FresnoZionism.org — ציונות פרסנו

Just about everyone — the administration and some liberal Jewish groups in the US, the Pope, Mahmoud Abbas, King Abdullah of Jordan, and others — are pressing Prime Minister Netanyahu to ‘commit to a two-state solution’. But what does this mean? And does it make sense?

One way this has been understood is as a commitment to the goal of a demilitarized Palestinian state alongside Israel. It implies that Israel will negotiate a peace agreement which transfers some of the territories to Palestinian sovereignty (in particular, that of the Palestinian Authority [PA]). This has been the position of the Israeli government since the Oslo agreement was signed in 1993. Neither PM Netanyahu or Foreign Minister Lieberman — despite accusations to the contrary — has rejected this.

Then there is the interpretation of Abbas’ PA: Israel will withdraw to pre-1967 lines, including all of East Jerusalem (and especially the Temple Mount area), grant a right of return to ‘refugees’, etc. Nothing less is on the table. Obviously, Netanyahu will not ‘commit’ in advance — or ever — to anything like that.

The Israeli position, which will be clearer when Netanyahu meets Obama next week, seems to be that Israel will talk to the PA but will demand some concrete concessions from them, as well as US action against Iranian proxy aggression (i.e., Hamas and Hezbollah) before making an agreement to cede land.

The US administration seems to be somewhere in between,  demanding a prior commitment to a Palestinian state, although allowing land swaps so that Israel can retain some settlements and rejecting the settlement of ‘refugees’ in Israel. The US also rejects the idea that the Iran-Hamas-Hezbollah problem needs to be solved first.

I think it’s not unreasonable to refuse to prejudge the outcome of negotiations. For example, can Netanyahu agree today that the negotiations will produce a Palestinian state if  Abbas is not prepared to compromise on ‘right of return’ or anything else?

It’s also a little disingenuous for the ‘two-staters’ to pretend that there is no Hamas and that Israel’s jeopardy from Syria and Hezbollah’s rockets and Iran’s soon-to-be nukes may be ignored.

Can Israel be expected to transfer the West Bank to the PA when there is no reason to think that it won’t come under Hamas control — either by bullets, ballots or subversion? Hamas is more popular and stronger than the PA, and today only the presence of the IDF in the West Bank prevents a replay of the Gaza takeover. Shouldn’t there be some guarantee that the hostile Iranian proxy presence to the north and south will not be replicated in the east?

To a great extent, the ‘two-state solution’ is a slogan which in itself means little. The goal of PM Netanyahu’s meeting with President Obama should be concrete proposals which do not simply demand a Palestinian state while eliding the real security problems caused by the Iranian war-by-proxy.

Technorati Tags: Israel, two-state solution, Netanyahu, Obama

By Vic Rosenthal

News item:

A refusal by the United States to allow Israel to repair computer systems in the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) is at the heart of disagreements between the Defense Ministry and the Pentagon that have been holding up an official Israeli order for the fifth-generation fighter jet.

The JSF, also known as the F-35, is a stealth fighter jet under development by Lockheed Martin. Last year, Israel received approval from the Pentagon to purchase up to 75 aircraft in a deal that could reach close to $20 billion.

Defense officials told The Jerusalem Post on Thursday that talks between the Israeli defense delegation in Washington and the Pentagon have picked up speed in recent weeks but have yet to result in agreement due to the US’s refusal to grant Israel access to the plane’s internal computer mainframe.

The Americans are concerned that by allowing Israel to independently repair the computers, the Israel Air Force will get its hands on the classified technology that was used to make the plane.

Israel, on the other hand, has argued that due to its operational requirements it needs to have the ability to repair damaged or broken computer systems in “real time” and cannot wait for a computer system to be sent to the US for repairs in the middle of a war.

The Americans have told Israel it will receive a number of spare computer systems that it could install in place of a damaged system but would still have to send the damaged system to the US for repairs.

I don’t think Israel is primarily worried about the time it takes to repair the computers. In any event there would be spares on hand. And perhaps keeping classified technology secret is not the only US reason to keep Israeli hands out of the computers.

Consider: In order to correct a malfunction in a computer system, you need to first of all determine if the primary cause is a hardware or software failure.

This means that you have to understand how both hardware and software work, which means that in order to fix the computer you need to have access to the software’s documented source code. You also need a means to compile the code and load the result into the computer on the aircraft.

Now if my life and the lives of tens or hundreds of thousands of others might depend on that code, I would want to understand it very, very well. And once I understand it, I would want to make certain that the program running on the aircraft matches the code that I understand.

I would want to be sure there were no hidden back doors into the software.

Think about it. How hard would it be to implant a routine in the aircraft’s software that would provide a position report to an American satellite every few seconds?

Anything is possible. What if the computer could receive a command to disable certain weapons systems? Or the engine? Or even be instructed to do so automatically when, say, the Iranian border is crossed?

This isn’t science fiction — it’s a lot easier than many of the things a flight computer has to do.

Given the turn being taken by Obama Administration with regard to Israel and Iran, it would only be normal prudence for Israel to insist on the complete documented source code and the means to compile and load it.

Technorati Tags: Israel, F-35 computer, back door

The Obama Administration’s Mideast policy is looking worse and worse for Israel:

• The ‘special relationship’ between the US and Israel in which Israel was informed in advance about American actions or even consulted seems to be ended.
• The US seems to be treating Israel more like a possible adversary than an ally, as illustrated by the new X-band radar installation in the Negev which is off-limits to Israeli personnel, the refusal to sell certain weapons and equipment to Israel, and the proposed sale of the F-35 aircraft without allowing Israeli access to the flight computer.
• US officials have begun to make unpleasant noises about Israel’s nuclear capability. Caroline Glick explains,

Speaking at a UN forum, US Assistant Secretary of State Rose Gottemoeller said, “Universal adherence to the [Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty] NPT itself, including by India, Israel, Pakistan and North Korea… remains a fundamental objective of the United States.”

As Eli Lake from The Washington Times demonstrated convincingly, by speaking as she did, Gottemoeller effectively abrogated a 40-year-old US-Israeli understanding that the US would remain silent about Israel’s nuclear program because it understood that it was defensive, not offensive in nature.

• Secretary of State Clinton, Vice President Biden, Rahm Emanuel and others have proclaimed the administrations adherence to an illogical linkage theory that calls for the creation of a Palestinian state as a prerequisite for action against Iranian aggression and nuclear weapons development.
• The administration is pushing a form of two-state solution based on the Saudi Initiative, while expecting to get Arab support for ‘Zionising’ the initiative by eliminating elements — like a return of Arab ‘refugees’ to Israel or strict pre-1967 borders — that are unacceptable to Israel. But even if this were possible, what about Hamas? The deal is worthless if Hamas is excluded, and disastrous if it is.
• Although construction of homes in existing settlements and East Jerusalem in no way makes an agreement more difficult, Israel will almost certainly be forced to freeze such construction. Other limitations of sovereignty outside the Green Line — including concessions dangerous to security — will likely follow, despite the fact that no peace agreement is in the offing.

Prime Minister Netanyahu is going to meet with President Obama shortly. Advice for him ranges from “be cooperative” to “tell him to go to hell”. My advice is this:

Be pro-active. Present an Israeli peace plan for the region which begins with an end to Iranian proxy aggression by means of Hamas and Hezbollah. Make clear that the Palestinian problem cannot be solved until this happens, and until the Palestinians themselves are prepared to recognize Israel as a Jewish state. Remember that the Sunni Arab states too want something done about Iran, preferably before they get the bomb.

Technorati Tags: Israel, Obama Administration

One June 7, 1967, at 10 AM, Paratroop Col. Motta Gur spoke on the radio from the Temple Mount, saying those words which evoke tears every time I hear them: הר הבית בידנו –the Temple Mount is in our hands! Jewish hands, for the first time since the destruction of the Temple by the Romans in 70 CE. And Jews were now able to pray at the Kotel, the Western Wall, for the first time since the beginning of the Occupation — yes, I’m referring to the illegal Jordanian occupation of East Jerusalem and the West Bank, which began in 1948 and ended in June of 1967.

The battles leading up to the conquest of the old city were bloody, and the paratroopers had suffered heavy losses. There were still Jordanian snipers in the area.

Chief IDF Rabbi Gen. Shlomo Goren (later to become the Chief Rabbi of Israel) ignored the snipers and ran to the Temple Mount moments later with a shofar and a Sefer Torah in his hands. Later as soon as the time for the afternoon prayer arrived, he went to the Kotel, where he led the first mincha prayer at the newly-liberated wall.

Rav Goren at the Temple Mount, June 7, 1967

You know this story. But do you know the rest of the story?

A young paratrooper, Yaakov ‘Ziggy’ Sagiv (born Zigelboim, hence the nickname) was standing next to Rav [Rabbi] Goren.  Sagiv wrote,

[He had] a Sefer Torah in his right hand, a shofar in his left, but no siddur [prayer book]. I offered him mine. We joined together in reading the great Hallel and in saying the Menachem Tzion, the first prayer at the Kotel nineteen years after the fall of the Jewish Quarter and the Old City in the 1948 war. — “Nekudot”, May 1992 (my translation)

Rav Goren prayed from Sagiv’s siddur. Before giving it back, he wrote this inside:

To Yaakov Zigelboim,

We prayed the first mincha service, great Hallel  and Menachem Tzion from this siddur at the Kotel on the day of the liberation, 28 Iyar 5727.

Shlomo Goren, Aluf [General] (my translation)

Yakov ‘Ziggy’ Sagiv’s siddur

In the words of the great Paul Harvey,

Now you know the rest of the story.

To learn more about Rav Goren, see “Rabbi Shlomo Goren, Torah Sage and General“, by Shalom Freedman.

Technorati Tags: Israel, 1967 War, Shlomo Goren, Yaakov Sagiv