The John Batchelor Show, on WABC-Radio, carries brief, excellent interviews about the situation in Israel. Available via the Internet.
Thursday, 04/01/10 - Batchelor 11pm-12am
Listen: Download as a podcast:
GUESTS: Khaled Abu Tomaeh, The Jerusalem Post; Former UN Ambassador Dore Gold;
------
Thursday, 04/01/10 - Batchelor 10pm-11pm
Listen: Download as a podcast:
GUESTS: Co-host Malcolm Hoenlein, Conference of Presidents; Benjie Krasna, Deputy Consul General of Israel in New York; Malcolm Hoenlein, Conference of Presidents; Dr. Meri Kraus, Jerusalem Institute for Israel Studies
Link: http://wabcradio.com/sectional.asp?id=33447
Friday, April 2, 2010
Monday, March 29, 2010
AJC's Harris responds to NYT Editorial on Israel
Responding to the New York Times on Israel
David Harris, Executive Dir., American Jewish Committee
March 29, 2010 Published in the Huffington Post
On March 27, the New York Times published a lead editorial entitled "Mr. Obama and Israel."
It was a bare-knuckled assault on Israel. That will bring joy to Israel's critics. But it did a disservice to the realities on the ground.
Of the editorial's twenty-six sentences, exactly one - "He [President Obama] must also press Palestinians and Arab leaders just as forcefully." - is devoted to Israel's neighbors.
That's the sum total given to other side of the peace-process equation. It reads like a throwaway line to cover that flank.
Of course, getting serious about peace, which is the editorial's nominal purpose, requires more attention to those who have rejected every serious overture - from the 1947 UN Partition Plan to the 2009 two-state proposal offered by Prime Minister Olmert.
And it necessitates a more thorough review of the past 14 months since President Obama took office - and of most of the Arab world's failure to respond to Washington's pleas for confidence-building measures.
Until early 2009, let's remember, direct Israeli-Palestinian talks were ongoing. No preconditions on settlements or anything else were set by either side. And, as suggested, Olmert offered a remarkable peace package, including a compromise on Jerusalem.
Now look where we are. The Obama Administration called for a settlement freeze as a way to restart talks. Why? That had never been the case before.
Suddenly, settlements became the centerpiece of the discussion - not as an outcome of the talks, but rather as a precondition for resuming them.
When Washington and Jerusalem finally agreed on terms, including a ten-month freeze on new building in the West Bank that Secretary Clinton called "unprecedented," the Palestinian Authority dug in its heels and insisted on a total freeze everywhere, including Jerusalem, before returning to the table.
Meanwhile, true to form, the PA mainly sat on its hands. Wait, that's not quite accurate. At just about the time of Vice President Biden's visit to the region, it was involved in naming a West Bank square for a terrorist, Dalal Mughrabi, responsible for the 1978 murder of 37 Israelis and an American.
The New York Times overlooks all of this, while focusing laser-like on eastern Jerusalem.
Yes, a big mistake was made during Biden's stop in Israel. Prime Minister Netanyahu, who was unaware of the announcement of 1,600 new housing units, apologized to the vice president. The torrent of criticism from Washington that followed was striking.
But the truth is that the democratically elected Netanyahu had never pledged to stop building in eastern Jerusalem in order to restart talks. Moreover, the units are in an area that has thousands of Jewish residents and is placed inside Israel on every peace map, not in a new Palestinian state. And since 1967, each Israeli prime minister - right, left, and center - has strengthened the Jewish presence in a city that has embodied the Jewish people's physical and metaphysical center for more than 3,000 years.
The editorial also takes a big swipe at Netanyahu's commitment to peace.
Yet last year, the prime minister voiced his support for a two-state settlement, echoing the position of his immediate predecessors.
He has removed dozens of security checkpoints in the West Bank to ease Palestinian movement, even at risk to Israelis.
He has encouraged economic growth in the West Bank, arguing that peace is not a top-down process alone, but also bottom-up. The more Palestinians benefit from an improving economy - and the recent growth rate has been impressive - the more they are likely to have a stake in a new status quo.
And security cooperation between the Israeli military and U.S.-trained Palestinian forces is improving.
In other words, positive things are happening.
That said, if the prime minister doesn't believe an immediate peace deal is possible, it's not necessarily because of his "hard-line positions," as the Times asserts, but rather because he may deem the chances of reaching an accord now as slim.
With Palestinians divided between Hamas and the PA, and with President Abbas not showing sufficient courage, most Israelis don't see an agreement anytime soon. That doesn't make them anti-peace, only realistic analysts of the situation as it is.
Moreover, recent experience, besides the spurned Olmert offer, doesn't provide much hope.
President Clinton and Prime Minister Barak presented the Palestinians with a two-state deal. The response? A new intifada that claimed the lives of one thousand Israelis.
Barak withdrew Israeli forces from southern Lebanon. The response? Hezbollah filled the vacuum and posed a new threat to Israel.
Prime Minister Sharon pulled all soldiers and settlers out of Gaza in 2005. The response? Hamas stepped in and increased its attacks on Israel.
But again, the context and countervailing facts are missing from the editorial.
Another thing.
The Times finds it "refreshing" that President Obama "has forced public debate on issues that must be debated publicly for a peace deal to happen."
Really? Why publicly?
Were the Camp David Accords of 1979, the Oslo Accords, and the Israel-Jordan talks, all of which involved immensely challenging and sticky issues, thrust into the public realm for a "refreshing" debate before agreement was reached? They were not.
And finally, the difficulty that arose during Vice President Biden's visit was not the first tough moment in American foreign policy for this administration.
So far, China has rejected new Iran sanctions, even as the U.S. has told Chinese leaders that this is our highest international priority. New reports indicate that Turkey may do the same.
France's president, speaking at the UN Security Council in September, condescendingly chided President Obama for seeking a nuclear-free world, reminding the American leader that "We live in a real world, not a virtual world ... and right in front of us two countries [North Korea and Iran] are doing the exact opposite."
Scotland, with possible acquiescence from London, released a convicted Libyan terrorist in the Lockerbie bombing that killed, among others, 190 Americans. Despite the special UK-U.S. relationship, there was no consultation with Washington. To add fuel to the fire, President Obama warned Libya to "make sure he is not welcomed back," which is precisely what happened.
Meanwhile, the U.S. restored ties with Damascus. No sooner had a senior State Department official left Syria with what he believed to be progress to report, than the Syrian president invited the Iranian president and the Hezbollah leader for a powwow - the diplomatic equivalent of giving Washington the finger.
And though it has never been reported, there are rumors that Prime Minister Putin sought to convey a message to President Obama in Moscow last year by making the American leader wait for nearly an hour while swimming laps.
The list goes on.
The point is that none of these insults to American foreign policy elicited anything approaching the sustained tongue-lashing Israel received, not to mention the rough treatment the Israeli prime minister got at the White House last week. Not even close.
And, needless to say, none was the focus of such a hard-edged editorial in America's newspaper of record.
---------------
Wednesday, March 24, 2010
Tony Blair: "A state for the Jewish people. A state for the Palestinian people"
Former British Prime Minister and envoy to the Middle East Quartet Tony Blair reaffirmed the right of Israel to defend itself, in an address to the AIPAC Conference on March 23, 2010.
“Israel will not and can not agree to a Palestinian state unless it is sure the state will be securely and properly governed,” Blair said to thunderous applause. “I wouldn’t take risks with my country’s security; I don’t ask Israel to take risks with theirs.”
What he considers "the only path to lasting peace": " A state for the Jewish people. A state for the Palestinian people."
"Once there is an agreement on the contours of a Palestinian state, that is that. The end of all claims. A settlement that is final."
"When Israelis say they doubt if they have a partner for peace, it is not only about whether Palestinian leaders want peace; but whether they can deliver peace."
"What I ask of the Palestinians is to realise one thing above all else: the two state solution begins not with a state of land but a state of mind. The mentality has to move from resistance to governance. There can be no ambiguity, no wavering, no half heart towards terrorism. It is totally and completely without justification and we will never compromise in our opposition to it or those that practice it."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Opzu6HmTJiY
“Israel will not and can not agree to a Palestinian state unless it is sure the state will be securely and properly governed,” Blair said to thunderous applause. “I wouldn’t take risks with my country’s security; I don’t ask Israel to take risks with theirs.”
What he considers "the only path to lasting peace": " A state for the Jewish people. A state for the Palestinian people."
"Once there is an agreement on the contours of a Palestinian state, that is that. The end of all claims. A settlement that is final."
"When Israelis say they doubt if they have a partner for peace, it is not only about whether Palestinian leaders want peace; but whether they can deliver peace."
"What I ask of the Palestinians is to realise one thing above all else: the two state solution begins not with a state of land but a state of mind. The mentality has to move from resistance to governance. There can be no ambiguity, no wavering, no half heart towards terrorism. It is totally and completely without justification and we will never compromise in our opposition to it or those that practice it."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Opzu6HmTJiY
Saturday, March 20, 2010
Netanyahu agrees to concessions
In bid to end crisis, Netanyahu and Clinton agree to include core issues in proximity talks with Palestinians; in addition, prime minister to approve prisoner release, Israel to ease Gaza Strip blockade Roni Sofer
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3865510,00.html 03.21.10, Ynetnews
The above understandings allayed tensions between Jerusalem and Washington ahead of the PM's upcoming trip to the US. Now, officials at the Prime Minister's Office are hoping for a meeting between Netanyahu and US President Barack Obama.
The US Administration recently pressed Israel to start discussing the question of borders as the first core issue. The argument put forth by the US was that the moment borders are agreed upon, there would be no construction freeze problem and each side would be able to build in its own territory.
Meanwhile, US Special Envoy George Mitchell will be arriving in Jerusalem Sunday and meet Netanyahu. The prime minister will inform Mitchell, and possibly the Israeli public as well, of the series of gestures he agreed to in order to facilitate the proximity talks with the Palestinians.
The gestures will apparently include much stricter supervision by the PM himself over east Jerusalem construction. According to senior government ministers, this would mean a slowdown in Jewish construction - both government-funded and private - beyond the Green Line in Jerusalem.
Over the weekend, the prime minister worked on drafting his speech at the AIPAC Conference next week. Netanyahu's aides said that the speech will be "powerful and significant" and will likely deal with Israel-US ties in an effort to allay the recent tensions as result of Israel's construction announcement in east Jerusalem during President Joe Biden's visit.
Under fire, again [ ynetnews.com] : Several Qassam rockets were fired from the Gaza Strip Saturday, prompting residents in southern Israel to take cover in secure rooms.
A Qassam rocket fired from northern Gaza Saturday evening landed in the Shaar Hanegev regional council.
The rocket landed in an open area; no injuries were reported.
Earlier, a rocket landed in an open area in the Ashkelon Beach regional council; no injuries or damages were reported in the attack.
Shortly after the strike, the Color Red alert was also activiated in the Sderot region and in the Ashkelon area. Police initially said these were false alarms, but officials later announced that a rocket did land in an open area near Sderot.
Meanwhile, a third rocket fired from Gaza Saturday landed in Palestinian territory near Kissufim.
The latest attacks continued a series of rocket launches from the Gaza Strip in recent days. On Friday, a Qassam fired from northern Gaza hit an open area near a kibbutz in the Sha'ar Hanegev regional council.
No injuries or damages were reported in that strike either.
On Thursday, a Thai worker was killed in Netiv Ha'asara, just north of the Gaza border and another 50 Thai laborers suffered from shock after a Qassam landed in a greenhouse. The foreign workers required treatment by social workers with the assistance of translators.
Friday, March 19, 2010
Yoffie affirm's Israel's right, but urges Jerusalem moratorium
Rabbi Eric Yoffie: "The Union for Reform Judaism, like most American Jewish organizations, supports a united Jerusalem under Israeli sovereignty. This means that we believe housing units constructed in Jerusalem by Israel are not settlements and they are not illegal....I see no reason why Israel should renounce her claim to all of Jerusalem as Israel’s eternal capital, or her right to build anywhere within Jerusalem’s borders. But there are many reasons why Israel should consider a temporary moratorium on all such building."
"Yoffie urges Jerusalem moratorium":
http://www.jta.org/news/article/2010/03/19/1011233/yoffie-urges-jerusalem-moratorium
http://www.jta.org/news/article/2010/03/19/1011233/yoffie-urges-jerusalem-moratorium
Jewish Telegraphic Agency
Another great idea from the Quartet
"The Quartet reiterates its call on Israel and the Palestinians to act on the basis of international law and on their previous agreements and obligations – in particular adherence to the Roadmap, irrespective of reciprocity – " http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2010/03/138583.htm
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)