Israel, Iran and Obama
Conflict is inevitable unless the West moves quickly to stop a nuclear Tehran.

Editorial, Wall Street Journal, August 30, 2009

The International Atomic Energy Agency has produced another alarming report on Iran's nuclear programs, though it hasn't released it publicly, only to governments that would also rather not disclose more details of Iran's progress toward becoming a nuclear theocracy. Meanwhile, Iran intends to introduce a resolution, backed by more than 100 members of the so-called Non-Aligned Movement, that would ban military attacks on nuclear facilities. No actual mention of Israel, of course.

The mullahs understand that the only real challenge to their nuclear ambitions is likely to come from Israel. They've long concluded that the U.N. is no threat, as IAEA chief Mohamed ElBaradei has in practice become an apologist for Iran's program. They can also see that the West lacks the will to do anything, as the Obama Administration continues to plead for Tehran to negotiate even as Iran holds show trials of opposition leaders and journalists for saying the recent re-election of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was fraudulent. The irony is that the weaker the West and U.N. appear, the more probable an Israeli attack becomes.
***

The reality that Western leaders don't want to admit is that preventing Iran from getting the bomb is an Israeli national imperative, not a mere policy choice. That's a view shared across Israel's political spectrum, from traditional hawks like Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to current Defense Minister and former Labor Prime Minister Ehud Barak. Israelis can see the relentless progress Iran is making toward enriching uranium, building a plutonium-breeding facility and improving on its ballistic missiles—all the while violating U.N. sanctions without consequence. Iran's march to the bomb also alarms its Arab neighbors, but it represents an existential threat to an Israeli nation that Iran has promised to destroy and has waged decades of proxy war against.

This threat has only increased in the wake of Iran's stolen election and crackdown. The nature of the regime seems to be changing from a revolutionary theocracy to a military-theocratic state that is becoming fascist in operation. The Revolutionary Guard Corps is gaining power at the expense of the traditional military and a divided clerical establishment.

On the weekend, Ahmadinejad called for the arrest and punishment of opposition leaders, and last week he nominated Ahmad Vahidi, a commander in Iran's Revolutionary Guards Corps, to become defense minister. Vahidi is wanted on an Interpol arrest warrant for his role in masterminding the 1994 attack on a Jewish cultural center in Buenos Aires. That attack killed 85 people and wounded 200 others. Vahidi's nomination shows that when Ahmadinejad talks of wiping Israel off the map, no Israel leader can afford to dismiss it as a religious allegory.

Israel also looks warily on the Obama Administration's policy of diplomatic pleading with Iran, which comes after six years of failed diplomatic overtures by the European Union and Bush Administration. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's suggestion in July that the U.S. would extend a "defense umbrella" over its allies in the Middle East "once [Iranians] have a nuclear weapon" may have been a slip of the lip. But Israelis can be forgiven for wondering if the U.S. would sooner accept a nuclear Iran as a fait accompli than do whatever is necessary to stop it.

It's no wonder, then, that the Israeli military has been intensively—and very publicly—war-gaming attack scenarios on Iran's nuclear installations. This has included sending warships through the Suez Canal (with Egypt's blessing), testing its Arrow antiballistic missile systems and conducting nation-wide emergency drills. U.S. and Israeli military officials we've spoken to are confident an Israeli strike could deal a significant blow to Iran's programs, even if some elements would survive. The longer Israel waits, however, the more steps Iran can take to protect its installations.

The consequences of an Israeli attack are impossible to predict, but there is no doubt they would implicate U.S. interests throughout the Middle East. Iran would accuse the U.S. of complicity, whether or not the U.S. gave its assent to an attack. Iran could also attack U.S. targets, drawing America into a larger Mideast war.

Short of an Islamist revolution in Pakistan, an Israeli strike on Iran would be the most dangerous foreign policy issue President Obama could face, throwing all his diplomatic ambitions into a cocked hat. Yet in its first seven months, the Administration has spent more diplomatic effort warning Israel not to strike than it has rallying the world to stop Iran.
***

In recent days, the Administration has begun taking a harder line against Tehran, with talk of "crippling" sanctions on Iran's imports of gasoline if the mullahs don't negotiate by the end of September. Rhetorically, that's a step in the right direction. But unless Mr. Obama gets serious, and soon, about stopping Iran from getting a bomb, he'll be forced to deal with the consequences of Israel acting in its own defense.

ADL: Path to peace begins with the recognition of Israel

The Problem Isn't Settlements,
It's Arab Rejection of Israel

The ADL's letter can be signed online.

Dear Mr. President,

We all support peace in the Middle East. But pressuring Israel is not the right approach.

The obstacle to peace is not Israel. The settlements are not the impediment. The issue is simple: the Arab and Palestinian rejection of Israel's right to exist, including through violence and terrorism, for over 60 years. Israel's right to exist is undeniable and is based on its right to self-determination in its historic homeland.

The path to peace is clear. With recognition, Israel has said again and again that everything is on the table without preconditions.

Mr. President, it's time to stop pressuring our vital friend and ally. It's now time to direct your attention to the rejectionists who refuse to recognize Israel and negotiate an end to the conflict.

With your leadership, yes, we can have peace.

But the path begins with the recognition of Israel.

Sincerely,
The Anti-Defamation League

What the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is really about (7)

Palestinian recognition of the Jewish state

Aug 27th, 2009 by MESH From Robert O. Freedman

In his June 2009 Bar-Ilan University speech, Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu asserted that Palestinian recognition of Israel as a “Jewish state” was one of Israel’s requirements for agreeing to the establishment of a Palestinian state. Both Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas and chief Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat,immediately rejected the requirement. However, if there is to be a long-lasting peace between Israel and a Palestinian state, Palestinian recognition of Israel as a Jewish state is a necessity.

.... Palestinians have [four] objections to Israel being recognized as a Jewish state, [the fourth] objection about which they do not speak openly... lies at the heart of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict....

... [It] is that many Palestinians simply do not accept the legitimacy of Jewish nationalism (Zionism). For the Palestinians, and for many other Arabs as well, a Jew is defined by religion, not nationality or ethnicity, and given the position of Jews as dhimmis, or second-class religious subjects in Muslim history, the Palestinians feel that Jews have no right to be rulers, let alone rule over what they consider Muslim territory.


Middle East Strategy at Harvard (MESH) is a project of the National Security Studies Program at the Weatherhead Center for International Affairs.

How Israel should fight the Swedish blood libel

Incitement to Murder

How Israel should fight the Swedish blood libel.

Yossi Klein Halevi, The New Republic Published: August 27, 2009

Courtesy of Middle-east-info.org
Courtesy of Middle-east-info.org

Israelis are furious about an article printed in the Swedish newspaper Aftonbladet last week accusing the Israeli army of killing Palestinians in order to harvest their organs. The article linked accusations supposedly made by several Palestinians in the early 1990s with the arrest of a Brooklyn Jew several weeks ago on charges of illegal trafficking in organs.

Never mind that the author of the Aftonbladet article readily admits that he has no proof connecting the Brooklyn arrest with his charges--or that the Palestinians he quoted in his article have since denied making those accusations in the first place. In the current discourse in Europe on the Middle East conflict, the most outrageous lies about Israel become credible. No real proof is required to accuse the Jewish state of crimes that seem to be dredged from Europe's oldest and darkest fantasies about the Jews. It is Israel's responsibility to prove it is innocent.

The scandal would not have been possible without decades of one-sided reporting about the Middle East conflict, along with increasing demonization in recent years. When Israel is repeatedly cited in the Swedish media as the main obstacle to peace, when Swedish churches single out Israel as a target for boycott, the inevitable result is a resurrection of anti-Semitic motifs. In critiquing Israel, there are no longer standards or shame.

Aftonbladet's editor, Jan Helin, wrote that he was not a Nazi or an anti-Semite. The first claim is no doubt true, the second debatable. Contrary to widespread assumptions among Europeans, one does not need to be a Nazi to be an anti-Semite. Contemporary European anti-Semitism has two spiritual roots: Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union. The big lie of Zionism as Nazism and of the Jewish state as successor to Nazi Germany originated in Moscow, and became an essential part of Soviet ideology following the 1967 Six-Day War. Of the two versions of modern European anti-Semitism as they exist today, the far more pervasive--and dangerous--is the Soviet version. The rise of Western European anti-Zionism, then, is a posthumous victory for the Soviet Union.

Aftonbladet's blood libel has offered Israel an opportunity to place the wider problem of anti-Zionism on the European agenda. And so the Israeli government was right in responding with outrage. Israeli foreign minister Avigdor Lieberman compared the Swedish government's refusal to condemn the article to its "position during World War II, when it also did not become involved," while finance minister Yuval Steinitz declared relations between the two countries to be in "a crisis until the government of Sweden understands otherwise." Previous opportunities to confront the thin line between European anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism--for example, cartoons in European newspapers equating the Palestinian situation with Jesus on the cross--were squandered. This time, the Israeli government seems genuinely determined to take the offensive.

The question, though, is how. So far, the government's response has been diffuse and at times counter-productive. Pressure on the Swedish government to condemn the article has not only failed but allowed the Swedes to turn the issue into a spurious dispute over freedom of the press. Prime Minister Netanyahu did note that, when Christians were offended by an Israeli television satire on Jesus, then-Prime Minister Olmert condemned the program without compromising freedom of the press. But Israel needs to more aggressively expose the Swedish argument as a sham--particularly in light of the country's far-reaching "hate speech" regulations, which have been used repeatedly in recent years to prosecute critics of Islam.

At the same time, the Aftonbladet needs to be challenged, in court if possible. Delaying issuing credentials to Aftonbladet reporters--as the Israeli government press office has done--is an emotionally satisfying but hardly adequate response.

Most of all, Israel needs to use this affair to challenge the general climate of Israeli demonization in Sweden and elsewhere in Europe, and expose the conceptual links between classical anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism.

As much as possible, this should be done in coordination with local Jewish communities. When Lena Posner, president of the Official council of Jewish Communities in Sweden, described Israel's response to the Aftonbladet affair as disproportionate, and even appeared to defend the Swedish government's silence, the Israeli effort was substantially undermined. Consulting with Diaspora leaders will not necessarily produce agreement, and there are times when Israeli and Diaspora interests will diverge. But at the very least, Diaspora leaders need to be consulted on Israeli decisions that directly affect their communities' well-being, especially when those communities are small and vulnerable, like Swedish Jewry.

Accusations like the Swedish blood libel aren't just a threat to Israel's good name, but could become a physical threat to Jews everywhere. The Israeli "crimes" raised by Aftonbladet are precisely the kind of rationale used by terrorists to incite violence against Jews. In the current atmosphere, where the most inconceivable conspiracy theories involving Jews are readily believed by millions in the Muslim world, Aftonbladet's recklessness is, potentially, an incitement to murder. The Israeli government should treat it as such.

Yossi Klein Halevi is a contributing editor of The New Republic and a senior fellow at the Adelson Institute for Strategic Studies of the Shalem Center in Jerusalem. This article first appeared on the Adelson Institute's website.

What the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is really about (6)

There is one - and only one - cause of the Arab-Israeli conflict, even if that single cause is buried beneath an avalanche of media mud designed to obfuscate and confuse. That single cause is the refusal of the Arab world to come to terms with Israel's existence within any set of borders whatsoever.

The Middle East conflict is not about the right of self-determination of Palestinian Arabs, but rather about the total Arab rejection of self-determination for Israeli Jews....

The Palestinians tell each other, in their newspapers, their mosques and their internal political debates, that any two-state solution is but a stage in a "plan of stages," after which will come additional steps ultimately aimed at ending Israel's existence as a Jewish state.

Why shouldn't we believe them?

--Steven Plaut, Two-state solution -- or Potemkin peace? August 26, 2009

Steven Plaut is a professor at the University of Haifa

What the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is really about (5)

Neither the state of Israel nor any other nation is above criticism, and there are numerous mistakes Israel's government has made in dealing with Palestinians. However the fallacy that settlement of the West Bank issue is at the core of the dispute should be laid to rest. United Nations resolution 181 in 1947 partitioned the disputed area between the two peoples, just as colonial India had been divided a few months earlier. Israelis accepted the agreement and Arabs rejected it, which led to a series of wars against Israel, in each of which the Jewish state prevailed.

At any time through 1967, the Arabs then in complete control of the West Bank and Gaza could have declared a state, as not one Jewish settlement existed on their land, but refused to do so.

[The core of the conflict, then, is that most] Arab [countries have still] refused to accept the legitimacy of any Jewish state, the position Hamas maintains to this day.

-- Barry Kay: Palestinians pay high price for follies of their advocates August 24, 2009

Barry Kay is a political science professor at Wilfrid Laurier University in Waterloo, Ontario.

The Soviet-Nazi non-aggression pact was signed August 24, 1939 (backed dated to August 23.) The Nazis and the Soviets kept the terms of the pact and the protocol until Germany's surprise attack and invasion of the Soviet Union on June 22, 1941.


Soviet-Nazi pact revisited 70 years later
By LYNN BERRY, Associated Press Writer Lynn Berry, Associated Press Writer Fri Aug 21, 11:58 am ET

MOSCOW – Seventy years ago Sunday, the Soviet Union signed a pact with Nazi Germany that gave dictator Josef Stalin a free hand to take over part of Poland and the Baltic states on the eve of World War II.

Most of the world now condemns the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, but Russia has mounted a new defense of the 1939 treaty as it seeks to restore some of its now-lost sphere of influence.

"This is all being rehabilitated because this is now a very lively issue for Russia," said military analyst Pavel Felgenhauer. "This is not about history at all."

The pact, formally a treaty of nonaggression, was signed Aug. 23, 1939, in Moscow by Vyacheslav Molotov and Joachim von Ribbentrop, the foreign ministers of the two countries.

In addition to the pledge of nonaggression, the treaty included secret protocols that divided eastern Europe into German and Soviet spheres of influence.

On Sept. 1, Germany invaded Poland — thus igniting World War II — and within weeks the Red Army had marched in from the east. After claiming its part of Poland, the Soviet Union then annexed part of Finland, the Baltic states and the Romanian region that is now Moldova.

Molotov's grandson and namesake, Vyacheslav Nikonov, said his grandfather saw a deal with Nazi Germany as the only alternative after a failure to reach a military agreement with Britain and France.

The Soviet government was convinced that a Nazi attack on Poland was imminent and "we needed to know where the Germans were going to stop," Nikonov said. The pact also bought needed time for the country to prepare for war, he said.

He said his grandfather later criticized aspects of Stalin's leadership, including the purges, but he stood by the pact for the rest of his life.

"He said there were many, many mistakes done by the Soviet leadership, he regrets many lives," said Nikonov, who was 30 when his grandfather died in 1986 and knew him well. "Molotov never considered Molotov-Ribbentrop as something he would regret."

The Soviet Union officially denied the existence of the secret protocols for decades. They were only formally acknowledged and denounced in 1989.

But as the 70th anniversary of the treaty has approached, some Russian historians have stepped up to vociferously defend the Soviet Union's decision to expand its territory at the expense of its neighbors.

The Foreign Intelligence Service, once part of the KGB, published a book of declassified intelligence reports in an effort to make the case that the nonaggression treaty and its secret protocols were justified and essential to the victory over the Nazis.

Retired Maj. Gen. Lev Sotskov, who compiled the book, said the pact allowed the Soviet Union to "move its borders with Germany" to the West. This prevented the Baltic states of Lithuanian, Latvia and Estonia of becoming a staging ground for an attack, he told journalists.

Even so, when Nazi Germany did attack in June 1941, all the territory the Soviet Union had gained was lost in a matter of weeks.

At the end of the war, however, U.S. and British leaders accepted the borders of the Soviet Union as defined by the treaty with Germany. This in effect restored the borders of the Russian Empire.

The Allied leaders also allowed Stalin to extend the Soviet Union's sphere of influence throughout much of eastern and central Europe.

The current attempt to justify the carving up of Europe during World War II comes as Russia once again is trying to establish its sphere of influence.

After last year's conflict with Georgia, a U.S. ally, President Dmitry Medvedev asserted Russia's right to intervene militarily in what it regards as its zone of "privileged interests" along its borders.

The war stripped Georgia of pieces of its territory, which are now under the control of Russian-backed separatists.

"In his understanding of Realpolitik, Vladimir Putin does not diverge from the line set by Josef Stalin," military analyst Alexander Golts wrote in the online Yezhednevny Zhurnal. "Military force decides everything and if there is an opportunity to grab a piece of someone else's territory then it should be taken."

Moscow has insisted it should have a dominating influence over countries that were once part of the Soviet Union. But Washington has continued to encourage the NATO ambitions of Georgia and Ukraine, and has made clear that it will accept no claims of a Russian sphere of influence over former Soviet republics that are now sovereign states.

Russians' defense of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact also is being used to bolster the Kremlin's push for the creation of a new collective security system to replace NATO, embracing all of Europe, the United States and Canada.

Sotskov said the Soviet Union had to sign the 1939 treaty with Germany because efforts to create "a system of collective security" with Britain, France, Poland and the Baltic states had failed. The Soviet leadership believed the West was hoping to turn Adolf Hitler's armies east against Russia.

Leading scholar, Middle East analyst Barry Rubin on Rabbi Kaufman's show, August 27

Barry Rubin, recognized as one of the leading authorities on the politics of the Middle East and particularly of the Israeli-Palestinian relationship, will be the guest on Rabbi Kaufman's internet radio show, The Whole Megillah, August 27 from 2-4 pm Central on www.macsworldlive.com.

Send prospective questions to dkaufman@aol.com and tune in via computer or smart phone on Thursday.

What the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict is really about (4)

[T]he Arab-Israeli conflict... has a source, and it is the refusal to acknowledge that source - rather than any failure to "engage" - that is the main reason for the failure of decades of peacemaking. ...

[T]he engine of the conflict is the Arab refusal to accept Jewish history, peoplehood or sovereignty anywhere in the Land of Israel.

[T]he Arabs will not end the conflict... so long as they still have hopes that Israel will become delegitimized and will weaken and disappear.

-- Saul Singer, Interesting Times: The power of truth, August 13, 2009

What the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict is really about (3)

[T]he Palestinians, through their rejection of the UN Partition Plan, refused to recognize the Jewish state and embarked on a war to destroy it. This is, after all, the root of the conflict.

Indeed, the Palestinian narrative is based on the rejection of the existence of a Jewish nation state in any part of the territory they call Palestine.... The Palestinians fought the Jewish state, and if they truly and sincerely wish to forge peace, they must be willing to come to terms with the Jewish state, and to do so explicitly, without stuttering.

-- Shlomo Aveneri, The Palestinian position is important, August 20, 2009

What the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict is really about (2)

"This conflict is actually about accepting Israel as a homeland for the Jewish people in this part of the world. The Palestinian media should be asked to "lower the tone" and start relating to Israel as a potential peace partner and not as an alien body that needs to be uprooted from the Middle East."

from How to Solve the Arab-Israeli Conflict - Khaled Abu Toameh, August 11, 2009

RSVP today for Jewish Federation's Serve It Up! August 30

 

 

What the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict is really about

Ya'acov Lozowick: "The lines of discussion are indeed becoming ever more clear, even if the team at the White House doesn’t see it. The issue is the right of the Jews to sovereignty in their ancestral homeland. Not the right of the Palestinians; that has already been accepted by any fair minded person. It’s the right of the Jews which is being discussed, evaluated, and in many cases rejected. This is what the Jews need firmly to keep in mind."


Shmuel Rosner: " It is obvious that a solution [to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict] cannot be realized before there is a change in the Palestinian position and the Palestinians accept Israel's right to exist in peace and security as a Jewish state. The reason the Palestinians refuse to accept this is because for them this ins not a territorial dispute, but an existential conflict. The media's failure to report this most basic point, the evidence of it, and the implications of it, creates a dangerously misleading portrayal of the situation and prospects for its its resolution."

Today on Rabbi Kaufman's - The Whole Megillah, we will discuss Jerusalem, the Future of the Peace Process in light of the Fatah Elections and Policies, the Yale Press banning the publishing of the cartoons of Mohammed in a book about the cartoon...s and much, much more. Listen today from 2-4 pm Central on www.macsworldlive.com.

Mideast Peace Starts With Respect
Note to Obama: The Palestinians still haven’t recognized the Jewish state.


By RONALD S. LAUDER August 11, 2009 Op Ed, Wall Street Journal

More than one American president has tried to bring peace to the Middle East, and more than one has failed. So as the Obama administration outlines its own prospectus for a comprehensive settlement to Israel’s conflict with the Palestinians and the wider Arab world, it would do well to take note of some potential pitfalls.

Rule No. 1: Respect the sovereignty of democratic allies. When free people in a democracy express their preferences, the United States should respect their opinions. The current administration should not try to impose ideas on allies like Israel.

The administration would also do well to take heed of the Palestinian Authority’s continued refusal to recognize Israel as the nation-state of the Jewish people. This is not a trivial matter. A long-term settlement can only be forged on the basis of mutual recognition and respect. To deny the essence of the Zionist project—to rebuild the Jewish people’s ancient homeland—is to call into question the seriousness of one’s commitment to peace.

It is a sad statement of the Palestinians’ approach to peace-making that denial of the Jewish homeland is not simply contained in the openly anti-Semitic leadership of Hamas. It is a widespread belief across the spectrum of Palestinian opinion. This reality must be confronted.

Today’s leadership must never forget that the core historic reason for the conflict is the Arab world’s longstanding rejection of Israel’s existence. The two-state solution was accepted by Israel’s pre-state leadership led by David Ben-Gurion in 1947 when it agreed to the partition plan contained in United Nation’s General Assembly Resolution 181. The Arabs flatly rejected it. As Secretary of State Hillary Clinton knows all too well, President Bill Clinton’s peace plans in 2000 foundered due to Palestinian rejection of the Jewish state, even as Israel, once again, accepted their right to statehood.

More recent experience in Europe also offers lessons about the dangers of negotiating with terrorists. Over the past year, officials from Britain, France and the European Union all held talks with officials from the “political wing” of Hezbollah in a bid to get the terrorist group to moderate its behavior. Hezbollah is undoubtedly grateful for the legitimacy that these meetings have conferred, but it is not laying down its arms. Indeed, according to a recent report from the Times of London, the group has now stockpiled 40,000 rockets close to the Israeli border.

To be sure, we must have hope. Peace agreements with Egypt and Jordan are useful models. Nonetheless, the recent rebuffs by Jordan, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia of efforts by the Obama administration to promote a more conciliatory attitude to Israel offer a salient reminder that those who started this conflict may not yet be in a mood to end it, whatever their rhetoric to the contrary.

And then there are the settlements. Undoubtedly, this is a complex matter. Yet the administration must beware of overemphasizing it. Compromises between people of goodwill can be made on the settlements, as Israel has demonstrated in the recent past. But no compromise can be made on Israel’s right to exist inside secure borders unmolested by terrorist groups or threatened by belligerent states.

That’s why an unambiguous strategy explaining precisely how Hamas and Hezbollah can be disarmed and how Iran can be prevented from acquiring nuclear weapons is of central importance to any peace plan.

The administration must also be wary of letting Israel’s opponents use the settlement issue as a convenient excuse for failing to make moves of their own. The settlements matter, but they do not go to the core of this decades-old conflict.

Making peace in the Middle East is an unenviable task. It is also a noble calling. To be successful, it will require patience and fortitude. It will also require an ability to stand above the fray, to see the problems for what they are, and the courage to confront them at their source.

Mr. Lauder is president of the World Jewish Congress.

Rassmussen survey: 81% Say Palestinians Must Recognize Israel’s Right To Exist As Part of Any Peace Agreement

Tuesday, June 23, 2009

Eighty-one percent (81%) of U.S. voters agree with Israeli President Benjamin Netanhyahu that Palestinian leaders must recognize Israel’s right to exist as part of a Middle Eastern peace agreement.

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that just seven percent (7%) disagree and say this should not be a requirement for a peace agreement. Twelve percent (12%) are not sure.

But only 27% believe it is even somewhat likely that Palestinian leaders will make such a concession. Only six percent (6%) say it is very likely.

AJC: Fatah Party Heightens Tensions, Deals Blow to Peace Prospects

NEW YORK, Aug. 9 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- AJC expressed deep dismay with the Fatah Party, headed by Palestinian Authority Mahmoud Abbas, which is holding its first general assembly in 20 years.

"While much of the world, including Israel, favors a two-state solution, the biggest obstacle remains the Palestinians' own leadership," said AJC Executive Director David Harris. "Despite hopes for political reform of Fatah, and steps to renew peace negotiations with Israel, longstanding Palestinian obstinacy and rejectionism have been the prevailing messages emerging from Bethlehem."

To point, Fatah adopted a measure demanding that Israel hand over all of Jerusalem before any peace talks can resume. This came after the unopposed Abbas was elected Fatah leader, assuring he will continue to serve as Palestinian Authority President.
"Two months ago, President Abbas firmly rejected Prime Minister Netanyahu's call in his Bar-Ilan University speech to resume direct Israeli-Palestinian peace negotiations, and now Abbas ups the ante with preposterous demands on Jerusalem and other final status issues," said Harris.

"Why can't Palestinian leaders openly recognize the fact that four consecutive Israeli prime ministers have offered a two-state solution?" asked Harris. "Sixty-two years after the UN voted to establish a Jewish and an Arab state in mandatory Palestine, even so-called moderate Palestinian leaders are still saying 'no' to recognizing Israel's legitimacy."

The Fatah General Assembly is expected to continue through Tuesday. "Given the tone and substance so far, one can only wonder how much more damage to the peace process Fatah can deliver," said Harris. "The United States and the international community should recognize the regrettable fact that this Fatah leadership gathering is a slap in the face of those who seek peace and security for Israelis and Palestinians."

www.ajc.org SOURCE American Jewish Committee

Israel's Treatment.  Op Ed by James Eaves-Johnson

Published: August 5, 2009  Opinion Page, Ames Tribune

What kind of a state is Israel? Some Tribune letter writers argue that Israel should be judged based on how it treats Palestinian Arabs. Consider how Israel has treated them:

Israel ceded complete security control of Ramallah, Qalqilya, Bethlehem and Jericho to the Palestinian Authority.

Israel removed dozens of roadblocks, allowing for free travel between most Palestinian Arab population centers.

Israel has opened the border between the West Bank and Jordan to 24-hour passage of people and goods.

Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu has called on diaspora Jews to invest in the Palestinian Arab economy.

Israel announced plans to forcibly evacuate Jews from 23 outposts in the West Bank in a single day.

This and more has happened in just the last month as part of an accelerated plan to improve the lives of Palestinian Arabs and prepare for a stable and prosperous state. Israel has done this even as Palestinian Authority President Abbas refused to negotiate with Israel for peace.

In 2005, Israel forcibly removed 7,500 Jews from Gaza to make room for Palestinian Arabs. Even Kfar Darom, which was cleansed of Jews once before in 1948 by Egyptian forces, was not spared.

Some would prefer that Israel leave the West Bank in a similar fashion. The difference is that the Gaza withdrawal led to Hamas terrorism, war, and hardship for the people of Gaza.

Israel¹s care in withdrawing from the West Bank, while ensuring its security, is leading to unprecedented prosperity for Palestinian Arabs there.

James Eaves-Johnson

Coralville

The Radicalization of Fatah 

By Khaled Abu Toameh,    August 4, 2009 

Many in Washington and some European capitals are hoping that the Fatah faction,

which controls the Western-backed Palestinian Authority, is headed toward 

moderation and reforms as it holds its sixth general assembly in Bethlehem this week.

 

But on the eve of the conference, which is being held for the first time in two

decades, there are growing indications that Fatah is actually headed in the opposite

direction.

 

Perhaps one of the most disturbing signs of the growing radicalization of Fatah can

be seen in calls by top representatives for a "strategic alliance" with Iran's dictatorial

and fundamental regime.

 

In January 2006, Fatah lost the parliamentary election in the West Bank and Gaza

Strip to Hamas largely because of its leaders' involvement in financial and moral

corruption. Since then, not a single Fatah official has been held responsible for the

humiliating defeat. Nor has Fatah drawn the conclusions from its expulsion from the

Gaza Strip in the summer of 2007.

 

Hopes that the conference would pave the way for the emergence of a new and

younger leadership have faded as old guard officials of Fatah appear determined to

hold on to their positions regardless of the price.

 

Fatah is therefore unlikely to emerge stronger and younger from its sixth general

assembly. By adopting a hard-line approach toward the conflict and blocking reforms,

Fatah is sending a message both to the Palestinians and the world that it's still not

ready for any form of compromise or reforms. As such, Fatah remains part of the

problem, and not part of the solution. 

 

During the three-day conference, about 2,200 delegates would be required to vote for

new members of Fatah's two most important decision-making bodies: the Central

Committee [21 seats] and the Revolutionary Council [120 seats].

 

The Central Committee has long been dominated by old timers and former cronies of

Yasser Arafat who over the past four decades have stubbornly resisted attempts to

inject fresh blood into the committee.

 

The Revolutionary Council, on the other hand, consists of representatives of both the

old guard and the new guard. But this council has never been taken seriously and its

decisions are regarded by the Fatah leadership as nothing but mere recommendations.

 

Days before the conference was opened in Bethlehem, Fatah members were surprised

to discover that Mahmoud Abbas and his old guard colleagues had selected more

than half of the delegates who were invited to the meeting.

 

In protest, young guard representatives decided to drop their candidacy for the

prestigious Central Committee after realizing that their chances of beating the old

guard members were slim, if not impossible. This means that the committee will

continue to be controlled by former Arafat cronies, some of whom are even publicly

opposed to the Oslo Accords with Israel.

 

To further strengthen the old guard camp, Abbas sought and received permission

from Israel to allow Mohammed Ghnaim, a hard-line Fatah leader, to move from

Tunisia to the West Bank. Ghnaim is one of a handful of senior Fatah leaders who

remain strongly opposed to the Oslo Accords, insisting that the "armed struggle"

against Israel is the only way to "liberate Palestine."

 

Ghnaim is now being touted as Abbas's successor as head of Fatah and the

Palestinian Authority as to ensure the continuity of the old guard hegemony over the

affairs of the Palestinians in the West Bank.

 

Many Fatah operatives, including some of Abbas's closest allies in Ramallah, have

made it known that they would oppose any move to abandon the "armed struggle"

option during the Bethlehem assembly.

 

Their statements came in response to reports according to which the Fatah

conference is set to endorse a more moderate and pragmatic approach toward the

conflict with Israel.

 

Moreover, a majority of Fatah members appear to be vehemently opposed to the idea

of recognizing Israel as a Jewish state. A draft plan of Fatah's political platform that

was leaked to some Arab media outlets last week clearly states that Fatah will remain

strongly opposed to Israel's demand that the Palestinians recognize the state as a

homeland for the Jewish people.

 

In other signs of continued intransigence, the political platform opposes any

concessions regarding the "right of return" of Palestinians to their original homes

inside Israel. 

UJC Mourns Victims of TA Shooting

August 4, 2009

UJC/The Jewish Federations of North America mourns the fatal shooting of two young Israelis at a gay youth center in Tel Aviv this past weekend.



Those killed were Liz Trubeshi, 16, of Holon and Nir Katz, 26, of Givatayim. Fifteen others were injured.



According to news reports, a masked attacker walked into a community center for gay and lesbian youth on Nachmani Street around 11 p.m. Saturday, firing an automatic rifle indiscriminately. No one has been arrested and police are considering that the attack was either a hate crime or motivated by a personal dispute.


"We are appalled and saddened by the murders at the Tel Aviv Gay and Lesbian Association," said UJC President and CEO Howard Rieger. "Our hearts go out to the families and friends of the victims and we hope the attacker will be swiftly brought to justice."



Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has also condemned the attack as a violation of Israel's democratic values, and called for greater tolerance. Memorial ceremonies have been held in Jerusalem, Tel Aviv and Washington, DC.



May the families of the victims be comforted among the mourners of Zion and Jerusalem and may the names of the victims be forever as a blessing.
       



To unsubscribe from this list, send a blank email to:
leave-3660282-5847217U@lyris.ujcfedweb.org <mailto:leave-3660282-5847217U@lyris.ujcfedweb.org>