FresnoZionism.org — ציונות פרסנו

Palestinians must recognize that Israel will be a Jewish state — Barack Obama, March 21, 2013

The ‘Jewish state.’ What is a ‘Jewish state?’ We call it, the ‘State of Israel.’ You can call yourselves whatever you want. But I will not accept it. And I say this on a live broadcast… It’s not my job to define it, to provide a definition for the state and what it contains. You can call yourselves the Zionist Republic, the Hebrew, the National, the Socialist [Republic] call it whatever you like. I don’t care. — Mahmoud Abbas, 2009

When some 120 Israeli figures came here, they said, ‘What’s your opinion concerning the Jewish state?’, and I said that we wouldn’t agree to it. We know what they mean by it, and therefore we shall not agree to a Jewish state… — Abbas, 2011

We say to him [Netanyahu], when he claims — that they [Jews] have a historical right dating back to 3000 years BCE — we say that the nation of Palestine upon the land of Canaan had a 7000 year history BCE. This is the truth, which must be understood and we have to note it, in order to say: ‘Netanyahu, you are incidental in history. We are the people of history. We are the owners of history. — Abbas, 2011

Obama did not suggest that recognition of Israel as a Jewish state be a precondition for negotiations with the Palestinian Authority (PA), and PM Netanyahu has called for “negotiations without preconditions.” But there is no doubt that it must be a precondition — not just for talking to the PA, but for diplomacy with anybody about anything. How can a nation have a give and take discussion with someone who thinks that it is fundamentally illegitimate?

The Arab League initiative, for example, which I discussed here, does not include any mention of recognition. This is not merely an oversight: the initiative was conceived and is understood as an admission by the “Zionist regime” that is fully responsible for the conflict. The initiative calls for a redress of their historic grievance in part by means of the ‘return’ of almost 5 million Arabs who claim hereditary refugee status — something unheard of in the annals of diplomacy — which is incompatible with a Jewish state of Israel.

This is not a symbolic issue. Like Turkey’s ErdoÄŸan, the Arabs have a narrative that they are not willing to compromise, not even a little. It includes the propositions that

• The Zionists created the conflict by taking Arab land and expelling the residents
• Israel perpetuated it by starting wars
• All the land from the Mediterranean to the Jordan is ‘occupied Palestinian land’
• Terrorism against Israelis is justified resistance to occupation

An agreement acceptable to the PA or the Arab nations must include an admission of guilt and an acceptance of the ‘ownership’ of the land by Arabs. Once this is done, then they may be more or less magnanimous to the Jewish residents — Hamas talks about killing them and the Arab league is willing to have ‘normal relations’ with them — but true Jewish sovereignty is out of the question.

So the Arabs insist on ‘right of return’ in order to reverse the nakba. They insist on withdrawal from 1967 territories to reverse the results of the several wars, and they insist on the release of all terrorist prisoners, even convicted murderers. All this sounds entirely fair and reasonable to them within the framework of their narrative.

This is why discussions about borders and security entirely miss the point, it is why the Camp David, Taba and Olmert proposals went nowhere, and why the negotiations that President Obama intends to restart will fail as well.

Unfortunately, many Israelis are blind to the importance of Arab ideology. They see the harsh statements of Arab leaders as ‘merely symbolic’, made for propaganda purposes or for home consumption. They believe that the Arabs are at bottom pragmatists like themselves, willing to set aside ideology for economic development or some degree of political autonomy.

This explains some really terrible ideas, such as the plan which surfaces periodically to grant the ‘refugees’ a ‘right of return’ in principle, but not in fact. Proponents say that it would satisfy the Arabs’ need for symbolism without destroying the Jewish state. But if such an abstract right were granted, then it would immediately be followed by demands to implement it in reality — just as the ‘apology’ to ErdoÄŸan has been followed by demands to end restrictions on the flow of weapons and explosives to Hamas in Gaza.

They are not posturing. They mean what they say, and what they say is that they don’t accept a Jewish state.

As long as the Arabs cling to the idea that Jewish sovereignty is unacceptable, then no possible negotiations can end the conflict. But the process of negotiating under pressure from the US — and the pressure is always almost all on Israel — is not only frustrating and pointless, it can be humiliating and even dangerous.

There is a simple solution. Israel must insist that there can be no negotiations until all parties agree that Israel is the Jewish state of the Jewish people.

Technorati Tags: Israel, Arabs, Mahmoud Abbas, Jewush sovereignty

Reactions to the surprise ‘apology’ from Israel to Turkey for the Mavi Marmara incident are coming in, and they are interesting.

Barry Rubin points out that the actual statement by Israel does not accept blame for the deaths of nine ‘activists’, but merely refers to “operational mistakes,” apologizes for “any error which may have led to the loss of life,” and offers compensation.

All true, but who cares? It is being reported as an admission of guilt by Israel, an affirmation of the anti-Israel narrative of the incident, in which Israel deliberately killed “peace activists” when it “committed war crimes” by “attacking” the ship.

One correspondent writes to me that he does not trust ErdoÄŸan, but “this is a strategic decision, and if this can help Israel, I accept. At least this is the position of the israeli army commanders. Everybody today recognizes that the Marmara issue was very badly handled.” In other words, if this will improve relations between Israel and Turkey (and Obama?) then it’s worth a little embarrassment.

I don’t buy it. First, it will not improve relations with Turkey (indeed, see the end of this post!) because relations are poor as a result of a deliberate strategy, not an unpleasant incident. Relations have deteriorated consistently since ErdoÄŸan’s AKP came to power in 2003. ErdoÄŸan hosted Hamas leaders in Ankara, and humiliated Israeli President Shimon Peres on the stage at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland in 2009. And of course, remember that ErdoÄŸan’s regime orchestrated the Mavi Marmara incident as a deliberate provocation — and Israel fell right into the trap.

Second, it is not merely ‘a little embarrassment’. It squanders the diplomatic gains Israel achieved when the UN’s own Palmer Commission found that Israel’s blockade of Gaza and its boarding of the ships of the flotilla were legal and justified (although it did criticize Israel’s ‘excessive’ use of force). It constitutes a loss of honor in the honor-obsessed Middle East (did any Arab leader ever apologize for anything?) And it is an invitation for further blockade-breaking flotillas. This is in addition to playing into the growing meme that Jews or Israel may not defend themselves, while supporters of ‘Palestine’ are permitted any atrocity in the name of the oppressed.

Technically, the ‘apology’ does none of these things. ‘Technically’ and about $3 will get you a cup of coffee at Starbucks in Fresno.

But what about improved relations with Turkey? Didn’t ErdoÄŸan promise to exchange ambassadors, and drop legal actions against IDF soldiers and Israeli officials? Well, it turns out that it may be a bit early for that:

“We will see what will be put into practice during the process. If [the Israelis] move forward in a promising way, we will make our contribution. Then, there would be an exchange of ambassadors,” ErdoÄŸan was quoted as saying, in remarks at an opening ceremony for a high-speed railway line in the central Turkish province of EskiÅŸehir…

ErdoÄŸan told reporters that it wasn’t yet time to talk about dropping the case in which four IDF generals stand accused of war crimes over the incident. The indictment, prepared last summer, sought ten aggravated life sentences for each officer ostensibly involved in the 2010 raid — including former chief of the IDF General Staff Gabi Ashkenazi and former head of military intelligence Amos Yadlin…

Despite the formal apology issued by Netanyahu on Friday in the presence of US President Barack Obama, Erdoğan’s Saturday statement indicated that Ankara was not entirely prepared to let bygones be bygones. He stressed that during his conversation with him, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had promised to improve the humanitarian conditions in the Palestinian territories.

“I accepted the apology in the name of the Turkish people,” Erdoğan was quoted as saying, adding that he was planning to visit Gaza in April.

Will Israel get anything out of this deal? I doubt it. And what’s been lost is lost. Same story, over and over.

Technorati Tags: Israel, Turkey, ErdoÄŸan, Mavi Marmara

Israel apologizes… for what?

If this report is true, today is a very sad day for the ‘sovereign’ Jewish state:

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu apologized to Turkey for the 2009 [sic] raid on the Mavi Marmara flotilla that killed 9 Turks and one Turkish-American citizen [sic], US officials said Friday, in what they hailed as “a first step” toward reconciliation between the former allies.

The apology was made in a thirty minute, three-way call between President Obama, Netanyahu and Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, conducted from a trailer on the airport tarmac in the last hour of Obama’s historic visit to Israel, the US officials said.

“Netanyahu apologized for the Mavi Mara flotilla incident and acknowledged ‘operational mistakes,’ said one senior US official, according to the White House pool report.

“Erdoğan accepted the apology,” according to the official, the pool report said. Netanyahu also agreed in the call to pay compensation to the families of those killed in the raid on the flotilla, that had sought to deliver humanitarian aid to Gaza, Turkish media reports said.

A short description of the incident, which actually occurred on May 30, 2010, is this:

On the ship, part of a flotilla attempting to break Israel’s legal (according to the UN’s Palmer commission) blockade of Gaza, was a contingent of Turkish thugs from the Islamist IHH organization. They boarded the ship separately from the other activists, and armed themselves with pipes, metal bars, knives, etc. When poorly prepared Israeli commandos (again legally) landed on the deck, they were attacked, beaten and stabbed. Several were injured, at least one quite seriously. After the Turks took several injured commandos hostage, moved them below decks, took their pistols and began to shoot, the Israelis responded with live fire. Nine of the attackers, one of whom was an American citizen, were killed. Five other vessels in the flotilla were intercepted without incident.

There is good reason to believe that top levels of the Turkish government planned this incident with the intention of provoking violence. The performance succeeded spectacularly, the final incident in an escalating series of dramas orchestrated by Turkish PM ErdoÄŸan with the intention of weakening and ultimately destroying the formerly good relationship between Israel and Turkey (and especially the Turkish armed forces).

US pressure following the incident caused Israel to significantly loosen the blockade, rendering it ineffective as economic warfare against Hamas, and providing a propaganda victory to Hamas supporters, including ErdoÄŸan.

Israel had already admitted that it had made mistakes in intelligence and preparation — the commandos should have expected a violent reception and should have been appropriately armed with effective non-lethal weapons (they had paintball guns and flash-bang grenades). Although Israel did not accept blame for the killings, which it considered justified self-defense, it did offer to compensate the families. This was unacceptable to the Turks.

Now it appears that Mr. Obama has pressured PM Netanyahu to give up on the idea that IDF soldiers are entitled to defend themselves when they are being fired on, and see their colleagues beaten with pipes and thrown into the sea with their abdomens sliced open.

I’ll add that Netanyahu has offered this apology to someone who just a few weeks ago called Zionism a crime against humanity. Can you think of any other case when a head of state apologized after such an incident? And to such a person?

One of the criticisms leveled against Netanyahu from the Right has been that Bibi, who has demonstrated undeniable physical courage in battle, lacks the moral courage to stand up against this kind of pressure. Today, it seems like this is true. It will be interesting to see if this will have immediate political consequences for his leadership. My guess is that it will.

Some commentators wondered what Obama’s visit was all about. After all, there were both positive and negative aspects of his public remarks, and nothing significant seemed to have changed in his position.

Well, now we know. In the last few moments of visit, Obama got

• Points with Muslims around the world, by affirming that a Jew is never justified in killing a Muslim.
• Points with his “outstanding partner and … outstanding friend,” ErdoÄŸan.
• To humiliate his enemy, Netanyahu. He hasn’t forgotten that standing ovation from Congress.
• To hurt Netanyahu politically at home.
• To prove that an Israeli leader has to do whatever the US President tells him, no matter how wrong or degrading.
• To suggest that Israel has no right of self-defense.
• To prove, yet again, that Turkey is a more important ally than Israel.
• To show that Israel is not a sovereign nation, but rather a colony of the US, which can decide what its borders are, where its capital isn’t, and when it can or cannot use force.

Technorati Tags: Netanyahu, Mavi Marmara, ErdoÄŸan, Obama, Israel

Israeli demonstrators call for Pollard’s release, 2005

Bret Stephens, whose writing I admire and with whom I usually agree, has come out against freeing Jonathan Pollard (subscription):

Regarding the Israeli interest: It does not help Israel to make a hero of a compulsive liar and braggart, fond of cocaine, who violated his oaths, spied on his country, inflicted damage that took billions of dollars to repair, accepted payment for his spying, jeopardized Israel’s relationship with its closest ally, failed to show remorse at the time of his sentencing, made himself into Exhibit A of every anti-Semitic conspiracy nut, and then had the chutzpah to call himself a martyr to the Jewish people.

Nor does Israel do itself any favors by making Pollard’s case a matter of national interest, and therefore a chip to be played against other concessions. As Commentary’s Jonathan Tobin has noted, “That a man who claimed his crime was committed to enhance the Jewish state’s security would have his freedom bought with concessions on territory or settlements that undermine the country’s ability to defend itself must be considered a bitter irony.” All the more so given that it’s right-wing Israelis who have been most outspoken on Pollard’s behalf.

Regarding the American interest: What’s inequitable about Pollard’s sentence isn’t that his is too heavy. It’s that the sentences of spies such as Aldrich Ames, Robert Hanssen and Robert Kim have been too light. Particularly in the age of digital downloads, WikiLeaks and self-appointed transparency crusaders, the U.S. needs to make harsh examples of those who betray its secrets. That goes especially for those who spy on behalf of friendly countries or, as Bradley Manning imagined, in the ostensible interests of humanity at large.

What Stephens says about Pollard’s character is true, although he is probably wrong that Pollard “inflicted damage that took billions of dollars to repair.” Pollard’s life sentence was disproportionate precisely because of a misapprehension of the amount of damage that he caused. Recently released documents show that it was even less than supposed, and far less than implied by Defense and CIA officials at the time. Although Stephens seems to think that spying on behalf of an ally is as bad or worse than doing so for an enemy, the courts have not treated it as such (at least not until Pollard).

There is also the issue of the double-dealing by the court, which agreed to a plea bargain and then ignored it and sentenced Pollard to life imprisonment. There are good reasons to believe that this came about because of anti-Israel prejudice on the part of the judge in the case, which was played upon by unknown individuals in the Justice Department.

The reason to release Pollard after 28 years, then, is not that he is an admirable human being or a great hero of the Jewish people (although the information he provided was of great value to Israel’s security), but simply that justice demands it.

The fact that Pollard, a Jew spying for Israel, received a far greater sentence than any other person convicted of spying for an ally, and even greater than most of those who had spied for enemies like the Soviet Union, Cuba and East Germany during the cold war — saying he was ‘persecuted’ would not be too harsh — leads to the inescapable conclusion that there is something special about Jews and Israel. Part of the reason for being of a Jewish state is precisely to end this kind of ‘specialness’. This makes his release a matter of importance from Israel’s point of view.

It would be cynical and ugly if the US made him into a bargaining chip to extract concessions from Israel on territory, settlements, etc., and it would be wrong for Israel to agree to such a deal.

But this doesn’t change the moral imperative that Netanyahu should demand his release, and Obama should let him go.

Technorati Tags: Jonathan Pollard, Israel, Bret Stephens

By Vic Rosenthal

The best way to explain hard concepts is by making analogies to everyday things. Of course you have to be careful that the essential part of the analogy fits. When I was in school, I was told “the map is not the territory” — in other words, in any analogy there will be things that are different from the reality one is trying to describe. You just have to know what’s essential.

So I am going to make one more try at explaining why the “two-state solution” is not a solution, and why the people who claim to want one are either terminally uninformed or evil. Here is my analogy:

One day I was down at the lab when a young scientist came running up to me. “Dr. Fresno!” he called. “Eureka! Eureka! I have invented an automobile that does not require fuel, or even batteries!”

“Great,” I said. “You have solved an important problem. How does it work?”

“Simple. You just paint half of the roof of the car with solar paint. When light strikes it it produces electricity, which operates the electric motors that run it.”

“Hmm,” I said. “But how does it work at night, or on an overcast day? You said there were no batteries.”

“That’s the other half of the roof. You paint it with anti-solar paint. When dark strikes it, it produces electricity…” he began.

“That’s amazing,” I told him. “How on earth do you make paint like that?”

“Oh, I have no idea. But wouldn’t it be a wonderful solution?”

Technorati Tags: two-state solution