~~~~~~
Also as expected, Abbas has declared his intention not to run again in the presidential election. This was not a tactic, he said, and his decision was final.
Although there was a flurry of phone calls to Abbas from world leaders, more than not, the reaction was tepid. There was no huge and horrified outcry -- although Fatah is planning a demonstration to take place in the next few days, to urge him to stay.
The statement from our government was that this was an internal matter in which we should not get involved. There was no response to the heated accusations by Abbas that our refusal to totally freeze building was killing the "peace process." Netanyahu did make a statement saying that if Abbas had the courage to do so, he could be a partner for peace.
Nor, do I believe, did the US bite with regard to accusations. One wonders if Obama perceives the way in which he has created this situation by raising expectations.
Hamas forthrightly accused Abbas of playing games. Its message to Abbas was that it was time to stop waiting for Israel and the US to change, to admit that negotiations had failed, and to turn towards Hamas and reconciliation.
By today a senior member of the Fatah council, Mohammed Shtaya, told Al-Jazeera that there was a good chance that Abbas would change his mind -- if there was a significant shift in the political situation.
~~~~~~~~~~
How about this!
I have been making the assumption that when he came to the States next week, Netanyahu would be meeting with Obama. I have invested energy in speculating on what would be discussed. Nor have I been alone in this, as I've been in communication with others very much in the know who have been making the same assumption. In fact, one news source cited Barak, whose pronouncements on arranging a peace plan with Obama to sell to the PA made me very nervous. Barak, it seems, talks off the top of his head, in line with what he wishes would happen.
But according to the news today, there are no plans in place for Netanyahu and Obama to meet. The prime minister is going to address the General Assembly of the United Jewish Communities. The GA is the single largest gathering of Jews within an organizational context in America, and Netanyahu has a very legitimate agenda in terms of strengthening Israel-Diaspora ties and helping American Jews to better understand Israel.
News sources report that before Obama agrees to meet with Netanyahu, he wants something in return. In return for a meeting? This from the man who believes in dialogue with enemies?? If this is the case, I will be rather pleased if our prime minister does not meet with the president, because it means he refuses to be coerced.
What I have just picked up, however, is information about Obama speaking at the GA as well. Hmmm... And no meeting scheduled but perhaps an informal meeting on the sidelines?
~~~~~~~~~~
According to the Guardian, Iranian scientists have experimented with an advanced nuclear warhead design.
Don't know about you, but this makes my blood run cold. After Shabbat I hope to have more to say about the IAEA and its destructive head, ElBaradei.
At any rate, Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon has said that talk of our attacking Iran's nuclear facilities is not an idle threat.
According to defense analyst Yaakov Katz:
"I believe the option is viable and is ready. In other words, the question for today for Israel is not a 'can or can't we'... it's a question on a political level of 'should we or shouldn't we?'"
If we do end up deciding that we must hit Iran, I wonder if Obama will understand the degree to which he will have made this necessary.
~~~~~~~~~~
The news is a bit mind-boggling: A Muslin US soldier, Nidal Malik Hasan, using two weapons, one a semi-automatic, last night killed 12 and wounded 31 at Fort Hood, the largest US army base -- a base from which troops are dispatched to Iraq and Afghanistan. A US-born citizen of Jordanian heritage, Hasan is a psychiatrist (first reported dead, it seems he is not). He was scheduled to be shipped out to Iraq. A great deal of information has yet to be uncovered.
See this commentary by Dr. Aaron Lerner of IMRA:
http://imra.org.il/story.php3?id=46321
~~~~~~~~~~
Lori Lowenthal Marcus, co-founder of Z Street (ziostreet.wordpress.com) attended the J Street Conference and has written about it. Her description is well worth reading:
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/11/at_the_j_street_meeting.html
~~~~~~~~~~
November 5, 2009
"Staying Strong"
Israel is launching a massive PR campaign in the face of the capture of the arms ship yesterday. All ambassadors to Israel from foreign nations were summoned to the Ashdod port to see for themselves, as Foreign Minister Lieberman put it, "lethal weapons meant entirely to be aimed at civilians."
More than 3,000 missiles were on this ship.
I am waiting -- having picked up nothing yet -- for a response on this from Obama. There he is, making nice with Iran. How will he deal with the information that has been released regarding the weapons ship? Will it still be business as usual, and will he still be "going that extra mile"?
~~~~~~~~~~
Various munitions experts have done a first examination of the cache of weapons. The weapons came in boxes that had markings on them in various languages: Chinese, Russian, Spanish and English. In some cases there were other languages on the weapons themselves. The thought is that at least some of these were manufactured elsewhere and then shipped to Iran. The Katyusha rockets, for example, seem to have been manufactured in Russia.
Unquestionably, however, many containers were marked boldly with "IRISL" -- the mark of the Iranian shipping lines. The IDF believes the Iranian Revolutionary Guard is behind the shipment.
~~~~~~~~~~
Other information not yet available when I wrote yesterday has now come to light:
[] The ship, the Francop, is owned by the Dohle company in Germany, and was rented to the Cypriot shipping company UFS.
[] While the shipment began in Iran, UFS was not involved the entire way. About 10 days ago, an Iranian cargo ship left the Bandar Abbas Port in Iran, and carried its cargo -- via the Arabian Sea and the Suez Canal-- to the Egyptian port of Damietta, which is near the canal. There it was unloaded, and then the crates were re-loaded onto the Francop. Its scheduled route in the Mediterranean would have brought it to Cyprus, Lebanon, and then Syria.
I have picked up no indication that the Egyptians had any clue as to what was in the containers loaded and unloaded in their port. My assumption is that they did not.
~~~~~~~~~~
It is hoped that this incident will have the effect of enhancing the effectiveness of economic sanctions against Iran. As I understand this, shipping companies that might have looked the other way in terms of carry commercial cargo from Iran will now be nervous about what they are truly carrying and more reluctant to cooperate. This is the reasoning, at any rate.
~~~~~~~~~~
In spite of incredible intelligence and a stunning operation, Israel knows it is impossible to stop all of the smuggling of arms into Lebanon for use by Hezbollah. This, quite simply, is because of Syrian participation. It is common knowledge -- I've reported on this several times over the last couple of years -- that at night trucks carrying weapons cross over Syria's border into Lebanon. UNIFIL more or less stays clear. That is, it is being done under the noses of the international force charged with preventing the re-arming of Hezbollah.
Similarly, it is known that a route exists that brings weapons from Iran to Hamas in Gaza. The weapons are brought by ship to the port in Sudan on the coast of the Red Sea, and then are brought north overground into southern Egypt, and then up to Gaza. Our air force hit such a convoy of trucks last January.
It is an Iranian interest to keep its proxies, Hezbollah and Hamas, well armed. Right now it is thought that Iran is particularly concerned with doing this because Hezbollah and Hamas would be utilized in attacks against Israel, were Israel to hit Iranian military installations.
~~~~~~~~~~
In this instance, a ship was used rather than trucks because of the enormous amount of weaponry being transported. The IDF has indicated that this is weaponry for an army, not a terrorist operation.
Reuters
These crates, which have now been transferred to storage in two IDF warehouses in central Israel, required some 32 trucks to transport them. Except for some research, the weapons will not be utilized.
~~~~~~~~~~
Looks as if the vote in the General Assembly on the Goldstone Report may not take place until tomorrow. It is my understanding that the American delegation has absented itself from debate.
~~~~~~~~~~
With regard to that report, Jihad Watch has called our attention to a piece in Al Jazeera from October 28 that cites Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, the secretary-general of the OIC -- the Organization of Islamic Conference. According to him, the Conference was the "initiator" of a war crimes inquiry into our actions in Gaza.
"On January 3, during the attacks on Gaza, we convened the executive committee of the OIC on a ministerial level. It was decided that the OIC group in Geneva should ask the Human Rights Council to convene and consider the possibility of sending a fact-finding mission to Gaza.
"The OIC was instrumental in getting through this resolution..."
Figures...
~~~~~~~~~~
In the same interview, Ihsanoglu indicated that OIC was doing everything possible to protect the al-Aksa Mosque from destruction due to excavations by Israel beneath it.
"We hope that the political will of the 57 member states of the OIC will be able to levy international pressure - through various channels - on Israel to stop threatening the al-Aksa Mosque...
"About two weeks ago at UNESCO's general assembly in Paris, I called on the UN and UNESCO to declare East Jerusalem, the historical city of Jerusalem, as a world historical site - untouchable..."
Nice organization...
~~~~~~~~~~
The latest on the mass confusion that passes for Palestinian politics:
The big news right now is that a PA official has informed the media that Abbas says he won't be running for president in the next elections. Abbas was said to have made this announcement at a meeting of the executive committee of the PLO. According to Yasser Abed Rabbo, who heads the committee, he could not be dissuaded from this decision and will be making his formal announcement later today.
My first response was, "Yea, sure," for Abbas has made such threats many times in the past. And guess what???
"Experts (which 'experts'?) believe that unless enormous international pressure is exerted on Israel to change its settlement policy, Abbas will remain true to his word and refrain from running for re-election."
So we have more game-playing and one more Abbas ploy. Even if he does "announce" after this goes out, don't take his word for it, please.
Right now the PLO is lamenting that there is no realistic candidate to replace Abbas. Sounds a bit strange to me: Abbas has no clout on the street, is not respected in his own party. He's knee-deep in corruption and has a past directly linked to terrorism. There's been talk for some time with regard to who might succeed.
~~~~~~~~~~
And, as you consider the above, factor this in, as well:
Just yesterday, according to the Egyptian news service Asharq Al-Awsat, representatives of the Egyptian Intelligence Agency and certain groups within Fatah are saying that Abbas does not really intend to hold elections on January 24, as he had announced he would.
He only made the announcement to pressure Hamas into signing the Egyptian reconciliation agreement. He knows having elections just in the West Bank would not be a good idea.
But then, if he is not going to hold elections for president in 2-1/2 months, and we don't know when they're going to be held, does it really matter now if he's going to run? For the interim, he's still in office and can declare what he wishes.
~~~~~~~~~~
According to the Palestinian news agency Ma'an, Hamas official Khalil Al-Haya is saying that from the Hamas perspective the Egyptian-mediated proposal is "still alive, if it is implemented in one package." They want all the parties to come together and discuss matters.
~~~~~~~~~~
With all the talk of whether Abbas will come to the negotiating table, we must also consider the ramifications of Fatah signing that reconciliation with Hamas. For Hamas is still adamantly against recognizing Israel, honoring Oslo accords, and renouncing terrorism (aka "resistance against the occupation").
What happens to Obama's Middle East policy then?
~~~~~~~~~~
Yet one more factor must be mentioned. I spoke yesterday about what Fatah may be up to when it declares that the "two-state solution" is dead, and it's time to say so.
I considered a number of alternatives, but omitted one possibility that would have serious implications, were it to catch on internationally. "No two-states?" they are starting to say. "Then let's have one bi-national state." Would be the end of us.
And so... as I remain uneasy about where Netanyahu may be going, and as I search my heart in terms of how to assess him, I come up with this, in addition to everything else: Here's a valid reason for him to play the game, and display eagerness to begin those negotiations (which, to my discomfort, is what he has been doing).
He has to be able to say: "What one-state? We're here, we're ready to start without pre-conditions. It's the Palestinians who are the stumbling block."
~~~~~~~~~~
By the way, I have learned that Minister of Information Yuli Edelstein (Likud) will be accompanying Netanyahu to Washington along with Barak. Edelstein is tough, and he tells it like it is. And this was a reassurance.
~~~~~~~~~~
"The Good News Corner"
This story is a source of pride, which merits sharing with others, to help them understand Israel.
Captain Gerry Casey, of Ireland, has been serving with the UN Peacekeeping Force here. (I am a bit vague on what force they are referring to -- UNIFIL?) When he came, he and his wife were seeking care for their youngest child, Rachel, then 16 months, who has Down Syndrome and a heart defect. They were connected with Shalva, the Association for Mentally & Physically Challenged Children in Israel, which provides services for children with special needs and intensive support for their families. It is a very special institution.
Now that the Caseys are leaving, they wanted to say goodbye, and thank you, to Shalva, which did so much for their daughter, and has taught them techniques for coping as well. A special ceremony was held, to which Gerry invited people who worked with him in the UN Peacekeeping Division -- people from various nations, who had to be given speedy visas to enter Israel.
These people, who hail from various places in the world, now understand much better what Israel is about; a great deal of good will has been generated.
Use this link to see a video about this:
http://webcast.un.org/ramgen/ondemand/ga/64/2009/ga091104am-orig.rm?start=01:29:02&end=01:37:43
~~~~~~~~~~
November 4, 2009
"Non-stop Vigilance"
A 140 meter long cargo ship, called the Francop, was boarded by elite Israeli navy commando forces of the Shayetet 13 unit last night outside of Cyprus, some 100 nautical miles west of Israel in the Mediterranean. The ship was in deep sea and the navy used small boats to approach it.
AP
Our forces, which encountered no resistance from the crew, uncovered a cache of some hundreds of tons of weapons in dozens of containers, hidden behind what appeared to be civilian cargo. The weapons included a large number of 22 mm. Katyusha rockets, assault rifles, mortar shells, grenades and anti-aircraft platforms not previously found in the region.
These weapons were sent by Iran, and were destined for Syria and Hezbollah in Lebanon.
~~~~~~~~~~
The vessel was being operated by a Cypriot charter company called UFS, and was flying an Antiguan flag. It had apparently originated its journey in Iran, had stopped at Damietta Port in Egypt, and was bound for Limassol, Cyprus. Following this, it was due to anchor tomorrow in Beirut and then continue on to Latakia Port in Syria by the weekend. This particular ship routinely docks in these various ports.
Military Intelligence had been following it since it started on its journey, and the operation was well-planned in advance.
A representative of UFS said the company had no idea what was inside the containers: "We knew that we were delivering containers, but we are not legally permitted to check what is inside them. This is the responsibility of the customs authorities at the ports where we anchor. We do not know what happened on the ship. We are waiting...for answers.
"This is the first time something like this happens to us. I hope this will not damage the relations between Cyprus and Israel, because it is just business for us."
And indeed, Israeli navy authorities are convinced that the crew had no idea what was in the containers.
~~~~~~~~~~
Its cargo is currently being unloaded at the Ashdod port for further inspection.
Ilan Assayag
This echoes the incident of the Karine A weapons ship, which was intercepted near Gaza in 2002, carrying a weighty cache of weapons from Iran.
However, Israel Navy Chief Brig. Gen. Rani Ben-Yehuda said, "The quantity of arms seized on the weapons ship Francop is ten times or even more than the quantity of weapons on the Karine-A ship." Enough to arm Hezbollah for a month of fighting with Israel.
Blood-curdling.
~~~~~~~~~~
Syrian Foreign Minister Walid Mouallem denied that the Francop was carrying weapons. He said [commercial] goods were being brought to the port in Damascus and that the Israeli forces are "pirates."
Why do they bother, when we've unloaded the ship and know what it carried? I've learned: this is very much the Arab style, and a great bewilderment to the Western mind.
Mouallem, it should be mentioned, is in Teheran for a two day visit, and declared that "no nation could harm the relations between Syria and Iran."
~~~~~~~~~~
There are words of praise from the Israeli government for the success of this operation. And with it, words of warning as to the intentions of Iran and the need for that non-stop vigilance.
Prime Minister Netanyahu said these weapons were meant for Israel cities.
From Foreign Minister Barak:
"This is another success in the incessant battle against the smuggling of arms and military buildup by terrorist organizations who threaten Israel's security,"
And appropriate words from opposition leader Tzipi Livni (Kadima):
"We all today praise the Navy and IDF over the seizure of the ship - it's not a controversial matter. There are issues over which there are no coalition and opposition. We are all partners in the people of Israel's war on terror - whether it's Hamas, Hezbollah or other supporters [of terror]. Well done."
~~~~~~~~~~
We know who are friends are.
Yesterday, the US House of Representatives passed a nonbinding resolution urging President Barack Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton to oppose unequivocally any endorsement of the Goldstone Report. The vote was 344-36, with 22 representatives voting present. A resounding and much appreciated display of support.
~~~~~~~~~~
Meanwhile, the UN General Assembly is meeting on the issue of that report. With some 40 speakers scheduled, discussion is expected to continue into tomorrow before a vote is taken.
Egypt, a nation with which we are ostensibly at peace, is taking full advantage of this forum to slam us. Its ambassador to the UN, Magued Abdel Aziz, was the first to take the floor. He said:
"[The report] verifies grave violations of international law by Israel during the Gaza campaign… it was revenge against civilians and it went against international law… This kind of blatant violation of human right must be stopped."
This is the same Egypt whose soldiers sometimes shoot African refugees in the back.
~~~~~~~~~~
The Senegalese spoke on behalf of the Palestinians, and Sweden spoke on behalf of the EU. The Syrian ambassador also addressed the assembly. What a line-up.
Our ambassador, Gabriela Shalev, told the assembly that the report was "conceived in hate and executed in sin," and that the Goldstone commission was a "politicized body with predetermined conclusions." The decision of the Human Rights Council to move the report to the General Assembly was, she said, "a cynical political maneuver." In closing she said that this debate would hinder and not further peace.
And who was listening in that assembled body?
~~~~~~~~~~
The stark juxtaposition of the above two events, occurring on the same day, cannot pass unnoticed:
We are facing the development of ever-greater military capabilities on the part of the enemies at our borders. This awareness was certainly forced upon us by the capture of the arms shipment from Iran.
We know that wars are likely not far away.
And at the same time we are fighting within the international diplomatic arena for our right to defend ourselves against those enemies.
It's obscene.
~~~~~~~~~~
On Sunday, Prime Minister Netanyahu is flying to Washington for meetings and taking Defense Minister Barak with him. In spite of my best efforts to learn what their agenda will be, I have been able to learn nothing of substance.
Am I uneasy? I cannot deny that I am. Hopefully Netanyahu will focus on Iran.
~~~~~~~~~~
It seems the Obama administration is finally willing to acknowledge that the Israeli-Palestinian "peace negotiations" are going nowhere quickly. According to the Washington Post today, the US government has now concluded that high-level talks are not likely to start any time soon. And so it hopes instead to promote lower level talks that will maintain some momentum, which will theoretically pick up steam over time.
~~~~~~~~~~
At a news conference today, Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat declared that if Israel continues to expand settlements and the US doesn't stop it, then the Palestinians may have to abandon the goal of an independent state.
It may be time, he said, for PA president Mahmoud Abbas to "tell his people the truth, that with the continuation of settlement activities, the two-state solution is no longer an option."
What nonsense this is.
I clarify again: There is no building by Israel going on in Judea and Samaria that is "expanding settlements." The understanding we had with the US government prior to Obama, and which is being honored by us, is that the perimeters of our communities are not to be expanded; building is being done within those communities.
What is more, Abbas negotiated with Olmert even while Israel was building in Judea and Samaria. This does not stop negotiations. In theory (please G-d, only in theory), any communities that fell within territory that is allotted to a Palestinian state could be dismantled.
Depending on how we read this, this statement may be a way of bowing out of participation in peace negotiations (which they don't want), while putting the onus on us. Or it may be a way to coerce us to do more -- or to frighten the US into pressuring us further.
I spoke yesterday about the expectation of violence. Claiming there is no possibility of a "two state solution" might also be a way of setting the stage for violence.
Over and over I am reminded of the complexity of this situation -- the personalities involved, the various goals, the behind-the-scene maneuvering, the play-acting. From one source I am picking up PA statements so convoluted with regard to what the Palestinians demand and what has been promised that I won't even attempt to analyze it here. I will simply note it, and then table it watchfully, until I can make further sense of it.
~~~~~~~~~~
November 3, 2009
"Shades of Gray"
In my last posting I expressed concern that Netanyahu had gone too far down a slippery slope with his unofficial agreement to freeze building in Judea and Samaria (after current building commitments are complete). I still feel so, but certain comments I've encountered have brought me back to my computer to say that I view my assessment of what he's done in shades of gray, and not a stark black and white.
After posting, I received the inevitable comments (not many in number, actually) saying in essence, "See! I knew he couldn't be trusted. He's planning to give the country away."
Well, I'm here to say that I, for one, don't know anything of the sort. Because Binyamin Netanyahu, for all his faults, is not Ehud Olmert, who couldn't wait to offer Abbas 98% of Judea and Samaria plus part of Jerusalem. Nor -- thank Heaven -- is he Tzipi Livni. I believe that he "gets it" in a way that neither of these individuals does.
I know that his key advisor, Ron Dermer, is no left-winger, and that right now there is only silence from persons within his government such as Moshe Ya'alon and Bennie Begin. And I believe that whether his judgment turns out to be flawed or not, Netanyahu is basing his decisions on factors far more complex and nuanced than a simple desire to see a sovereign Palestinian state established in all, or most, of the land we reclaimed in 1967.
~~~~~~~~~~
MK Aryeh Eldad (Ihud Leumi -- not part of the coalition) leveled a stinging critique of Netanyahu, charging that no other prime minister "[ever] put a stranglehold on Jewish settlement as Netanyahu has done." (a nod to Judith N here)
Well, he's correct, but...
The "but" is that no Israeli prime minister since Oslo has coped with an American president like Barack Obama; this means we cannot judge Netanyahu according to how other prime ministers behaved. The other prime ministers never faced the DEMAND that Netanyahu has. It might be said that facing off against Obama requires even more resilience and "no power" than the other prime ministers needed. But I would hate to be in Netanyahu's shoes right now.
As those of you who read my postings regularly are well aware, Obama reneged on commitments made by (Bill) Clinton and Bush that acknowledged our right to continue to build inside communities in Judea and Samaria, with certain specific provisos. Obama, instead, made the demand that we stop completely, and that this be done as a pre-condition to negotiations. He ultimately dropped the second part of that demand precisely because Netanyahu did balk.
But what Obama had done was set up a dynamic that made Abbas more intransigent, so that now the PA was echoing him and saying they wouldn't come to the table unless there was a freeze (even though they had willingly negotiated with Olmert with no freeze). Obama had backed himself into a corner. (I'll come back to this theme below.)
There are those who would say that a corner is the best place for Obama to be, and that Netanyahu should have left him there. But here are shades of gray, for there are a vast number of implications to letting the American president hang out to dry. I don't know what was said between Netanyahu and Mitchell last week, in light of this impasse. I only know that the offer by Netanyahu followed -- not that it turned out to be good enough for Abbas anyway.
~~~~~~~~~~
Then, lastly, we have this:
The UN General Assembly is meeting in special session today to consider the Goldstone Report. There will be a debate on a draft resolution put together by the Arabs that was circulated on Monday; it would call on Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon to bring the report to the Security Council.
It would also call on Israel to launch a full investigation into the charges of the report. (This is something Netanyahu has declined to do, I think wisely: it would suggest guilt. The IDF has already investigated and answered all charges. Enough.)
This entire scenario is very ugly. That the resolution will pass is almost a certainty. What is being negotiated at present is whether it will receive the support of Western nations. Resolutions of the General Assembly are not binding in international law, as Security Council resolutions are, they are merely recommendations. But this resolution will carry far more clout and legitimacy if the Western nations support it.
Here I want to point out what an (unnamed) Israeli official in New York said about this resolution, according to YNet:
"At a time when we are debating restarting peace talks, this is not helpful to anyone."
I read this and thought, "Ah ha!" Shades of gray. Has any other prime minister of Israel since Oslo faced a situation like this?
Maybe, just maybe, Netanyahu knows what he's doing. Maybe we are so beleaguered, and so much in need of support from the West right now that a certain appearance of "give" on our part is necessary. Or we'll be the ones left to hang out to dry.
At any rate, I think we all need to consider the complexity and the dangers of our current situation before we presume to judge our prime minister in black and white terms.
~~~~~~~~~~
Returning to that corner that Obama backed himself into:
The Palestinians are quite upset with Obama, and Clinton. They think that leaving Jerusalem out of the equation and continuing to build 3,000 units before a freeze is put in place is no freeze at all. Reports Khaled Abu Toameh, one PA official in Ramallah said that the "mask has fallen off the face" of Obama. Once again, said this official, the US has shown that it is not an "honest broker" because of its "bias" towards Israel.
It's difficult not to be amused by this. Obama, biased towards Israel? What this means, of course, is that Obama is not acting totally on behalf of the Palestinians.
They said that Obama should "force" Israel to freeze construction. Force us? He couldn't force them to come to the table, but us he should force.
~~~~~~~~~~
Then the Palestinians fell back on their default position, which is threat of violence:
Declared Nabil Abu Rudaineh, an Abbas spokesman, there may be a volcanic eruption because of Netanyahu's refusal to halt settlement construction.
This reminds me of nothing more than a three year old who says, "If you don't give me candy right now, I'm going to hold my breath until I explode."
I make fun, because the Palestinians are always making these threats (just as Abbas has threatened to resign about a hundred times). This is not the way a moderate group, interested in conciliation and negotiation, would act -- although no one seems to notice this, or care.
At the end of the day, however, it's not funny. Because down the road I do expect violence.
~~~~~~~~~~
As to Clinton, the Palestinians are annoyed that she said in her press conference that the US would not be demanding more of Israel and that the offer made by Netanyahu was "unprecedented." (The truth is that she knew no more would be forthcoming from Israel, and she was thrilled for what was conceded.)
It is no surprise then that Clinton did a bit of backtracking after this. In Morocco, she said that the Israeli policy, while a positive step in the right direction, still fell short of what she would characterize as the US position on settlements. She had offered praise to Israel, she said, as "positive reinforcement."
~~~~~~~~~~
That Obama has backed himself into a corner with the Palestinians pales in comparison to how he's backed himself in a corner with Iran. The implications here are shameful and frightening.
On this, I recommend Barry Rubin's latest piece, "Why does the US plan Iran's game?"
"The great experiment of engaging Iran seems to be over but the Obama administration refuses to admit it. This shouldn't come as a surprise. As the Iranian regime's record shows, it stalls, maneuvers, gives vague promises and then doesn't deliver, but only after it's taken your concessions. Do you know how many years the talks with Iran have gone on without yielding fruit and letting Teheran develop nuclear weapons every day? Answer: Seven.
"Do you know when the 'deadline' originally was for Iran to stop its nuclear program 'or else'? Answer: Approximately September 2007.
"But the Obama administration doesn't want to admit that the new Iranian counteroffer is unacceptable because it would have to give up its dreams of a deal and actually do something in response."
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1256799063133&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
~~~~~~~~~~
Military Intelligence chief Maj.-Gen. Amos Yadlin gave a briefing to the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee yesterday, and addressed issues connected to Iran.
The nuclear facility in the city of Qom (a holy Shi'ite city) that was revealed recently has "no possible civilian use," said Yadlin. The Iranians, he said, are interested in a horizontal expansion of their nuclear production capacity, so that when they reach the point of wanting to develop their nuclear weapons capability, they can do so quickly. The Qom facility is designed for uranium enrichment.
Obama, the ball is in your court. Your secretary of state told CNN last Friday that "I am going to let this process [negotiations with Iran] play out. We are going the extra mile, as we said we would." But this is simply not acceptable.
~~~~~~~~~~
Yadlin also told the Knesset Committee that Hamas has successfully tested a rocket, launching it into the Mediterranean, that has a 60 km. range. This brings Tel Aviv within rocket range.
The speculation is that this is an Iranian made Fajr missile. What is more, Hamas does not see itself as having reached its full military capabilities. The group has been quiet in recent months for a number of reasons, including force-building and a desire to strengthen their civil rule in Gaza.
~~~~~~~~~~
The good news for today -- and do we need good news! -- is that it's raining here in Israel. Hard rain. Off and on for a few days now.
It took a while to start, as we had unseasonally warm weather into the fall. But now that it has, it seems very serious indeed -- above average fall. In this rain-starved part of the world, when the rains come everyone is delighted. "Baruch Hashem," a blessing from on high. Or, as my two-year-old grandson (too young to remember the rainy season last year) exclaimed: "mayim me'shamayim!" Water from heaven. May it continue.
No shades of gray here. The rain turns the land green.
~~~~~~~~~~
November 1, 2009
"Is This OK?"
Not from where I stand: it makes me very nervous.
According to news reports here, PM Netanyahu has unofficially given US Envoy Mitchell a commitment to stop all construction in Judea and Samaria after the 3,000 units currently in planning stages -- or otherwise in process -- have been completed. This commitment -- made, at least ostensibly, in order to render negotiations with the PA possible -- would not include eastern Jerusalem.
I'm reading nothing about continuing construction for public buildings such as schools within this understanding. Nor have I heard a word regarding how long this freeze would be sustained, and under what conditions it would be cancelled -- such a freeze being easy to start and difficult to terminate.
What's wrong with this is that is sets a precedent in principle and compromises our rights. This takes Netanyahu further down that slippery road than I had expected him to go.
~~~~~~~~~~
Actually, what Netanyahu is doing is playing with fire. He seems to be taking a risk that he anticipates will serve Israel's interests. (Yes, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, I am giving him the benefit of that doubt here.)
And so, in fairness, let's flip over that coin and look at the other side:
Secretary of State Clinton, who arrived here last night after Shabbat, has expressed satisfaction with Netanyahu, calling his concessions "unprecedented." She told the PA that a settlement freeze "has never been a precondition [for starting talks], it has always been an issue within the negotiations." She made it clear that Israel, which she praised highly, was going to go no further. Clearly she has no intention of pressuring us to do so.
But Abbas is demanding further of Israel: He is still insisting that he will not come to the table unless all construction is frozen now, including in Jerusalem.
~~~~~~~~~~
So what we have is a situation in which Israel is the "good guy" and the US is mightily irked with the PA instead.
What's clear is that Netanyahu is a genius at manipulating the political situation so that we come out ahead, at least in the short run.
Presumably, he took a calculated risk -- offering enough to delight the US, but not so much that it was likely that Abbas would accept.
It was Foreign Minister Lieberman who told the Americans (and I certainly concur) that the Palestinians weren't interested in negotiating now. As this is true, it might be argued that Netanyahu was calling their bluff. Had he offered nothing, Abbas would have attempted to put the onus on us. But he offered just enough so that the onus is now on the Palestinians -- without having given so much that there was much chance Abbas would accept.
Considering the political and diplomatic flack we've taken of late, this isn't a bad place to be.
~~~~~~~~~~
But there is a proviso here: Clinton called Netanyahu's offer "unprecedented." So now, even though Abbas has rejected this and Netanyahu's offer (I am assuming -- perhaps erroneously) won't apply at the moment, there IS a precedent. And we have to ask what happens next time around and what principle may have been sacrificed.
~~~~~~~~~~
What's interesting here is that Deputy Premier Silvan Shalom (Likud) -- something of a political adversary of Netanyahu, (and thus admittedly quick to criticize) but notably to Netanyahu's left -- said at the Cabinet meeting today:
"We did not ask any prime minister in the past to freeze the settlements. Therefore, there is no reason to ask this of Netanyahu. I very much do not support a partial freeze...we must come to any negotiations without preconditions."
This is very much to the point. Political maneuverings or no political maneuverings, there is reason to say that Netanyahu offered more than was necessary in order to show good faith or call Abbas's bluff. He was all together too eager.
At the Cabinet meeting, the prime minister declared:
"The Palestinians should come to their senses and enter negotiations as soon as possible...
"We are making a concerted effort to renew negotiations. This is not the effort of a moment. We have been making these efforts since the government was formed...
"We did things that have not been done by any prior government. (This is a point of pride?) We removed hundreds of road blocks and checkpoints. We have taken steps to ease their lives and the Palestinian economy. The result of this is unprecedented prosperity in the Palestinian Authority...
"On the other hand, we are encountering the opposite trend. While we are in the process of allowing for negotiations and their development, we are faced with preconditions being stipulated by the Palestinians that have not been posted since the beginning of the peace process 16 years ago."
So how much of what's going on has to do with keeping America happy and showing up the Palestinians, and how much is real on Netanyahu's part? He seems to be champing at the bit, terribly eager to get those negotiations going. Is this because he believes (I don't think he can really believe this!) that a settlement of some sort is possible, or because he wants to show the world that there's no compromise in the Palestinians at all, but that we are just so, so sincere?
~~~~~~~~~~
As this impasse in negotiations is faced, there is talk of some sort of interim agreement with the Palestinians.
Some -- including Shaul Mofaz (formerly defense minister and now a Kadima MK) -- are proposing that an "interim" Palestinian state be established, without final borders. A bad idea.
Foreign Minister Lieberman is referring to an interim understanding that is less than a state, although it's not quite clear to me what he does have in mind.
~~~~~~~~~~
I read one report last week that indicated the Obama administration is considering "indirect" negotiations, since Abbas won't sit down with Netanyahu. That's what is called "shuttle diplomacy." But I see no evidence for this at present, as Mitchell will be remaining in the area for a few more days, to try to get direct negotiations started.
That's part of his continuing attempt to move the rock, you understand.
~~~~~~~~~~
The Palestinian news service Ma'an on Friday cited an independent in the PA Legislature, Dr Yasser Al-Wadiyeh, who declared:
"There has not yet been an announcement that reconciliation failed - despite some setbacks."
Al-Wadiyeh says that efforts (apparently by independents) to promote a unity government are still going on; talks are being held outside the scope of media attention. (If this is so, why tell Ma'an?)
We'll see.
~~~~~~~~~~
I would like to return to the issue of the Temple Mount briefly, looking at an article by David Kirshenbaum, in the Post. Two matters he mentions are worthy of note here:
[] In point of fact, "no non-Muslim can step foot anywhere in Islam's holy cities [which means all of Mecca and Medina, not just specific places of worship there]."
This provides a jarring contrast with the reality here, which is that "Muslims can gather on the Temple Mount by the hundreds of thousands and they can play soccer and have picnics on Judaism's holiest site." I would add that it also offers a look at the mentality of religious exclusivity of the Muslims, which makes them so adamantly against compromise and sharing.
[] There are those (a small number, unquestionably) who are promoting the establishment of a synagogue on the Temple Mount. Primary among these is "Chief Rabbi of Haifa She'ar Yashuv Cohen, [who] has long championed a change in the status quo on the Temple Mount."
The Arabs would have apoplexy, and our government would be too frightened to proceed with such an idea. But I think it's great. It would establish firmly our right to not only maintain a presence but to pray there. (There is, of course, the issue of not allowing Jews to walk on sanctified places, such as where the Holy of Holies stood, but I am betting there is a way to protect that sanctity by establishing the Jewish presence on the Mount's periphery.)
At any rate, this is an excellent piece, and I recommend reading it and sharing it:
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1256799054140&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
~~~~~~~~~~
Last week thousands of pious Jews flocked to the site of Rachel's tomb -- which is outside of Bethlehem, in an Israeli-held enclave within Palestinian Authority territory -- in order to observe what is traditionally recognized as Rachel's yartzheit, the anniversary of her death.
Ma'an, the same Palestinian news agency mentioned above, noted this event and in the accounting said:
"To this day the site, formerly known as the location of the Bilal Bin Rabah Mosque..."
This is serious business, for it is one more attempt by the Palestinians to co-opt or delegitimize a Jewish site. In this case the claim is patently ridiculous.
Our mother Rachel died in childbirth (bearing Binyamin), while the family was on the road.
"And Rachel died, and was buried on the way to Ephrath, which is Bethlehem. And Jacob set a monument upon her grave: that is the monument of Rachel's grave until this day." — Bereshit (Genesis) 35:19-20
Needless to say, there were no mosques then.
I will add that many Jews (myself included) are deeply touched by the imagery of Rachel in her tomb on the road, where she wept as her children passed her as they went into exile -- and where she now awaits our return.
~~~~~~~~~~
And what is the Bilal Bin Rabah Mosque, you may ask.
According to Nadav Shragai, writing for the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs two years ago, for centuries Muslim tradition had recognized the site we call Kever Rachel as being Rachel's tomb -- this was not contested.
The Gaza-Jericho Agreement (part of Oslo), signed in 1994, stipulated that the Palestinians would guarantee free access by Jews to holy places within areas of PA jurisdiction. (Because of the adamancy of key rabbis, Rachel's Tomb was retained in Israeli jurisdiction, and was never surrendered to the hands of the Palestinians.)
The Palestinian commitment, as you are likely aware, was never honored, and the most severe crisis with regard to this came with the desecration of Joseph's tomb in Shechem (Nablus) in October 2000.
Just days later, on Yom Kippur in 2000, the Palestinian daily Al-Hayat al-Jadida ran an article marking Rachel's Tomb as the next target: "'the Tomb of Rachel,' or the Bilal ibn Rabah mosque, is one of the nails the occupation government and the Zionist movement hammered into many Palestinian cities....The tomb is false and was originally a Muslim mosque."
That was apparently the first official mention of the Tomb as a mosque.
Wrote Shragai: "Bilal ibn Rabah was an Ethiopian known in Islamic history as a slave who served in the house of the prophet Muhammad as the first muezzin (the individual who calls the faithful to prayer five times a day)...The Palestinian Authority claimed that according to Islamic tradition, it was Muslim conquerors who named the mosque erected at Rachel's Tomb after Bilal ibn Rabah."
A concrete lesson in the historical distortions of the Palestinians.
~~~~~~~~~~
October 29, 2009
"The Temple"
Michael Freund says it so well that I have chosen to begin today with his column in the Post :
"Something astonishing, even alarming, is taking place in the battle over the future of Jerusalem. Even as Palestinian rioters run amok on the Temple Mount, egged on by the radicals of the Islamic Movement, much of the anger and dismay in the Israeli and international press is being directed, ironically enough, at Jews who merely wish to visit the site.
"Mustering all the righteous indignation at their disposal, the media have been filled in recent days with all kinds of pejoratives to describe them, ranging from 'extremist' to 'fringe' to 'ultra-right-wing,' as though a Jew's desire to exercise his basic, fundamental rights somehow constitutes an act of provocation.
"Local pundits and commentators alike have also joined the fray, going to great lengths to justify the restrictions imposed by the police on Jews wishing to visit the Mount, even accusing the would-be pilgrims of seeking to trigger a firestorm of Islamic fury. It does not seem to bother them one whit that the policy in place today is entirely discriminatory in nature, as the followers of Muhammad are allowed to visit and pray where Solomon's Temple once stood, but not the followers of Moses.
"Indeed, all the enlightened defenders of civil rights, and the champions of equality before the law suddenly fall silent when capitulation to Muslim threats is given preference over respecting vital Jewish rights.
"And why not, you might be asking. After all, if it is just a bunch of kooks who want to ascend the Mount, why go to all this trouble on their behalf? Needless to say, this approach plays straight into the hands of our foes, whose ultimate goal is to wrestle the holy site away from us by denying its historical and spiritual connection with the Jewish people.
"And what a sad and pitiful sight this is to behold. Before our very eyes, we are witnessing a concerted effort to delegitimize and even demonize our people's most cherished dream: the longing for the Temple.
"The very aspiration that was born in the moments when Roman flames engulfed the Second Temple more than 1,900 years ago, and which was carried in Jewish hearts throughout centuries of exile, has now become an object of scorn, mockery and ridicule.
"Make no mistake: This is nothing less than an unbridled assault on Judaism itself, and it is time for the derision and name-calling to stop."
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1256740787836&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
~~~~~~~~~~
You don't have to personally long for the Temple-rebuilt to understand the outrage. What you do need to understand is that Jews are forbidden to pray (you read this correctly) at the site that is the most sanctified in Jewish history.
You need to understand that this site stands at the core of our heritage and thus our claim to this land. When the Muslims make it "theirs" they are challenging us in the most fundamental way possible.
~~~~~~~~~~
Two Jews who were on their way to services this morning at the Yeshurun Valley Sephardic Orthodox Synagogue in North Hollywood CA were shot in the legs today by a young gunman; they are both in the hospital in good condition. The gunman -- who has not been identified as I write -- has been taken into custody, and the attack is being called a hate crime.
~~~~~~~~~~
Are we surprised?
Iran has given what it is referring to as "an initial response" to the proposal for 70% of its uranium to be shipped to Russia for enrichment; further "negotiations" -- aka known as stalling tactics -- are being sought by Iranian leaders. What is clear is that demands being made do not comport well with Western intentions to slow down, if not actually stop, Iranian nuclear development.
In a speech today, Ahmadinejad indicated that Iran "will not retreat even an iota" on its nuclear rights. He expressed satisfaction that the West has moved "from confrontation to interaction" on the issue. But so what.
~~~~~~~~~~
The one who will actually be tested now is not Ahmadinejad, though: it is Obama.
The president had vigorously advanced a policy of engagement with Iran. The question now is how he responds to the failure of this policy. It's difficult to over-emphasize the importance of that response.
As Robert Kagen wrote in the Washington Post today:
"Tehran is obviously probing to see whether President Obama can play hardball or whether he can be played. If Obama has any hope of getting anywhere with the mullahs, he needs to show them he means business, now, and immediately begin imposing new sanctions."
~~~~~~~~~~
And, points out Kagen, there's another aspect to this situation: Russia.
"Russia joined France, the United States and ElBaradei in agreeing to the proposal...Iran is now rejecting that proposal. If the administration's engagement strategy is working, then Moscow should come through by joining in sanctions. If, on the other hand, Moscow declares that Iran's counterproposal is satisfactory, or calls for further weeks or months of negotiations, then we will know that Russia, too, is playing Obama. Here again, Obama will have to show whether he is someone whom other powers have to take seriously, or if he is an easy mark in a geopolitical con game. If Moscow continues to act as Iran's facilitator, then doesn't Obama need to make clear that, just as cooperation brings rewards, noncooperation will have consequences?
"Many of us worry that, for Obama, engagement is an end in itself, not a means to an end."
(Thanks Nan A)
~~~~~~~~~~
The way I'm reading it, Obama's moment of accountability has arrived. According to Reuters yesterday, Russia is saying sanctions against Iran were unlikely in the near future.
"Russia's ties with Iran -- which include oil, nuclear and arms deals -- give it rare influence with the Islamic Republic's rulers...
"But Russia, a veto-wielding member of the United Nations Security Council, has always urged restraint and only supported previous sanctions against Iran after insisting on amendments softening the measures."
~~~~~~~~~~
The US House Foreign Affairs Committee is certainly doing what it can to make it possible for Obama to get tough. By a considerable majority, the Committee, chaired by Howard Berman (D-CA), has approved a bill that would permit tougher sanctions against Iran. It still must pass a vote in the House and the Senate.
The Iran Refined Petroleum Sanctions Act is co-sponsored by almost three-quarters of the House membership; it would give the administration power to apply sanctions against those companies that provide Iran with gasoline, diesel and other refined petroleum fuels. Iran exports crude oil but lacks sufficient refining equipment to provide for its own needs. This is the most effective way to bring Iran to its knees without military action. But the world, for a host of reasons, has not taken this route seriously.
State Department spokesman Ian Kelly said the department prefers a multilateral approach: “Right now, I think most of our energies are focused on the engagement side."
Incredible.
~~~~~~~~~~
It is now fourteen years since Yitzhak Rabin was assassinated, and I'm not sure that national wound has ever healed. Across the country several memorials were held, including the official one at the president's residence.
Unfortunately, often the left uses the memory of the assassination politically -- to chastise the right and to represent its vision of peace (return to pre-67 lines, dismantlement of settlements, etc.) as the one that Rabin had advanced. But this, in fact, distorts Rabin's position. Every year I find myself needing to remind people of what the Rabin vision actually was.
~~~~~~~~~~
I thank Eli Hertz of Myths and Facts for putting out excerpts from Rabin's last speech, given to the Knesset days before he was murdered:
"Here, in the land of Israel, we returned and built a nation. Here, in the land of Israel, we established a state. The land of the prophets, which bequeathed to the world the values of morality, law and justice, was, after two thousand years, restored to its lawful owners - the members of the Jewish people. On its land, we have built an exceptional national home and state.
"We view the permanent solution in the framework of [the] State of Israel which will include most of the area of the Land of Israel as it was under the rule of the British Mandate, and alongside it a Palestinian entity [Note from AK: he did NOT refer to a state] which will be a home to most of the Palestinian residents living in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank.
"We will not return to the 4 June 1967 lines.
"First and foremost, united Jerusalem ... as the capital of Israel, under Israeli sovereignty.
"The security border of the State of Israel will be located in the Jordan Valley ... The establishment of blocs of settlements in Judea and Samaria, like the one in Gush Katif.
"We had to choose between the whole of the land of Israel ... and a state with less territory, but which would be a Jewish state. We chose to be a Jewish state.
"We ... committed ourselves before the Knesset, not to uproot a single settlement in the framework of the interim agreement, and not to hinder building for natural growth.
"We are aware of the fact that the Palestinian Authority has not - up until now - [Note from EH: and never thereafter] honored its commitment to change the Palestinian Covenant, and that all of the promises on this matter have not been kept. I would like to bring it to the attention of the members of the house that I view these changes as a supreme test of the Palestinian Authority's willingness and ability, and the changes required will be an important and serious touchstone vis-a-vis the continued implementation of the agreement as a whole."
~~~~~~~~~~
October 28, 2009
"Israel and International Law"
OK, mea culpa. I wrote "Goldwater" Report in my last posting when I meant "Goldstone." Lots of people caught it. And I appreciate having it called to my attention. With the best of intentions on my part, these glitches do happen.
~~~~~~~~~~
PM Netanyahu has suggested that a change in the international laws of war is necessary because of new circumstances being confronted. Sounded good to me.
Those laws -- Geneva Conventions, etc. -- were drafted when war meant two nations with soldiers in uniform faced off against each other. Today we are dealing with a whole new situation, what with fighting forces that are not in a standing army and frequently not in uniform (which makes human rights organizations quick to say we're killing "civilians" when in fact we're not); forces storing weapons in and shooting from places of high civilian population (which makes for human shields); etc.
~~~~~~~~~~
But now I've seen a piece by Irwin Cotler, former Minister of Justice of Canada, and I've recognized that he makes a lot of sense:
It's not that current rules of war are insufficient, he says, but that there is selective application with regard to Israel. What needs to be changed are the procedures of the UN, which "displays a constant country-specific indictment of Israel.
"You can't have a situation where you have special sessions targeting Israel and the rest of the world has immunity. You can't have a situation where Israel alone is excluded from the regional deliberative groups and therefore cannot participate in the drafting of resolutions....The source of the problem [is] the singling out of one member state for differential and discriminatory treatment.
"During the Gaza operation and before it, Hamas committed several war crimes and crimes against humanity. You don't need to create a whole new law of war to be able to hold Hamas responsible. Goldstone did not address most of the existing laws of war with respect to Hamas, like the Genocide Convention, probably the most important of the treaties..."
Cotler believes that even if the laws were to be changed it would not make a lot of difference, if there continued to be selective singling out of Israel. "The laws of war are very expansive and comprehensive...what you need is equality before the law...
"In international law, Israel has emerged as a Jew among the nations."
~~~~~~~~~~
More on the upcoming visit by Hillary Clinton, who's due here on Saturday:
She will be proceeded by Mitchell, who will be arriving tomorrow for preparatory discussions.
How lucky can we get?
Clinton reported recently to Obama on the US attempts to get peace negotiations going. According to Haaretz, she focused on the setback Abbas has had in public opinion because of his stance (quickly reversed) declining to promote discussion of the Goldstone Report in the Human Rights Council. And she recommended that US efforts focus on bolstering Abbas.
This is so mind-numbingly stupid that I hardly know where to begin.
Abbas had promised Obama that he wouldn't push the Goldstone Report and then reversed himself, causing a good deal of diplomatic fallout. He reversed himself because he couldn't stand against Hamas and the hardliners in his own party. He reversed himself without regard for his commitment to Obama or for the impact on his ostensible "partner for peace" (that's us) about whom he cares less than nothing.
So why doesn't the Obama administration see that he's a loser -- a poor candidate for peace partner, someone who is incapable of toeing a moderate line and is actually running scared for his skin? Why does Clinton imagine that anything really good can come of "bolstering Abbas"?
The idea is that this will give him the strength to come to the negotiating table.
Seriously doubt it, but if so, then what? What does it mean that he sits at the table (or has his representatives do so) if he won't moderate, won't compromise, won't keep his word, and is following the lead of Hamas?
~~~~~~~~~~
In addition to which, there is this very critical factor, which the US ignores (or, more likely, doesn't grasp): Attempts by US officials to bolster Abbas may backfire because he will be seen as a US lackey. Having the US on your side is most definitely NOT a political plus when Hamas is setting the political agenda. That is what caused Abbas trouble in the first place and motivated him to reverse his position with regard to the Goldstone Report: Hamas and Fatah hardliners were saying he was doing Obama's bidding (he was).
What I'm seeing -- and I've just done some research that reinforces my impression here -- is that the US is meddling without understanding Palestinian political dynamics.
~~~~~~~~~~
One thing is nagging at me, however, and causing concern: Could it be that Clinton is coming here to pressure us in some additional way? Could she be expecting to get something from us that could be handed to Abbas as a prize so that he can claim that he came out ahead (thus currying favor in the streets)? Yes, it could be. Clinton is no friend. Hillary Clinton is in it for Hillary Clinton. If she has any values, any principles by which she stands, I have not yet observed them.
Remember this?
Hillary bears close watching.
~~~~~~~~~~
Now is a good time to say, Please Prime Minister Netanyahu, stand strong when Secretary of State Clinton comes to town. Do not make any concessions so that she can bolster Abbas!
Fax: 02-670-5369 (From the US: 011-972-2-670-5369)
Phone: 03-610-9898 (From the US: 011-972-3-610-9898)
E-mail: pm_eng2@it.pmo.gov.il (underscore after pm)
~~~~~~~~~~
October 27, 2009
"The Mask Has Dropped"
J Street's mask, that is: According to today's Post, J Street has a "university arm," and has decided to drop the "pro-Israel" half of its "pro-Israel, pro-peace" slogan, when working with students, so as to not alienate them.
Are you gagging yet?
This decision was conveyed to 250 young student activists who attended a special weekend program right before the J Street convention. At the session, the activists mapped out strategies for bringing J Street to campuses and getting students -- seen as a key part of the J Street constituency -- to "join in the effort."
Here I need to stop and ask a question. WHAT effort do they want these students, who are apparently offended by the mere mention of Israel, to join? What precisely will J Street be promoting?
Says American University junior Lauren Barr, who is secretary of the J Street student board, "We don't want to isolate people because they don't feel quite comfortable with 'pro-Israel,' so we say 'pro-peace.' But behind that is 'pro-Israel.'"
Give me a break!
~~~~~~~~~~
Barr explains further: "people feel alienated when the conversation revolves around a connection to Israel only, because people feel connected to Palestine (where's "Palestine"?), people feel connected to social justice, people feel connected to the Middle East."
Heaven help us! What does it mean to "feel connected to the Middle East"? And where, outside of Israel, is there ANY social justice in the ME? Perversions of truth are being promoted successfully enough so that it is deemed inappropriate to mention Israel to people who are in favor of social justice!! Maybe US students need to talk to some of the thousands of African refugees who have decided that Israel is the place they want to flee to, because it's the only place in the region where they can secure humane treatment.
Now here's the clincher: Barr says that individual chapters can change the slogan: they can add "pro-Israel," "pro-Israel, pro-Palestine," or other wording.
~~~~~~~~~~
I am not obtuse here. I abhor the J Street approach, but I know there is another problem: The alienation of Jewish students with regard to Israel. But it's not J Street that will solve the problem; they will only exacerbate it.
~~~~~~~~~~
Please allow me, in my outrage, to share one other piece about J Street today. This is part of an important posting on the Z Street blog, regarding the J Street conference:
"This new alliance of progressive Jewish Americans are here to tell you that they are the anointed ones who will bring peace to the Holy Land if only the world will shut up and let them work their magic. Never mind that the magic is never defined beyond 'two states for two people,' and that the goal is to 'remold Israel into a state of social justice, a state where people do right' and where everyone will 'model core Jewish values' of 'peace and outstretched arms to our neighbors.'
"Hmmm. Well, those are core humanist values, perhaps core progressive values, and values that many Jews hold dear, but those are not the core Jewish values. And that’s the biggest problem with this whole J Street charade of representing the 'New Jewish' response to the conflict in the Middle East... There is nothing inherently and solely Jewish about the J Street approach. A perfect example of this was offered by Daniel Sokatch who is, not coincidentally, the new president of the New Israel Fund...
"Perhaps the best known biblical quotation, at least amongst non-observant Jews, and the one focused on by Sokatch, is 'Justice, Justice Shalt Thou Pursue.' Deut. 16:20. This is the very core of Judaism, he explained to those gathered in the Washington D.C. Grand Hyatt at the kick-off of the J Street conference. But, perhaps unknown to Sokatch (maybe because all the lithographs and needlepoints only include these words), the phrase continues 'so that you shall inherit the land.' Yes, that really is a core value of Judaism, and the land is Israel.
The ultimate inability to differentiate between what these New Jews want to call Jewish values and what are actually the core values of Judaism, is offensive. To say the least."
This would be extremely funny, if it weren't so serious.
http://ziostreet.wordpress.com:80/2009/08/02/what-where-why-and-what-next/
~~~~~~~~~~
You might like to see Barry Rubin's latest column, "The big American freeze."
Rubin says that there is a major stumbling block to Obama's plans for promoting negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians: Mahmoud Abbas, who is holding tight to his demands and will not back down because he "is more afraid of his own colleagues, Hamas's baiting him as a 'moderate' (a compliment perhaps from the West but a deadly insult in Palestinian politics) and his own people than of Obama."
Carrying this further, Rubin comments, "Indeed, nobody is afraid of Obama, which is one of the main problems with his foreign policy."
What Rubin predicts is "a deadlock, month after month into 2010. Is there some clever way out? I don't see one and I bet the administration doesn't either.
"Abbas...has what for him is an attractive alternative: strike a militant pose, blame America, seek rapprochement with Hamas. In addition, what both the US and Europe fail to see is that the Palestinians don't need or want rapid progress on negotiations or even a state except on what would be completely their own terms."
And so matters are going very badly for Obama. He didn't observe "one of the most basic rules of foreign policy, that you don't put the chief executive's prestige on the line unless you know for darn sure beforehand that what he says will happen."
All that the American administration "has left is what might be called the cat strategy. Have you ever seen a cat miss a leap or have an embarrassing fall? It merely licks itself and looks around with an expression saying: I meant to do that. Everything is going according to plan.
"But it isn't."
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1256150048671&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
~~~~~~~~~~
Obama's envoy to the ME, George Mitchell, is apparently deep into the cat strategy. For he has declared that he intends to continue trying to get Israel and the PA to the negotiating table, in spite of Israel's concern about the announced PA elections. But it's not just "Israel's" concern: The situation in the PA is severely unstable.
No matter, says Mitchell, the US will continue "pushing the rock," until the rock actually moves. How devoted. How noble. How stupid.
~~~~~~~~~~
Abbas is being defiant and determined as he persists in his plan to hold elections in spite of warnings from several Palestinian quarters that he not do so. It's not just that Hamas will not allow elections in Gaza, it's also that they will not participate in those elections, anywhere. Says Khaled Abu Toameh, only Abbas loyalists and members of Fatah factions would run. An electoral victory in such a situation would be meaningless. This would bring "an even greater blow" to Fatah credibility, at a time when Hamas is already rising in public opinion polls.
In addition, the election is likely to harden Fatah's stance even further, as it competes with Hamas positions in attracting the electorate. This makes it precisely not the time to even try to bring Fatah to the negotiating table. But go tell that to Mitchell.
To top it all off, by the end of the week Hillary Clinton will arrive here to advance peace talks.
~~~~~~~~~~
Israeli Chief of Staff Lt.-Gen. Gabi Ashkenazi delivered a talk at a Holocaust memorial in Germany yesterday. Israel, he declared, will not entrust its security to the hands of "strangers" and will do "everything needed" to protect its citizens if war is forced upon it. The reference, of course, is to Iran:
"Today, 64 years after the last train led Jews from this platform to deathcamps, and 61 years after the Jewish homeland was founded, anti-Semitism refuses to disappear from the world. It changes its face, language, path and justifications, but its aim remains the same. Today, state leaders openly declare their desire to destroy the State of Israel, and deny the right of the Jewish people to national sovereignty.
"The Jewish nation renewed itself in its land, and is committed to its independence and security. The IDF, the protector of the Jewish nation, is not a warmongering military, but a defensive military. We do not relish combat, but if war is forced upon us, we will do all that is necessary so that Israeli citizens can sit safely in their homes. No one should test our power."
Amen v'Amen!
~~~~~~~~~~
Iran has declared that it accepts "the general framework" of the plan for shipping its uranium to Russia for processing but is seeking "important changes" in that plan. It is unclear what all the changes would be, but one demand that has surfaced involves sending the uranium out of the country "in stages," rather than at once, which was rather the point of the proposal. The nations who are dealing with Iran may yet find these "changes" unacceptable; already frustration is being expressed -- in particular by France.
In any event, there is good reason to think that this is all no more than an Iranian gambit to stall for time, and that there has never been intention to agree to the proposal. Just today Ahmadinejad declared that his country would persist with its nuclear program.
~~~~~~~~~~
Time's a-wasting with regard to Iran, and when serious commentary on the subject is considered, it is enough to make the blood run cold.
An article worth considering is "Armageddon Time" by Peter Robinson: "When it comes to Iran, the U.S. may be facing a cataclysm."
"A big nation attempting to humiliate a small nation in a way the small nation simply cannot accept. Unseriousness among great powers. A gathering sense of impending catastrophe. Once again, it may be Armageddon time."
What gets me, really gets me, is the "unseriousness among great powers," most especially the US. May this piece have it wrong!
~~~~~~~~~~
Congress has passed a non-binding, sense of the Congress, resolution calling on the President and Secretary of State to block any further endorsement of the Goldwater Report. It was sponsored by Congresswoman Ileana Ross-Lehtinen (R-FL 18th), Ranking Member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, and co-sponsored by Congressman Howard Berman (D-CA 28th ), Chair of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, Congressman Gary Ackerman (D-NY 5th), Chairman of the House Subcommittee on the Middle East and South Asia, and Congressman Dan Burton (R-IN 5th), Ranking Member of the House Subcommittee on the Middle East and South Asia.
Ileana is one of the finest friends we have in the Congress, and deserves to hear of our appreciation for this move. The other gentlemen, who are not at all times as solidly where we might like to see them, should definitely be contacted as well. It is both wise and appropriate to offer praise them when it is deserved.
In many cases today, e-mail addresses are for a Congressperson's constituents only.
A short thank you for the resolution seeking to block endorsement of the Goldwater Report would be fine.
Ileana Ros-Lehtinen:
Phones: 202-225-3931 or 305-668-2285
Fax Numbers: 202-225-5620 or 305-668-5970
Howard Berman:
Phones: (202) 225-4695 or (818) 994-7200
Fax Numbers: (202) 225-3196 or (818) 994-1050
Gary Ackerman:
Phones: (202) 225-2601 or (718) 423-2154
Fax Number: (718) 423-5053
Dan Burton:
Phones: (202) 225-2276 or (317) 848-0201
Fax Numbers: (202) 225-0016 or (317) 846-7306
~~~~~~~~~~
October 25, 2009
"Iranian Perversity"
Iranian in-your-face obstinacy is what we must be grateful for. It is all that can save us, as we confront the foolishness and naiveté being displayed by the UN and nations -- the US, France, and Russia -- participating in negotiations with Iran.
Last week headlines were made when a draft of a potential agreement was tentatively accepted by Iranian negotiators at an IAEA meeting in Vienna. The proposal was handed out to those present by IAEA head Mohammed ElBaradei, a snake in the grass if ever there was one. There was no discussion of this proposal at the meeting, according the Guardian -- it simply reflected an understanding established in principle in Geneva on October 1, with the addition by ElBaradei of some modifications that had been proposed and some red lines that had been set forth. Many details were lacking. Many questions were left unanswered.
There was no formal acceptance of this proposal by nations participating either, merely an informal indication by the US, France and Russia that they had no objections. Chief Iranian negotiator, Ali Asghar Soltanieh, said he would forward this to Iran and gave a fairly positive interview to CNN.
From some quarters a very short-lived optimism was expressed that the nuclear crisis with Iran had been averted.
Not so fast. Not so easily.
~~~~~~~~~~
The proposal called for Iran to ship some 70% of its (known) low-enriched uranium abroad for processing, first to Russia and then France -- which would then send rods back to Iran for peaceful uses. By reducing available Iranian stockpiles of enriched uranium, it was thought that Iran's potential to further enrich uranium for use in manufacturing bombs would be significantly diminished.
The international concern at this point is preventing Iran from reaching the threshold in low-enriched uranium that would allow it to turn its stocks into more highly enriched uranium for a bomb within a matter of months.
But the plan did not call for a total halt to further Iranian enrichment and did not require extensive monitoring of Iranian nuclear facilities.
~~~~~~~~~~
Iran was supposed to provide a final answer on Friday, and, not surprisingly, none was given. Iranian representatives said that the proposal was being studied and an answer would be forthcoming within about a week. But then speaker of the Iranian parliament, Ali Larijani, declared that the West was trying to cheat Iran. And various other proposals began to surface, according to the Financial Times (UK) -- plans that would require transfer of less fuel, or transfer at a later date, or keeping it all in Iran.
~~~~~~~~~~
For Israel, and indeed for the world, the proposal put forth by the IAEA, or anything akin to it, would be an unmitigated disaster. (Even if most of the world doesn't realize it.) For it would forestall sanctions and would effectively block our ability to carry out a military hit. Were Iran to agree to this proposal, should we then proceed with an attack, we would be cast as an international pariah, a seeker of military violence, to a degree that would make what is being done to us now, post-Goldstone, look a bear hug. But the agreement would not prevent Iran from ultimately achieving nuclear weapons or at least the ability to produce them.
~~~~~~~~~~
Opposition to the proposal was found across a broad political spectrum here in Israel.
Vice Premier Silvan Shalom (Likud), in a meeting with UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon, called the proposal a "bad mistake," and explained that:
"Iran will not change its path. Iran's intentions go beyond its nuclear program. Iran wants to bring back the Persian Empire, and in its view this is a way of buying time."
He said that Iran was laughing at the world, "turning the agreement into a powder keg that will explode in our faces."
Earlier, Defense Minister Barak (Labor) declared that this deal would set back Iranian nuclear plans by a year at most and that a total halt to uranium enrichment was required.
Tzipi Livni (Kadima) said the deal "would blow up in our faces," and Shaul Mofaz (also Kadima) called the proposal "a worthless piece of paper."
Are the Israelis the only ones who are clear-eyed here?
~~~~~~~~~~
Barry Rubin lays out the parameters, the intrigue and the dangers of this situation with considerable clarity. I urge you to read what he says, because it is so very important:
http://rubinreports.blogspot.com/2009/10/iranian-negotiations-ploy-of-week-or.html
~~~~~~~~~~
This entire discussion will, hopefully, turn out to be moot, and we'll be back to square one with regard to pushing tough sanctions and considering a military attack.
One European official, cited by the Financial Times, said that the discussions in Vienna "have been something of a reality check for Obama's officials on just how difficult and intransigent Iran really is."
If this were to serve as a wake-up call for Obama, that would be encouraging. But we don't even know that yet.
~~~~~~~~~~
A change of pace and subject with this link to "J Street's Spiritual Conceit, by David Weinberg of the BESA Center:
"The pious spiritual claptrap that characterizes J Street's conference in Washington this week is both a conceit and a new form of Jewish apostasy. Conference speakers earnestly broadcast their 'profound' Jewish and 'spiritual' identities in order to besmirch the mainstream Jewish community and engender a distancing in US-Israel relations. This certainly does not fool the American Muslim leaders who are speaking at the conference. They know and appreciate exactly what J Street is up to.
http://www.biu.ac.il/SOC/besa/perspectives94.html
~~~~~~~~~~
The PA President has announced that elections will be held for the presidency and the legislature on January 24.
Palestinian Front for the Liberation of Palestine politburo member, Maher At-Taher, speaking from Bethlehem, and cited by the Palestinian news agency Ma'an, is actually making sense:
How can Abbas announce these elections and pursue reconciliation with Hamas at the same time, he ponders. I would answer that it is typical for Fatah to play both ends against the middle, to attempt to cover all its bases.
Expressing no preference on the part of his party either for or against a unity government, he makes the simple observation that, while elections are constitutional, and not illegal as Hamas claims, Abbas is using them to solve a problem it actually cannot solve:
"The fact is that there is an authority in Gaza and another authority in Ramallah, there's a deep division in the Palestinian arena and there can't be elections without the national reconciliation."
Meanwhile, Deputy Speaker of the Palestinian Legislative Council (PLC) Ahmad Bahar of Hamas, expressed concern that for Hamas to recognize the elections would be to recognize the PLO, which, by extension would mean recognizing the Oslo accords that Hamas will not accept.
Sound like a whole lot of people have backed themselves into corners.
~~~~~~~~~~
All in all, it doesn't seem like an opportune time for the PA to be involved in negotiations, does it?
One might suppose that the Obama administration would decide to hold off in promoting negotiations until issues of unity and elections were resolved and there was some sort of stability (relatively speaking, of course) in place. But if one were to assume this, one would be mistaken.
For in spite of the Palestinian unrest, and a report by Sec. of State Clinton to Obama last week indicating continuing gaps in the Palestinian and Israeli positions, the Washington Post reports that the administration "is intent" on getting talks going before the end of the year.
~~~~~~~~~~
There has been more violence on the Temple Mount over the last few days.
And tonight there is a special conference being held at Heichal Shlomo (next to the Great Synagogue) in Jerusalem, as Zionist rabbis call for Jewish ascent to the Temple Mount and an end to the Muslim use of the Temple Mount as a platform for incitement.
A heartening turn of events: It signals a Jewish refusal to surrender control of the Mount to the Muslims.
This is, it must be explained, a sensitive issue. There are rabbis on the far right who say it is forbidden for Jews to go on the Mount because of the sanctity of the place, the difficulty of determining the precise location of the Holy of Holies, and the ritual impurity of the nation of Israel today. Those Zionists rabbis who endorse going up say visitors must first immerse in the mikvah (ritual bath), and on the Mount remain on the perimeter, to avoid standing on areas of sanctity where stepping would be forbidden.
Among those participating are Rabbi Dov Lior, rabbi of Kiryat Arba and Hevron, and Rabbi Shmuel Rabinovich, rabbi of the Kotel -- neither of whom would remotely be classified as liberal.
Participants include political figures as well: MKs Uri Ariel, Aryeh Eldad and Michael Ben-Ari, all of the National Union; MK Uri Orbach (Habayit Hayehudi); MK Otniel Schneller (one of the more nationalist members of Kadima); Jerusalem Deputy Mayor David Hadari; Moshe Feiglin (head of Manhigut Yehudit faction of Likud).
~~~~~~~~~~
The date for the conference was selected because it is the anniversary of the ascent of the Rambam (Maimonides) to the Mount. (This authoritative 12th-century Jewish philosopher and codifier of Jewish law was, it seems clear, in favor of ascending.)
Said conference chair, Yehudah Glick, “There is a worrisome phenomenon that every time two or three rocks are thrown [by Arabs], the Jews are distanced from the Temple Mount. The Arabs learned this and they behave accordingly.”
There are sources that are comparing calls of this group to ascend the Mount with inciteful calls by radical Muslim groups. I find this highly offensive and very much off base.
~~~~~~~~~~
October 21, 2009
"US - Israel Relations"
The United States and Israel are today holding the biggest-ever joint missile defense drill ( the Juniper Cobra 10 exercise) that will take into account threats from Iran, Hezbollah and Syria. A thousand US military personnel will participate along with an equal number of Israelis; the Israeli Arrow 2 Theater Ballistic Missile Defense System and the American Navy's AEGIS Ballistic Missile Defense System will be tested, along with the US Patriot advanced capability anti-missile missiles.
This exercise has been in the planning for two years, and American military officials arrived months ago to help set things up. Radar stations -- including the Israeli Green Pine and Super Green Pine systems and the US Forward Based X-Bank Tactical radar -- have been erected around the country. Seventeen American navy ships are in Israel's territorial waters and air force planes will be involved.
Is this a panacea that protects us in a way that makes deterrence against Hezbollah and Syria unnecessary, or makes it irrelevant if Iran goes nuclear? Of course not.
Does it make me feel a good measure safer? Indeed it does. Iran has to know that we're not sitting ducks and that they very well might not have the advantage of a successful first strike.
~~~~~~~~~~
Yesterday President Peres opened the "Facing Tomorrow Conference" here in Jerusalem. President Obama sent a opening message to the conference via video. The US - Israel relations, he said, were "more than a strategic alliance."
He then pushed for an assumption of some measure of responsibility towards making peace happen now: "...our moment in history is filled with challenges that...invite pessimism...We can defer action...or we can meet the challenge..."
~~~~~~~~~~
When the president refers to a situation that invites pessimism, he is, undoubtedly, speaking for himself as much as anyone else. He has confronted only frustration in what he naively imagined would be his speedy success in resolving the Israeli-Palestinian (Arab) conflict. In the course of what he has been dealing with, there is no question but that the tone he has adopted towards us has become less strident.
~~~~~~~~~~
But, my friends, do not imagine that all is sweetness and light.
In today's edition of Yisrael Hayom (Israel Today), diplomatic correspondent Shlomo Tzesna reports that our government has rejected an American plan that would have called for a summit to be held in a month that would have been followed by intensive final status talks. Those talks would have been based on an Israeli commitment to reach an agreement for the establishment of a Palestinian state within two years, and would also have required us to commit to a massive withdrawal from Judea and Samaria.
This is the stuff of nightmares. What matters most is the continuing capacity and will of our prime minister and his government to continue to say no.
~~~~~~~~~~
A word about what's happening here: Obama has backed himself into a corner with the talk of a Palestinian state within two years. It's not just Obama, although he's been more strident in his approach. It was true of his predecessors as well. There's always a precipitous rush with regard to finalizing arrangements, always talk -- ludicrous talk -- about a limited "window of opportunity."
Never is there straight talk about the Palestinians not being prepared for self-rule, not having infrastructure or civil agencies in place. No talk about building a genuine civil society over a generation or two, with cessation of incitement and renunciation of violence. There is simply, quick, quick!
Not only is this talk foolish, it's dangerous. Because once expectations are raised, the Palestinian Arab response, when those expectations aren't met, is violence. There is particular concern about that now, as the US is training PA security forces -- forces that are being told that they are helping to build a state. Once they see they are not going to have their state within two years, against whom do you imagine they will turn their newly honed military skills?
There's a precedent for this: every time the CIA has trained PA forces, they ended up, in some measure or other, turning against us.
~~~~~~~~~~
After Obama's message was delivered yesterday, Netanyahu spoke. He challenged Abbas to say publicly what is said behind closed doors: "...to say the truth about peace...and the true way to achieve it."
This is mere rhetoric. Netanyahu knows full well that Abbas is weak and running scared. He cannot speak truth and cannot moderate (see below) if he values his life.
And for now there will be no negotiations.
~~~~~~~~~~
The Security Cabinet met yesterday. There was some interest within that body in debating the desirability of appointing a committee of inquiry to examine Goldstone Report charges. But it was never brought up, because Defense Minister Barak blocked the discussion. So, here we are again: I don't usually agree with him, but sometimes he is very right indeed.
Israel thoroughly investigated charges at the end of Operation Cast Lead. We conducted ourselves superbly and have no further need to justify ourselves.
What was determined was that a team -- under the jurisdiction of the Foreign Ministry -- would be established to fight the Goldstone charges. Preparation will be done for debate in the UN Security Council, should the report be brought there.
~~~~~~~~~~
I'm finding, astonishingly, some shifting of attitudes in unlikely places:
One of the sources critical of Israel that Goldstone used in his report was Human Rights Watch. Now Robert Bernstein, who founded this organization, has written a stunning op-ed in the New York Times:
"...I must do something that I never anticipated: I must publicly join the group’s critics. Human Rights Watch had as its original mission to pry open closed societies, advocate basic freedoms and support dissenters. But recently it has been issuing reports on the Israeli-Arab conflict that are helping those who wish to turn Israel into a pariah state...
"When I stepped aside in 1998, Human Rights Watch was active in 70 countries, most of them closed societies. Now the organization, with increasing frequency, casts aside its important distinction between open and closed societies.
"Nowhere is this more evident than in its work in the Middle East. The region is populated by authoritarian regimes with appalling human rights records. Yet in recent years Human Rights Watch has written far more condemnations of Israel for violations of international law than of any other country in the region.
"Israel, with a population of 7.4 million, is home to at least 80 human rights organizations, a vibrant free press, a democratically elected government, a judiciary that frequently rules against the government, a politically active academia, multiple political parties and, judging by the amount of news coverage, probably more journalists per capita than any other country in the world — many of whom are there expressly to cover the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
"Meanwhile, the Arab and Iranian regimes rule over some 350 million people, and most remain brutal, closed and autocratic, permitting little or no internal dissent. The plight of their citizens who would most benefit from the kind of attention a large and well-financed international human rights organization can provide is being ignored as Human Rights Watch’s Middle East division prepares report after report on Israel.
"Human Rights Watch has lost critical perspective on a conflict in which Israel has been repeatedly attacked by Hamas and Hezbollah, organizations that go after Israeli citizens and use their own people as human shields. These groups are supported by the government of Iran, which has openly declared its intention not just to destroy Israel but to murder Jews everywhere. This incitement to genocide is a violation of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.
"Leaders of Human Rights Watch know that Hamas and Hezbollah chose to wage war from densely populated areas, deliberately transforming neighborhoods into battlefields. They know that more and better arms are flowing into both Gaza and Lebanon and are poised to strike again. And they know that this militancy continues to deprive Palestinians of any chance for the peaceful and productive life they deserve. Yet Israel, the repeated victim of aggression, faces the brunt of Human Rights Watch’s criticism..."
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/20/opinion/20bernstein.html?_r=1&emc=eta1
~~~~~~~~~~
Then we have from the Guardian (UK), that bastion of anti-Israel opinion, a marvelous commentary by Harold Evans that speaks of the Goldstone Report as "a moral atrocity." ("Judge Goldstone has been suckered into letting war criminals use his name to pillory Israel.")
"Aren't the British sickened by the moral confusions of their government? ...Now we have the sickening spectacle of Britain failing to stand by Israel, the only democracy with an independent judiciary in the entire region.
"It was to be expected that the usual suspects of the risible UN Human Rights Council would be eager to condemn Israel for war crimes in defending itself against Hamas. If you treat people as the Chinese do the Tibetans...or as the Russians eliminate Chechen dissidents; or as the Nigerians tolerate extrajudicial killings...or as the Egyptians get prisoners to talk (torture) and the Saudis suppress half their population … well, go through the practices of all 25 states voting to refer Israel to the security council for the Gaza war, and you have to acknowledge they know a lot about the abuse of humans. Anything to divert attention from their own atrocities.
"...Britain didn't just abstain. It shirked voting at all...
"...No doubt there were blunders. A defensive war is still a war with all its suffering and destruction. But Hamas compounded its original war crime with another. It held its own people hostage. It used them as human shields. It regarded every (accidental) death as another bullet in the propaganda war. The Goldstone report won the gold standard of moral equivalence between the killer and the victim. Now Britain wins the silver. Who's cheering?"
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/oct/20/israel-goldstone-palestine-gaza-un
And so there is hope, my friends. Use these articles as broadly as you can. (I thank the many people who shared them with me.)
~~~~~~~~~~
It's good news that Israel's Ambassador to the US, Michael Oren, will not be attending the J Street conference, in spite of intense pressure on him by J Street to do so. A statement released by the embassy alluded to "concerns over certain policies of the organization that may impair the interests of Israel."
The embassy will be sending a lower level staffer not to "participate" but to "observe" what goes on.
Hopefully this decision will reflect upon the credibility of this organization and give pause to some US officials who were thinking of attending. A handful of Congresspersons who were listed as participants have already withdrawn because they said they hadn't been aware of the positions of the organization. Some said that the decisions to attend had been made at staff levels.
J Street has cancelled the poetry reading session of Josh Healey, whom I wrote about yesterday, because there has been publicity about his "poetry," which associated Gaza with Auschwitz, and spoke of "writing numbers on the wrists of babies born in the ghetto called Gaza."
A splendid example of how important it is to get the facts out and reveal the true (anti-Israel) face of matters.
~~~~~~~~~~
You might want to see Lenny Ben David's latest piece, which directs some pointed questions at J Street director Jeremy Ben-Ami.
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/showdown-on-j-street/#
~~~~~~~~~~
And it would be in order to send PM Netanyahu a note of appreciation for his decision (for ultimately it was his decision) to keep Oren from attending.
Fax: 02-670-5369 (From the US: 011-972-2-670-5369)
Phone: 03-610-9898 (From the US: 011-972-3-610-9898)
E-mail: pm_eng2@it.pmo.gov.il (underscore after pm)
~~~~~~~~~~
PA president Abbas is now saying that if Hamas doesn't sign the reconciliation agreement very soon he's going to order elections for January 24, which is when elections are actually supposed to be held.
But without that "reconciliation" Hamas will not permit voting to take place in Gaza.
~~~~~~~~~~
King Abdullah of Jordan has been a real disappointment for some time now. At the moment, he's in Italy and granted an interview to a paper there. What he said was:
"I've heard people in Washington talking about Iran, again Iran, always Iran. But I insist on, and keep insisting on the Palestinian question: the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is the most serious threat to the stability of the region and the Mediterranean."
Not remotely do I believe he actually thinks this. So I ask what advantage this brings him, what forces he's chosen to align himself with.
Just the other day he released a statement regarding the need to protect the Al Aksa Mosque on the Temple Mount. My response: "Come on! Abdullah? Who surely knows this is nonsense?" Abdullah is aware that for many years after 1967 Jordan (not the PA) staffed the Wakf that managed the Temple Mount and found Israel ever "accommodating." He's not one of the crazies of the Islamic Movement. Or he hasn't been until now.
~~~~~~~~~~
Perhaps Abdullah's current positions can be linked to what's happening in Turkey. A Post editorial on this subject offers this analysis:
"Turkey's turn against Israel is best understood in the context of its evolutionary transformation from the secular, nationalist and Western-oriented ethos of Mustafa Kemal Ataturk to the dogmatic, radical, pan-Islamic and Middle Eastern attitudes of its current rulers. It is senseless for Israelis to ask ourselves what we did to cause Arab, Persian and now Turkish rulers to ascribe the most villainous of intentions to us - for example, conspiring to demolish Muslim shrines on the Temple Mount, or relishing the systematic murder of Arab children. Israel did not lose Turkey any more than it lost Iran or the "moderate" Palestinians.
"The Palestinian national movement under Mahmoud Abbas and Salaam Fayad has been outmaneuvered by Hamas. Any move Abbas now makes in the direction of moderation gets pounced upon as perfidy. This environment has led even a sensible man like Fayad to hold cabinet deliberations on whether Israeli soldiers are stealing the organs of Palestinian youths."
~~~~~~~~~~
We are approaching the 20th anniversary of the Fall of the Berlin Wall, of the movement towards democracy and human rights and freedoms in central Europe. A hopeful time, historically, when events suggested growing enlightenment.
But what a difference two decades has made. I cannot help but compare this with the opposite movement now within large parts of the Arab/Muslim world, away from enlightenment and human freedoms. A movement towards radicalism and repression.
~~~~~~~~~~
October 18, 2009
"No Surprise"
An outrage, an act devoid of justice and morality, but not unexpected:
On Friday, the UN Human Rights Council, meeting in Geneva, endorsed the endorsed the Goldstone Commission's findings.
Specifically, it condemned ("the occupying power") Israel for not cooperating with the investigation; welcomed the report of the "International Fact Finding Mission;" endorsed its findings; and recommended that the General Assembly consider it during its (current) 64th session.
~~~~~~~~~~
How bad was this resolution? Bad enough so that Goldstone himself criticized it. While his commission's findings were severely imbalanced and did not genuinely examine Hamas's war crimes or Israel's right to self-defense, they contained some reference to Hamas.
Before the vote was taken, Goldstone, who was in Bern for a conference, told a Swiss paper, "This draft resolution saddens me as it includes only allegations against Israel. There is not a single phrase condemning Hamas as we have done in the report."
~~~~~~~~~~
The vote:
25 nations in favor: Argentina, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, China, Cuba, Djibouti, Egypt, Ghana, India, Indonesia, Jordan, Mauritius, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Pakistan, Philippines, Qatar, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, South Africa and Zambia.
11 nations abstained: Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Gabon, Japan, Mexico, Norway, Republic of Korea, Slovenia, and Uruguay.
Five nations opposed: Hungary, Italy, Netherlands, Slovakia, Ukraine, and the US.
Five nations did not vote: Britain, France, Madagascar, Kyrgyzstan and Angola.
~~~~~~~~~~
Several comments here. Primary among them is my grievous disappointment with Britain and France for declining to vote. Netanyahu had made the point very clearly to Britain that it was in danger of being charged in similar fashion because of its military operations in Afghanistan. It fell on deaf ears.
There was a good deal of justification offered by the two nations for their position, but I'm not buying.
British Foreign Secretary David Miliband said that Britain and France chose not to vote because it would upset negotiations to restart peace talks. And France's envoy Francois Zimeray, told the Post that his country opted not to participate "to express our strong disagreement" with the fact that the vote was taken so precipitously: "As you know we wanted to improve the text, to enter into true and serious negotiations."
The Post reports that the enjoys in Geneva of both nations said they took seriously the report's allegations against Israel of war crimes. This is the bottom line and what kept them from vetoing the resolution.
What British Premier Gordon Brown and French President Nicholas Sarkozy did after making the decision not to vote is send a letter to Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu saying they recognized Israel's right to defend herself, and knew that this was a "sensitive issue," but remained convinced that "peace would guarantee Israel's security best."
Then they put the onus squarely on us, urging "an independent and transparent investigation of the events in Gaza," the facilitation of "increased access to Gaza," a "halt to settlement activity in occupied territories," and "the resumption of negotiations on the basis of parameters recalled by President Obama in his speech to the UN."
The fancy diplomatic footwork and the positive spin aside, these nations are not with us.
~~~~~~~~~~
With this comes relief that the US stood opposed. If this comes before the Security Council, we will be depending on a US veto (see more on this below).
It's instructive to note the positions of various other nations. I've long felt that our future is with alliances in eastern Europe, western Europe to a large extent having been lost. Eastern European nations largely "get it" in a way the west has failed to do, and as our foreign ministry courts them this is to the good. See that Hungary, Slovakia, and the Ukraine were opposed, while Bosnia and Herzegovina, Slovenia, and Uruguay abstained.
Also important given the shifting climate of international diplomatic relations (and the critical need for us to find alliances beyond our connection with a weakened US) is our courting of African nations. This Lieberman has also been doing. And see that Burkina Faso, Cameroon, and Gabon abstained.
Lastly, I am surprised that India, with which I thought we had a reasonably warm relationship of shared concerns, voted for.
~~~~~~~~~~
I share here a link to a video of Col. Richard Kemp -- former commander of British forces in Afghanistan and a military man with tremendous credentials -- who addressed the Human Rights Council on Friday. You will also see the text of his remarks, but I urge you to see the short -- three minute -- video.
www.unwatch.org/kemp
The Goldstone Commission declined to hear Col. Kemp. UN Watch, an NGO that monitors UN activity, arranged for him to address the Council.
The good colonel's message: "the IDF did more to safeguard the rights of civilians in a combat zone than any other army in the history of warfare."
That their own military man so defended Israel makes even more unconscionable Britain's failure to vote against.
Please, share this link very broadly, including with your Senators and Congresspeople, who should all see it.
http://www.house.gov/house/MemberWWW_by_State.shtml
http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm
~~~~~~~~~~
Netanyahu has put together a special forum to contend with the vote of the HRC. "We are now setting out to delegitimize those who try to delegitimize us. We will not tolerate it and we will respond on a case by case basis," he declared.
Among those to be involved are: Defense Minister Ehud Barak, Foreign Minister Avigdor Leiberman, and Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon, Justice Minister Yaakov Ne'eman, Social Affairs Minister Isaac Herzog and Minister Benny Begin. Senior officials from the prime minister's office Uzi Arad and Ron Dermer and Foreign Ministry Director General Yossi Gal will also be participating. (No Ya'alon?)
A long, hard and very necessary fight.
~~~~~~~~~~
What will happen now remains a bit vague.
According to the Post, Palestinian envoy to the UN in Geneva, Ibrahim Khraishi, says they are seeking ways to send the report directly to the International Criminal Court, which would charge individual Israeli leaders with war crimes.
More likely is that it will get to the General Assembly, which might send it to the International Court of Justice -- possibly for an advisory ruling. Then it may well go to the Security Council. But it's a good bet that the US would veto any proposed SC action, because American interests lie in a different direction. The Americans know full well that even debate on the subject will interferes the "peace process," and Obama is eager to get on with those negotiations. In fact, Britain and France think along the same lines.
The fact that the Human Rights Council accepted the findings of the Goldstone Commission has already had a chilling effect on that "process." Netanyahu and other Israeli leaders warned about this: We are going to be considerably less willing to "take chances" for "peace" if we may be blocked in our right to defend ourselves. What has happened, additionally, is that terrorist organizations -- reasonably assured that there will be no serious international repercussions to their actions -- have been given a green light.
~~~~~~~~~~
Jonathan Schanzer of the Jewish Policy Center says that the vote in the Human Rights Council marks a "distinct" failure for Obama policy in the Middle East. He had reportedly indicated to Jerusalem, when the Goldstone Report was first released, that it would die a quiet death in the Council, which enabled him to secure a greater measure of cooperation from Israel with regard to willingness to enter negotiations.
But, in the turn of events that has been thoroughly examined here, he was unable to keep Abbas in line on this.
"Apart from his inability to hold Abbas to his word, Obama failed to appeal to the sensibilities of U.S. allies on the council such as Jordan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt, who voted in favor of the report. This confirms that the Arab world is still more interested in vilifying Israel than negotiating with it – despite Obama's attempts to engender good will in the Arab world by exacting concessions from Israel.
"More importantly, Obama has conveyed to the Israelis that he lacks sway with the Palestinians. This bodes poorly for future negotiations. "
~~~~~~~~~~
Word is that FL Congressman Robert Wexler (D-Boca Raton area) is about to resign from Congress and become director of the Center for Middle East Peace and Economic Cooperation, in Washington DC.
No loss to the Congressional world, although I suppose he will have to be monitored with regard to his new position. Wexler was an early, and enthusiastic supporter of Obama. When he was here this past summer he referred to a freeze on settlement activity by Israel as no more than a "tiny tiny gesture."
~~~~~~~~~~
Wexler has also been a major supporter of J Street, which, as it happens, is planning its first major conference next week in Washington DC.
J Street, headed by Jeremy Ben-Ami, defines itself as "the political arm of the pro-Israel, pro-peace movement." But those terms, used so blithely, themselves must be examined. Pro-peace? Pro-Israel? By whose lights?
Ben-Ami represents his "progressive" group as being the alternative to AIPAC, and the organization that most genuinely speaks for American Jews today. He has stated that "We're trying to redefine what it means to be pro-Israel."
~~~~~~~~~~
A couple of months ago, Lawrence W. White wrote a critique of J Street that is biting and incisive -- and worthy of serious note:
"Court Jews were so named because they were Jews who did favors for noblemen in exchange for prestige, social influence, and various privileges not available to other Jews. They were often more concerned with preserving their status and fortunes than in promoting the welfare of their less fortunate co-religionists...
"In the widening divide between American and Israeli Jews over concern for the future of Israel, there are many American Jews who have taken positions harmful to the security of the Jewish state. Some Jews for a variety of reasons wish to establish themselves as 'progressives', with a universalist rather than particularist world view...
"Barack Obama has also needed court Jews. The President, clearly committed to liberal-left solutions to our national problems, campaigned as a strong advocate for Israel...His eloquence and apparent sincerity in speaking of his concern for Israel played a major role in his winning a stunning 78% of the Jewish vote.
"Once he was elected Barak Obama found governing to be more difficult than campaigning. The choices that he has made have led to erosion of support, especially among centrists who had supported him. To be successful Obama needed to retain his base...
"Obama's view of the conflict in the Middle East has been shaped by those with an imperfect understanding of Middle East history and culture...Those around him, including many Jews, encourage this ahistoric and simplistic thinking.
"But the President needs to be sure that in the process of leaning on Israel, he does not lose the American Jewish community. They were needed last year to ensure an electoral majority and will continue to be needed in the future. Having campaigned on a strong pro-Israel platform, and having assured many prominent and well-connected Jews that he was committed to the security and welfare of Israel, he needed a credible way to validate that impression in order to prevent any erosion in support. This is where Jeremy Ben-Ami, the director of the new organization J Street, comes in. Ben-Ami has become the very model of the 'court Jew'.
"...Along with others, including George Soros, Ben-Ami founded J Street last year as an organization that was 'both pro-peace and pro-Israel'. A key feature of J Street's strategy was to establish themselves as a centrist force. To achieve this they needed to do two things. First, market themselves as moderate and as authentic representatives of the American Jewish community, and secondly break the influence of AIPAC and other Jewish organizations by re-labeling them as right wing, and not sufficiently committed to the peace process.
~~~~~~~~~~
"During its short history, J Street has built up an extensive list of positions detrimental to Israel. With respect to Iran, they have defended Iran's nuclear weapons program, and lobbied Congress not to place new sanctions on Iran...They have urged ending sanctions against Syria also, and have favored pressuring Israel to return the Golan Heights to Syrian control.
"They have lobbied Congress to oppose an initiative calling on Obama to pressure Arab governments to normalize relations with Israel, They favor negotiating with Hamas...And when the President awarded the Medal of Freedom to the Durban anti-Semitic ringmaster Mary Robinson, it was J Street that was tasked with defending the indefensible.
"But their most controversial action relates to Operation Cast Lead. Last December, after several months of deadly rocket and mortar attacks from Gaza, Israel finally took military action against Hamas to defend its citizens. J Street opposed this action, calling for an immediate cease fire on the first day, claiming that Israel's actions were contrary to the interests of peace...
"J Street's strategy is deceptively simple. No matter how damaging to Israel a particular position might be, they follow with the mantra "and we are pro-Israel". That J Street takes positions inimical to Israel's welfare should be obvious, but it disguises its anti-Israel bias behind repeated declarations of support for the State of Israel...
"The claim by J Street that they are pro-Israel is one of the largest con jobs ever perpetrated on the American Jewish community...
"...J Street permits [Obama] to create the illusion that he has the support of the American Jewish community, that he is maintaining his promise to be a friend to Israel, and by doing exactly what a pro-Israel Jewish organization is recommending, he is acting in Israel's best interests...
"...As soon as the [organized Jewish] community sees through J Street's claim of being pro-Israel, the game will end. At present however, J Street is an unofficial adjunct of the Obama administration. Its allegiance is to Barack Obama, not to the American Jewish community and certainly not to Israel."
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/08/obamas_court_jews_the_rise_of.html
~~~~~~~~~~
Earlier this month, commentator Lenny Ben David took a close look at some major J Street supporters:
"In August, the Jerusalem Post revealed that J Street’s political action committee received contributions from Arab-Iranian-, and Muslim Americans. State Department officials, a Palestinian billionaire, and board members of the discredited Human Rights Watch and the Iranian lobby were also listed in the files of the Federal Election Commission. Faced with the evidence, J Street’s director Jeremy Ben-Ami responded, 'I think it is a terrific thing for Israel for us to be able to expand the tent of people who are willing to be considered pro-Israel and willing to support Israel through J Street, he said.
"Give me a break. That tent may have come directly from the Saudi king’s compound in Riyadh or Jedda. Research into J Street’s backers indicates a Washington cadre of paid Saudi agents, sycophants, and
factotums. There are not many in that bunch who would be 'willing to be considered pro-Israel.'"
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/why-does-j-street-attract-the-friends-of-saudi-arabia/?print=1
~~~~~~~~~~
October 15, 2009
"A Facade of Unity"
Khaled Abu Toameh writes in the Post today about the "forced marriage" between Fatah and Hamas -- the reconciliation being shoved down their throats by Egypt.
These two parties -- who "abhor" each other -- are being pushed into a reconciliation of sorts. I know of no serious analyst who thinks this will really become a stable situation.
Fatah, which has signed the agreement, found itself in a position of more or less having to do this as a result of the uproar that followed Abbas's withdrawal of the demand that the Human Rights Council pursue the Goldstone Report (which withdrawal he has since reversed, but not before he had promoted enormous ill will for himself and his party).
We're still waiting on Hamas's formal acceptance.
~~~~~~~~~~
A little glimpse into how volatile and hostile the situation is:
I shared in the last few days the fact that Hamas condemned Fatah for withdrawing its demand regarding the report, and that Abbas then lashed out at Hamas for lashing out at Fatah.
But here is a new wrinkle. According to the Ma'an (Palestinian) news agency on Tuesday:
"Abbas accused Hamas leaders of fleeing to Sinai Peninsula in ambulances when the Gaza strip was under Israeli fire last winter..."
This is startling.
The Goldstone Report says, "Mission did not find any evidence to support the allegations that... ambulances were used to transport combatants..." (Paragraph 485). The exceedingly dubious point being that there was no justification for Israel to have stopped or gone after ambulances. And now Abbas says otherwise, thereby undercutting the reliability of what was said in the report (the very report he has now decided to promote vigorously again). He was undoubtedly too angry at Hamas people, too busy trying to make them look like cowards, to consider the broader ramifications of what he said.
Will Hamas let this pass? Arab pride should never be discounted.
Today Hamas leader Mahmoud al-Zahar said that Hamas wants to prosecute Abbas:
"A day will come when Abu Mazen [Abbas] will have to answer for his smear campaign against us...in a special court...We demand Abu Mazen name those he claims hid. I want him to say exactly where he thinks we ran to. This man must stop trying to spread his lies."
~~~~~~~~~~
And in this Middle Eastern soap opera there is even more. When Abbas began to promote the report, Israel was very angry, and released a statement saying that Abbas had originally urged us not to stop fighting until Hamas was completely defeated. Needless to say, this does not sit well with Hamas either.
But any minute now sweetness and light will break forth and there will be unity between Fatah and Hamas.
~~~~~~~~~~
And here's another piece of the Goldstone story: Alan Dershowitz has written an article in which he maintains that Goldstone is backing down.
"In an interview with Jewish Forward, Goldstone denied that his group had conducted 'an investigation.' Instead, it was what he called a 'fact-finding mission' based largely on the limited 'material we had.' ...Goldstone acknowledged that 'if this was a court of law, there would have been nothing proven.' He emphasized to the Forward that the report was no more than 'a road map' for...investigators and that it contained no actual 'evidence' of wrongdoing by Israel."
~~~~~~~~~~
Things are heating up in the north.
According to the Kuwaiti newspaper Al Jarida, Syria, reluctant to take on Israel directly, is supplying Hezbollah with arms instead. Reportedly, Syria transferred one quarter of its arsenal of middle- and long-range missiles to Hezbollah, and every part of Israel can now be hit. The paper cites Israeli security forces as the source of its information.
While senior Israeli defense officials, in more direct statements, are now saying that thousands of weapons caches have been placed in civilian homes scattered in 160 villages in southern Lebanon. Hezbollah possession of weapons south of the Litani River represents a violation of SC Resolution 1701, which has been largely ignored.
Having the weapons in the south makes it easier for Hezbollah to access them and increases their reach into Israel. The fact that they are in homes raises the whole specter of human shields again.
Much must be made of this now, it seems to me, with all possible evidence provided, so that when we ultimately go after those caches of weapons, we are not again accused of "war crimes."
This entire issue was in the news this past week because of an explosion of a stockpile of weapons in a home in a village near Tyre.
~~~~~~~~~~
Turkey's behavior -- with regard to its relationship with Israel -- is moving on a path of serious deterioration. Following the cancellation of joint military maneuvers with us, the Turks announced that they would hold maneuvers with Syria.
Following this a highly inflammatory and inciteful program was aired on government-controlled TV. The first program this week, in what is planned as a series about a Palestinian family in the West Bank, shows IDF soldiers killing a baby and a young girl, and lining up people for execution.
Calling this "the gravest form of incitement," Foreign Minister Lieberman said that the Turkish envoy (the previous Turkish ambassador to Israel has left and has not yet been replaced) would be summoned in protest.
~~~~~~~~~~
"The Good News Corner"
In June, 2002, Boaz Shabo lost his wife and three of their children in a terrorist attack. In the midst of a week of murderous attacks, a terrorist, shooting wildly, infiltrated the community of Itamar, in Samaria, and entered the Shabo home.
Boaz moved with his remaining four children to Kedumim, to be near relatives. Two years ago, he was married again; his new wife, Hila, brought her five children with her into the family.
At the beginning of this year, Hila became pregnant. She delivered over the Sukkot holiday: TRIPLETS.
Said Boaz, "it was a total surprise – something so symbolic that only G-d can understand or explain it. Though it’s impossible to forget those who were killed, this is a very joyous occasion for all of us.
“The way to rebuild is by getting married again… There cannot be a 100% recovery from something like what happened to us; we are always shadowed by the loss of a mother and three children. But with love and with faith, a decision like this brings much joy… Our house is now full of children and life.
"[Our enemies] should know that they will not be able to defeat us. As the Torah says, the more they oppress us, the more we will prosper."
As to dealing with three infants, Boaz said, “It won’t be easy – but a lot of things have not been easy over the past few years. I tried to look at everything from the positive, optimistic side, and put the difficulties aside; I think that 50% of the problems are psychological. If a person says that it will be hard, then it will be hard. But if you decide to try to get up in the morning with a smile, and know you are headed in the right direction, then it will be much easier for you. You can’t let the obstacles stop you; put them aside.
“I just want to emphasize: Never give in to despair. There is always a light at the top, even if it might involve a hard climb. There is always a light at the end of the tunnel, at which can be found light, happiness, faith, and all of our goals.”
And this, I think, is the answer to all of the heavy news reported above and on so many days. The people of Israel have breathtaking resilience, founded in love and faith. And our enemies will not be able to defeat us.
(My thanks to my daughter Sharon R. for calling my attention to this from Arutz Sheva.)
~~~~~~~~~~
October 14, 2009
"The Way to Victory"
Daniel Pipes has written an article -- "Peace Process or War Process?" -- in the fall issue of Middle East Quarterly that is brilliant in its conceptual understanding of what is going on with regard to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
It doesn't matter what Obama does to advance "peace" here, says Pipes, it doesn't matter how his approach differs from that of the two Bushes or Clinton -- he is doomed to failure. For, in spite of the differences in the policies of the aforementioned presidents, there is an essential way in which all of their approaches share a common vision: That the conflict might be solved via goodwill. War would be "finessed" as steps were taken towards peace.
~~~~~~~~~~
This, says Pipes, has been the predominant Israeli attitude since the disaster of Oslo in 1993:
"...the ultimate mistake lay in Yitzhak Rabin's misunderstanding of how war ends, as revealed by his catch-phrase, 'One does not make peace with one's friends. One makes peace with one's enemy.' The Israeli prime minister expected war to be concluded through goodwill, conciliation, mediation, flexibility, restraint, generosity, and compromise, topped off with signatures on official documents. In this spirit, his government and those of his three successors — Shimon Peres, Binyamin Netanyahu, Ehud Barak — initiated an array of concessions, hoping and expecting the Palestinians to reciprocate.
They did not. In fact, Israeli concessions inflamed Palestinian hostility. Palestinians interpreted Israeli efforts to 'make peace' as signals of demoralization and weakness. 'Painful concessions' reduced the Palestinian awe of Israel, made the Jewish state appear vulnerable, and incited irredentist dreams of annihilation. Each Oslo-negotiated gesture by Israel further exhilarated, radicalized, and mobilized the Palestinian body politic to war. The quiet hope of 1993 to eliminate Israel gained traction, becoming a deafening demand by 2000. Venomous speech and violent actions soared. Polls and votes in recent years suggest that a mere 20 percent of Palestinians accept the existence of a Jewish state.
"Rabin's mistake was simple and profound: One cannot 'make peace with one's enemy,' as he imagined. Rather, one makes peace with one's former enemy. Peace nearly always requires one side in a conflict to be defeated and thus give up its goals.
"Wars end not through good will but victory." (Emphasis added)
"...Since 1993, in brief, the Arabs have sought victory while Israelis sought compromise.
"...But who does not win, loses. To survive, Israelis eventually must return to their pre-1993 policy of establishing that Israel is strong, tough, and permanent. That is achieved through deterrence — the tedious task of convincing Palestinians and others that the Jewish state will endure and that dreams of elimination must fail." (Emphasis added)
~~~~~~~~~~
Says Pipes, "This process may be seen through a simple prism. Any development that encourages Palestinians to think they can eliminate Israel is negative, any that encourages them to give up that goal is positive.
"The Palestinians' defeat will be recognizable when, over a protracted period and with complete consistency, they prove that they have accepted Israel. This does not mean loving Zion, but it does mean permanently accepting it — overhauling the educational system to take out the demonization of Jews and Israel, telling the truth about Jewish ties to Jerusalem, and accepting normal commercial, cultural, and human relations with Israelis."
~~~~~~~~~~
America has a role to play here, Pipes tells us.
"...Americans face a stark choice: Endorse the Palestinian goal of eliminating Israel or endorse Israel's goal of winning its neighbors' acceptance.
"To state the choice makes clear that there is no choice — the first is barbaric, the second civilized. No decent person can endorse the Palestinians' genocidal goal of eliminating their neighbor...the U.S. government must stand with Israel in its drive to win acceptance.
"Not only is this an obvious moral choice, but Israel's win, ironically, would be the best thing that ever happened to the Palestinians. Compelling them finally to give up on their irredentist dream would liberate them to focus on their own polity, economy, society, and culture. Palestinians need to experience the crucible of defeat to become a normal people — one whose parents stop celebrating their children becoming suicide terrorists, whose obsession with Zionist rejectionism collapses. There is no shortcut.
"This analysis implies a radically different approach for the U.S. government from the current one. On the negative side, it puts Palestinians on notice that benefits will flow to them only after they prove their acceptance of Israel. Until then — no diplomacy, no discussion of final status, no recognition as a state, and certainly no financial aid or weapons.
"On the positive side, the U. S. administration should work with Israel, the Arab states, and others to induce the Palestinians to accept Israel's existence by convincing them that they have lost. This means impressing on the Israeli government the need not just to defend itself but to take steps to demonstrate to Palestinians the hopelessness of their cause. That requires not episodic shows of force...but a sustained and systematic effort to deflate a bellicose mentality."
http://www.danielpipes.org:80/7653/peace-process-or-war-process
~~~~~~~~~~
The bellicose, non-compromising, nature of the PA is evident once again. This time it's a memo put out by Fatah, which was obtained by the Associated Press. It says:
"All hopes placed in the new US administration and President Obama have evaporated, [as Obama] couldn't withstand the pressure of the Zionist lobby, which led to a retreat from his previous positions on halting settlement construction and defining an agenda for the negotiations and peace."
Of course, Obama set himself up for this, with the demands he originally made, leading the PA to think he was going to deliver Israel on a silver platter. This runs completely contrary to what Pipes recommends. Palestinian hopes that Israel can be defeated have only been strengthened via Obama's posturing.
Abbas stated, once again, that he would not sit at the negotiating table with Israel until all settlement building had been frozen, including in the occupied territory of Jerusalem.
~~~~~~~~~~
Words matter a great deal and often not enough attention is paid to them. There is, instead, interpretation based on wishful thinking -- or a desire to look the other way.
It had made the news that the US State Department says that any unity government forged by the Palestinians must be based on Quartet principles:
"Commitment to non-violence, recognition of Israel, acceptance of previous agreements and obligations."
I acknowledge readily enough that there is no way that Hamas will even pretend to commit to non-violence. (Fatah pretends.) As to previous agreements, Hamas has spoken about "respecting" them, which is diplomatic word play -- and I don't know if the U.S. would accept that.
But what leaped out at me is "recognition of Israel." There have been Hamas leaders who have said, "Recognize Israel? Of course. It's here. We acknowledge that it's here."
What's missing from this formulation is the need to recognize Israel's RIGHT to exist as a Jewish state. That, my friends, is something else all together.
~~~~~~~~~~
Will there be reconciliation? That depends on the day of the week, and the hour of the day.
Today in Ramallah Fatah signed the Egyptian-generated agreement for reconciliation. According to the Palestinian Ma'an News Service, Hamas is in favor but has not said so publicly yet. Egypt is requesting a final answer by tomorrow.
~~~~~~~~~~
The very ugly saga of the Goldstone Report continues...
Today the Security Council will be meeting in special session, at the request of Libya, to debate the issue. Israel has been hard at work in diplomatic circles, communicating to Western nations the need to take a stand here, lest sanction be given to terrorism.
This session is not, however, expected to end with a recommendation that the report be sent to the International Criminal Court. Founded in 2002, the Court prosecutes individuals charged with genocide, crimes against humanity, and the like.
~~~~~~~~~~
Tomorrow, however, the UN Human Rights Council will meet in special session, at the behest of the PA (which has observer status in the UN).
I stop right here for a moment, however, because I accessed the UN announcement about this and found that it says that the request was made by "Palestine." Whoa! There IS no Palestine. And yet, as I've been learning in discussions with a lawyer here, the UN is perilously close to acting as if the PA indeed is a state.
(Should we be surprised, then, that UN secretary general Ban Ki-Moon praised Abbas's involvement in pushing this issue forward?)
~~~~~~~~~~
At any rate, the request was co-sponsored by the following members of the Council: Bahrain, Bangladesh, Bolivia, China, Cuba, Djibouti, Egypt, Gabon, Indonesia, Jordan, Mauritius, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Pakistan, Philippines, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and Senegal.
Discussions in this forum are expected to last for more than a day, and there is speculation that it may send the report to the General Assembly which might send it to the Security Council (GA actions not being binding), which might yet send it to the International Court of Justice, which is the judicial arm of the UN and adjudicates in issues between states.
It is not clear to me, and I have not yet been able to learn enough about the presumed process (such as it may be) to gain understanding as to why two different courts are being discussed and what would determine in which direction the report might be sent. In his recent statement on the matter, Netanyahu referred to the Criminal Court, when he said it was ludicrous and he would not permit trial of any Israelis within that court.
None of it will do us any good. But I point out that as the Court of Justice adjudicates between states, there is a legal problem, as Gaza is not a state and is controlled by a terror organization. But the UN is not likely to let this stand in its way.
I also mention here the fact that process seems to requires the report to come into the hands of the GA first, but that the real action would be in the SC.
~~~~~~~~~~