FresnoZionism.org — ציונות פרסנו

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

Dear Muslim Public Affairs Council of the UK:

I am shocked and insulted to not have been included on your list of American Islamophobes. There is no doubt in my mind that I should appear in Category 1, “The Seed Planters”, along with those such as Bernard Lewis, Daniel Pipes, and Steven Emerson, to whom you attribute what you believe to be the most evil possible motivation: Zionism, which even precedes religious bigotry, greed, and racism on your list of evil motivations.

My suggestion for you, is that first you read “Zionism — what it is and isn’t” so that you can use the word correctly and stop appearing to be antisemitic fools (I don’t think you can actually stop being such, but appearances are important).

Next, if you want to reduce “Islamophobia”, you can do something about UK Muslims like these:

UK Muslims protest cartoons

Finally, you can learn that “Islamophobia” (which properly should mean ‘fear of Islam’ and not ‘prejudice against or hatred of Muslims’ as you use it), is almost entirely a reaction to the violent and often murderous behavior of some Muslims — and to the approval granted that behavior by most Muslims.

You can’t have it both ways — you can’t reject Western values of free expression and tolerance, and then accuse those who point this out of racism or bigotry.

If you can’t do any of this, then please put me on your list, along with Lewis, Pipes, and Emerson. I’d be in good company.

Technorati Tags: Islamophobia, MPACUK

This morning, NPR featured a story about how the Palestinian economy is being ruined by ‘the occupation’. Checkpoints and roadblocks, Israeli restrictions on where Palestinians can build roads, etc., have made economic development impossible. The Palestinians are miserable and it’s Israel’s fault.

One might think from the report that the checkpoints, etc., have been there since the beginning of the occupation in 1967. But of course this isn’t true. Most of these were put into place as a direct result of the upsurge in terrorism that began in 2000 with the beginning of Arafat’s intifada.

These impediments wouldn’t be there if they weren’t necessary. Does the Israeli government enjoy the constant condemnation in the press and the UN? Wouldn’t it like to make the Bush administration happy? Does the average Israeli male under the age of 40 open his mailbox and say “great news — I’ll be away from my family and my job for 30 days so I can harass Palestinians at checkpoints”? Although pro-Palestinians scream when I say it, all they have to do is stop terrorism and these will go away.

Now let’s look at the Palestinian economy. Much money has been given to the Palestinians over the years for development of infrastructure for a state and an economy. In the days of Arafat it went mostly into his and his friends’ Swiss bank accounts, or was used to purchase weapons and explosives. Although Palestinian Prime Minister Salaam Fayad seems to be committed to development, the Fatah organization is still a confederation of gangs and clans who allocate funds according to nepotic principles. Even money which is allocated ‘legitimately’ mostly goes to support the ‘security’ forces, the army which the PA would like to build to confront Israel (oops — “fight terrorism”).

And this is the West Bank. In Gaza, Hamas receives large amounts of funding from Iran and other supporters, and spends it on stockpiling arms and building fortifications. The rocket business is booming! But a large part of Gazans’ income came from workers who crossed into Israel, and this has been ended as a result of terrorism — especially including attacks on the very border crossings that they used, forcing them to be closed. And a discussion of Gaza would not be complete without mentioning the greenhouses built by the expelled Jewish settlers, which were purchased by Jewish donors in the US and turned over to the Palestinians — and then torn to pieces by them.

Another aspect of the Palestinian economy in both the West Bank and Gaza is the ‘refugee economy’. There are about 1.7 million Arabs who claim refugee status living in Gaza and the West Bank. They receive aid from UNRWA, the huge organization created by the UN to maintain the refugee population. UNRWA has 27,000 employees, almost all ‘refugees’, and 10,000 of them work at its Gaza headquarters.

UNRWA’s focus on nurturing the refugee population, helping it learn the official Palestinian irredentist ideology and preventing any solution of the refugee problem other than ‘return’ is illustrative of the real reason that there is no functioning Palestinian economy, despite everything that has been poured into it:

The primary goal of the Palestinian leadership, from the Mufti through Arafat and including the present leaders of Fatah and Hamas has never been the welfare of Palestinians. First priority has always been the destruction of Israel and the removal of the Jewish presence from ‘their’ land. And as we’ve seen in the case of the refugees, they have always been prepared to sacrifice their people to advance this goal.

Technorati Tags: Palestinian economy, West Bank, Gaza, Israel