America vs. The Narrative
By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN New York Times Op Ed, November 29, 2009
What should we make of Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, who apparently killed 13 innocent people at Fort Hood?
Here’s my take: Major Hasan may have been mentally unbalanced — I assume anyone who shoots up innocent people is. But the more you read about his support for Muslim suicide bombers, about how he showed up at a public-health seminar with a PowerPoint presentation titled “Why the War on Terror Is a War on Islam,” and about his contacts with Anwar al-Awlaki, a Yemeni cleric famous for using the Web to support jihadist violence against America — the more it seems that Major Hasan was just another angry jihadist spurred to action by “The Narrative.”
What is scary is that even though he was born, raised and educated in America, The Narrative still got to him.
The Narrative is the cocktail of half-truths, propaganda and outright lies about America that have taken hold in the Arab-Muslim world since 9/11. Propagated by jihadist Web sites, mosque preachers, Arab intellectuals, satellite news stations and books — and tacitly endorsed by some Arab regimes — this narrative posits that America has declared war on Islam, as part of a grand “American-Crusader-Zionist conspiracy” to keep Muslims down.
Yes, after two decades in which U.S. foreign policy has been largely dedicated to rescuing Muslims or trying to help free them from tyranny — in Bosnia, Darfur, Kuwait, Somalia, Lebanon, Kurdistan, post-earthquake Pakistan, post-tsunami Indonesia, Iraq and Afghanistan — a narrative that says America is dedicated to keeping Muslims down is thriving.
Although most of the Muslims being killed today are being killed by jihadist suicide bombers in Pakistan, Iraq, Afghanistan and Indonesia, you’d never know it from listening to their world. The dominant narrative there is that 9/11 was a kind of fraud: America’s unprovoked onslaught on Islam is the real story, and the Muslims are the real victims — of U.S. perfidy.
Have no doubt: we punched a fist into the Arab/Muslim world after 9/11, partly to send a message of deterrence, but primarily to destroy two tyrannical regimes — the Taliban and the Baathists — and to work with Afghans and Iraqis to build a different kind of politics. In the process, we did some stupid and bad things. But for every Abu Ghraib, our soldiers and diplomats perpetrated a million acts of kindness aimed at giving Arabs and Muslims a better chance to succeed with modernity and to elect their own leaders.
The Narrative was concocted by jihadists to obscure that.
It’s working. As a Jordanian-born counterterrorism expert, who asked to remain anonymous, said to me: “This narrative is now omnipresent in Arab and Muslim communities in the region and in migrant communities around the world. These communities are bombarded with this narrative in huge doses and on a daily basis. [It says] the West, and right now mostly the U.S. and Israel, is single-handedly and completely responsible for all the grievances of the Arab and the Muslim worlds. Ironically, the vast majority of the media outlets targeting these communities are Arab-government owned — mostly from the Gulf.”
This narrative suits Arab governments. It allows them to deflect onto America all of their people’s grievances over why their countries are falling behind. And it suits Al Qaeda, which doesn’t need much organization anymore — just push out The Narrative over the Web and satellite TV, let it heat up humiliated, frustrated or socially alienated Muslim males, and one or two will open fire on their own. See: Major Hasan.
“Liberal Arabs like me are as angry as a terrorist and as determined to change the status quo,” said my Jordanian friend. The only difference “is that while we choose education, knowledge and success to bring about change, a terrorist, having bought into the narrative, has a sense of powerlessness and helplessness, which are inculcated in us from childhood, that lead him to believe that there is only one way, and that is violence.”
What to do? Many Arab Muslims know that what ails their societies is more than the West, and that The Narrative is just an escape from looking honestly at themselves. But none of their leaders dare or care to open that discussion. In his Cairo speech last June, President Obama effectively built a connection with the Muslim mainstream. Maybe he could spark the debate by asking that same audience this question:
“Whenever something like Fort Hood happens you say, ‘This is not Islam.’ I believe that. But you keep telling us what Islam isn’t. You need to tell us what it is and show us how its positive interpretations are being promoted in your schools and mosques. If this is not Islam, then why is it that a million Muslims will pour into the streets to protest Danish cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad, but not one will take to the streets to protest Muslim suicide bombers who blow up other Muslims, real people, created in the image of God? You need to explain that to us — and to yourselves.”
Sunday, November 29, 2009
Saturday, November 28, 2009
Palestinian freeze demand - emblematic and a red herring
For over decades, Israeli concessions have never been "enough." The Jerusalem Post editorial, below, defines the conflict to hinge on the refusal of the Palestinian leadership to accept Israel as the nation-state of the Jewish people and thus questions if Israeli concessions, short of national suicide, will ever be "enough" for the Arabs
"It's not enough"
Editorial in the Jerusalem Post, Nov. 26, 2009
With the patience of a taxi driver at a red light about to turn green, the Palestinian leadership responded to Wednesday's announcement of an Israeli moratorium on new settlement building with: "It's not enough!"
Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu's unprecedented moratorium is both substantive and symbolic - the appropriate response to a Palestinian settlement freeze demand that is both emblematic and a red-herring.
THE DISPUTE between Palestinians and Israelis is not about settlements. It hinges on whether the Arabs are willing to recognize the legitimacy of Israel as the state of the Jewish people within any boundaries.
Some find it convenient to imagine that the clash between the Zionist and Arab causes has transitioned to a non-zero sum game. That is hardly the dominant view in Israel.
In 1920, the international community gave Britain the responsibility of establishing a national home for the Jewish people in Palestine. But a year later London turned over eastern Palestine to Emir Abdullah and Transjordan was born. The Arab response? "It's not enough."
In 1937, the Peel Commission recommended dividing Palestine into Jewish and Arab states. The Zionists consented. The Arabs... said no.
In 1947, the UN General Assembly voted to partition Palestine into Jewish and Arab states. Again, the Jews agreed. The Arab response was: "It's not enough" and they tried to throttle the newborn Jewish state. Israel survived while the Arabs took the West Bank and Gaza. Did they then form a Palestinian state? Of course not, because these territories alone were "not enough."
In 1967, the Arabs failed to push an Israel living within the 1949 Armistice Lines into the sea and the West Bank came into Israeli possession. Magnanimous in victory, Israel offered peace. The Arab response? "No peace, no recognition, no negotiations."
In 1977, Egypt's Anwar Sadat courageously embarked on the path of peace. Israel withdrew from all territory claimed by Egypt, and Menachem Begin, moreover, offered the Palestinians something they had never enjoyed - autonomy. Israeli forces would have been re-deployed as a prelude to final status negotiations. The Arab response? "It's not enough."
As a result of the 1993 Oslo Accords, the PLO leadership was invited to return from Tunis and set up a Palestinian Authority in the West Bank and Gaza. But a double-dealing Yasser Arafat never genuinely embraced this historic opportunity for reconciliation. Hamas intensified its terror campaign which claimed dozens of Israeli lives (well before the Baruch Goldstein Hebron massacre in February 1994). Ehud Barak twice - at Camp David (July 2000) and at Taba (January 2001) - offered Arafat a Palestinian state accompanied by extraordinary territorial and political concessions. The Arab response? "It's not enough."
When Israel unilaterally pulled its settlers and soldiers out of the Gaza Strip in 2005, the Arabs again said: "It's not enough."
In 2008, Ehud Olmert offered Mahmoud Abbas 93 percent of the West Bank, plus additional territory from Israel proper. Abbas did not even deign to say "It's not enough" - he just walked away.
Then in June of this year Netanyahu, following in the footsteps of his predecessors, unequivocally accepted a demilitarized Palestinian state. The Arab response? "It's not enough."
Generation after generation, decade after decade, Israeli concession after concession, the Palestinians have never missed an opportunity to say, "It's not enough."
SO now the question is what will America do? Special Envoy George Mitchell reacted with sparing approval to Netanyahu's moratorium. "It falls short of a full settlement freeze, but it is more than any Israeli government has done before…" He then diluted this faint praise by coldly reiterating: "America does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements."
A slightly more positive reaction came from Secretary of State Clinton who acknowledged that "agreed swaps" should be part of negotiations based on the 1967 lines.
To take additional risks for peace, Israelis must feel secure that the Obama administration wholly backs the 1967-plus formula. Washington needs to cajole Mahmoud Abbas back to the table to bargain in good faith, and it [the U.S. administration] should extract diplomatic gestures from its Arab allies in reciprocity for the premier's concessions.
Otherwise, the discouraging message that comes across to Israelis who want an agreement is that no matter what we do it will always "fall short" with this administration and never be "enough" for the Arabs.
"It's not enough"
Editorial in the Jerusalem Post, Nov. 26, 2009
With the patience of a taxi driver at a red light about to turn green, the Palestinian leadership responded to Wednesday's announcement of an Israeli moratorium on new settlement building with: "It's not enough!"
Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu's unprecedented moratorium is both substantive and symbolic - the appropriate response to a Palestinian settlement freeze demand that is both emblematic and a red-herring.
THE DISPUTE between Palestinians and Israelis is not about settlements. It hinges on whether the Arabs are willing to recognize the legitimacy of Israel as the state of the Jewish people within any boundaries.
Some find it convenient to imagine that the clash between the Zionist and Arab causes has transitioned to a non-zero sum game. That is hardly the dominant view in Israel.
In 1920, the international community gave Britain the responsibility of establishing a national home for the Jewish people in Palestine. But a year later London turned over eastern Palestine to Emir Abdullah and Transjordan was born. The Arab response? "It's not enough."
In 1937, the Peel Commission recommended dividing Palestine into Jewish and Arab states. The Zionists consented. The Arabs... said no.
In 1947, the UN General Assembly voted to partition Palestine into Jewish and Arab states. Again, the Jews agreed. The Arab response was: "It's not enough" and they tried to throttle the newborn Jewish state. Israel survived while the Arabs took the West Bank and Gaza. Did they then form a Palestinian state? Of course not, because these territories alone were "not enough."
In 1967, the Arabs failed to push an Israel living within the 1949 Armistice Lines into the sea and the West Bank came into Israeli possession. Magnanimous in victory, Israel offered peace. The Arab response? "No peace, no recognition, no negotiations."
In 1977, Egypt's Anwar Sadat courageously embarked on the path of peace. Israel withdrew from all territory claimed by Egypt, and Menachem Begin, moreover, offered the Palestinians something they had never enjoyed - autonomy. Israeli forces would have been re-deployed as a prelude to final status negotiations. The Arab response? "It's not enough."
As a result of the 1993 Oslo Accords, the PLO leadership was invited to return from Tunis and set up a Palestinian Authority in the West Bank and Gaza. But a double-dealing Yasser Arafat never genuinely embraced this historic opportunity for reconciliation. Hamas intensified its terror campaign which claimed dozens of Israeli lives (well before the Baruch Goldstein Hebron massacre in February 1994). Ehud Barak twice - at Camp David (July 2000) and at Taba (January 2001) - offered Arafat a Palestinian state accompanied by extraordinary territorial and political concessions. The Arab response? "It's not enough."
When Israel unilaterally pulled its settlers and soldiers out of the Gaza Strip in 2005, the Arabs again said: "It's not enough."
In 2008, Ehud Olmert offered Mahmoud Abbas 93 percent of the West Bank, plus additional territory from Israel proper. Abbas did not even deign to say "It's not enough" - he just walked away.
Then in June of this year Netanyahu, following in the footsteps of his predecessors, unequivocally accepted a demilitarized Palestinian state. The Arab response? "It's not enough."
Generation after generation, decade after decade, Israeli concession after concession, the Palestinians have never missed an opportunity to say, "It's not enough."
SO now the question is what will America do? Special Envoy George Mitchell reacted with sparing approval to Netanyahu's moratorium. "It falls short of a full settlement freeze, but it is more than any Israeli government has done before…" He then diluted this faint praise by coldly reiterating: "America does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements."
A slightly more positive reaction came from Secretary of State Clinton who acknowledged that "agreed swaps" should be part of negotiations based on the 1967 lines.
To take additional risks for peace, Israelis must feel secure that the Obama administration wholly backs the 1967-plus formula. Washington needs to cajole Mahmoud Abbas back to the table to bargain in good faith, and it [the U.S. administration] should extract diplomatic gestures from its Arab allies in reciprocity for the premier's concessions.
Otherwise, the discouraging message that comes across to Israelis who want an agreement is that no matter what we do it will always "fall short" with this administration and never be "enough" for the Arabs.
Friday, November 27, 2009
Islamic Imperialism: The Ongoing Tragedy of the Middle East - Thomas O. Hecht
The Current Radical Islamist Challenge : Today, it is politically correct to say that Islam is a religion of peace, and that the vast majority of Muslims want to live in peace. This may be true, but in light of worldwide Muslim terrorist acts in Bali, New York, the northern Chinese provinces, Mumbai, and Madrid, the reference to the religion of peace becomes questionable. Using such terms obfuscates the issue by causing a false optimism while diminishing the specter of the fanatics who rampage the globe in the name of Islam. The peaceful majority in Muslim lands is cowed into a non-existent force.
BESA Center Perspectives Papers No. 97, November 25, 2009
Dr. Thomas O. Hecht is the founder of the Begin-Sadat (BESA) Center for Strategic Studies and Chairman of its International Advisory Board.
The Current Radical Islamist Challenge : Today, it is politically correct to say that Islam is a religion of peace, and that the vast majority of Muslims want to live in peace. This may be true, but in light of worldwide Muslim terrorist acts in Bali, New York, the northern Chinese provinces, Mumbai, and Madrid, the reference to the religion of peace becomes questionable. Using such terms obfuscates the issue by causing a false optimism while diminishing the specter of the fanatics who rampage the globe in the name of Islam. The peaceful majority in Muslim lands is cowed into a non-existent force.
BESA Center Perspectives Papers No. 97, November 25, 2009
Dr. Thomas O. Hecht is the founder of the Begin-Sadat (BESA) Center for Strategic Studies and Chairman of its International Advisory Board.
UN's IAEA votes: Iran must freeze project immediately
IAEA passes resolution rebuking Iran over cover-up [Nov. 28, 2009 ynetnews.com]
For first time since 2006, UN nuclear watchdog's governing body votes to censure Islamic republic for developing uranium enrichment site in secret, demands it freeze project immediately
Reuters
The resolution, passed by a 25-3 margin with six absentions, was the first by the 35-nation governing board in almost four years. With rare Russian and Chinese backing, it sent a message of international exasperation with Iran's nuclear secrecy and defiance.
But it was unclear whether the measure, sponsored by six world powers, would translate into crucial Russian-Chinese support for painful sanctions that Western leaders may push for if Iran does not begin to dispel fears about its nuclear ambitions soon.
Most developing nations on the International Atomic Energy Agency board, who are in a bloc that includes Iran, opposed the move, saying it would be provocative and counterproductive. Iran warned it would undermine its relations with the IAEA.
But supporters were provoked by the September revelation of a second enrichment site Iran had been building for at least two years, a subterfuge they said fanned suspicions of more secret sites that could be dedicated to making atom bombs.
An Iranian official said that the resolution jeopardizes talks between Tehran and six world powers on its atomic program and harms its cooperation with the agency.
The draft resolution urged Iran to immediately halt construction of the Fordow enrichment plant, located in a mountain bunker, and to clarify its original purpose and confirm it has no more hidden atomic facilities or clandestine plans for any. Iran denies it wants to build nuclear weapons, saying its atomic energy program is purely for peaceful purposes.
Thursday, November 26, 2009
IAEA: "We have effectively reached a dead end, unless Iran engages fully with us."
BBC November 26, 2009
Investigations into Iran's nuclear programme will reach a "dead end" unless Tehran starts to co-operate, the UN nuclear chief has warned.
Mohamed El Baradei told governors of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) that there had been no movement on issues that needed to be clarified.
He said he was "disappointed" with Iran's rejection of a deal that would see its uranium processed overseas.
He spoke ahead of an IAEA vote on a resolution critical of Iran.
In September Iran was revealed to have a second uranium enrichment facility, deepening Western fears about the nature of its nuclear ambitions.
Iran says its nuclear programme is for peaceful energy purposes, but the US and other nations say its is seeking nuclear weapons.
'Outstanding issues'
Addressing IAEA governors in Vienna, Mr El Baradei said his inspectors had made no progress on areas which needed to be clarified in order to verify the peaceful nature of Iran's nuclear programme.
"It is now well over a year since the agency was last able to engage Iran in discussions about these outstanding issues," he said.
"We have effectively reached a dead end, unless Iran engages fully with us."
Tehran's late declaration of a second nuclear fuel enrichment facility had, he said, reduced "confidence in the absence of other nuclear facilities under construction in Iran which have not been declared".
And he called Iran's failure to agree to a US-backed plan under which its low-enriched uranium would be shipped overseas for processing into fuel disappointing.
The plan is seen as a way for Iran to get the fuel it needs, while giving guarantees to the West that it will not be used for nuclear weapons.
The BBC's John Leyne says that after years of taking a conciliatory tone, Mr El Baradei appears to have lost patience with the Iranians.
The IAEA chief, who steps down next month, spoke ahead of the vote on a resolution calling on Iran to halt construction of the recently-declared enrichment plant.
According to Reuters news agency, it also calls on Iran to comply with Security Council resolutions demanding a halt to uranium enrichment activity and allow IAEA inspectors access to its facilities.
If approved, it would be the first IAEA action against Iran in almost four years. The vote is expected either later in the day or on Friday.
BBC November 26, 2009
Investigations into Iran's nuclear programme will reach a "dead end" unless Tehran starts to co-operate, the UN nuclear chief has warned.
Mohamed El Baradei told governors of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) that there had been no movement on issues that needed to be clarified.
He said he was "disappointed" with Iran's rejection of a deal that would see its uranium processed overseas.
He spoke ahead of an IAEA vote on a resolution critical of Iran.
In September Iran was revealed to have a second uranium enrichment facility, deepening Western fears about the nature of its nuclear ambitions.
Iran says its nuclear programme is for peaceful energy purposes, but the US and other nations say its is seeking nuclear weapons.
'Outstanding issues'
Addressing IAEA governors in Vienna, Mr El Baradei said his inspectors had made no progress on areas which needed to be clarified in order to verify the peaceful nature of Iran's nuclear programme.
"It is now well over a year since the agency was last able to engage Iran in discussions about these outstanding issues," he said.
"We have effectively reached a dead end, unless Iran engages fully with us."
Tehran's late declaration of a second nuclear fuel enrichment facility had, he said, reduced "confidence in the absence of other nuclear facilities under construction in Iran which have not been declared".
And he called Iran's failure to agree to a US-backed plan under which its low-enriched uranium would be shipped overseas for processing into fuel disappointing.
The plan is seen as a way for Iran to get the fuel it needs, while giving guarantees to the West that it will not be used for nuclear weapons.
The BBC's John Leyne says that after years of taking a conciliatory tone, Mr El Baradei appears to have lost patience with the Iranians.
The IAEA chief, who steps down next month, spoke ahead of the vote on a resolution calling on Iran to halt construction of the recently-declared enrichment plant.
According to Reuters news agency, it also calls on Iran to comply with Security Council resolutions demanding a halt to uranium enrichment activity and allow IAEA inspectors access to its facilities.
If approved, it would be the first IAEA action against Iran in almost four years. The vote is expected either later in the day or on Friday.
Wednesday, November 25, 2009
Israel's Cabinet approves 10-month West Bank settlement freeze
Latest Update: 11.25.09, Ynetnews.com excerpt
Prior to the vote Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu said a settlement construction freeze "allows us to present the world with a simple truth: the Israeli government wants to enter negotiations with the Palestinians, is taking practical steps in order to do so, and is very serious in its intentions of promoting peace."
Industry, Trade and Labor Minister Binyamin Ben-Eliezer (Labor) said after the vote, "It’s an important and historic decision, one of the most important decisions this government has made. The decision would leave the Palestinians with only one choice – join the political negotiations. They have no reason to stall anymore."
Netanyahu earlier floated the idea of suspending construction in existing settlements. Wednesday's offer was the first time he has given a firm timeline for how long he is willing to stop the building.
Netanyahu stressed that the settlement freeze would not be implemented in east Jerusalem. "We do not put any restrictions on building in our sovereign capital," the prime minister said.
Latest Update: 11.25.09, Ynetnews.com excerpt
Prior to the vote Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu said a settlement construction freeze "allows us to present the world with a simple truth: the Israeli government wants to enter negotiations with the Palestinians, is taking practical steps in order to do so, and is very serious in its intentions of promoting peace."
Industry, Trade and Labor Minister Binyamin Ben-Eliezer (Labor) said after the vote, "It’s an important and historic decision, one of the most important decisions this government has made. The decision would leave the Palestinians with only one choice – join the political negotiations. They have no reason to stall anymore."
Netanyahu earlier floated the idea of suspending construction in existing settlements. Wednesday's offer was the first time he has given a firm timeline for how long he is willing to stop the building.
Netanyahu stressed that the settlement freeze would not be implemented in east Jerusalem. "We do not put any restrictions on building in our sovereign capital," the prime minister said.
Tuesday, November 24, 2009
FBI: hate crimes based on religion target Jews 2/3 of the time
The FBI released its hate crimes statistics for 2008. Complete FBI stats are here.
Incidents based on religion increased 9% in 2008
There were 1,606 hate crime offenses motivated by religious bias in 2008. A breakdown of these offenses shows:
* 65.7 percent were anti-Jewish.
* 13.2 percent were anti-other religion.
* 7.7 percent were anti-Islamic.
* 4.7 percent were anti-Catholic.
* 4.2 percent were anti-multiple religions, group.
* 3.7 percent were anti-Protestant.
* 0.9 percent were anti-Atheism/Agnosticism/etc. (Based on Table 1.)
Incidents based on religion increased 9% in 2008
There were 1,606 hate crime offenses motivated by religious bias in 2008. A breakdown of these offenses shows:
* 65.7 percent were anti-Jewish.
* 13.2 percent were anti-other religion.
* 7.7 percent were anti-Islamic.
* 4.7 percent were anti-Catholic.
* 4.2 percent were anti-multiple religions, group.
* 3.7 percent were anti-Protestant.
* 0.9 percent were anti-Atheism/Agnosticism/etc. (Based on Table 1.)
Monday, November 23, 2009
The (deepening) problem with Palestinian textbooks
Making Israel Disappear - Vincent Carroll (Denver Post)
* "In the world inhabited by Palestinian children there is no Israel," says Itamar Marcus, director of Palestinian Media Watch (palwatch.org) in Jerusalem.
* The anti-Israeli content of Palestinian textbooks has been a longstanding concern for anyone who yearns for a permanent political settlement, but surely those books have improved since Yasser Arafat's death in 2004. Not really, says Marcus. If anything, he says, they devote more space than ever to depicting conflict with Israel as a solemn religious duty aimed at liberating a Muslim land.
* Remember, we're talking about textbooks chosen by the Palestinian government led by the allegedly moderate Mahmoud Abbas, not the overtly jihadist Hamas. The PA media are full of similar Islamist references that offer no room for compromise, and that honor terrorists and suicide bombers as national heroes.
* No less ominous is what Marcus describes as the PA's "infrastructure of hate," the relentless depiction of Jews as evil - as conspirators spreading AIDS, for example, or undermining the foundations of the Al-Aqsa mosque.
* Naturally, Jews poisoned Yasser Arafat, too - or at least that is what children are told. In a TV tribute to Arafat earlier this month, one youngster unconsciously presented the essence of this paranoid vision: "He died from poisoning by the Jews. Well, I don't know what he died from, but I know it was by the Jews."
As covered in the Daily Alert Nov. 23, 2009
* "In the world inhabited by Palestinian children there is no Israel," says Itamar Marcus, director of Palestinian Media Watch (palwatch.org) in Jerusalem.
* The anti-Israeli content of Palestinian textbooks has been a longstanding concern for anyone who yearns for a permanent political settlement, but surely those books have improved since Yasser Arafat's death in 2004. Not really, says Marcus. If anything, he says, they devote more space than ever to depicting conflict with Israel as a solemn religious duty aimed at liberating a Muslim land.
* Remember, we're talking about textbooks chosen by the Palestinian government led by the allegedly moderate Mahmoud Abbas, not the overtly jihadist Hamas. The PA media are full of similar Islamist references that offer no room for compromise, and that honor terrorists and suicide bombers as national heroes.
* No less ominous is what Marcus describes as the PA's "infrastructure of hate," the relentless depiction of Jews as evil - as conspirators spreading AIDS, for example, or undermining the foundations of the Al-Aqsa mosque.
* Naturally, Jews poisoned Yasser Arafat, too - or at least that is what children are told. In a TV tribute to Arafat earlier this month, one youngster unconsciously presented the essence of this paranoid vision: "He died from poisoning by the Jews. Well, I don't know what he died from, but I know it was by the Jews."
As covered in the Daily Alert Nov. 23, 2009
White House Appoints Envoy on Antisemitism
Published November 23, 2009. Forward.com
The former head of the Jewish Council for Public Affairs was appointed the U.S. State Department’s special envoy to monitor and combat anti-Semitism.
Hannah Rosenthal led the JCPA for five years and most recently was the vice president of community relations at the not-for-profit WPS Health Insurance Company.
The post has been vacant since Gregg Rickman left at the end of the Bush administration.
The State Department in a Nov. 20 statement noted ” a growing trend of anti-Semitic hate crimes and discrimination around the world.”
“As Special Envoy, Hannah will lead our efforts to focus our diplomatic energies on challenging these deplorable acts,” the statement said. “As special envoy, she also will work with governments and civil society organizations across the globe to promote tolerance.”
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
A reformer of Islam, Dr. Tawfik Hamid advises: "Don't let your country surrender to terrorism."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O2wvqDfitLY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O2wvqDfitLY
Livni: Gilo is part of Jerusalem municipality
Livni to French FM: Gilo Israeli consensus
France condemns construction in Jerusalem neighborhood; Opposition Chairwoman Tzipi Livni tells France's Kouchner there's no debate in Israel over status of Gilo, 'this understanding is important for talks about permanent borders'
Attila Somfalvi
Published: 11.18.09, 13:09 / Israel News
France is joining the US's position on construction in the Jerusalem neighborhood of Gilo. French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner on Wednesday condemned Israel's decision to authorize the construction of 900 housing units in the neighborhood and urged Israel to hold "face to face" talks with the Palestinians.
Opposition Chairwoman Tzipi Livni met with Kouchner in Jerusalem on Wednesday and told him that "there is Israeli consensus on the neighborhood of Gilo. Beyond dealing with the immediate issue, this understanding is important for all discussions about permanent borders."
Livni: Step up sanctions on Iran now.
On the Iranian issue Livni said a deadline for talks should be set: "It's time for harsh sanctions against Iran. Dialogue should also be within a timeframe."
France condemns construction in Jerusalem neighborhood; Opposition Chairwoman Tzipi Livni tells France's Kouchner there's no debate in Israel over status of Gilo, 'this understanding is important for talks about permanent borders'
Attila Somfalvi
Published: 11.18.09, 13:09 / Israel News
France is joining the US's position on construction in the Jerusalem neighborhood of Gilo. French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner on Wednesday condemned Israel's decision to authorize the construction of 900 housing units in the neighborhood and urged Israel to hold "face to face" talks with the Palestinians.
Opposition Chairwoman Tzipi Livni met with Kouchner in Jerusalem on Wednesday and told him that "there is Israeli consensus on the neighborhood of Gilo. Beyond dealing with the immediate issue, this understanding is important for all discussions about permanent borders."
Livni: Step up sanctions on Iran now.
On the Iranian issue Livni said a deadline for talks should be set: "It's time for harsh sanctions against Iran. Dialogue should also be within a timeframe."
Isral tourism hits all-time high
ISRAEL TOURISM HITS ALL-TIME HIGH IN OCTOBER 2009
| New York - November 18, 2009: Tourism to Israel hit an all-time high of 333,000 travelers in the month of October, a 9% increase from the same period last year, which was the previous record-high for travel to Israel. Also, Israel saw a 20% increase in cruise travel with 23,500 tourists arriving on cruise ships, and a 6% increase in the number of tourists who visited Israel and stayed for a minimum of one night compared with October 2008. "We are thrilled to see such a large increase in travelers to Israel in October 2009 during this important tourist time," says Arie Sommer, Commissioner of Tourism, North and South America. "And we are encouraged by signs that the trend will continue throughout the December holiday season, bringing us a robust end to 2009." A total of 1,068,121 travelers passed through Ben Gurion International Airport in Tel Aviv this October, a 1.5% increase compared to the same period last year. For more information about travel to Israel, visit www.goisrael.com. |
Tuesday, November 17, 2009
Inspectors Fear Iran Is Hiding Nuclear Plants
By DAVID E. SANGER and WILLIAM J. BROAD
Published: November 16, 2009 NY Times {excerpt}
WASHINGTON — International inspectors who gained access to Iran’s newly revealed underground nuclear enrichment plant voiced strong suspicions in a report on Monday that the country was concealing other atomic facilities.
In unusually tough language, the International Atomic Energy Agency appeared highly skeptical that Iran would have built the enrichment plant without also constructing a variety of other facilities that would give it an alternative way to produce nuclear fuel if its main centers were bombed.
By DAVID E. SANGER and WILLIAM J. BROAD
Published: November 16, 2009 NY Times {excerpt}
WASHINGTON — International inspectors who gained access to Iran’s newly revealed underground nuclear enrichment plant voiced strong suspicions in a report on Monday that the country was concealing other atomic facilities.
In unusually tough language, the International Atomic Energy Agency appeared highly skeptical that Iran would have built the enrichment plant without also constructing a variety of other facilities that would give it an alternative way to produce nuclear fuel if its main centers were bombed.
Monday, November 16, 2009
Washington Post editorial throws light on the impossible standard regarding asymmetric warfare applied to Israel and Israel alone.
The U.N.'s Goldstone commission missed a chance to promote accountability on 21st-century battlefields.
Sunday, November 15, 2009 Washington Post Editorial
IN ORDER to eliminate the Taliban leader Baitullah Mehsud, the United States launched at least 15 missile strikes in Pakistan this year and killed, besides Mr. Mehsud, somewhere between 200 and 300 people, according to a study by the New America Foundation. At least a quarter of those who died were civilians.
Was that toll "disproportionate" to the threat posed by a single terrorist and therefore a war crime? How about the recent NATO bombing of hijacked fuel tankers in northern Afghanistan, in which a mix of 80 to 120 Taliban militants and civilians died? Justified strike, accident or war crime?
This is the sort of fraught question that the United Nations and its Human Rights Council, in theory, ought to be focused on. Asymmetrical wars, in which terrorists and insurgents deliberately mix among civilians, are the story of the 21st century so far -- and there are no clear norms for managing the moral dilemmas they pose. Can a drone's targeter knowingly expose civilians to injury if a terrorist leader is in range? How should a civilized army respond when its soldiers are mortared, or its own civilians exposed to rocket fire, from a position inside a schoolyard?
A commission appointed by the Human Rights Council to investigate Israel's war with Hamas in Gaza last winter could have set an example of serious treatment of such issues. Headed by the respected South African jurist Richard Goldstone, the panel altered the one-sided mandate it received, so as to examine abuses by both Israel and Hamas during the three-week conflict.
But Israel refused to cooperate -- and the Goldstone commission proceeded to make a mockery of impartiality with its judgment of facts. It concluded, on scant evidence, that "disproportionate destruction and violence against civilians were part of a deliberate policy" by Israel. At the same time it pronounced itself unable to confirm that Hamas hid its fighters among civilians, used human shields, fired mortars and rockets from outside schools, stored weapons in mosques, and used a hospital for its headquarters, despite abundant available evidence.
By pretending it did not know whether Hamas employed such tactics and by claiming that Israel's actions were driven by a motivation to kill civilians on purpose, rather than to defeat Hamas, the panel dodged the hard issues it should have tackled. It did not seriously attempt to balance civilian deaths against the threats Israel was targeting or to understand the real motivations for the destruction in areas from which rockets were launched at Israeli cities.
As it happens, Israel is ahead of most other nations in managing these issues. In Gaza its forces used thousands of e-mails, phone calls and even non-lethal explosives to warn civilians away from airstrike targets. Its army's criminal division is investigating 45 complaints of abuses.
A broader, government-sanctioned independent investigation is called for: a number of specific allegations in the Goldstone report, one-sided though they are, deserve a full answer. Not just Israel but the United States and many other nations ought to face more pressure to justify the means they use to fight insurgents and terrorists. Sadly, the only thing proved by the Goldstone commission is that the United Nations is incapable of performing that service.
---
hat tip: Meryl Yourish yourish.com
The U.N.'s Goldstone commission missed a chance to promote accountability on 21st-century battlefields.
Sunday, November 15, 2009 Washington Post Editorial
IN ORDER to eliminate the Taliban leader Baitullah Mehsud, the United States launched at least 15 missile strikes in Pakistan this year and killed, besides Mr. Mehsud, somewhere between 200 and 300 people, according to a study by the New America Foundation. At least a quarter of those who died were civilians.
Was that toll "disproportionate" to the threat posed by a single terrorist and therefore a war crime? How about the recent NATO bombing of hijacked fuel tankers in northern Afghanistan, in which a mix of 80 to 120 Taliban militants and civilians died? Justified strike, accident or war crime?
This is the sort of fraught question that the United Nations and its Human Rights Council, in theory, ought to be focused on. Asymmetrical wars, in which terrorists and insurgents deliberately mix among civilians, are the story of the 21st century so far -- and there are no clear norms for managing the moral dilemmas they pose. Can a drone's targeter knowingly expose civilians to injury if a terrorist leader is in range? How should a civilized army respond when its soldiers are mortared, or its own civilians exposed to rocket fire, from a position inside a schoolyard?
A commission appointed by the Human Rights Council to investigate Israel's war with Hamas in Gaza last winter could have set an example of serious treatment of such issues. Headed by the respected South African jurist Richard Goldstone, the panel altered the one-sided mandate it received, so as to examine abuses by both Israel and Hamas during the three-week conflict.
But Israel refused to cooperate -- and the Goldstone commission proceeded to make a mockery of impartiality with its judgment of facts. It concluded, on scant evidence, that "disproportionate destruction and violence against civilians were part of a deliberate policy" by Israel. At the same time it pronounced itself unable to confirm that Hamas hid its fighters among civilians, used human shields, fired mortars and rockets from outside schools, stored weapons in mosques, and used a hospital for its headquarters, despite abundant available evidence.
By pretending it did not know whether Hamas employed such tactics and by claiming that Israel's actions were driven by a motivation to kill civilians on purpose, rather than to defeat Hamas, the panel dodged the hard issues it should have tackled. It did not seriously attempt to balance civilian deaths against the threats Israel was targeting or to understand the real motivations for the destruction in areas from which rockets were launched at Israeli cities.
As it happens, Israel is ahead of most other nations in managing these issues. In Gaza its forces used thousands of e-mails, phone calls and even non-lethal explosives to warn civilians away from airstrike targets. Its army's criminal division is investigating 45 complaints of abuses.
A broader, government-sanctioned independent investigation is called for: a number of specific allegations in the Goldstone report, one-sided though they are, deserve a full answer. Not just Israel but the United States and many other nations ought to face more pressure to justify the means they use to fight insurgents and terrorists. Sadly, the only thing proved by the Goldstone commission is that the United Nations is incapable of performing that service.
---
hat tip: Meryl Yourish yourish.com
Sunday, November 15, 2009
Rabbi Eric Yoffie this week on The Whole Megillah
Rabbi Eric Yoffie, the President of the Union for Reform Judaism (URJ), will be the guest during the first hour of Rabbi Kaufman's - The Whole Megillah, Thursday, Nov. 19. The interview with Rabbi Yoffie will take place live from 2-3 pm Central on www.macsworldlive.com. You may find the recordings and podcasts of this show and previous shows through Rabbi David Kaufman's blog www.rabbikaufman.blogspot.com. Please join us! If you have any questions please ask them through the chat room.
Rabbi Kaufman's - The Whole Megillah is an internet radio show, reaching a diverse audience around the world, which is dedicated to issues related to Israel, the Middle East, American Foreign Policy, Judaism and Religion in general. It airs every Thursday from 2-4 pm on www.macsworldlive.com, home of the Des Moines Local Live network.
Link to Rabbi Eric Yoffie's bio.
Rabbi Kaufman's - The Whole Megillah is an internet radio show, reaching a diverse audience around the world, which is dedicated to issues related to Israel, the Middle East, American Foreign Policy, Judaism and Religion in general. It airs every Thursday from 2-4 pm on www.macsworldlive.com, home of the Des Moines Local Live network.
Link to Rabbi Eric Yoffie's bio.
Friday, November 13, 2009
Palestinians refusing to negotiate for a Palestinian state
Robert Satloff, the executive director of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, says what he calls a truly amazing situation now exists in the Middle East.
Satloff says for a generation Palestinians have asked America to convince Israel to negotiate the terms of a Palestinian state. Now Palestinians are refusing to come back to such talks.
"When America and Israel want to try to bring the Palestinians to the negotiating table at least to talk about statehood and Palestinians, perhaps for very good reasons of their own, are balking, this is history turned upside down," said Robert Satloff.
Satloff says for a generation Palestinians have asked America to convince Israel to negotiate the terms of a Palestinian state. Now Palestinians are refusing to come back to such talks.
"When America and Israel want to try to bring the Palestinians to the negotiating table at least to talk about statehood and Palestinians, perhaps for very good reasons of their own, are balking, this is history turned upside down," said Robert Satloff.
(Voice of America report, Novermber 11, 2009)
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
Ehud Barak: PM and myself leave no stone unturned in peace efforts
| Published: | 11.10.09 |
Defense Minister Ehud Barak said at the end of his meetings in Washington before flying back to Israel, "Prime Minister Netanyahu and my visit was very important. We are leaving no stone unturned in the effort to reignite negotiations."
Barak added, "During my meeting at the Pentagon and our meeting at the White House, we again were met by President Obama in an environment attentive to Israel's defense needs." (Yitzhak Benhorin, Washington)
Monday, November 9, 2009
Israeli PM Netanyahu’s Speech at the Jewish Federations of North America General Assembly Excerpt
My goal is not negotiations for negotiations sake. My goal is to reach a peace treaty, and soon.
But to get a peace agreement, we must start negotiating. Let’s stop talking about negotiations. Let’s start moving.
This past June at Bar-Ilan University, I put forward a vision of peace that has united the vast majority of Israelis.
In this vision of two states for two peoples, a demilitarized Palestinian state would recognize the Jewish state.
Now, what do I mean by a Jewish state? It is a state in which all individuals and all minorities have equal individual rights. Yet our national symbols, language and culture spring from the heritage of the Jewish people. And most important, any Jew from anywhere in the world has a right to immigrate to Israel and become a citizen.
Wednesday, November 4, 2009
Terrorist weapons ship intercepted
Iran's History of Weapons Smuggling
04 November 09 by Hillel Fendel
(Israelnationalnews.com) The interception of the terrorist weapons ship near Cyprus - believed to be an Iranian shipment to Hizbullah – is just another one in a long series of similar attempted deliveries over the past several years.
In December 2001, the Karine-A ship was loaded in Iran with weapons and ammunition destined for Gaza. The ship took off for Egypt, where it planned to unload its cargo into fishing boats that would chug over to the Gaza coast. Israel intercepted the shipment on January 3, 2002, finding 83 specially-coated cases for sea-smuggling purposes, configurable to float at various distances below the ocean surface.
Included in the shipment were 107mm and 122mm Katyusha rockets (capable of reaching major Israeli cities), 120mm mortars, Sager and LAW anti-tank missiles, explosives, anti-tank mines, scuba gear, AK-47 assault rifles and other weapons. The vessel was manned by 13 PLO personnel and at least one person identified with the Lebanese Hizbullah terrorist organization.
Arutz-7's Kobi Finkler also reports on the following:
* In December 2003, Iran’s Revolutionary Guard operated an airlift of weapons to Hizbullah via Syria, under cover of humanitarian aid to the earthquake-ravaged Iranian city of Bam.
* In May 2007, Turkey discovered another Iranian airlift of mortar shells, light weapons, ammunition and rocket launchers, headed for Hizbullah.
* In January of this year, an Iranian shipment of arms was intercepted in Cyprus, including anti-tank shells, artillery shells, mortar shells, and more.
* Last month (October 2009), the Indian Hansa ship, flying a German flag, departed from Iran to Egypt. Suspicious German authorities ordered the ship not to dock in Egypt, but rather in Malta, where they found bullets and industrial equipment for the manufacture of weapons that had apparently been bound for Syria.
www.IsraelNationalNews.com
Tuesday, November 3, 2009
US House condemns UN Goldstone Report
House of Representatives passes H.R. 867 on November 3, 2009.
The vote: 344 to 36, with 20 voting 'Present' and 30 not voting
Bill calls on the President and the Secretary of State to oppose unequivocally any endorsement or further consideration of the “Report of the United Nations Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict” in forums like the U.N.
Click here for the final text of House Resolution 867
Click here for the Roll Call on House Resolution 867
Resource: UN Watch
House of Representatives passes H.R. 867 on November 3, 2009.
The vote: 344 to 36, with 20 voting 'Present' and 30 not voting
Bill calls on the President and the Secretary of State to oppose unequivocally any endorsement or further consideration of the “Report of the United Nations Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict” in forums like the U.N.
Click here for the final text of House Resolution 867
Click here for the Roll Call on House Resolution 867
Resource: UN Watch
Sunday, November 1, 2009
Dominant Palestinian view remains *the* obstacle to peace
No peace soon because "the dominant Palestinian view is still the
desire to win a total victory and wipe Israel off the map. The back-up
stance is that any peace agreement must not block the continued pursuit
of that goal. And the back-up position to that is to reject strong
security guarantees, recognition of ...Israel as a Jewish state, an
unmilitarized Palestinian state, settlement of Palestinian refugees in
Palestine, territorial compromise or exchanges, and indeed any
concession whatsoever." -- Barry Rubin
And Now the Truth Becomes Clear: Hilary Clinton Announces that the Palestinians are the Obstacles to Peace
By Barry Rubin Monday, November 2, 2009 rubinreports.blogspot.com
Yesterday I discussed the significance of Secretary of State Hilary Clinton’s praise for Israel’s policy during her trip to Jerusalem, saying Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had offered unprecedented concessions to get peace talks started again.
We don’t know what the plan is though there are hints that Israel agreed to stop all construction on the West Bank once the 3,000 apartment units now being constructed were completed and that this would have no effect on construction in east Jerusalem. This is indeed a major concession on Netanyahu’s part and once again puts the lie to the claim that he is inflexible or hard line (though no doubt we will still daily see this in media coverage).
This visit, however, is also seemingly a major turning point in both U.S. policy and public perceptions of the problem regarding the peace process.
At the center of this stands the Number One Paradox of the issue, in some ways of all Middle Eastern politics: Why is it that although the Palestinians complain that they are suffering from a horrible occupation and not having a state of their own they are not in any hurry to make a peace agreement, end the “occupation,” and get a state.
The main answer is that the dominant Palestinian view is still the desire to win a total victory and wipe Israel off the map. The back-up stance is that any peace agreement must not block the continued pursuit of that goal. And the back-up position to that is to reject strong security guarantees, recognition of Israel as a Jewish state, an unmilitarized Palestinian state, settlement of Palestinian refugees in Palestine, territorial compromise or exchanges, and indeed any concession whatsoever.
There are two implications of this:
--The Palestinians are at fault for the failure to achieve peace.
--There isn’t going to be any Israel-Palestinian peace in the near- or even medium-term future.
If you understand the preceding 176 words then you understand the issue comprehensively.
The president of the United States has said that he wants talks resumed immediately and believes it possible to make a breakthrough. The Palestinian leadership is thwarting him on both points. In other words, they are responsible for the failure of a major U.S. policy.
Following Clinton’s visit, Palestinian Authority (PA) leaders have restated their refusal even to talk with Israel. They also claim that Netanyahu is refusing to discuss some issues in the talks, though the Israeli prime minister has simply not made such statements. In fact, as the Washington Post reported, November 1:
“The Palestinian position, if anything, appears to have hardened in recent days, leaving Israel to portray itself as the more willing partner.”
Well, Israel is the more willing partner, isn’t it? That’s the point that breaks the apparent paradox of suffering Palestinians yearning for peace but being thwarted by Israeli intransigence.
One point in the Post article, however, is just flat wrong:
“Israel promised to halt settlements under previous international agreements, and Palestinian officials say they want those promises fulfilled.”
In fact, at the time it signed the original peace process agreement—often called the Oslo accord—in 1993, that’s 16 years ago—Israel put forward its interpretation of the agreement. It said that there would be no new Jewish settlements and no geographical expansion of existing settlements. But Israel made it clear that it would continue to build apartments on existing settlements. That position was not challenged by the Palestinians at the time and it has never held up talks before now.
Indeed, another Washington Post article of November 1, this one by Howard Schneider, pointed out—though only indirectly—why things got even worse:
“However, Obama's election raised expectations among Palestinians and throughout the Arab states that the peace process would yield quicker results from an administration willing to openly criticize Israel and, it seemed, elevate Palestinian interests.”
More than that, it was the Obama Administration which called for a total freeze, distances itself from Israel, and took other steps leading the PA and Arab states to believe that by being intransigent they could get Washington to deliver Israel on their own terms. In other words, while everyone is being too polite to say so, the Obama Administration was responsible for the situation deteriorating.
Now both Egypt and Jordan have come out in support of the PA position, also setting themselves on a collision course with Washington, that there should be no talks at all until all construction on settlements stops without exception, including anything now being completed and all building in east Jerusalem. There is no chance Israel is going to agree to that; there is no chance the Obama Administration will demand it.
And so we have come to the point where it is becoming clear even to those who have been ruled by wishful thinking that there is not going to be any peace and that the Palestinian-Arab side is responsible for this situation.
It is quite probable--and this is extremely important to understand--that there is nothing the Obama Administration can say or do in order to make them change their mind. After all, this is the ideal position from the standpoint of the PA, Egypt, Jordan, and others. Refuse to support talks, reap benefits by showing their militancy, and be able to blame it on Israel.
After all his efforts and alleged popularity, Obama has absolutely zero credit and no leverage in the Arabic-speaking world.
How is this going to affect Obama Administration policy and thinking?
Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. His latest books are The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan).
desire to win a total victory and wipe Israel off the map. The back-up
stance is that any peace agreement must not block the continued pursuit
of that goal. And the back-up position to that is to reject strong
security guarantees, recognition of ...Israel as a Jewish state, an
unmilitarized Palestinian state, settlement of Palestinian refugees in
Palestine, territorial compromise or exchanges, and indeed any
concession whatsoever." -- Barry Rubin
And Now the Truth Becomes Clear: Hilary Clinton Announces that the Palestinians are the Obstacles to Peace
By Barry Rubin Monday, November 2, 2009 rubinreports.blogspot.com
Yesterday I discussed the significance of Secretary of State Hilary Clinton’s praise for Israel’s policy during her trip to Jerusalem, saying Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had offered unprecedented concessions to get peace talks started again.
We don’t know what the plan is though there are hints that Israel agreed to stop all construction on the West Bank once the 3,000 apartment units now being constructed were completed and that this would have no effect on construction in east Jerusalem. This is indeed a major concession on Netanyahu’s part and once again puts the lie to the claim that he is inflexible or hard line (though no doubt we will still daily see this in media coverage).
This visit, however, is also seemingly a major turning point in both U.S. policy and public perceptions of the problem regarding the peace process.
At the center of this stands the Number One Paradox of the issue, in some ways of all Middle Eastern politics: Why is it that although the Palestinians complain that they are suffering from a horrible occupation and not having a state of their own they are not in any hurry to make a peace agreement, end the “occupation,” and get a state.
The main answer is that the dominant Palestinian view is still the desire to win a total victory and wipe Israel off the map. The back-up stance is that any peace agreement must not block the continued pursuit of that goal. And the back-up position to that is to reject strong security guarantees, recognition of Israel as a Jewish state, an unmilitarized Palestinian state, settlement of Palestinian refugees in Palestine, territorial compromise or exchanges, and indeed any concession whatsoever.
There are two implications of this:
--The Palestinians are at fault for the failure to achieve peace.
--There isn’t going to be any Israel-Palestinian peace in the near- or even medium-term future.
If you understand the preceding 176 words then you understand the issue comprehensively.
The president of the United States has said that he wants talks resumed immediately and believes it possible to make a breakthrough. The Palestinian leadership is thwarting him on both points. In other words, they are responsible for the failure of a major U.S. policy.
Following Clinton’s visit, Palestinian Authority (PA) leaders have restated their refusal even to talk with Israel. They also claim that Netanyahu is refusing to discuss some issues in the talks, though the Israeli prime minister has simply not made such statements. In fact, as the Washington Post reported, November 1:
“The Palestinian position, if anything, appears to have hardened in recent days, leaving Israel to portray itself as the more willing partner.”
Well, Israel is the more willing partner, isn’t it? That’s the point that breaks the apparent paradox of suffering Palestinians yearning for peace but being thwarted by Israeli intransigence.
One point in the Post article, however, is just flat wrong:
“Israel promised to halt settlements under previous international agreements, and Palestinian officials say they want those promises fulfilled.”
In fact, at the time it signed the original peace process agreement—often called the Oslo accord—in 1993, that’s 16 years ago—Israel put forward its interpretation of the agreement. It said that there would be no new Jewish settlements and no geographical expansion of existing settlements. But Israel made it clear that it would continue to build apartments on existing settlements. That position was not challenged by the Palestinians at the time and it has never held up talks before now.
Indeed, another Washington Post article of November 1, this one by Howard Schneider, pointed out—though only indirectly—why things got even worse:
“However, Obama's election raised expectations among Palestinians and throughout the Arab states that the peace process would yield quicker results from an administration willing to openly criticize Israel and, it seemed, elevate Palestinian interests.”
More than that, it was the Obama Administration which called for a total freeze, distances itself from Israel, and took other steps leading the PA and Arab states to believe that by being intransigent they could get Washington to deliver Israel on their own terms. In other words, while everyone is being too polite to say so, the Obama Administration was responsible for the situation deteriorating.
Now both Egypt and Jordan have come out in support of the PA position, also setting themselves on a collision course with Washington, that there should be no talks at all until all construction on settlements stops without exception, including anything now being completed and all building in east Jerusalem. There is no chance Israel is going to agree to that; there is no chance the Obama Administration will demand it.
And so we have come to the point where it is becoming clear even to those who have been ruled by wishful thinking that there is not going to be any peace and that the Palestinian-Arab side is responsible for this situation.
It is quite probable--and this is extremely important to understand--that there is nothing the Obama Administration can say or do in order to make them change their mind. After all, this is the ideal position from the standpoint of the PA, Egypt, Jordan, and others. Refuse to support talks, reap benefits by showing their militancy, and be able to blame it on Israel.
After all his efforts and alleged popularity, Obama has absolutely zero credit and no leverage in the Arabic-speaking world.
How is this going to affect Obama Administration policy and thinking?
Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. His latest books are The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan).
Clinton: Mideast Talks Should Resume Without Preconditions
By VOA News 01 November 2009 excerpt
[U.S. Secretary of State Clinton]she called on Israelis and the Palestinians to resume peace negotiations immediately and without preconditions.
The secretary of state said Israel has offered "unprecedented" limits on Jewish settlement expansion in response to Palestinian concerns about resuming peace talks. And both Clinton and Mr. Netanyahu said that Palestinians had never in the past demanded a settlement freeze as a condition for talks.
A spokesman for Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, Nabil Abu Rudeineh, responded to Clinton's comments late on Saturday and said there will be no change in the Palestinian position.
By VOA News 01 November 2009 excerpt
[U.S. Secretary of State Clinton]she called on Israelis and the Palestinians to resume peace negotiations immediately and without preconditions.
The secretary of state said Israel has offered "unprecedented" limits on Jewish settlement expansion in response to Palestinian concerns about resuming peace talks. And both Clinton and Mr. Netanyahu said that Palestinians had never in the past demanded a settlement freeze as a condition for talks.
A spokesman for Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, Nabil Abu Rudeineh, responded to Clinton's comments late on Saturday and said there will be no change in the Palestinian position.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)