Ray Cook - As I See It

Israel, Zionism and the Media

Category: Israel-Palestine (Page 19 of 19)

Relations between Israel and Palestine and the peace process

US Department of State ethnically cleanses its Jerusalem website

03/08/2009 / / 0 Comments

Take a look.
http://jerusalem.usconsulate.gov/

Spot the deliberate mistake?

Take your time.

Here’s the answer. The United States Consulate in Jerusalem’s website is Judenrein.

You would think that Jerusalem was an Arab city and not the capital of the State of Israel.

Is this a deliberate policy of the Obama administration or have the anti-Zionists in the State Department taken over the website?

The United States still refuses to recognise Jerusalem as the capital of Israel (even though this is dubious under the Embassy Act of 1995). But it appears to have gone even further and recognised it as the capital of an, as yet, non existent state of Palestine.

OK. The Consulate may claim that it is a separate entity from the Israeli Embassy and deals specifically with Jerusalem, the West Bank and Gaza; but the consulate is actually located in the Old City which has  a Jewish majority (and had one until 1948 when the Jordanians expelled every Jew and demolished all the synagogues).

And, by the way, East Jerusalem also had a majority Jewish population until Jews were driven out and massacred in 1929. (And, by the way, a similar situation existed in Hebron which was a Jewish city for hundreds of years before being ethnically cleansed in the 1929 riots and massacres).

All this is consistent with the myth of an Arab majority East Jerusalem as the long-term de facto capital of Palestine. The truth is that East Jerusalem only had an Arab majority when the Jews were kicked out and Palestinians moved into Jewish areas after 1948.

But history before 1948 appears to have been conveniently air-brushed to accommodate Arab and Palestinian claims which seek also to do some air-brushing which involves the denial of any connection of Jews to the land and especially to Jerusalem.

The US Consulate would do well to consider Jewish sensitivities for a change.

Obama and the concept of even-handedness

01/07/2009 / / 0 Comments

I’ve been away for a bit and it’s given me a chance to mull over what President Obama (isn’t it strange how quickly we’ve got used to that) was up to in Cairo.

Many observers have taken this speech apart and pointed out how it has ushered in a whole new era of US-Israel politics where Israel can no longer get a free pass from the US and where the new administration has shifted US policy to a tough stance with the Israeli government on the question of settlements and, to a lesser extent, on easing restrictions in Gaza. The impression given is that it is Israel that has to make these concessions to move the peace process forward and that these demands are part of the Road Map agreements, blah, blah.

Many have pilloried the Cairo speech, many have praised it. It all depends on your viewpoint. If you have thought that Israel is the main impediment to the “peace process” then you will applaud Obama’s “tough love” stance. If you have believed that the Palestinians’ refusal to engage honestly in final status negotiations is the problem, then you will be appalled by Obama’s speech.

As so many have picked over the bones of the speech since the beginning of last month, I want to concentrate on the “big idea” behind the speech and why Obama wanted to follow the path of “even-handedness” .

Ah. But was it even-handed or was it heavily biased toward the Muslim world which was such a sea-change for an American president that it just seemed even-handed.

OK. Let’s just say the intention was even-handedness, not in the speech itself but in positioning the US in the eyes of the Muslim world as a more honest broker. To do this Obama had to be seen to be tough with Israel whilst paying little more than lip-service to what the Palestinians and the Arab world have to deliver.

Unfortunately for Israel, to redress the balance (or what Obama wanted to be seen as balance) he had to come down heavy on Netanyahu. This is transparent and not particularly credible posturing; most Arab and Muslim politicians said, “fine, but now we want action”. Subsequent exchanges between Jerusalem and Washington have gradually turned up the heat, evinced responses, but not had very much obvious effect on Israeli government policy.

Indeed, what is clear, is that the Israelis are keen on pursuing their own agenda to push forward the peace process and the two prominent signs of this are firstly, a rapid series of roadblock dismantlements on the West Bank accompanied by the recent “handover” to the Palestinian Authority of responsibility for day to day security in Judea and Samaria. Secondly, a measured expression of  the need for and the reasons behind Israel’s demand that the PA recognises Israel as the national home of the Jewish people. Of course, the settlement issue does not go away but there is a marked improvement in the life of Palestinians on the West Bank. Gaza and Hamas are a different matter, however.

But back to Obama.

Why ingratiate himself and his country with the Arab world? What are the US interests in any peace settlement in the Middle-East? Why does Obama want to be seen to be even-handed? What are the US national interests in rapprochement with the Muslim world, especially the Arab world and Iran? Is this the vanity of power? Does Obama see himself as a Messianic figure conferring peace and goodwill to the world? If so, what about North Korea, Sudan, Zimbabwe, Venezuela, Cuba?

The answer is more simplistic than than the real issues that lie behind the questions. What is the major threat to the free world at the moment? Islamist terror and the spread of Jihadi philosphy. But, if Pakistan falls, if Afghanistan is re-Talebanised, if Iraq falls apart, if Iran acquires nuclear weapons?

The major impediment to neutralising Islamist extremism, according to the simplistic narrative of the US government, is the Arab-Israeli conflict. If you get that out of the way, all done and dusted, everyone reconciled, not only is that a huge Obama-legacy moment but it removes the excuse of the Israli-Palestinian conflict to foster the anti-US animus in the Muslim world. It takes the legs from under the Jihadi movement because the conflict which most animates them has been removed.

So goes the narrative. In fact, it’s a charade built on a hope, built on delusion.

Obama may well believe that he can persuade moderate Arabs and Muslims to defeat the Jihadis amongst them and move their societies into the 21st century, engaging with the West whilst retaining their own culture and history. A world where East and West meets and each learns from the other with mutual benefit and increased prosperity. If you remove the main cause of conflict, the world will be a better and safer place and we will will bathe in the light of the Pax Obama.

Nice story. But it is all based on a major misconception that Israel, Zionism and the Palestinians are the real cause of  Jihadism. In fact, they are just an excuse, a recruiting seregant, a source of malign and indignant rhetoric.

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict will not end Islamism. The Jihadis will only be satisfied with the destruction of Israel and the Islamisation of the West. The Israelis and Palestinians must be reconciled but only because it is morally imperative that there be a just solution, not as part of an American global peace strategy.

In light of this, despite misgivings about the new Israeli government, so far, I agree with many of the things they are doing and the independent stance they are taking. For the Israellis, asking for more concessions from them without addressing the real nub of recognition of Israel as the national home of the Jewish people, just does not wash.

Meanwhile, I wait to see how the Obama strategy pans out. Don’t hold your breath.

Netanyahu, roadblocks and the alternative peace plan

03/06/2009 / / 0 Comments

There’s something afoot in the West Bank which is going widely unreported in the media.

Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu has been widely reported as either rejecting or being equivocal about a two-state solution and he is therefore depicted as being an impediment to progress on any “Peace Plan”.

The view of the new government is that previous attempts at peace have only lead to Israeli concessions and Palestinian violence. The Netanyahu plan for the Palestinian Authority controlled West Bank is an amelioration of restrictions, increased economic co-operation, removal of settlements deemed illegal by the Israeli courts and a strategy of raising Palestinian living standards.

All this is tempered by an insistence on the right to expand existing settlements which is widely regarded as being an infraction of the Road Map and decidely frowned upon by the Obama adminstration which sees settlement freeze as a first step towards a “peace plan” and bringing the Arab countries on side.

But look at what is actually happening in the West Bank which is hardly reported and which the Israelis appear to be coy about or at least showing their usual woeful inability to win any propaganda battle.

The IDF today revealed the following:

Yesterday, June 2nd, 2009, the Rimonim and Bir Zeit roadblocks located in the Binyamin region, near Ramallah were removed. This step was taken following a meeting between [various IDF chiefs] and the Head of the Palestinian Security Forces in charge of civilian affairs in the Palestinian Authority in Judea and Samaria, Hassin el-Sheik.

… it was decided, in accordance with decisions made by the Israeli government, to take various steps which would significantly improve the daily life of Palestinian civilians in the Judea and Samaria region. A number of security coordination meetings have taken place this year, resulting in a range of steps designed to widen Palestinian free movement, to strengthen the Palestinian Security Forces and the Palestinian economy.

The Rimonim roadblock, located east of Ramallah was completely removed yesterday, allowing free passage from the city to the Jordan Valley area. The Bir Zeit roadblock, located north of Ramallah, which was also removed yesterday, now allowing quick passage from the city to the villages to the north.

Furthermore, Atzira A-Shamalia, a central checkpoint located near Nablus, will now operate 24 hours a day, easing movement in the area.

These steps were taken to widen the free movement of the Palestinian population and are in addition to the 145 roadblocks which were removed in the past year.

During the meeting, it was also decided to finalize the process granting Palestinian businessmen permits to pass through Israeli crossings into Israel. This will allow the businessman and public figures who play an important role in the Palestinian economy greater freedom to conduct their business.

So it’s no wonder that Mahmoud Abbas told the Washington Post

“in the West Bank we have a good reality . . . the people are living a normal life.”

The IDF still operates in the West Bank. It has to to protect Israeli citizens and to thwart terror attacks. But increasingly the Palestinian Authority police, many of whom are trained in the US, are managing to control Hamas and even cooperate on security with Israel.

The situation is always complex; there have been PA inspired attacks and even clashes with the IDF, but it is an improving situation.

So this is the Netanyahu peace plan: if you improve a people’s standard of life and their daily conditions, they will be less inclined to hate, less inclined to lose what they have by continued aggression, more inclined to live side by side.

This is not a final settlement. It delays it. But what are the Israelis to do? Whilst Obama remains obsessed with settlements the PA has already admitting rejecting former President Ehud Olmert’s offer of 97% of the West Bank without any serious attempt at negotiation. Whilst all Palestinian leaders, including Hamas, remain maximalist and look forward to the destruction of Israel there can be no meaningful negotiation because there is no sincerity from the Palestinians, merely political manipulation to move ever-closer to their maximalist goal of a Palestinian state “from the river to the sea”.

And what does King Abdullah of Jordan mean when he says:

“If we delay our peace negotiations, then there is going to be another conflict between Arabs or Muslims and Israel in the next 12-18 months.”

What does he have in mind? How much more than Ehud Olmert, Bill Clinton and Ehud Barak have previously offered is required for peace. How much of Israel is to be dismantled or destroyed for the sake of this peace?

The answer to that queston appears to be: all of Jerusalem, all of the West Bank, the Golan Heights and allowing up to four million “refugees” into Israel. This is not a recipe for peace but for an escalation in the conflict, pushing the Israelis further to the Right.

But even that is only a first step, not for Hamas who refuse to recognise Israel and want to kill all Jews, not for Hizbullah who refuse to recognise and want to kill all Jews, but for the Palestinian Authority run by Fatah who have never given up their goal of destroying Israel; they have just changed tactics.

This is the reality that is brushed under the carpet by everyone except the Netanyahu government. This is why he sees Iran as the pressing problem and not gesture politics with duplicitous peace partners.

The Saudi Plan vaunted by King Abdullah of Jordan which would normalise relations between Israel and the Arab/Muslim world is attractive, but not at any price. It was Lord Carendon, the UK’s UN ambassador in 1967 who said of Abba Eban’s offer of reconciliation with the Arab states: “Never in the history of warfare did the victor sue for peace, and the vanquished refuse”. Now we have the vanquished setting the terms of that peace.

After forty years of refusals from one side and unilateral concessions from the other it is, as always, Israel who is being cast as the impediment to peace and the Arabs as the dovish peace-makers.

And President Obama is encouraging this perception in what may prove to be a misguided attempt to reduce tensions by pursuing rapprochement between the US and the Muslim, especially the Arab, world.

To do this he has to write his new world order as a palimpsest of Middle East history. But that very history may yet leech through his attempts to obliterate it.

All Quiet on the West Bank Front

02/06/2009 / / 0 Comments

The current world media, and indeed the Palestinian and left-wing Israel narrative about Israel’s activities on the West Bank tells of road-blocks, a so called “apartheid” wall, unwarranted restrictions on movement of Palestinians and general emiseration of life.

But here’s a funny thing. Palestinian Authority President, Mahmoud Abbas has just been to Washington. In an interview with the Washington Post he made (albeit translated) the following astonishing statement:

“I will wait for Hamas to accept international commitments. I will wait for Israel to freeze settlements,” he said. “Until then, in the West Bank we have a good reality . . . the people are living a normal life.”

Normal life! Good reality! If everything is so dandy, what’s the beef?

The truth is that whatever the aspirations and long-term goals of the PA things have got a lot better recently. I’m not saying there is normality as that would be untrue. But Abbas sees new possibilities with Obama. Abbas can wait to achieve his goals whilst the US, Europe and, ironically, Israel pour billions of dollars into the development of the West Bank and what would be a future Palestinian state. Yes. He can wait.

Abbas also revealed what former Prime Minister Ehud Olmert offered him, and this says it all about Abbas, Obama’s policy, the possibility of peace and the PA’s true intentions:

Abbas acknowledged that Olmert had shown him a map proposing a Palestinian state on 97 percent of the West Bank — though he complained that the Israeli leader refused to give him a copy of the plan. He confirmed that Olmert “accepted the principle” of the “right of return” of Palestinian refugees — something no previous Israeli prime minister had done — and offered to resettle thousands in Israel. In all, Olmert’s peace offer was more generous to the Palestinians than either that of Bush or Bill Clinton; it’s almost impossible to imagine Obama, or any Israeli government, going further.

Abbas turned it down. “The gaps were wide,” he said.

What!!! He turned it down? Just like his predecessor, Yasser Arafat at Camp David and Taba in 2000/2001 who was made a similar offer, rejected it and began the Second Intifada. Why does the world say it is Israel that is the main stumbling block to peace? Each time Israel offers more, not less (as would be the case in any other conflict where the answer to peace negotiations is violence not a counter-offer). “The gaps were wide”. What does Abbas want for heaven’s sake? Well we know what he wants: the right of return for 4 million Palestinians and ALL of the Old City of Jerusalem (he does not reveal waht Olmert offered there but Barak in 2000 offered to divide the city). In other words he will settle for nothing less than the destruction of Israel demographically.

Now, perhaps, we can see why the Netanyahu government sees no point to further negotiations with the PA. What more is there to discuss at the moment? What will Israel get in return for freezing settlement expansion or dismantling settlements? It’s a stand-off. It’s a bit like the final scene in “The Good, the Bad and the Ugly” with each side circling round the other and waiting for someone to blink.

Obama to Netanyahu: stop settlement expansion and we’ll talk about Iran

Netanyahu to Obama: do something about Iran or we’ll continue with (existing) settlement expansion

Obama to Abbas: stop saying horrible things about Israelis (you can’t use the words “vile anti-Semitic propaganda” in the even-handed world of Obama). Make nice with Hamas.

Abbas to Obama: I can wait. Get rid of Netanyahu or get him to unequivocally accept a two-state solution. I’m not playing ball with George Mitchell until you do that, so no talks with moderate Arab states to help the process. I can wait for Hamas.

Abbas to Netanyahu: (silence)

Netanyahu to Abbas: (silence)

As the Post concludes:

What’s interesting about Abbas’s hardline position, however, is what it says about the message that Obama’s first Middle East steps have sent to Palestinians and Arab governments. From its first days the Bush administration made it clear that the onus for change in the Middle East was on the Palestinians: Until they put an end to terrorism, established a democratic government and accepted the basic parameters for a settlement, the United States was not going to expect major concessions from Israel.

Obama, in contrast, has repeatedly and publicly stressed the need for a West Bank settlement freeze, with no exceptions. In so doing he has shifted the focus to Israel. He has revived a long-dormant Palestinian fantasy: that the United States will simply force Israel to make critical concessions, whether or not its democratic government agrees, while Arabs passively watch and applaud. “The Americans are the leaders of the world,” Abbas told me and Post Editorial Page Editor Fred Hiatt. “They can use their weight with anyone around the world. Two years ago they used their weight on us. Now they should tell the Israelis, ‘You have to comply with the conditions.’ “

So all is quiet in the world of Abbas. He knows that Netanyahu’s options are limited. The next Israeli government might offer even more. Iran might do the job he always dreamed of. Hamas can stew in Gaza because why should he do anything that wil make life for Israel easier. He can squeeze Hamas on the West Bank and take them out when necessary. In fact, by doing so, as the Jerusalem Post reports, he is putting pressure on Israel:

In March 2007, a car carrying over 100 kilograms of explosives succeeded in infiltrating downtown Tel Aviv from the West Bank town of Kalkilya. The terrorists’ plan was to detonate the car on Seder night.

The existence of this cell, which was the target of the Palestinian clashes in Kalkilya on Sunday, had been the IDF’s excuse for refusing to scale back its operations in the West Bank city and implement there and in Tulkarm what is being called the “Jenin model.”

Under the Jenin model, the IDF has scaled back operations in that city, removed checkpoints in the area, permitted the deployment of US-trained Palestinian forces and allowed Israeli Arabs into the city to boost the local economy.

The more effective the PA police are in confronting Hamas and thwarting attacks on Israel, the less reason there is for the Israeli Army to be operating there. This, in turn, reduce tensions between Israelis and Palestinians and increases Abbas’s prestige at home and in the world. But, crucially, Israel’s ability to preempt terrorism emanating from the West Bank would be reduced.

And this is really the true nature of the Pax Palestina on the West Bank. They are rapidly approaching de facto statehood with improving social conditions and security; they are working with Israel on a number of projects to improve living conditions; checkpoints are reducing; Israel is acting against settlements that even they deem illegal.

For Abbas it is just a stage on the road to the destruction of Israel. He still cherishes that hope. He still wants 4 million refugees to flood Israel and create a third Palestinian state in the region; he still wants all of Jerusalem; he still tells his people that Jews have no historic connections or claim to the Holy Land; he still tells his people that there never was a Jewish Temple in Jerusalem; he still allows daily incitement against Israelis and Jews; he still allows lies and vicious Jew-hatred to be inculcated into Palestinian children from the earliest age.

Abbas can afford to wait.

What happened to the two-state solution?

28/05/2009 / / 1 Comment

I thought, and certainly President Obama thought, that Israel and Palestine were pursuing a two state solution.

The key issues to be resolved with regard to this 60 year conflict are as follows:

1. Borders and security

2. End of belligerence

3. Status of Jerusalem

4. Refugee issues

5. Israeli settlements on the West Bank/Judea-Samaria

It’s very easy to get confused with long litany of “peace agreements” , accords, understandings etc. We have Oslo, Geneva, Camp David, Taba, Annapolis, road map, Saudi Plan and so on.

Despite Ehud Barak offering Yasser Arafat 95-7% of the West Bank, Gaza, East Jerusalem, and compensation for refugees, not only was the offer rejected, without a counter proposal,  to the dismay of all involved, including the Saudi Ambassador, but Arafat issued orders for the Second Intifada covering his own inability to confront the possibility of a just peace and leading to the deaths of thousands of Palestinians and Israelis.

Now the Netanyahu government is turning away from seeking a  final status solution, including the two-state solution and instead is following a course to ameliorate the conditions on the West Bank and to improve the infrastructure and living standards of Palestinians.

At the same time it is saying that it will honour all previous agreements. It’s getting very confusing. Clearly, the Netanyahu government has decided to follow its own agenda in the apparent belief that there is no current partner for peace. Netanyahu is, therefore, giving the distinct impression that he has accepted a sort of de facto annexation of the West Bank as part of Israel but with Palestinian autonomy.

Whilst Netanyahu kicks the two-state solution into the long grass, Mahmoud Abbas and the PA continue with their own maximalist agenda: Jerusalem is Muslim only and Jews have no claims to it or to any of Palestine (that means Israel too).

Let’s take a look at some recent pronouncements:

Yesterday the Prime Minister’s Media Adviser issued the following:

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu today (Wednesday), 28.5.09, convened the Ministerial Committee on Improving the Situation of the Palestinian Residents of Judea and Samaria.  At the start of the meeting, he said that advancing economic projects for the Palestinian population of Judea and Samaria would a better economic, social and political reality and would improve the Palestinians’ quality of life and personal welfare.

Note “would be a better… reality”. This means better than pursuing any further peace negotiations which both Netanyahu and Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman have rejected as having a history of leading not to peace but to Israeli concessions and Palestinian violence.

The communique continues:

Defense Minister Ehud Barak presented economic projects in the PA, including: The establishment of an industrial zone in the Mukibleh-Jenin area of northern Samaria, the establishment of an industrial zone for the processing and marketing of agricultural produce in Jericho, the establishment of an industrial zone in the Hebron-Tarkumiyeh area, the establishment of an industrial zone in Bethlehem, environmental protection projects (waste disposal and sewage treatment sites) and the establishment of a Palestinian city near Ramallah.  He noted that approximately 100 projects in various fields in the PA areas of Judea and Samaria are currently in various planning stages.

And so it continues. The strategy here appears to be that an economically stronger Palestine with greatly improved living standards would lead to the de-radicalisation of certain elements with Palestinian society on the West Bank. This in turn would lead to the easing of security arrangements and a better quality of life.

Although I can only applaud the improving of Palestinian economic conditions and easing of restrictions, if they result from this strategy, I also have an impression that this is the language of quasi-annexation. It certainly does not address Palestinian self-determination or any of the agenda items at the top of this page.

Yesterday Arutz 7 reported :

Minister of Strategic Affairs Moshe (Boogie) Yaalon believes that the time has come for Israel to “free itself from the failed paradigm” of the “two-state solution.” Yaalon spoke Tuesday at a meeting of MKs dedicated to finding an alternative to the creation of a Palestinian Authority-led Arab state.

While the creation of a PA-led state in Judea, Samaria and Gaza is perceived as a necessity both in Israel and worldwide, such a state would not solve the Israel-PA conflict, said Yaalon. In fact, he said, it is doubtful that the possibility of creating such a state exists, due to Arab and Muslim reluctance to take any step that would imply recognition of Israel or compromise on Arab claims to the entire Land of Israel.

Meanwhile President Obama is advancing his “peace plan” although we only know vaguely what it entails. The Jerusalem Post reported:

US President Barack Obama’s statements about how to advance the peace process do not differ significantly from those of his predecessor, George W. Bush, Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon told The Jerusalem Post…

He denied reports in the Hebrew press that Obama had drafted a Middle East peace plan calling for a democratic, contiguous and demilitarized Palestinian state whose borders would be determined by territorial exchanges with Israel.

According to the reports, the Old City of Jerusalem would be established as an international zone. The initiative would require the Palestinians to give up their claim of a “right of return,” and Europe and the US would arrange compensation for refugees, including passports for those residing abroad.Arab countries would institute confidence-building measures to clear the air with Israel. When Palestinian statehood would be achieved, diplomatic and economic relations would be established between Israel and Arab states.

“I don’t know of any Obama plan that has been finalized,” said Ayalon, who has been briefed on the closed-door meetings between Netanyahu and Obama. “Don’t believe the headlines. What was in the papers was mere speculation, and there is no substance to it,” he said.

So what IS the plan?

Ayalon said his Israel Beiteinu Party would oppose the internationalization of Jerusalem and the relinquishing of Israeli sovereignty in the “holy basin” around the Old City. He said the party would also insist that Israel not take in a single Palestinian refugee, citing legal, moral and historical grounds.

Tzipi Livni now leader of Kadima said in the Knesset:

“We will not be able to keep Jerusalem if we say no to everything, or if out of fear we adopt unwillingness as a policy and frozenness as an ideology,” Livni said. “I believe that it is possible, through proper management, to make the world understand the things that are important to us, and with them we can keep Israel as a national home for the Jewish people and Jerusalem as its eternal capital.”

Wow! She thinks she can make the world “understand” – that’s more ambitious than a peace settlement given the world’s hatred of the only democratic and free country in the Middle East.

And she seems to fear not just losing Jerusalem but Israel itself as the home of the Jewish people!

Silvan Shalom, Vice Premier puts it most succinctly:

“There aren’t two Jerusalems. Jerusalem will not be divided. Jerusalem will remain the eternal capital of Israel. It’s not a promise. It’s a fact. Jerusalem will not be a topic for compromise.”

Now if you think that’s all a bit uncompromising let’s look what the PA are saying.

Again in the Jerusalem Post, reacting to rumours of a Obama’s “peace plan” President Mahmoud Abbas said:

One PA official said Abbas and his aides were currently studying which, he added, included “several positive points.” The official stressed, however, that some of the proposals mentioned in the plan were completely unacceptable to the Palestinians. These proposals, he said, included the talk about resettling Palestinian refugees in Arab countries, swapping lands between the future Palestinian state and Israel, creating a demilitarized state and granting the Old City of Jerusalem the status of an international city.

“The Palestinian position on these issues is very clear,” explained another PA official. “We insist on the right of return for all refugees on the basis of United Nations resolution 194, and the establishment of an independent Palestinian state with all of East Jerusalem, including the Old City, as its capital.”

The official said the PA had, in the past, rejected the idea of establishing a demilitarized state and swapping land with Israel.

“The only way to achieve real and lasting peace is by forcing Israel to withdraw from all the territories that were occupied in 1967,” he said.

The interpretation of resolution 194 is highly problematical. 194 does not offer a “Right of Return” nor does it mention Palestinian refugees exclusively. See this article for a full discussion.

The Palestinian position is still maximalist in that it demands ALL of Jerusalem and ALL refugees returning to Israel. As Alan Dershowitz so succinctly puts it:

… the only justification for Palestinians opting to exercise their right of return would be a macropolitical, rather than a microhumanitarian, one. It would be part of a large-scale, carefully orchestrated plan to return millions of Palestinians to Israel in order to overwhelm the Jewish state with a Palestinian majority. (The Case for Peace, John Wiley and Sons, inc. p. 47)

No Israeli government can ever agree to that and the Palestinians know it.

As for Jerusalem, the PA has and continues to make obnoxious statements which deny that Jerusalem was ever Jewish, that the Temple was was not built there, the Torah was altered to lay false historic claim to the Holy Land and all Jewish claims to Israel are bogus. This is nothing less than the negation of Jews and Judaism by denying there clear and evidenced historical connections to the Land of Israel.

June 1st 2008 worldnetdaily.com reporter Aaron Klein provided the following report:

“Jerusalem is Muslim. The blessed Al Aqsa mosque and Harem Al Sharif (Temple Mount) is 100 percent Muslim. The Israelis are playing with fire when they threaten Al Aqsa with digging that is taking place,” said Abbas’ chief of staff Rafiq Al Husseini.

WND also reported March 15th 2007:

The Jewish Temples never existed, the Western Wall really was a tying post for Muhammad’s horse, the Al Aqsa Mosque was built by angels, and Abraham, Moses and Jesus were prophets for Islam.

All this according to Sheikh Taysir Tamimi, chief Palestinian Justice and one of the most influential Muslim leaders in Israel. Tamimi is considered the second most important Palestinian cleric after Muhammad Hussein, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem.

… Tamimi, who preaches regularly from the Al Aqsa Mosque, claimed Jews have no historical connection to Jerusalem or Israel and that the Jewish Temples never existed.

“Israel started since 1967 making archeological digs to show Jewish signs to prove the relationship between Judaism and the city and they found nothing. There is no Jewish connection to Israel before the Jews invaded in the 1880’s,” said Tamimi…

“About these so-called two Temples, they never existed, certainly not at the Haram Al- Sharif (Temple Mount),” Tamimi said.

This is the same Sheikh Tamimi who ranted against Israel in front of Pope Benedict as I reported here.

Previously, a leader of the Waqf, the Islamic authority which manages the Temple Mount, was dismissed for stating the Jewish temples existed on the site of the Al Aksa mosque and that denying it is purely political.

The PA is supposed to be “moderate”. Maximalist positions are not moderate. In fact maximalist Palestinian positions and historical revisionism by its lay and religious leaders only give fuel to the current Israeli government to claim there is no point in pursuing solutions using old formulas which have always been rejected.

So we now have two entrenched positions.

Meanwhile President Obama seems to be moving ahead like someone driving a buggy without the horses.

Celebrating independence, commemorating the Nakba and the question of loyalty

26/05/2009 / / 0 Comments

On the 14th May 1948, Israel declared its independence as a state in Tel Aviv. This day corresponds to the Hebrew date of the 5th Iyar and it is on that date that Israelis celebrate Yom Ha’atzmaut.

The Palestinians, on the other hand, have long reserved the day after Israeli Independence day, May 15th, as a day of national mourning.

The Yisrael Beitenu party put forward a new law, the Nakba Law, which passed the Ministerial Committee for Legislation stage on Sunday. The Law seeks to make illegal and punishable with up to 3 years in prison any celebration in Israel of the Nakba.

Although receiving some media attention, it has largely been ignored outside of Israel where it has caused, according to the Jerusalem Post “a maelstrom of criticism”.

Some background.

There was no Palestinian state in 1948.

The Palestinian leadership and the Arab nations had rejected the 1937 Peel Commission plans for a two-state solution and the 1947 UN Partition plan, preferring instead to go to war against the nascent Jewish State.

In July 2000 at Camp David, Yasser Arafat walked out of negotiations with Ehud Barak after being offered approximately 97% of the West Bank, all of Gaza, East Jerusalem as a capital and $30 billion dollars in compensation for refugees. At the time, Prince Bandar ibn Sultan, the ambassador of Saudi Arabia, who was present when this offer was made  said: “If Arafat does not accept what is available now, it won’t be a tragedy, it will be a crime.”

Arafat offered no counter-proposals and went home to give orders to commence the Second Intifada.

Dennis Ross, chief UN negotiator blamed Arafat for the breakdown of the talks. You can see a full discussion of this topic and the Palestinian attempts at obfuscation here.

Let me make it quite clear; I agree with Michael Eitan (Minister for Improvement of Government Services), Minister of Intelligence and Atomic Energy, Dan Meridor and Minister without Portfolio, Benny Begin who submitted the following appeal against the decision on Monday (and three other ministers did the same). In the same article, the Jerusalem Post says the appeal states “This bill harms freedom of speech and right to demonstrate, which are basic rights in a democratic country. This bill will increase the isolation and alienation felt by the Israeli Arab community and will strengthen radical elements within it..” (my emphasis)

Of course, the Nakba is blamed on the Zionists not on the rejectionists. Instead of a “catastrophe” the Palestinians could be celebrating 61 years of their state in the vast majority of the British Mandate Palestine and the Israelis would be confined to a small northern enclave. The true catastrophe for the Palestinians and Israel’s Arab neighbours is that then, as now, many are more intent on destroying Israel than creating their own state.

If Arafat had said “yes” in 2000 thousands of live lost in the Intifada could have been saved and Hamas would probably not have been elected and would remain a marginalised extremist group outlawed both by Israel AND Palestine.

Let’s make a distinction here which is important. Nakba commemorations by Palestinians outside Israel are nothing to do with the Israeli government. If the Palestinians wish to continue with their self-deluding national narrative and blame Israel for their continuing plight even though they had at least three chances for their own state and were let down by their own leadership, that’s up to them. In fact, the true narrative behind the Nakba is not a two-state solution at all, but a one-state Palestinian solution.

But Nakba commemoration by Israeli Arabs, is a somewhat different matter.  

Firstly, isn’t it strange that they have the freedom to do demonstrate against their own country’s creation, a freedom which would not be afforded to them in Gaza with Hamas, in the West Bank with the PA or in any other Arab country. The Israeli Arabs are more free than their counterparts anywhere in the Arab world which is why the vast majority of them have expressed the desire to remain Israeli citizens were there ever to be a Palestinian state (78% in 2007 according to A-Sinara, an Arabic newspaper published in Nazareth).

The health of Israeli Arabs is better then their counterparts elsewhere in the Arab world. Life expectancy has increased and infant mortality has dropped enormously since 1948. Indeed, between 1967 and 1995 (when the PA took over control of the West Bank and Gaza), health and education skyrocketed for Palestinians under Israeli occupation compared with Jordanian and Egyptian occupation. As far as I know, there was no commemoration or mourning of being occupied by Jordan or Egypt and no such commemoration would have been permitted.

While conceding that the Arab population does face problems of discrimination and reduced levels of health and education opportunities compared to Jewish Israelis, the ongoing conflict must have considerable impact on these sectors and perhaps, too, cultural differences. Within Israel there are many (Jewish or joint Jewish/Arab) organisations which assist the Arab population to improve its living standards and to champion their rights as equal citizens.

Notwithstanding these problems, it is revealing that the majority still wish to remain within Israel rather then become citizens of a future Palestine. 

It will be interesting to see whether this Bill and the more offensive Loyalty Oath Bill (which seeks to impose an Oath of loyalty to Israel as a Zionist state) will get any further and if they do become law whether they will or can be implemented in practice. The JP ends its piece with:

President Shimon Peres, meanwhile, responded Monday to a journalist’s question on the bill by saying that no decision by the Knesset could overrule the feelings of any person. 

This is the fundamental issue at stake: you cannot legislate loyalty in a true democracy. There are many French Canadians who would like to separate from Canada and there are many Scots who want to destroy the United Kingdom and they have a perfect right to say so and to form parties to agitate for such a cause. Although it is understandable that, given the history of the region, Jewish Israelis and, indeed, may Arabs Israelis, look on Nakba commemorations as disloyal and provocative, I cannot believe how Lieberman and his cohorts cannot see how damaging to Israel’s democratic credentials such a law would be.

The supporters of this Bill would do well to remember that in the British parliament, for example, it has always been necessary for a Member of Parliament to swear an Oath of Allegiance. Until 1888 this Oath effectively prevented professing Jews and Catholics, other faiths and atheists from becoming MP’s because it enjoined them to swear allegiance not just to the monarch but to aspects of the Protestant faith. This goes back to the Test Act of 1673 which effectively equated loyalty to the state to loyalty to not just the Crown but the faith the Crown was defending. The exact words included in the oath were “on the true faith of a Christian” i.e Protestantism.

Even now Republican Sinn Fein MP’s do not sit in the House of Commons because they will not take the Oath of Allegiance to Her Majesty the Queen. No-one is supporting the expulsion to the Republic of Ireland of Sinn Fein members who do not take a loyalty oath. Any such move would be considered inflammatory and counter-productive and also illegal. There are and have never been any moves within the UK for its existing citizens outside of parliament or the armed forces to take any form of loyalty oath to the Crown or parliament. However, new citizens are required to do so as they are in almost every other democracy. This makes sense: if you are actively seeking to become a citizen of a country it is incumbent upon you that you should agree publicly to be loyal to that country. But if you are a citizen by birth or accident your loyalty is always assumed. 

Here’s an interesting thought on which to end: if, in the future, ultra-orthodox Jews decide to remain in a Palestinian state on the West Bank because they believe that they are fulfilling a Divine wish to inhabit the Land, would they be prepared to take a loyalty oath to promise to be good citizens of an Islamic State? Should they even be asked? But if it did happen, I can absolutely assure you that there would not be an iota of protest by the world’s media outside of Israel.

Ken Loach and the politics of spite

20/05/2009 / / 0 Comments

Ken Loach is at it again.

The Scotsman website reports:

ORGANISERS of the Edinburgh International Film Festival have been forced to return a donation from the Israeli embassy after director Ken Loach waded into the funding row and called for people to boycott the event on political grounds…

A donation – believed to be in the region of £300 – was to have been used to pay travel costs to the capital for Tali Shalom Ezer, a graduate of the film and television department at Tel Aviv University, who directed a short feature film, Surrogate…

The SPSC then enlisted the support of Mr Loach, well known for his support of Palestinian human rights.

Mr Loach released a statement through the SPSC which read: “I’m sure many film-makers will be as horrified as I am to learn the Edinburgh International Film Festival is accepting money from Israel. The massacres and state terrorism in Gaza make this money unacceptable. With regret, I must urge all who might consider visiting the festival to show their support for the Palestinian nation and stay away.

The following day the EIFF – which has since been in talks with Mr Loach – did a U-turn. It said: “The EIFF are firm believers in free cultural exchange and do not wish to restrict film-makers’ abilities to communicate artistically with international audiences on the basis that they come from a troubled regime.

Although the festival is considered wholly cultural and apolitical, we consider the opinions of the film industry as a whole and, as such, accept that one film-maker’s recent statement speaks on behalf of the film community, therefore we will be returning the funding issued by the Israeli embassy.

I was so incensed that I wrote the following letter to the EIFF:

Dear EIFF

 I am writing in utter disbelief at your craven surrender to the threats from Ken Loach to organise a boycott of the EIFF as a result of the Israeli embassy funding one of their citizens a mere £300 so they could come to Edinburgh. Loach’s  pusillanimity is only matched by your cowardice in the face of unwarranted intimidation, interference with your own internal affairs and the compromise of your principles.

 In the words of your own Ginnie Atkinson:

 “Choosing not to accept support from one particular country would set a dangerous precedent by politicising what is a wholly cultural and artistic mission. We are firm believers in free cultural exchange, and do not feel that ghettoising filmmakers or restricting their ability to communicate artistically on the basis that they come from a troubled territory is of any benefit. Nor do we see that filmmakers are voices of their government. It is particularly important in situations of strife and conflict that artists be supported in having their voices heard*”

 After receiving a threat this turned to:

“The EIFF are firm believers in free cultural exchange and do not wish to restrict film-makers’ abilities to communicate artistically with international audiences on the basis that they come from a troubled regime.

“Although the festival is considered wholly cultural and apolitical, we consider the opinions of the film industry as a whole and, as such, accept that one film-maker’s recent statement speaks on behalf of the film community, therefore we will be returning the funding issued by the Israeli embassy.”

Since when does Mr Loach speak on behalf of the film industry? And even if he does, so what.

 I understand that you have funded Shalom Ezer from your own funds. This would be laudable were it not an admission that your organisation does not agree with Loach’s position but still decides to give in to threat.  This is mere hypocrisy from the EIFF.

 The lessons of history tell us that if as a society we sacrifice our principles on the altar of bigotry that society is doomed.

*Quoted in Harry’s Place

The pettiness of this affair is indicative. What if it were a Zimbabwean director or an Iranian, Sudanese, Sri Lankan. In the distorting prism of Loach and the outraged righteous of Scotland only Israelis are to be singled out even when the director and the subject-matter are completely apolitical. For a £300 grant. 

Meanwhile, in Israel, I have it on good authority that Loach’s films are still aired without threat of boycott. 

Sheikh Tamimi’s hypocrisy, the Pope and the tightrope

12/05/2009 / / 0 Comments

Today Pope Benedict XVI arrived in Israel for a state visit which was always going to be fraught with opportunities to embarrass and be embarrassed; after all, His Holiness served in the Hitler Youth and the Wehrmacht, albeit briefly, albeit when he was very young and almost certainly against his will. Indeed, he actually deserted from the Wehrmact in the last days.

More recently he agreed to the rehabilitation of Levebrian priests including Bishop Richard Williamson, a British bishop who believes the Holocaust, one of the most documented events in human history, may have been exaggerated.

“I believe that the historical evidence is strongly against, is hugely against six million Jews having been deliberately gassed in gas chambers as a deliberate policy of Adolf Hitler”

 “I think that 200,000 to 300,000 Jews perished in Nazi concentration camps, but none of them in gas chambers”

This in an interview on Swedish television. Williamson, then went off to a dinner party with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and David Irving.

The Pope was also in hot water because, true to his conservative type, has issued a Motu Proprio authorising wider use of the Latin or Tridentine Mass that includes the Good Friday prayer for the conversion of the Jews.

If all this wasn’t enough, he has also begun the process of beatification of his predecessor pope Pius XII whom the Jews and many others believe did not do enough to protest the treatment of Europe’s Jews during the Holocaust and, although he dropped some strong hints, never actually publicly condemned the Nazis or the their anti-Semitic policies. In an effort to counter these claims the Vatican has, belatedly, published a number of documents showing how Pius XII, working behind the scenes, did much to help the Jews during this period. History may have to make some revisions with respect to the silence of Pius but it is unlikely to overturn history’s judgement.

So His Holiness arrives with three strikes already against him in his dealing with Jews and, therefore, the State of Israel. He had some serious fences to mend, banana skims to avoid and tightropes to walk.

With regard to Islam he wasn’t doing too well either having quoted the following:

Show me just what Muhammad brought that was new and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached.

Oh dear. Has anyone ever issued a fatwa against a Pope?

However, he was quoting from an obscure 14th century emperor, Manuel II Paleologus. I shan’t attempt to go into the deep theological content of this lecture, at Regensburg University in 2006, but suffice it say he upset a lot of Muslims. There was a clear lack of understanding of what a Pope should be saying about other religions even if he is quoting as part of a much wider discussion. He apologised afterwards but the genie was out of the bottle, as it were.

So it must have been with some trepidation that he set foot in the Holy Land, first visiting Jordan and today arriving in Israel where he found himself in Jerusalem at the Notre Dame Jerusalem Centre with Rabbi Shear Yashuv Cohen and Sheikh Taysir al Tamimi who is a cleric and also a jurist as well as been a fierce Palestinian patriot.

The Sheikh is on the board of OneVoice, whose website describes itself as: 

… an international mainstream grassroots movement with over 650,000 signatories in roughly equal numbers both in Israel and in Palestine, and 2,000 highly-trained youth leaders. It aims to amplify the voice of Israeli and Palestinian moderates, empowering them to seize back the agenda for conflict resolution and demand that their leaders achieve a two-state solution guaranteeing the end of occupation, establishing a viable independent Palestinian state, and ensuring the safety and security of the state of Israel – allowing both people to live in peace with all their neighbors. 

A noble cause indeed. Please note: “It aims to amplify the voice of Israeli and Palestinian moderates..”

One would assume, therefore, that its Board members would be moderates and always act and behave in the spirit of the organisation they represent, even if not doing so officially.

 

The purpose of the meeting of Jerusalem’s three faith communities at the Notre Dame Centre was “inter-religious dialogue”, something, no doubt, that OneVoice would support.

In an unscheduled speech the Sheikh, board member of OneVoice, certainly took the opportunity to have his voice amplified. Speaking in Arabic, according to the Jerusalem Post:

accused Israel of murdering women and children in Gaza and making Palestinians refugees, and declared Jerusalem the eternal Palestinian capital. 

Fine. The  Sheikh is entitled to air his views but it was certainly not in the spirit of the meeting or likely to further the causes of peace. 

The Pope shook his hand and walked out thus neatly ending his first high-wire sortie. His Press Officer, Father Federico Lombardi, then provided the safety net:

L’intevento dello sceicco Tayssir Attamimi non era previsto dagli organizzatori dell’incontro. In un evento dedicato al dialogo, tale intervento è stato una negazione del dialogo. Ci si augura che questo incidente non comprometta la missione del Papa diretta a promuovere la pace e il dialogo tra le religioni, come egli ha chiaramente affermato in molti discorsi  di questo viaggio. Ci si augura anche  che il dialogo interreligioso nella Terra Santa non venga compromesso da questo incidente.

(The intervention of Sheikh Tayssir Attamimi was not scheduled by the organizers of the meeting. In a meeting dedicated to dialogue this intervention was a direct negation of what a dialogue should be. We hope that such an incident will not damage the mission of the Pope aiming at promoting peace and also interreligious dialogue, as he has clearly affirmed in many occasions during this pilgrimage. We hope also that interreligious dialogue in the Holy Land will not be compromised by this incident.)

The Pope was clearly embarrassed by this but his reaction was dignified and appropriate. The Sheikh’s behaviour, whatever his conviction, was an insult to the Pope and opportunistic.

The Sheikh has form. He did a similar thing in the same place when Pope John Paul II visited in 2000. You would have thought they would be forewarned, but they could hardly not invite him. On that occasion the Sheikh was decidedly not speaking in the spirit of OneVoice as the JP points out:

Never referring to Israel by name, Tamimi had called on “the occupier” to stop “strangling Jerusalem and oppressing its residents.”

Singling out land confiscations, house demolitions, settlements and the Baruch Goldstein shooting in 1994, Tamimi said that Israel had a long record of “genocide” and “shooting and wounding Palestinian children.”

 This is verging on the rhetoric of Hamas with its lies about genocide and targeting of children.

But here’s the hypocrisy bit. Whilst Jews, Christians and Muslims, and indeed all religions, are allowed freedom of religious practice and access to their holy places in Israel, in Bethlehem, for example, which is under Palestinian Authority control, Christians, one time the majority, are being driven out by religious intolerance from Muslims.

In this JP article two years ago: 

A number of Christian families have finally decided to break their silence and talk openly about what they describe as Muslim persecution of the Christian minority in this city. 

The move comes as a result of increased attacks on Christians by Muslims over the past few months. The families said they wrote letters to Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas, the Vatican, Church leaders and European governments complaining about the attacks, but their appeals have fallen on deaf ears. 

According to the families, many Christians have long been afraid to complain in public about the campaign of “intimidation” for fear of retaliation by their Muslim neighbors and being branded “collaborators” with Israel. 

But following an increase in attacks on Christian-owned property in the city over the past few months, some Christians are no longer afraid to talk about the ultra-sensitive issue. And they are talking openly about leaving the city. 

But Arab propaganda says otherwise and blames, you guessed it, the Israelis. Here’s Al Jazeera:

Bethlehem’s mayor explains that the worsening conditions under the Israeli occupation are the main reasons for the “Christian exodus”.

Victor Batarseh says that the Christians are leaving because of the stress of occupation, the lack of jobs and worsening economic situation in the territories, the constant fear of war and military incursions and the continuous building of roadblocks and the wall.

“It is much easier for a Christian Palestinian to get a visa to a Western country than a Muslim Palestinian,” Batarseh said.

“So because it is easier they are able to leave.”

Yeah right. The Muslim Palestinians really find it hard to get to the West. According to Abbas Shiblak, The Palestinian Diaspora in Europe: Challenges of Dual Identity and Adaptation, (ISBN 9950-315-04-2) more than 10,000 Palestinians arrived in Britain alone in the 1990’s. It records, as of 2001, 191,000 Palestinians resident in Europe. 

Sadly, but predictably, most commentators take the Al Jazeera line, even the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, who just concedes that the plight of Christians is a result of occupation whilst ignoring the fact that Bethlehem is behind a barrier because 50 percent of all suicide bombers came from Bethlehem.

So when the Pope visits the remnants of the Christian community under the PA rule he might wish to take some of its leaders aside and ask them discreetly why Christians thrive in Israel free of persecution and intimidation but are frightened to speak under Muslim control in the West Bank and Gaza as their numbers dwindle.

For Sheikh Tamimi, board member of OneVoice, I would point out that it rubs both ways; you can’t just choose which “ethnic cleanser” to criticise, especially when your lot are at it big time. See for example this article in the JP in June 2007:

Christians living in Gaza City on Monday appealed to the international community to protect them against increased attacks by Muslim extremists. Many Christians said they were prepared to leave the Gaza Strip as soon as the border crossings are reopened.

The appeal came following a series of attacks on a Christian school and church in Gaza City over the past few days.

Father Manuel Musalam, leader of the small Latin community in the Gaza Strip, said masked gunmen torched and looted the Rosary Sisters School and the Latin Church.

“The masked gunmen used rocket-propelled grenades to storm the main entrances of the school and church,” he said. “Then they destroyed almost everything inside, including the Cross, the Holy Book, computers and other equipment.”

Musalam expressed outrage over the burning of copies of the Bible, noting that the gunmen destroyed all the Crosses inside the church and school. “Those who did these awful things have no respect for Christian-Muslim relations,” he said. 

There’s a pattern here somewhere. Oh yes. If Muslims persecute Christians, the Church says nothing. If Jews are in conflict with Muslims then EVERYONE feels free to have a go and condemn the Jews.

Inconsistency and hypocrisy is often (but not always) the currency of Israel’s detractors.

Meanwhile, His Holiness is preparing for his next hire-wire act.

Lieberman: Far Right or just right?

24/04/2009 / / 0 Comments

During the recent Israeli election campaign Avigdor Lieberman, representing Yisrael Beitenu (Israel Our Home) presented himself as a far-right nationalist who had made some inflammatory and what could be perceived as racist remarks about Palestinians and Arab Israelis. He also managed to upset Egypt, one of  only two neighbouring states that Israel has signed a peace treaty and with whom it has an important relationship with reagrd mutual security issues.

Hi smost controversial slogan was “No loyalty, no citizenship” which called for all Israel citizens, including Arabs, to swear an oath of allegiance. In itself this may seem unexceptional but if you consider that Basques donlt have to do this in Spain or Republicans in Northern Ireland or Kurds in Turkey, such a policy seemed designed to be a step toward another objective: 

What we state unequivocally is that we are completely opposed to what has been and still is the guiding principle of Israel’s foreign policy: ‘land for peace’ … There is either ‘peace for peace’ or the exchange of territory and populations.

The “exchange” he refers to is his idea of a Pakistan/India type transfer of all Israeli Arabs to a future Palestine and, presumably all Jews within the agreed border to return to Israel. If you analyse this it makes no reference about Israeli settlements and it undermines Israel’s claim that it is not an apartheid state and is not racist.

I do not subscribe to a transfer of populations and no Palestinian government would ever do so and a large number of Israelis would oppose it. Such an exchange would only lead to a considerable cultural loss to Israel. It sounds totally impracticable.

However,  land-for-peace IS off the table for Lieberman in this speech. But Lieberman is part of a broad coalition. But we’ll return to land-for-peace later.

Time and time again our leaders go to Egypt to meet Mubarak and he has never agreed to make an official visit here as president. If he wants to talk to us, he should come here. If he doesn’t want to come here, he can go to hell.

Great. So let’s make Lieberman Foreign Minister!

In 2006 he said this to an Arab member of the Knesset who is well-known for his support of the Palestinian cause:

 The fate of the collaborators in the Knesset will be identical to that of those who collaborated with the Nazis. Collaborators, as well as criminals, were executed after the Nuremberg trials at the end of the World War Two. I hope that will be the fate of collaborators in this house.

Isn’t it interesting that the Arab MK can openly express his views, make trips abroad to meet enemies of the state and not be imprisoned or worse. He’s a member of parliament! How would that work in Iran if a Jewish member of parliament expressed his Zionist views (or anyone else for that matter). One can’t imagine a single Arab state that would tolerate this sort of opposition.

On the other hand such language from Lieberman would not be tolerated in most democracies. Even if said in the heat of the moment, it is totally unacceptable.

I think Lieberman, in his new role a a coalition member is now finding a more moderate voice. But it’s still pretty strident at times.

Let’s now look at what Lieberman said on April 1st when taking office: (translation from Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs website).

He began describing the realities of a new world order where there are “semi-states”:

there are countries that are semi-states. It is hard to call a country like Somalia a state in the full sense of the word and the same holds true for the various autonomies in Eastern Europe, in the Balkans and here as well. It is even hard to call a country like Iraq a state in the full sense of the word. And even worse, there are now international players that are irrational, like the Al Qaeda organization. And we can certainly also ask if the leader of a strong and important country like Iran is a rational player.

In my view, we must explain to the world that the priorities of the international community must change, and that all the previous benchmarks – the Warsaw Pact, the NATO Alliance, socialist countries, capitalist countries – have changed. There is a world order that the countries of the free world are trying to preserve, and there are forces, or countries or extremist entities that are trying to violate it.

He sees the threat to world order not coming fro Israel-Palestine but from Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran and Iraq. He stresses regional stability and especially singles out Egypt as an important partner to Israel. So this is already a softening in an attempt too make up for hos remarks about Mubarak: “I would be happy to visit Egypt and to host Egyptian leaders here, including the Egyptian Foreign Minister”. In fact, this is not going to happen just yet; Ha’aretz reports “Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak said on Thursday that Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman would not accompany Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on an upcoming visit to Egypt.” Maybe a tad too early for a Mubarak-Lieberman rapprochement. An apology from Lieberman might help.

He goes on to describe the efforts of the two previous administrations and the meaning of “peace”:

I think that we have been disparaging many concepts, and we have shown the greatest disdain of all for the word “peace.” The fact that we say the word “peace” twenty times a day will not bring peace any closer. There have been two governments here that took far-reaching measures: the Sharon government and the Olmert government. They took dramatic steps and made far-reaching proposals. We saw the Disengagement and the Annapolis Conference. 

Yisrael Beiteinu was not then part of the coalition, Avigdor Liberman was not the foreign minister and, even if we had wanted to, we would have been unable to prevent peace. But none of these far-reaching measures have brought peace. To the contrary. We have seen that, after all the gestures that we made, after all the dramatic steps we took and all the far-reaching proposals we presented, in the past few years this country has gone through the Second War in Lebanon and Operation Cast Lead – and not because we chose to. I have not seen peace here. It is precisely when we made all the concessions that I saw the Durban Conference, I saw two countries in the Arab world suddenly sever relations, recalling their ambassadors – Mauritania and Qatar. Qatar suddenly became extremist. 

Then the old Lieberman slips out using a phrase which lends itself to misinterpretation:

We are also losing ground every day in public opinion. Does anyone think that concessions and constantly saying “I am prepared to concede,” and using the word “peace” will lead to anything? No, that will just invite pressure, and more and more wars. “Si vis pacem, para bellum” – if you want peace, prepare for war; be strong.

It is strange he begins by admitting Israel is losing the media war and then puts a very big foot in an equally big mouth with the the Latin quote.

But now we come to Liberman’s clever strategy:

We definitely want peace, but the other side also bears responsibility. We have proven our desire for  peace more than any other country in the world. No country has made concessions the way Israel has. Since 1977, we have given up areas of land three times the size of the State of Israel. So we have proven the point.

The Oslo process began in 1993. Sixteen years have passed since then, and I do not see that we are any closer to a permanent settlement. There is one document that binds us and it is not the Annapolis Conference. That has no validity. When we drafted the basic government policy guidelines, we certainly stated that we would honor all the agreements and all the undertakings of previous governments. The continuity of government is respected in Israel. I voted against the Road Map, but that was the only document approved by the Cabinet and by the Security Council – I believe it was Resolution 1505. It is a binding resolution and it binds this government as well.

The Israeli government never approved Annapolis, neither the Cabinet nor the Knesset, so anyone who wants to amuse himself can continue to do so. I have seen all the proposals made so generously by Ehud Olmert, but I have not seen any results.

So we will therefore act exactly according to the Road Map, including the Tenet document and the Zinni document. I will never agree to our waiving all the clauses – I believe there are 48 of them – and going directly to the last clause, negotiations on a permanent settlement. No. These concessions do not achieve anything. We will adhere to it to the letter, exactly as written. Clauses one, two, three, four – dismantling terrorist organizations, establishing an effective government, making a profound constitutional change in the Palestinian Authority. We will proceed exactly according to the clauses. We are also obligated to implement what is required of us in each clause, but so is the other side. They must implement the document in full, including – as I said – the Zinni document and the Tenet document. I am not so sure that the Palestinian Authority or even we – in those circles that espouse peace so much – are aware of the existence of the Tenet and Zinni documents.

This is where the world’s media  said “aha!” – see, he doesn’t want to observe the peace accords, he will renege on Israel’s previous commitments.  He is right: Annapolis did not oblige either side to anything because no agreement was reached and, therefore, Israel has no obligations under Annapolis. “Lieberman does not want a two-state solution” the media opined. But what was signed was a mutual agreement to negotiate:

We agreed to immediately launch good faith, bilateral negotiations in order to conclude a peace treaty resolving all outstanding issues, including core issues, without exception,” and that, “The final peace settlement will establish Palestine as a homeland for the Palestinian people just as Israel is the homeland for the Jewish people.

Thus a two-state solution was agreed for the first time by both sides as an end goal to negotiations. 

But looked what happened in the Arab world and in Iran. Both Hamas and Iran said the conference should be boycotted and Hamas even held a demonstration in Gaza against it four days before the conference began. Even in the West Bank, the Palestinian Authority stronghold, their were demonstrations against the conference which were brutally broken up by Fatah members. Ahmadinejad in Iran, meanwhile, also denounced it as “”A political show for the media which is in Israel’s interest””   (as reported by yNetNews at the time. It appears Ahmadinjad was very worried that there might actually be a settlement. Peace is not in his interests because it means Israel had not been wiped off the map”.

But in Israel too, when it was realised that Olmert had put East Jerusalem on the negotiating table, there were many protests, mainly by right-wing religious groups.

Before the conference Mahmoud Abbas of the P.A. had said that the ALL the West Bank and Gaza forming a Palestinian state would be the only acceptable solution. This sounds like a pre-condition to me, just the sort of pre-condition he accused Binyamin Netanyahu of stipulating when he said that the P.A. must recognise Israel as a Jewish State (and later appeared to back track on this to the point where we now don;t know whether he does or he doesn’t want this pre-condition). Of course, Abbas has his own constituency and any pre-condition that actually recognises a Jewish State is political dynamite and potentially fatal. Yet the P.A. have said in the past that they DO recognise Israel. So it’s clearly the “Jewish” bit they have a problem with.

So what happened next? The joint statement was actually a confirmation of the road-map which was issued 30th April 2003 by the “Quartet”. So the whole Annapolis Conference was little more than a belated Bush effort to get things moving again.

So back to Lieberman who recognises this:

The Israeli government never approved Annapolis, neither the Cabinet nor the Knesset, so anyone who wants to amuse himself can continue to do so. I have seen all the proposals made so generously by Ehud Olmert, but I have not seen any results. 

So we will therefore act exactly according to the Road Map, including the Tenet document and the Zinni document. …

We will adhere to it to the letter, exactly as written. Clauses one, two, three, four – dismantling terrorist organizations, establishing an effective government, making a profound constitutional change in the Palestinian Authority. We will proceed exactly according to the clauses. We are also obligated to implement what is required of us in each clause, but so is the other side. 

So what Lieberman is saying is that Annapolis reconfirmed the road-map to a two-state solution. But the very first steps have not been carried out by the Palestinian side because terror still exists. How can peace be reached with half of Palestine whilst the other half attacks from Gaza on a daily basis.

Lieberman is saying “enough of concessions” let’s move forward on the basis of the road-map. He is cutting to the chase and saying we have map, so let’s use it. He is challenging the Palestinians to move forward on this basis.

Liberman has his unsavoury side but he also makes a lot of sense. Israel must can not move forward on the road-map until its own security is assured and that may well mean that as long as Hamas rules Gaza very little will happen.

Newer posts »

© 2024 Ray Cook – As I See It

Theme by Anders Norén — Up ↑