FresnoZionism.org — ציונות פרסנו

I just watched a History Channel documentary about the Manhattan Project. Leaving aside the feelings evoked by the outcome of it — the atomic bomb and its use in war — I was struck by something else: how American society was able to focus its energy (and that of numerous refugee Jewish scientists, I might add) to accomplish this massive undertaking, in every sense — scientific, technological, and organizational — and to do it in a remarkably short time and in the midst of an all-consuming war.

Could we do something similar in scale today?  I doubt it, although their are plenty of candidates for such a project, like the development of cheap energy sources independent of OPEC. But for various reasons (I have my theories, of course), we as a society seem to have lost whatever we had that made the Manhattan Project possible.

At which point my thoughts turned to Israel, which also achieved almost miraculous successes in the near past, like winning the War of Independence and the 1967 war, absorbing millions of refugees from Hitler and the Arab world, etc.

And yet, today she stands apparently impotent, facing her enemies on her borders and within them. Why? Are today’s threats greater than those in 1948? I don’t think so.

There are several explanations for this. One is the most obvious: the lack of leadership. Every day there is a Cabinet Minister saying there will be a large incursion into Gaza, there will be a cease-fire, there will be a medium incursion, there will be an incursion of unspecified size “to teach Hamas a lesson” followed by a cease-fire, etc. Every day there is something new, and the only common element is that someone is talking about it.

Similar situations exist with respect to policy toward the West Bank, Hezbollah, Syria, Iran, etc.

What is needed is for responsible, competent, dedicated officials to analyze the situation, come up with the best — which does not mean perfect — policy, and then actually execute it. How simple it sounds, and how hard to accomplish! But we know, for example, that the present government is not responsible, competent or dedicated, and nothing will change until this does. Some have suggested that there are structural problems in Israel’s system for choosing leaders which is responsible for this; if so, it has to be changed too.

There is another problem which, if it can be imagined, is even more destructive than the first. This is well illustrated by Barry Rubin’s recent comment about “back channel” negotiations with the Palestinians: “I’ve been to those, the Israelis apologize and the Palestinians blame Israel for everything…”

Israelis need to stop accepting blame, apologizing,  and trying to appease their enemies. The post-Zionist attitudes which appear to infect so many Jews in Israel and elsewhere are no more than the old ghetto mentality which whispers to us to beg the gentile king for our miserable lives. In fact, history shows that the Jewish state has little to apologize for, and that the blame for creating and perpetuating the conflict and the various miseries (e.g., Jewish and Arab refugees) that surround it falls squarely on the Arabs. Sorry for those who demand ‘balance’ but this is true.

Maybe Israel needs a Manhattan Project for political reform, and another one for History. Because no nation, no matter how great, not the US and not Israel, can succeed if its leaders are more concerned with their personal fortunes or legal misfortunes than with the good of the state. And no nation can win an existential struggle by accepting the narratives of its enemies.

Technorati Tags: Manhattan Project, Israel

The notorious team of Mearsheimer and Walt, whose slanderous article and book on the “Israel Lobby” has attracted so much attention, are presently speaking in Israel, invited by the left-wing “Gush Shalom” [Peace Bloc] group.

Here is one Israeli’s response to them:

An open letter to Professors Mearsheimer and Walt

From Maurice Ostroff
June 12, 2008

Dear Professors Mearsheimer and Walt,

Welcome to Israel. I sincerely hope you will enjoy your stay and gain a broader perspective of our tiny troubled country.

You may recall that we have been in correspondence before. In my open letter in May 2006, I raised a few questions arising from your original article on the Israel Lobby in the London Review of Books. You replied that you were preparing a lengthy “response to critics” in which you would address many of the issues I had raised and in December you kindly sent me a copy of your unpublished 81-page paper “Setting the record straight”.

While you did address some minor criticisms, you have not yet responded to almost all the points I had raised and I would be delighted if you would please address them now while in Israel. For example:

1. The Iraq war
As you claimed that were it not for the Jewish lobby, the US would not have gone to war against Iraq in 2003, I asked why you continue to ignore reliable reports that then Prime Minister Sharon and Israeli officials had warned the Bush administration against invading Iraq.

I expected that you must have been aware that Lawrence Wilkerson, former chief of staff for Secretary of State Colin Powell, was reported as saying the Israeli government “…were telling us Iraq is not the enemy, Iran is the enemy. If you are going to destabilize the balance of power, do it against the main enemy”.

And although you stated that you relied on Jewish newspapers like the Forward, you seem to have missed a report in that paper confirming that PM Sharon advised Bush not to occupy Iraq and that AIPAC officials told visiting Arab intellectuals they would rather the US deal militarily with Iran than with Iraq.

2. Sponsors of Terror.
You claim that US policy towards Israel contributes to America’s terrorism problem, but you failed to respond to my reference to Alex Alexiev, vice president for research at the Center for Security Policy in Washington, D.C., who stated that Riyadh, flush with oil money, became the paymaster of most of the militant Islamic movements, which advocated terror. Even the most violent of Islamic groups, like Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood, receives Saudi largesse. Official Saudi sources indicate that between 1975 and 1987, Riyadh’s overseas development aid averaged $4 billion per year, of which at least $50 billion over two-and-a-half decades financed Islamic activities exclusively. The SAAR Foundation alone, which has been closed down since 9/11, received $1.7 billion in donations in 1998.

Nor did you respond to my statement that anti-American agendas dominate the majority of Muslim Student Associations at U.S. colleges.

3. Ehud Barak’s purportedly generous offer.
You referred to then PM Ehud Baraks’ purportedly generous offer at Camp David, and I suggested that the loaded word “purportedly” was inappropriate. Rather, you owed it to your readers to present the facts and allow them to form their own opinions as to whether the offer was generous or “purportedly” generous?

4. Campus Watch
You wrote about Campus Watch, “Pipes does not deny that his organization, Campus Watch, was created in order to monitor what academics say, write and teach, so as to discourage them from engaging in open discourse about the Middle East”. (The emphasis is mine)

As Campus Watch is known to encourage open discourse, I asked you to please explain your allegation that it attempts to discourage academics from doing just that. I also asked you to substantiate your claim that Pipes admitted that he discouraged open discourse.

5. Apparent bias
You have not responded to my suspicion of the bias evident from your writing about relations between “Tel Aviv” and Washington, rather than Jerusalem (Israel’s seat of government), and Washington.

6. Lobbies in context and the Arab Lobby
You did not respond to my contention that your concentrated focus on the Israel Lobby creates the completely misleading impression that it is the only influence on Congress, whereas in reality, the Israel Lobby is one of many dozens of interest groups that spend billions to convince politicians to pass or oppose particular laws.

Of course any serious study of the Jewish Lobby cannot avoid comparison with Arab influence on Washington. I cannot understand how, in the face of extensive evidence to the contrary, you conclude in your unpublished paper “setting the record straight” that there is no well-organized and politically potent Arab Lobby and little evidence that US politicians ever feel much pressure from pro-Arab groups. (The emphasis is mine)

You did not address, for example, my comments about Prince Bandar Bin Sultan who is reported to have participated in backstage intrigues, clandestine negotiations, and billion-dollar deals, all having to do with US interests in the Middle East and who was rated by Axis Information And Analysis (Aia), as almost the most influential foreigner in the USA.

I also mentioned that Aia refers to U.S.A.-Engage as one of the largest lobbying groups, uniting 640 giants of the American economy, a tenth of the leading banks, as well as associations of industrialists and farmers. The most prominent and influential members of U.S.A.-Engage work almost permanently in the Congress and have great influence over the mass media (partly because of their advertising expenditure).

On your own turfs in academia, Harvard and Georgetown each received gifts of $20 million from Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Talal bin Abdulaziz al-Saud. It is also common knowledge that the Carter Center has received large donations from Arab sources including the late King Fahd and his nephew, Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal.

In Craig Unger’s book, “House of Bush, House of Saud” Unger tells of Saudis investing as much as $800 billion into American equities, not only in blue chip companies but also in companies not doing so well, but linked to powerful politicians.

He also speaks of at least $1 million donated to each presidential library, emphasizing that the Saudis give to Democrats and Republicans alike. Prince Bandar has been quite frank. “If we give to our friends after you get out of office, the people in office will get the message”.

In an interview with Sentient Times, Unger said that over the last 30 years, the Saudis spent $70 billion on propaganda, the biggest propaganda campaign in the history of the world. The Israel Lobby’s influence is less than puny by contrast.

Nor can the stranglehold of OPEC be ignored. This blatantly monopolistic cartel threatens not only the US, but also the world economy. With oil soaring around $150, it is mind-boggling to consider that production costs average only about $6 per barrel for non-OPEC producers; and $1.50 per barrel for OPEC producers according to the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists May/June 2005.

Surely, in light of such overwhelming evidence to the contrary, you cannot be comfortable continuing to claim that there is no well-organized, politically potent Arab Lobby.

7. Conclusion
I wholeheartedly support your call for a civilized discussion about the role of lobbies in American foreign policy, but I ask you to recognize that by focusing only on Israel, you are diverting attention from the serious threat of fundamentalist extremism as opposed to the moderate Muslim religion that needs recognition and encouragement.

May I hope that in your public appearances in Israel you will address all or at least some of the queries I have raised.

Sincerely
Maurice Ostroff

The article originally appeared here and is reprinted with permission.

Technorati Tags: Mearsheimer and Walt, Maurice Ostroff, Israel

Hans Blix, the former UN weapons inspector, joins the chorus of those who think that the US should not threaten Iran over nuclear weapons:

Former UN Chief Weapons Inspector Hans Blix criticized the United States on Thursday for keeping open the possibility of military action to force changes in Iran’s nuclear program…

“The military threat may well be counterproductive,” Blix said at a news conference. “It is more likely to strengthen the ranks in Iran.” — YNet

Not only should Iran not have to worry about military action against her illegal program, but she should be rewarded if she ’suspends’ it:

“The rewards are more important, the carrots rather than the sticks,” he said. He said the United States and Europe should offer incentives – including support for Iran joining the World Trade Organization, improved economic relations and guarantees against outside attacks and attempts to topple the Iranian regime…

“So we’ve got to continue to work together to make it clear, abundantly clear, to them, that it’s their choice to make: They can either face isolation or they can have better relations with all of us if they verifiably suspend their enrichment program,” he said.

It’s important to realize that Iran’s foreign policy goals — the political, economic, and religious domination of the region, the establishment of an Islamic caliphate, the destruction of Israel and the end of the US as a world power — do not require the use, or even possession of atomic weapons. As Ami Isseroff pointed out, Iran recently cemented its control over Lebanon without bombing anybody, even conventionally.

Our policy needs to counteract the expansion of Iranian power, not just prevent their acquisition of WMD (although obviously this is important as well).

Helping the present regime stay in power, which is exactly what Blix is suggesting, is the wrong approach. The real problem here is not the means, but rather the ends. And apparently Blix is unmoved by the prospect of an Iranian Middle East, no Israel, and the US as a minor power, because this situation is what Ahmadinejad is trying to bring about.

Hans Blix in Iran (courtesy Cox and Forkum)

Technorati Tags: Hans Blix, Iran

We should lay off Iran’s nuclear weapons program, says a “human rights” advocate, because Iran is using it as a reason to increase repression of internal reformers:

Rights advocates say dozens of activists have been prosecuted and condemned to prison sentences, some with lashes. They say arrests, detention and judicial harassment are common practice. They say journalists, lawyers, students and trade unionists are particularly targeted.

Spokesman of the International Campaign for Human Rights in Iran, Hadi Ghaemi, says Iran has taken advantage of the International Community’s fixation on the country’s nuclear issue to increase repression in the country.

“As the military threat against Iran increases, indeed, the government uses that to solidify the current situation and increase its repression. And, human rights defenders inside Iran are very much opposed to the continuing threat made against Iran,” he said. “It has made life very difficult for them. And, if there is any kind of military action against Iran, be it a very limited one, it will give a license to the government to completely uproot any semblance of civil society in the country.” — VOA News (6/2008) [my emphasis]

This is truly breathtaking in its stupidity. Iran is developing nuclear weapons in order to facilitate its goal of exporting revolutionary, fundamentalist Shiite Islam. Of course the Mullahs and Ahmadinejad want to repress reform at home; it’s part and parcel of the same project.

Repression has increased greatly since Ahmadinejad was elected in 2005, and the authorities are making good use of everything that the US does and says, not only our silly ‘fixation’, to justify it. For example, for the past several years the US has been funding radio broadcasts, websites, international human rights organizations concerned with conditions in Iran, etc.

Since Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice unveiled the program [in 2006], a wide array of activists — teachers, women’s rights campaigners, labor organizers, students, journalists and intellectuals — have faced interrogations, detentions, imprisonment and passport confiscation over suspected links to the new U.S. funding, activists and human rights groups say. Iranian officials have charged that Washington is supporting the kind of soft revolution that transformed Eastern Europe. — Washington Post (4/2007)

Indeed, the same Hadi Ghaemi, who is an analyst for Human Rights Watch, was quoted in the Post article:

Dozens of Iranian activists are paying a price since the announcement of the $75 million, and practically everyone who has been detained over the past year has been interrogated about receiving this money…

US officials on their part have emphasized that no funding is given directly to Iranian reformers. Of course, that doesn’t stop the security forces from using it as an issue. Does anyone really think that the crackdown would stop if the US backed off? Would they lack questions to ask dissidents?

Ghaemi is correct in decrying the violations of human rights committed by the Iranian regime. But his advice for the US appears to be that we should take no action of any kind — not against the nuclear program and not even to indirectly help those Iranians who oppose the fundamentalist program of Ahmadinejad’s regime.

In other words, Iran should be allowed to achieve her goals of regional domination, the elimination of Israel, and — ultimately — the end of the US as a world power.

Technorati Tags: Iran, Hadi Ghaemi, human rights

News item:

Fear of a weak cease-fire agreement which would work to the advantage of Hamas led a majority of ministers to express their support on Tuesday for escalated measures to end the threat of rocket attacks to southern Israel, with many of them calling for the launch of a wide-scale military operation in the Gaza Strip…

Meanwhile, defense officials said Monday night that during a security meeting following the cabinet meeting, Defense Minister Ehud Barak would push for a “medium-level military operation” in Gaza before agreeing to an Egyptian-brokered truce with Hamas…

According to the sources, Barak plans to ask Olmert to approve an operation that would make Hamas “pay a price,” and only afterwards agree to a cease-fire.

Here is the scenario I expect:

1. The IDF mounts a limited operation into Gaza, suffers some casualties overcoming Hamas fortifications.
2. Hamas screams bloody murder, claims huge civilian casualties. They are already preparing the ground for this with the US and other players.
3. The US forces Israel to withdraw before even the limited operation meets its goals.
4. Israel agrees to cease-fire with only slightly damaged Hamas. No effective guarantee against arms smuggling is implemented (because the only effective one is Israeli control of Egyptian border).
5. Hamas claims victory, continues to arm, Israel is limited in possible responses by terms of cease-fire.

There are even worse scenarios, including international involvement in the terms of the cease-fire, which could make them even worse for Israel. Certainly Hamas will insist on opening crossings, prisoner releases, etc.

There is only one solution to Hamas, and that is a large operation that will destroy it as a functioning organism. Yes it will be hard, yes it will have unpleasant consequences, yes Israel will also have to worry about Hezbollah, etc.

There is a fallacy I recall from a basic logic course, called argumentum ad consequentiam. It means arguing that “If P is true, then that will be very bad. So P is false”. Baldly stated it looks foolish, but how many times have you heard “the negotiations must succeed — there’s no alternative”?

Or, in this case, “We can live with Hamas, because the alternative is war”. But can Israel live with Hamas?

Technorati Tags: Israel, Hamas, IDF, cease-fire

Let’s look at this paragraph and try to guess who wrote it:

Israelis and Palestinians involved in the talks on borders, an issue considered to be relatively “easy,” say there is a big gap between the reports on the talks’ progress and the reality around the negotiating table. It seems Olmert’s representatives expect Mahmoud Abbas to allocate to Israel larger pieces of territory than those Ehud Barak and Bill Clinton discussed with Yasser Arafat in 2000. This means that after seven and a half years of struggle, thousands of dead, tens of thousands injured and enormous economic losses, a weak Palestinian president is being asked to surrender principles that a powerful leader would not dare give up.

The author is clearly sympathetic with the Palestinian ’struggle’. If he said this to me, I would point out that while some of this struggle is comprised of guerrilla warfare against the IDF, a great deal of it took the form of murder by terrorism — hundreds of Israeli civilians were killed since 2000, in suicide bombings, shootings, stabbings, rocket and mortar attacks, etc.

I would point out that the offer made by Barak and Clinton in 2000 was really quite extraordinary — despite Arafat’s lies — and represented a huge compromise by Israel, a compromise whose implementation would have almost torn the state apart, forcing the relocation of more than 100,000 Jews, the loss of Judaism’s most holy sites, etc.

If that wouldn’t have been a sacrifice for peace, I don’t know what would count as such, and I would have contrasted that willingness to sacrifice with the hard line taken by Yasser Arafat, who began the ’struggle’ our writer mentions (I would have used the word ‘war’) in response to this offer of peace.

The writer says that Arafat would not give up his ‘principles’. The use of the word ‘principle’ in connection with Arafat makes me gag, but I would have pointed out that the ‘principles’ which Arafat would not give up were primarily the right of ‘return’ and complete sovereignty over Jerusalem, and not arguments over borders.

The writer suggests that Arafat would not ‘dare’ to accept Israel’s offer. This is always the Palestinian line, that they would like to have peace but the ‘extremists’ won’t let them. But Arafat proved that he was the extremist when he paid and commanded terrorists while the ‘peace’ talks were going on and when he funded the huge Karine A arms shipment.

The writer seems to be saying that by virtue of their ’struggle’, the Palestinians today deserve a better deal than they were offered in 2000! They’ve struggled so hard, how can we offer them less than they’ve earned?

OK, so who wrote this? Who thinks that Palestinians should be compensated for their hard work and sacrifices in murdering Israelis?

None other than Akiva Eldar, Diplomatic Affairs Analyst for the great Israeli newspaper Ha’aretz. Eldar’s bio says that he majored in Economics, Political Science, and Psychology. He must have been asleep in Psychology class when they discussed the phenomenon of abuse victims identifying with their abusers.

Technorati Tags: Akiva Eldar, Israeli-Palestinian conflict

Recently there’s been talk about a lame-duck Bush administration bombing Iran. And yesterday Shaul Mofaz threatened that Israel would do so (my local newspaper headlined the AP story “Israeli threatens to bomb Iran”, which caused me to do a double take when I read it as “Israel threatens…”).

But the real danger may not be only from actual bombs in Iranian hands. In “The real danger from Iran“, Ami Isseroff argued,

The prospect of Iranian nuclear weapons is frightening because of what the Iranian government - the Islamic Republic of Iran - stands for, and because of the goals that it announces day and night, and its apparent readiness to achieve them by all means possible: a world without Zionism and America, an international Islamic caliphate, a Middle East dominated by Iranian radical Shi’ism.

…Iran is not just, or primarily, dangerous because it might develop nuclear weapons. Iran is dangerous because it is trying to undermine the United States and the west, and allies of the United States, including but not limited to Israel. The nature of the Iranian program was dramatically illustrated only a few weeks ago in the Hezbollah takeover of Lebanon, quietly blessed by the Doha agreement. While most of the Arab world and the west looked on with benign unconcern, some Arab clerics voiced their deep concerns. Iran’s supreme leader has again insisted that Iran is not seeking to make nuclear weapons, and that just might well be true. So what? [The late] Imad Moughnieh and Hassan Nassrallah and their activities represent the real danger from Iran…

…what if Iran “only” attains the nuclear fuel cycle and renounces nuclear weapons? What if they strike a deal with the west - no nuclear weapons, in return for economic support? Will Iran become a benign country? Picture Iran with no nuclear weapons, but as rich as Germany or France, and still committed to overthrowing the influence of moderate Islam, the west and Israel. Picture a world in which Iran controls the price of oil and decides who gets it, and installs radical Shi’a regimes in Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and other countries. Yet they haven’t dropped a single atom bomb on anybody and they do not [yet] have any bombs. That scenario is far more realistic and probable than a nuclear attack on Israel, and it represents a devastating threat. Iran already controls Syria and Lebanon, and they bid fair to control the Palestinian authority. Who is next? [my emphasis]

Isseroff does not suggest a solution. He concludes,

The first step in solving the problem is to understand the real danger. By offering to “trade” other concessions for a pledge not to develop nuclear weapons, and by focusing only on this issue, the west is playing into the hands of Iran.

The conclusion that we must draw from his analysis is that there is no solution to the problem of Iran short of regime change. Yes, it is necessary to prevent Iran from getting the bomb, but this won’t be sufficient to prevent her from reaching her goals as proclaimed by Ahmadinejad.

And this is why Barack Obama’s announced policy of “aggressive, principled diplomacy” is unlikely to work. Obama said,

We will pursue this diplomacy with no illusions about the Iranian regime. Instead, we will present a clear choice. If you abandon your dangerous nuclear program, support for terror, and threats to Israel, there will be meaningful incentives - including the lifting of sanctions, and political and economic integration with the international community. If you refuse, we will ratchet up the pressure.

The only part of this that is concrete and (maybe) verifiable is stopping the nuclear program. Do we really think Ahmadinejad would stop supporting Hezbollah? Do we really think that the West would insist on the rest if he would agree to put his nuclear ambition on hold? Do we really think that he would give up what has been the primary goal of Iranian policy since 1979, the replacement of US and Saudi influence with a Shiite hegemony in the Middle East?

Technorati Tags: Iran

Yesterday was exactly 40 years since Robert F. Kennedy was assassinated in Los Angeles by Sirhan Sirhan — a Palestinian terrorist. Kennedy was a strong supporter of Israel and so a natural target.

Sirhan, an Arab Christian born in East Jerusalem in 1944 and an immigrant to the US in 1956, was a passionate antisemite and Arab nationalist (see “Why Sirhan Sirhan assassinated Robert Kennedy“). There is no question that Sirhan, while obviously unbalanced, knew what he was doing and did it for his cause:

During Sirhan’s trial his mother related how the intense feelings of the Palestinians remained with the family even though they had been far removed from the conflict when they immigrated to America. She told of how her family had lived in Jerusalem for “thousands of years” and she spoke of the bitterness and hatred of the Israelis who had “taken their land.” Mary Sirhan believed her son had killed Robert Kennedy because of his Arab nationalism. She said, “What he did, he did for his country…”

Following his arrest Sirhan told one of the court-appointed psychiatrists, George Y. Abe, about his political philosophy. Sirhan told him he was solidly anti-Zionist and disgusted at the way Jews in America had such a strong influence within the American political system. Sirhan said he believed Robert Kennedy listened to the Jews and he saw the senator as having sold out to them.

Sirhan’s lawyers downplayed the political reasons for the murder:

From the beginning both Sirhan’s lawyers and the U.S. media sought to portray the assassination of Robert Kennedy as the act of a deranged individual bent on seeking fame and notoriety.

The New York lawyer Emile Zola Berman, a Jew, became one of Sirhan’s lawyers and was praised for defending a Palestinian. However, he may well have been used by the defense team to prevent the political aspects of the crime from being addressed. It was Berman who advocated Sirhan’s defense be built around the plea of “diminished capacity,” to prove that Sirhan had been mentally ill. Sirhan protested and told his lawyers, “Have you ever heard the Arab side of the story?…I mean on the TV, the radio, in the mass media?…That’s what bugs me! There’s no Arab voice in America, and goddamn it, I’m gonna show ‘em in that courtroom. I’m gonna really give’em hell about it.” During the trial, Sirhan repeatedly voiced his political motives but his lawyers went ahead with their trial strategy.

This parallels another, more recent case. The trial of Naveed Haq, who shot one woman to death and injured five others when he invaded Seattle’s Jewish Federation in July 2006, ended in a hung jury this week. Haq, a Muslim of Pakistani descent, was clear about his motives as well:

He spewed anti-Israel and anti-Jewish slurs during the attack while decrying the Iraq war and Israel’s 2006 conflict with Hezbollah in Lebanon. Haq made similar comments on a video shown in the courtroom prior to the trial’s start.

According to a court memorandum, Haq told a 911 operator during his shooting rampage, “I’m not upset at the people, I’m upset at your foreign policy. These are Jews. I’m tired of getting pushed around and our people getting pushed around by the situation in the Middle East.” — JTA

But apparently one juror was convinced by defense arguments that Haq was legally insane.

These acts are irrational in the context of our society — who knows if Robert Kennedy’s death advanced the Arab cause? — but in the Middle East, where martyrdom is admired and compromise is considered emasculation, it’s another story.

Technorati Tags: Robert Kennedy, Sirhan Sirhan, Naveed Haq

News item:

Presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama did not rule out Palestinian sovereignty over parts of Jerusalem when he called for Israel’s capital to remain “undivided,” his campaign told The Jerusalem Post Thursday.

“Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel, and it must remain undivided,” Obama declared Wednesday, to rousing applause from the 7,000-plus attendees at the American Israel Public Affairs Committee policy conference.

But a campaign adviser clarified Thursday that Obama believes “Jerusalem is a final status issue, which means it has to be negotiated between the two parties” as part of “an agreement that they both can live with.”

“Two principles should apply to any outcome,” which the adviser gave as: “Jerusalem remains Israel’s capital and it’s not going to be divided by barbed wire and checkpoints as it was in 1948-1967.”

He refused, however, to rule out other configurations, such as the city also serving as the capital of a Palestinian state or Palestinian sovereignty over Arab neighborhoods.

“Beyond those principles, all other aspects are for the two parties to agree at final status negotiations,” the Obama adviser said. — Jerusalem Post

In other words, “It must remain undivided, except of course to the extent that it will be divided”. What could be more clear?

No surprises here, except that Obama’s advisers didn’t catch this before he said it. US officials at the embassy in Tel Aviv needn’t pack yet.

My feeling is that

1. American politicians have no understanding of the real issues in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict,
2. they simply can’t help saying what they think an audience wants to hear, and
3. Israelis and Diaspora Jews who care about Israel should not, ever, depend on the US or anyone else to protect her.

Lesson no. 3 should have been learned a long time ago.

Technorati Tags: Obama, Jerusalem, Israel

Yesterday I compared speeches by John McCain and Barack Obama on the subject of Israel.

Today, the day after locking in the Democratic nomination, Obama has made a speech about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to AIPAC. It does not break new ground, except in one very surprising sentence.

Obama, unfortunately, reiterates his commitment to the failing Annapolis process whose only result so far has been the arming of Fatah. There is no question in my mind that arms supplied under this program will end up being used against Israel, either by Fatah’s terrorist militias or by Hamas, as happened after the takeover of Gaza. Here’s what Obama said about this process, with some comments:

The Palestinian people must understand that progress will not come through the false prophets of extremism or the corrupt use of foreign aid. The United States and the international community must stand by Palestinians who are committed to cracking down on terror and carrying the burden of peacemaking.

One of the reasons that this process is failing is that the Abbas/Fayyad Palestinian Authority is emphatically not committed to (or capable of) “cracking down on terror”, nor are they ideologically in favor of a two-state solution other than as a stepping-stone to the elimination of Israel (see “The two-state fantasy“).

I will strongly urge Arab governments to take steps to normalize relations with Israel, and to fulfill their responsibility to pressure extremists and provide real support for President Abbas and Prime Minister Fayyad. Egypt must cut off the smuggling of weapons into Gaza. Israel can also advance the cause of peace by taking appropriate steps - consistent with its security - to ease the freedom of movement for Palestinians, improve economic conditions in the West Bank, and to refrain from building new settlements - as it agreed to with the Bush Administration at Annapolis.

Arab governments have consistently refused to truly normalize relations, even where a ‘peace’ treaty exists, because the ‘threat’ of Israel provides an excuse for holding back reform in their own countries. And they are quite happy for ‘extremists’ to fight Israel rather than try to overthrow their own oppressive regimes. Sure, Egypt should cut off weapons smuggling, but apparently either it is incapable of doing so or sees Hamas attacks on Israel as in its interest. Why should Obama’s ‘urging’ be capable of changing any of this?

Regarding the ‘Syrian track’, he says,

…success will require the full enforcement of Security Council Resolution 1701 in Lebanon, and a stop to Syria’s support for terror.

The problem with resolution 1701 (the resolution that ended the 2006 Lebanon War) is not that it is not enforced, it is that it is unenforceable. UN soldiers are simply not going to put their lives on the line to stop Hezbollah from rearming. And the Syrian regime, which exerts power in Lebanon through its support and alliance with Hezbollah, does not have an interest in changing this either. Obama’s words are intended to reassure, but they are just that — words.

Now we come to the big surprise. In talking about the ‘peace process’ and its goal, Obama said,

The Palestinians need a state that is contiguous and cohesive, and that allows them to prosper - but any agreement with the Palestinian people must preserve Israel’s identity as a Jewish state, with secure, recognized and defensible borders. Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel, and it must remain undivided. [my emphasis]

The mention of a “Jewish state” is important, as I said yesterday. But the really big news is the last line. Does he really mean to say that

Undivided Jerusalem is the capital of Israel — something that the US Congress has affirmed, but that no US administration has accepted. Will the US embassy finally move to Jerusalem?

A peace agreement with the Palestinians must not divide Jerusalem along the 1967 lines — something that the Palestinians insist upon, and one of the major stumbling blocks for negotiations. Note that Obama could probably still say that he would approve of some Arab neighborhoods within the current municipal boundaries being transferred to the Palestinians, but this is a remarkable statement even in its minimal interpretation. Let’s hope he doesn’t backtrack.

Now, just one word about what he did not say. In the February 2008 speech that I discussed yesterday, he said this:

Israel has to remain a Jewish state and what I believe that means is that any negotiated peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians is going to have to involve the Palestinians relinquishing the right of return as it has been understood in the past. And that doesn’t mean that there may not be conversations about compensation issues.

Much of the content of the two speeches is similar. Although he used the phrase “Jewish state”, why did he not mention “right of return” this time? The question is too important to be left as an implication.

Some of Obama’s pro-Palestinian supporters found the speech…depressing. “Jakartaman” at the Daily Kos called it “a new concession to the Zionist lobby“. I wish.

Update [1421 PDT]: After reading Shalom Freedman’s comment, I want to add the following:

I don’t intend this post as a criticism of Obama. I do not share the view of those who say that an Obama presidency will be a disaster for Israel. This is an American election for an American President, and Obama’s positions, as stated, are no worse than any that we have had from recent Presidents and candidates. Certainly President Bush, whatever his personal views (I believe they are strongly pro-Israel) has not been able to free his administration from its dangerous program of arming Fatah, nor turn the promises of his 2004 letters to Sharon into policy.

On the other hand, it’s hard to reconcile Obama’s  intention to withdraw from Iraq according to a fixed timetable with his desire to negotiate with Iran from a position of strength.

This is a very difficult time, the issues are many and complicated, and without a crystal ball, the decision is not easy.

Technorati Tags: Obama, AIPAC, Israel

No American should condition his or her choice for President on how ‘good’ a candidate is with respect to another country. Having said that, those of us who care about Israel know that no relationship is more important to Israel than that with the US, and the expected policies of the candidates in this area must play a part in our decision.

There has been an incredible amount of heat and little light shed on this question. There is no easy way to sort through everything that’s been said by partisans on both sides, so I personally am starting with the words of the candidates themselves. We have a good opportunity to do so today, because we have two speeches, both made this year to Israel-friendly audiences by Obama and McCain:

Barack Obama’s speech to members of Cleveland’s Jewish community of Feb. 24, 2008, and

John McCain’s speech to AIPAC on June 2, 2008.

I strongly suggest that everyone read both of these speeches. Yes, specific campaign promises don’t mean much, but you can get a good idea of the direction that a politician will go by what he promises (and what he does not promise).

Both McCain and Obama claim an absolute commitment to Israel’s security, but this is meaningless unless it’s translated into policies. So let’s see what they would do about one of the greatest threats, Iran’s nuclear program:

While their style is different, the substance is surprisingly similar (except for the part about Iraq — I’ll get to that later). McCain gets some points for being more specific about sanctions, and not offering ‘incentives’. Neither of them has proposed presenting Iran with a credible ultimatum — probably the only realistic way of stopping the nuclear program.

Another critical issue is the US policy, pushed by the Bush Administration, of trying to force Israel into an untenable deal with the PLO. Here is what they say about the so-called “peace process”:

McCain suggests that the Fatah leadership with which Israel is presently dealing is not honestly committed to peace, and for this he gets a point. I hope he would also make explicit the implication in his statement that Israel should make no concessions to the Palestinians while terrorism continues.

Obama’s statement is interesting for two reasons: first, he makes a clear statement opposed to a Palestinian right of return to Israel. I wish he had said that “there is no such right” rather than suggesting that they should ‘relinquish’ a right that they in fact possess, and I wish that he had referred to “aid in resettlement” rather than “compensation”, but this is still definitely a positive.

Second, he refers to the necessity for Israel to be a Jewish state (twice). Contrast it with the position of the “J Street” organization, which only refers to Israel as “the homeland of the Jewish People”. Although the distinction may appear insignificant, it is extremely important in the context of demands being made by Palestinian nationalists among Israel’s Arab citizens, who wish to change the character of Israel from a Jewish state to a “state of its citizens”.

This is not to say, of course, that McCain wouldn’t take the same or stronger positions on these issues — I’m sure that he would — but the fact that Obama has articulated them when a large part of his constituency would prefer that he didn’t, is relevant.

Obama also said that he would “strengthen Palestinian partners who support” a secure two-state solution. One hopes that he does not mean that he wants to continue the Bush administration’s policy of arming and training Fatah ’security’ forces.

Hamas is also an issue. There are those who would grant some degree of legitimacy to Hamas and urge Israel to negotiate with it. But neither candidate appears to fall into this category. Here is what they say about Hamas:

Obama seems to leave open the possibility that Hamas will change its spots. That isn’t going to happen to an organization whose raison d’être is jihad against Jews and Israel.

Iraq is also mentioned. This is the most difficult issue to compare, because they have radically different views of what is presently happening there (and because Obama does not go into great detail).

I don’t share McCain’s optimism about the outcome of the war — I think that increased Iranian influence in Iraq will be hard to avoid at this point — nor do I think, as Obama appears to, that weakening our military position there is somehow going to strengthen our diplomatic stance toward Iran. I’m going to give this one to McCain.

Another question that has been raised is the matter of advisers. The most notorious was Zbigniew Brzezinski (see “Barack Obama’s Zbig problem” and “A letter to the candidate“), who has been associated with Obama. Other Obama advisors considered anti-Israel who have since been dumped are Rob Malley and Samantha Power (see her cheescake photo here). Obama said this about that:

It means that somebody like Brzezinski who, when he was [Carter’s] national security advisor would be considered not outside of the mainstream in terms of his perspective on these issues, is now considered by many in the Jewish Community anathema. I know Brzezinski he’s not one of my key advisors. I’ve had lunch with him once, I’ve exchanged emails with him maybe 3 times. He came to Iowa to introduce for a speech on Iraq. He and I agree that Iraq was an enormous strategic blunder and that input from him has been useful in assessing Iraq, as well as Pakistan, where actually, traditionally, if you will recall he was considered a hawk. The liberal wing of the Democratic Party was very suspicious of Brzezinski precisely because he was so tough on many of these issues. I do not share his views with respect to Israel. I have said so clearly and unequivocally.

McCain also has made at least one faux pas in this area, having allegedly said in 2006 that he would send James Baker or Brent Scowcroft to the Mideast. However, he has since said that his view on Israel emphatically does not reflect theirs.

So there it is, no smoking guns. I think McCain comes out a bit tougher on Iran — but not as tough as I’d like — while Obama might be somewhat more sensitive to (or well-briefed about) the concerns of pro-Israel Jews.

There is no question that these candidates have very significant ideological and practical differences, and that the outcome of this election will make a huge difference to the path that the nation will take, and not just in the Middle East. In the next few months, we need to demand from both of them direct and detailed answers to many questions. We really need to get this one right.

Technorati Tags: McCain, Obama, Israel

I’ve said on numerous occasions that the current “peace process” with the Palestinian Fatah faction can not lead to peace. You can read my arguments here in “The two-state fantasy“.

But continuing the charade can do a lot of damage. The process can be used to pressure Israel to make security concessions that will damage its ability to protect itself, it can be used as an excuse to create a Palestinian army that will ultimately be used against Israel, it can cause great disruption in Israeli society when settlements are evacuated, and it can lead to a situation in which Israel has made agreements with a Palestinian authority that shortly thereafter comes to be controlled by Hamas. All but the last have already happened.

As I’ve mentioned, all American presidential candidates have said that they are committed to the process. McCain does not seem to be significantly different from Obama on this issue, and after all, the Annapolis meeting and the military aid and training given to the PA were initiatives of the supposedly Israel-friendly Bush administration.

Without closing the door on the possibility of a negotiated settlement with some Palestinian leadership someday, I think that there are some preconditions that Israel is entitled to demand for any process that would be more than simply a stopping place on the road to the elimination of the Jewish state. And we should demand acceptance of these principles by everyone — including American candidates — who calls for a ‘peace process’, because otherwise it will be some other kind of process.

1) Israel is not responsible for the creation of the Palestinian refugees, and especially not for the condition of their descendants. The international community and the Arab nations, who are responsible, will resettle and compensate them as necessary to permanently solve the problem. There is no “right of return” to Israel.

2) Official antisemitic incitement is absolutely unacceptable, and Israel is not required to negotiate with a Palestinian entity whose official organs promulgate hatred and racism. Period.

3) The 1967 boundaries are not sacrosanct. Why should they be? They represent areas that were illegally occupied by Jordan and Egypt in 1948, and occupied — legally, as a result of a defensive war — by Israel in 1967. Boundaries should be determined on the basis of population and on the basis of defensible borders, as called for by UN resolution 242.

4) There is no ‘legitimate right of resistance’ such as the Palestinians claim as a justification for terrorism. If there is going to be a diplomatic process that will lead to a Palestinian state, it must entirely replace terrorism as the means to this end. Israel is not required to make concessions of any kind while terrorism against Israelis continues.

5) Israel maintains her right of self-definition. Israel has the right to define herself as a Jewish state as well as the homeland of the Jewish people.

These conditions are necessary for fruitful negotiations — and also for Israel’s national self-respect.

Technorati Tags: Israel, Palestinians, peace process