FresnoZionism.org — ציונות פרסנו

When there’s tension between nations, officials usually criticize the leadership of the opposing nation, reserving sympathy for the ordinary people that have to live under whatever ‘evil’ regime it is.

But in yet another example of how Israel and Israelis are different, the Iranians don’t cut the Israeli in the street any slack:

Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, has ordered President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to dismiss his choice to serve as vice-president, state TV says.

Appointing Esfandiar Rahim Mashaie was “against your interest and the interests of the government”, the ayatollah wrote to Mr Ahmadinejad…

The row over Israel broke out last year when Mr Mashaei, then minister in charge of tourism, was quoted as saying that Iranians were friends with the Israeli people, despite the conflict between their governments.

“Today, Iran is friends with the American and Israeli people,” he said, according to the semi-official Fars News Agency. “No nation in the world is our enemy.” — BBC

Ahmadinejad may have originally overlooked Mashaei’s indiscretion because Mashaei’s son happens to be married to his daughter, but it is apparently important for the clerics that dominate the regime to make it clear that when they tell the crowds to shout “Death to Israel!” they mean every last Israeli.

Lest anyone think that Mashaei is soft on Zionism, the Tehran Times published this description of his appearance before the Iranian Majlis [parliament]:

“Israel is the most accursed name and I say death to Israel a thousand times,” Mashaii told the lawmakers…

“The lawmakers told Mashaii that calling Israel a nation is unforgivable and 220 MPs as well as senior clerics have condemned his remarks,” [MP Kazem] Jalali told the Mehr News Agency…

“Mashaii said I never used the word the Israeli nation. I said the people of Israel but many lawmakers protested that we do not recognize such people,” [Jalali] stated.

Jalali said, “Mashaii has asserted that his approach is the approach of the government. He said raising the issue of Holocaust was a real blow to the Zionist regime.”

“Mashaii said we should continue our fight against the Zionist regime. The regime occupying Quds is in its worst situation and has lost its raison d’etre.

Yes, far too pro-Israel!

Technorati Tags: Israel, Iran

US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was interviewed yesterday on the Thai World Beat program. The full text of the interview is here. Of course she talked mostly about topics related to East Asia, but she did make some remarks about the Mideast that atracted attention:

And as you know, the people in Iran’s neighborhood are the most concerned and are the ones who come to see me and convey their deep apprehension about what might happen. So we will still hold the door open, but we also have made it clear that we’ll take actions, as I’ve said time and time again, crippling actions, working to upgrade the defense of our partners in the region. We want Iran to calculate what I think is a fair assessment, that if the United States extends a defense umbrella over the region, if we do even more to support the military capacity of those in the Gulf, it’s unlikely that Iran will be any stronger or safer, because they won’t be able to intimidate and dominate, as they apparently believe they can, once they have a nuclear weapon. [my emphasis]

So what kind of ‘umbrella’ is she talking about? One phrase that she did not use (as some reported) was ‘nuclear umbrella’. She was not threatening a US nuclear response to Iranian use of the bomb. Reading carefully, the only explicit threat seems to be that when Iran builds nuclear weapons, the US may … increase conventional weapons sales to Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states! Imagine the trembling in Tehran.

Whether she means that the US will militarily guarantee the security of other nations in the Mideast, even  by conventional means, is not clear. And note that she said ‘in the Gulf’. This doesn’t include Israel.

Does this mean that the US has decided that they cannot or will not stop Iran from developing a nuclear weapon? An unnamed US official quoted in the Wall St. Journal says no:

A senior U.S. official close to Mrs. Clinton said her comments weren’t new and didn’t indicate a slacking of the Obama administration’s resolve to deny Tehran nuclear weapons. Rather, the official said, the secretary of state was stressing that Iran would find itself more isolated, and less secure, if it continued to pursue nuclear technologies and that the U.S. remained committed to the defense of its Middle East allies. “We will not accept an Iranian nuclear weapon,” the official said.

But Mrs. Clinton said nothing of the kind.

My assessment today is this:

• The US understands that it does not have the diplomatic capability to stop Iran and finds the risk of using force too great. I think it is correct to say that the US expects Iran to get nuclear weapons.

• Iran will probably not move quickly to test or even to assemble actual weapons because of its fear of Israeli action. But it is working to shorten the period from final decision to possession of a weapon.

• Strong statements made by the US warning Israel not to act are partly for Iranian consumption, but there’s no doubt that the US fears the Iranian reaction to an Israeli attack and will try to prevent one.

• The US is even couching its policy statements in neutral venues like Thailand in pro-Arab terms.

I am hoping that Israeli political and military leaders are not expecting too much from the US these days.

Another famous umbrella: Chamberlin at Munich

Technorati Tags: Hillary Clinton, Iranian Nuclear weapon

The other day I saw the film “Mivtza Yonatan” [Operation Thunderbolt], an Israeli film about the rescue of the Air France plane hijacked to Entebbe in 1976. You can call it a propaganda film, but after all, the story is true. I recommend it highly.

The hijacking was led by a German, Wilfried Böse (Klaus Kinski), a founder of the radical German Revolutionary Cells organization. His was aided by another German, Brigitte Kuhlmann (played in the film as a sadistic murderer by Sybil Danning), and two Palestinians belonging to the PFLP.

One of the most powerful moments in the film came when the hijackers separated the Israelis from the other passengers, a ‘selection’ reminiscent of the Holocaust. A German-speaking hostage asked Kuhlmann something like “how can you, a German woman, do this to Jews?” Kuhlmann answered “wir kämpfen nicht gegen die Juden…” “We are not fighting against the Jews. We are fighting Zionist Imperialism.” But one could see from her behavior that the distinction was less than sharp for her.

Kuhlmann represented the second stage of Palestinian anti-Israel PR (the first was “we are going to drive those Zionists into the sea”. It didn’t get much traction). Here is something I wrote last year which describes the second and third stages:

In the mid-1960’s Yasser Arafat — with Soviet guidance — turned the Palestinian public relations strategy around. David Meir-Levy wrote (History Upside Down, pp. 28-29),

Arafat was particularly struck by Ho Chi Minh’s success in mobilizing left-wing sympathizers in Europe and the United States, where activists on American campuses, enthusiastically following the line of North Vietnamese operatives, had succeeded in reframing the Vietnam war from a Communist assault on the south to a struggle for national liberation.

Ho’s chief strategist, General Giap, made it clear to Arafat and his lieutenants that in order to succeed, they too needed to redefine the terms of their struggle. Giap’s counsel was simple but profound: the PLO needed to work in a way that concealed its real goals, permitted strategic deception, and gave the appearance of moderation:

Stop talking about annihilating Israel and instead turn your terror war into a struggle for human rights. Then you will have the American people eating out of your hand.

At the same time that he was getting advice from General Giap, Arafat was also being tutored by Muhammad Yazid, who had been minister of information in two Algerian wartime governments (1958-1962):

Wipe out the argument that Israel is a small state whose existence is threatened by the Arab states, or the reduction of the Palestinian problem to a question of refugees; instead, present the Palestinian struggle as a struggle for liberation like the others. Wipe out the impression …that in the struggle between the Palestinians and the Zionists, the Zionist is the underdog. Now it is the Arab who is oppressed and victimized in his existence because he is not only facing the Zionists but also world imperialism.

The new approach was wildly successful, especially with the moderate Left, which had [until then] generally supported the somewhat socialist state of Israel.

A bit later somebody noticed how successful the strategy of boycott and divestment had been in bringing down the racist, apartheid South African regime. Israel is neither a racist nor an apartheid state — the concepts fit the Arab world much better — but they are tremendously powerful today, and unlike the “colonialist” and “imperialist” labels, are effective on a wide spectrum of the Western population, not just the Left. Thus began the third stage:

At the 2001 UN Durban Conference on Racism, this approach was refined, focused and amplified. Now Israel was presented as not only denying Palestinians their rights, but as doing so out of an essential racism. The false analogy with South African apartheid was pushed and similar remedies were proposed: delegitimization, boycotts, divestment, etc.

Today when we are continually bombarded with the message that the ‘problem’ is the denial of human rights to Palestinians, it’s best to remember that although the message has changed, the intention — the elimination of the Jewish state — hasn’t.

Just as Kuhlmann’s ‘political’ motivation was belied by her pleasure in humiliating Jews, so is the Arab and Iranian concern for Palestinian rights not entirely convincing. And does not the lack of interest in a peace agreement displayed by the Palestinians themselves tell us something about their actual goals?

By the way, another inspiring moment in the film was when the Air France crew insisted on being put with the Israelis at the time of the ‘selection’ — which, for all they knew, could have meant their death. Remember that the next time you are moved to dump on the French!

Loading the Hercules transport planes before leaving for Entebbe: IDF Spokesperson photo

Technorati Tags: Israel, Operation Thunderbolt, Entebbe, Palestinians

For everyone who thinks that Israeli settlements are the reason for the lack of progress toward a ‘two-state solution’, here is an article from the official Palestinian Authority news agency:

Jerusalem – Ma’an – Senior Hamas and Fatah officials stated their objections on Sunday to what they said were US suggestions that Palestinians accept a land swap with Israel and give up the right of return.

The officials said that the US is pushing for a final status agreement with Israel that does not include the right of Palestinian refugees to return to their homes, and maintains so-called Israeli settlement blocs in the West Bank.

In other words, they object to Jews living in the area that was occupied by Jordan from 1948-67 — even if an equivalent amount of land from Israel is ceded to the Palestinians in return — while insisting upon the right of millions of descendants of Arab refugees to move into Israel.

The article continues,

“The main challenge for this administration is to stop the settlements and land confiscation, particularly canceling the Israeli decision to confiscate 139,00 [sic] dunums of land along the Dead Sea shores and to stop the settlement plans in Silwan and Sheikh Jarrah neighborhoods in East Jerusalem.”

I discussed the Sheikh Jarrah apartment building yesterday. The Dead Sea land is area that has been exposed by the shrinkage of the sea and is not suitable for construction, and which in any event would be included in Palestinian areas in the event of an agreement. In the grand scheme of things, one could not find issues less significant or easier to settle if an actual peace deal were at hand.

But no, these are really the main obstacles, the Palestinians say. Oh yes, and a few other little things:

If the US takes these “basic steps,” it could lead to “real peace,” [Senior Fatah official Hatem Abdul Qader] said. He also said that Palestinians refugees cannot give up the right to return to their homes in what is now Israel, basing their claim on UN Resolution 194. “Going around [Resolution 194] will not lead to real peace between Palestinians and Israelis.”

Meanwhile Hamas senior official Salah Bardawil said that “the issue of land swap was proposed since the Camp David negotiations … President Yasser Arafat rejected this at the time then and paid his life as a price for this rejection.” [Here we encounter the myth that Arafat was murdered by Israel, although it is more likely that he died of AIDS. But this is a subject for another post — ed]

Bardawil also said “We cannot accept anything that is proposed by the Americans regarding this issue.” He said “all Palestinian factions” believe that a resolution to the conflict should be based on an Israeli withdrawal from the land it occupied in 1967 (the West Bank, Gaza, and East Jerusalem), the creation of a Palestinian state, and the realization of the right of return.

Indeed they do. But I think that they are jumping the gun, misreading both Israel’s instinct of self-preservation and the degree to which the US is tilting in the Arab direction.

It has always been part of the Israeli bottom line that there can be no ‘return’ of refugees. At least so far, even the Obama administration seems to agree.

Regarding the settlement blocs, another bottom line has been defensible borders, as called for by UN Resolution 242. That means that the pre-1967 lines are not sacrosanct and that there can and must be adjustments. Again, this has been the American position too.

Finally we have the question of Israel’s rights in East Jerusalem. Here the Americans are not so solidly on Israel’s side, but the vast majority of Israelis support PM Netanyahu’s position. Israel won’t budge here either.

The Arabs can be clever negotiators and good strategists, but this time I think they allowed their lust for blood to cloud their judgment, and have got themselves in a corner.

Unless of course the US takes a far more anti-Israel turn than I expect.

Technorati Tags: Israel, Palestinians, Israel-Palestinian conflict

The Shepherd Hotel in East Jerusalem, at the center of the controversy

Last week the Israeli press reported that Ambassador to the US Michael Oren had been called in and told that Israel must not continue with plans to convert a Jewish-owned building in East Jerusalem into a 20-unit apartment complex — talk about micro-management!

Today the US has confirmed the report:

State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley confirmed Monday that a new housing development in east Jerusalem had been a topic of conversation last week during a meeting between senior US diplomats and Israel’s ambassador to the United States, Michael Oren. Crowley said US opposition to construction in east Jerusalem and settlements in the West Bank had not changed.

“We have made our views known to Israel,” he told reporters. “Our views are not new either: that this kind of construction is the type … of issue that should be subject to permanent-status negotiations.”

Crowley added that “we are concerned that unilateral actions taken by the Israelis or the Palestinians cannot prejudge the outcome of these negotiations.”

On Sunday, responding to the reports that Washington had asked Israel not to build 20 apartments in the Sheikh Jarrah neighborhood in east Jerusalem, near Mount Scopus and the National Police headquarters, Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu’s declared that Israel would not bar Jews from buying apartments in east Jerusalem.– Jerusalem Post

Apparently the Obama Administration has decided — whether the decision was initiated by the White House or the State Department — to draw its line in the sand with Israel here, in Jerusalem.

Any construction activity by Jews in areas occupied by Jordan in 1948-67, including East Jerusalem, is considered ‘settlement activity’ by the US, and is streng verboten.

Of course our peace partners in the Palestinian Authority (PA) gleefully jumped on the bandwagon and are refusing to talk about anything until all ‘settlement activity’ stops.

Some background on the even more outrageous US position that Israel does not have sovereignty in any part of Jerusalem can be found in my post “US to Israel: No part of Jerusalem belongs to you“.

Regardless of the supposed justification for this point of view, I am here to tell Mr. Obama and his Arabist State Department types that — unless the goal is to provoke a complete break with Israel — this is a stupid policy.

Israel is not going to give in on this one. There is no issue that is more likely to unite Israelis against the US than an attempt to limit sovereignty in Jerusalem. This is not going to split PM Netanyahu from the right wing, it is going to push them closer together.

In response to the demands Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said at the start of Sunday’s cabinet meeting, “Our sovereignty in Jerusalem is indisputable. We can’t agree to such a demand in east Jerusalem.”

“I wish to make this clear – the united Jerusalem is the capital of the Jewish people in the State of Israel,” he added…

Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman also commented on the demand, calling it “unthinkable”.

“There are many Arab families that build homes in the Neve Yaakov and French Hill neighborhoods. I have never heard any remarks on this matter, neither from the United States, nor from Europe,” he said.

“This is not an isolated distant Palestinian neighborhood. Should we of all people discriminate against Jews? This is unthinkable,” he added. — YNet

The irony here is as great as that of the Allies keeping Jewish former concentration camp inmates in “DP camps” in Germany after WWII. Jerusalem is the historical center of the Jewish world, and Jews lived in both East and West Jerusalem from biblical times until East Jerusalem was brutally ethnically cleansed by the Jordanians in 1948.

Israel gained control of East Jerusalem in 1967 and annexed it in 1980, declaring the “complete and united Jerusalem” to be the capital of Israel.

So which is it?

Did the Obama administration miscalculate, thinking it could score some easy points with the Arabs by forcing Israel to heel?

Or is the intention to score even more points by tearing a great rift between the US and Israel and explicitly moving closer to the Arab side?

Update [21 Jul 2009 0826 PDT]:

The following commentary is from  Daniel Pipes’ blog. The whole article is worth reading:

Abbas complained to the Americans that the construction of 20 apartments and an underground garage in the eastern Jerusalem neighborhood of Shimon Hatzadik, 1.4 kilometers north of the Old City, would shift Jerusalem’s demographic balance. The State Department promptly summoned Israel’s ambassador to Washington, Michael Oren on July 17 and instructed him to halt the building project.

Some background: Zionists founded the Shimon Hatzadik neighborhood in 1891 by purchasing the land from Arabs, then, due to Arab riots and Jordanian conquest, abandoned the area. Amin al-Husseini, Jerusalem’s pro-Nazi mufti, put up a building in the 1930s that later served as the Shepherd Hotel (not to be confused with the renowned Shepheard’s Hotel in Cairo). After 1967, the Israelis designated the land “absentee property.” Irving Moskowitz, an American businessman, bought the land in 1985 and rented the building to the border police until 2002. His company, C and M Properties, won final permission two weeks ago to renovate the hotel and build apartments on the land.

Technorati Tags: Israel, Jerusalem, Obama Administration, US State Department