FresnoZionism.org — ציונות פרסנו

From the introduction to a compendium of comments in Arab blogs that appeared in the New York Times, by Josie Delap:

Barack Obama’s election in the United States has fired imaginations around the globe, perhaps nowhere more than in the Middle East, where people wonder how the future president’s approach to the Arab world will differ from that of his predecessor.

For the moment, Arabs are mainly excited about Mr. Obama’s victory, and have much good will toward him and the country that chose him. But Middle Easterners are more skeptical than anyone else about American politicians and their intentions, and already it seems Mr. Obama is no exception.

His speech during the primaries to Aipac, the powerful pro-Israel lobby group, did little to assuage fears that America will continue to support Israel unconditionally. And there remains a more general anxiety that, like previous American presidents, Mr. Obama will somehow let the people of the Middle East down.

May I remind Ms. Delap that “the people of the Middle East” include Israelis?

It is apparently easy for some Arabs and their supporters to believe that Israel continues to exist despite their best efforts, just because America stands behind her. And that their problems would go away if Israel did.

There are many excuses for every Arab problem: lack of development and conflict are blamed on colonialism, Zionism, Israel, the US. But the sooner Arabs accept their portion of responsibility, the sooner things will get better.

An American President who makes it clear to the Arabs that they need to give up their dream of  a world without Israel and start trying to solve problems — like the situation of the Palestinian ‘refugees’ — instead of exacerbating them, would do a great service for all the people of the Middle East.

Technorati Tags: NY Times, Josie Delap, Arabs, Israel, Obama

I can hardly wait for this woman to go home:

“The distance to that peace has been narrowed, although the peace has not yet been achieved,” [Secretary of State Condoleezza] Rice said in a joint news conference with [Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud] Abbas. “We knew … that if that agreement was not reached by the end of the year, that there would be those who would say that the Annapolis process, the negotiations, had failed.”

“In fact, it is quite the opposite. The Annapolis process has laid the foundations for the eventual establishment of the state of Palestine,” she said. “The Annapolis process … is vital, it is vibrant, and it is continuing, and I am quite certain that carried to its conclusion, it will produce a state of Palestine.”  — Jerusalem Post

Revealing, isn’t it. Rice seems to equate “the…establishment of the state of Palestine” with ‘peace’. But nothing could be further from the truth. While the Palestinian leadership — both Fatah and Hamas — does not accept the continued existence of the Jewish state and officially supports ‘resistance’ (i.e., terrorism) against it, then the establishment of a Palestinian state would be premature, to say the least.

But since 2006, the Bush Administration’s goal has been to produce a Palestinian state as soon as possible — and then worry about peace (or not). Since I’m convinced that this is not President Bush’s personal view, I have to conclude the policy in this area is directed by the traditionally Arabist State Department and other influential elements.

Now that Barack Obama will be taking over, we can speculate whether the highly rational Obama will reject the irrational position that Palestinian sovereignty can precede an end to violent rejection of Israel.

It’s probable that he will more than have his hands full with economic issues for at least the first six months of his presidency. If this leads to neglect of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, it’s probably just as well. If on the other hand he gives the State Department a free hand, we can expect the present policy of pressuring Israel for concessions to continue.

The worst-case scenario will be if Obama and his Secretary of State accept and act on the left-wing and European ‘line’ that the entire cause of the conflict is ‘the occupation’ and ‘settlement activity’.

It is imperative that we present the case that the pressure should not be on Israel to make concessions to hostile Palestinians, but rather on the Palestinians to accept the legitimacy of the Jewish state of Israel. 

Technorati Tags: Condoleezza Rice, Israel, Palestinians, Barack Obama

It’s President Obama (well, after January 20, anyway).

Ami Isseroff commented,

Every historical event presents opportunities as well as dangers. A healthy political movement needs to utilize the opportunities and act constructively to minimize the dangers, not fret about them. Barack Obama, unlike George Bush, will have the confidence of the nations of the “south” or “third world” and if he so chooses, he can be a much more effective advocate for Israel and the things that really matter to us than any previous US president. He and only he among all US presidents can possibly put an end to persecution of Israel at the UN. He can stop the second Durban conference from being another anti-Israel exhibition. If Barack Obama says anti-Zionism is racism, people will probably listen. If President Barack Obama will insist on Israel’s right to exist in security, then Zionism and Israel will gain a new respectability that Mr. Bush and Mr. McCain, for all their many virtues, could not give them.

Of course none of this will matter if President Obama also insists upon a full withdrawal to the pre-1967 borders while Hamas lives, supports Palestinian demands for ‘right of return’, prevents Israel from defending herself against Hamas and Hezbollah, or allows Iran to obtain nuclear weapons. And he may well do these things if he allows people like Rob Malley or Samantha Power to become influential — and God forbid that he should listen to the like of Ali Abunimah or Rashid Khalidi.

Some of my fellow Zionists think that this is a forgone conclusion and the appropriate response is to dig in and fight to the death. For example, “Emet m’Tsiyon” [Truth from Zion] writes,

It is likely that he will soon make lying propaganda against Israel. He might declare that Israel is an apartheid state, that it oppresses “poor palestinians”, that it took Arab land away from “poor palestinians”, that it has no right to exist [this might be insinuated rather than explicitly stated], that Jews have no human or civil right to live on “Arab land,” that Israel is to blame for the wars, etc. Since this is what is likely to happen, especially if no opposition emerges, then Obama should not get any days of grace at all. Strong criticism of Obama must continue. His critics must continue to demand release of what Obama said at the Khalidi farewell party in Chicago. Public demos and rallies would be helpful if some participation is assured. Even a small demonstration can be helpful. Interviews on talk radio, letters and articles for Jewish newspapers, lectures by and interviews with competent experts should be considered.

This is a poor approach, which will cause us to be lumped with the attack-dog Right (you know who you are) and be ignored. One thing that impressed me about Obama is his apparent ability to learn quickly.  And I don’t agree with many of his political opponents that he is a doctrinaire leftist — rather, he seems to be highly pragmatic, no less so than Bill Clinton, who did finally learn something about the Mideast (although it took some years and and a few thousand deaths to teach him).

Therefore the goal should be to educate and inform him rather than to beat him over the head. Engage in “tough diplomacy”, to take a page from his own book — at least at first. Let’s treat him as innocent until proven guilty.

Technorati Tags: Obama, Zionism, Israel

Here is what I’m thinking on the night before the election:

In August 2006, Hezbollah soldiers crossed the border, killed three Israeli soldiers, and kidnapped Ehud Goldwasser and Eldad Regev, who later died. Five more Israelis were killed in an attempt to rescue Goldwasser and Regev. The resulting war lasted 33 days, and ended in a stalemate when — due to incompetent leadership and poor preparation — Israel was forced to accept a disadvantageous settlement in the form of UN resolution 1701. The photo of Defense Minister Amir Peretz looking through field glasses without removing the lens caps speaks volumes.

Nevertheless, for almost a month (some say until Hezbollah atrocity stories caused Secretary Rice to put her foot down), the Bush Administration — with the silent backing of Sunni Arab nations — gave Israel a green light to finish Hezbollah. It was not the fault of the US that Israel blundered as badly as she did.

The Bush Administration — future historians will write about this — then did a complete about-face, and pushed the “Annapolis process” between Israel and the PLO, and probably played a major role in Israel’s decision to accept a truce with Hamas in Gaza rather than confronting it.

Today Hezbollah has more than rearmed and refortified. Hamas is building an “underground city” in Gaza, with tunnels and bunkers stocked with arms and explosives. Both are financed and supported by Iran, as is the massive missile buildup in Syria. Hezbollah now virtually controls Lebanon. Iran’s president has said over and over that Israel will disappear, and these are the tools that he thinks will make it so, with — he thinks — little direct risk to Iran.

There is no possibility, regardless of the outcome of negotiations between Israel and the PLO, that there will not be war between Israel and Hamas, and a second round with Hezbollah.  We just don’t know when, and we don’t know whether it will be at a time chosen by Israel or her enemies.

What does this have to do with the American presidential election? I’m getting to that.

There are plenty of important issues in this election. There is health care (both candidate’s plans are worthless). There is the war in Iraq, and while they have different opinions about whether we should have invaded in the first place and whether we are ‘winning’ today, both will try to find a way to get the troops out, and the chips will fall where they fall. There is the economy — here nobody has a clue about what will work, certainly not the candidates.

Americans have to vote on the basis of what’s good for America, and the Middle East is only a tiny part of it. Of course, if Iran succeeds in taking control of the region and its oil reserves it will not be good for America (or for Europe, or Japan, for that matter). Although Israel is very small and vulnerable because of its size, it has a powerful military, it is allied with the US and thus acts as a counterbalance to Iranian ambitions. And if militant Islamism really does have expansionist ambitions, they lead directly through Israel.

So while I vehemently disagree with the ‘linkage’ theory which suggests that the Arab-Israeli conflict is the root of all the problems of the region, I do think that Israel and the US-Israel relationship are central to Western interests.

Which brings me to the coming war between Israel and the Iranian proxies, Hamas and Hezbollah. When it breaks out President Obama or President McCain will have to make a decision:

Should the US allow Israel — which has made great strides in military preparedness and has gotten rid of most of the culprits of the 2006 debacle — to defeat her enemies? Or should the US hold Israel back, producing another stalemate and a huge political victory for Iran?

There will be lots of pressure to take the latter course. It will come from those who think that any conflict is bad and should be prevented at almost any cost. It will come from those who say and even think that they support Israel, but are prepared to allow the noose around her neck to be tightened another notch — after all, look how strong Israel is. And it will come from those who want to see the Jewish state disappear and who understand that a military stalemate will quickly give rise to political consequences, as happened in 2006. A state that is not allowed to defend itself won’t survive.

Imagine the scenario: the missiles are falling on Israeli towns and cities, and the IAF is going after the launchers. They are mobile, buried, etc. and there are a lot of them. Israel is calling up reserves — unlike in 2006, the military and civilian leadership are not hesitating. The IDF has learned the lessons of 2006: they are already destroying Hezbollah’s command and control systems, there are new ways of dealing with bunkers, and there is decent intelligence.

And the US President picks up the phone.

Let’s invert the campaign ad and ask, who do you want to make that midnight call?

Technorati Tags: election, McCain, Obama, Israel, Middle East, IDF

The way things are expressed is important. Language and thought are interdependent; some philosophers think that reasoning is language. Politicians understand this well. For example, Republicans like to annoy their opponents by referring to them as the ‘Democrat’ Party instead of  the ‘Democratic’ Party, which is its correct name (there’s an interesting discussion of this usage, which may go back to the 1920’s, here).

Recently I’ve noticed the usage “Israel-Palestine” to refer to the area between the Jordan and the Mediterranean. I began to see it first in pro-Palestinian and left-wing commentary, but now it seems to have leaked into the mainstream. For example, here is a quotation from Thomas L. Friedman, writing in the NY Times:

That [low oil prices] is a good thing because Iran also funds Hezbollah, Hamas, Syria and the anti-U.S. Shiites in Iraq. If America wants to get out of Iraq and leave behind a decent outcome, plus break the deadlocks in Lebanon and Israel-Palestine, it needs to end the cold war with Iran. Possible? I don’t know, but the collapse of oil prices should give us a shot.

What’s wrong with this locution? First of all, there is — as yet — no such political entity as ‘Palestine’ and certainly not ‘Israel-Palestine’. There was a geographical region called ‘Palestine’, named by the Romans and successively controlled by the Byzantines, various Muslim dynasties, Crusaders, Ottoman Turks and finally the British. In 1921, the British lopped a big chunk off  the eastern part of the Palestine Mandate and created Transjordan (today called Jordan). And in 1948 the state of Israel came into being in the western part.  What’s left, of course, is politically undefined, partly controlled by Israel, Hamas, and the Palestinian Authority.

The left-wing usage implies that they are talking about a single political as well as geographic entity, a ‘state of its citizens’ which they would like to see created in place of the Jewish state and the territories (such a state would last only as long as the resulting civil war).

Friedman, as far as I know, supports a two-state solution, so why doesn’t he say “Israel and the Palestinians”?

Some day, when the Palestinian Arabs — after all, there is no reason why Israelis are not also geographical Palestinians, Palestinian Jews — are prepared to accept the fact that there is and will continue to be a Jewish state in the Middle East, there could also be a Palestinian Arab state. They can call it فلسطين, Filastin, and then it will be correct to say “Israel and Palestine”. But there will never be anything called “Israel-Palestine”.

Technorati Tags: Israel, Palestine, Israel-Palestine