"If only Israel did this or that ...."

What's the "If Only Israel" - syndrome?
Posted by David Harris, Executive Dir., American Jewish Committee


It's the misguided notion, peddled in the name of Israel's best interests by some in the diplomatic, academic, and media worlds, that if only Israel did this or that, peace with its neighbors would be at hand. But since it doesn't, then Israel constitutes the principal, perhaps only, real obstacle to a new day in the Middle East.

Striking, isn't it?

Poor Israel. If only it had the visual acuity of these "enlightened" souls, then all would be hunky-dory. After all, according to them, Israel holds all the cards, yet refuses to play them.

The thinking goes: Why can't those shortsighted Israelis figure out what needs to be done - it's so obvious to us, isn't it? - so the conflict can be brought to a screeching halt?

Thus, if only Israel froze settlements. If only Israel removed checkpoints. If only Israel recognized the Hamas government in Gaza. If only Israel stopped assuming the worst about Iran's "pragmatic" leadership, which just wants a nuclear weapon for defensive purposes. If only Israel got beyond its Holocaust trauma. If only Israel ______ well, you can fill in the blank.

The point is that, for sufferers of IOI, it essentially all comes down to Israel.

And the IOI syndrome has only been strengthened by the advent of the new Israeli government, of course.

After all, media outlets from the Associated Press to CBS News to Der Spiegel have already branded Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu as "hardline" from the get-go. Their word choice simply reinforces the notion that the conflict is all about alleged Israeli intransigence.

At moments like this, it's important to underscore a few basic points too often lost in the din.

First, the Netanyahu government follows on the heels of three successive Israeli governments that sought to achieve peace based on a two-state settlement with the Palestinians - and failed. Each of those governments went far in attempting to strike a deal, but ultimately to no avail.

Prime Minister Ehud Barak, joined by President Bill Clinton, tried mightily to reach an agreement with PLO Chairman Yasser Arafat. The answer was a thunderous rejection, accompanied by the launching of a new wave of terror attacks on Israel.

And, not to be forgotten, a unilateral Israeli withdrawal from southern Lebanon also took place during the Barak era. It was met by the entrenchment of Hizbullah, committed to Israel's destruction, in the emptied space. No good deed goes unpunished!

Prime Minister Ariel Sharon defied his own Likud Party - indeed, he left it to create a new political bloc - and faced down thousands of settlers and their supporters to leave Gaza entirely. It was the first chance ever for Gaza's Arab residents to govern themselves.

Had Gazans seized the opportunity in a responsible manner, they could have created unstoppable momentum for a second phase of withdrawal from the West Bank. Instead, Gaza quickly turned itself into a terrorist redoubt, realizing Israelis' worst fears.

Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, joined by Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni and urged on by Washington, pressed hard for a deal with the Palestinians on the West Bank. According to Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat, the most recent Israeli offer "talked about Jerusalem and almost 100 percent of the West Bank." Not only was the offer not accepted, but there was not even a counteroffer from the Palestinian side.

Prime Minister Netanyahu inherits a situation in which (a) Hamas holds the reins of power in Gaza and a growing arsenal; (b) Hizbullah is continuing to gain strength in Lebanon; (c) the Palestinian Authority failed to take Olmert's outstretched hand and make a deal; (d) indirect talks between Israel and Syria, brokered by Turkey, did not produce an accord on Olmert's watch; and (e) Iran continues its march toward nuclear weapons capability, while trumpeting its support for Syria, Hamas, and Hizbullah.

So before Prime Minister Netanyahu gets further lectures on what needs to be done from New York Times or Financial Times editorial writers or columnists, or from American Jewish groups who profess to love Israel more than Israel loves itself, or from some European leaders eager for a deal at practically any cost, perhaps we should take some stock of what’s transpired - and why.

There have been three successive and bold Israeli efforts to create a breakthrough - and three successive failures.

The vast majority of Israelis are desperately hungry for peace and understand the considerable price the country will have to pay in territory and displaced population. Poll after poll proves their readiness, but only if they are assured that lasting peace will be the outcome.

Israelis don't have to be pushed, prodded, nudged, cajoled, or pressured to seek a comprehensive peace beyond its current treaties with Egypt and Jordan.

They have lived with the absence of peace for 61 years, and know better than anyone else the jarring physical and psychological toll it has inflicted on the nation.

Rather, they have to be convinced that the tangible rewards justify the immense risks for a small state in a tough area. Those rewards begin with its neighbors' acceptance of Israel's rightful place in the region as a Jewish state with secure and recognized borders.

And that, far more than settlements, checkpoints, or any of the other items on the IOI bill of particulars, gets to the essence of the conflict.

The Gaza disengagement demonstrated that settlements and checkpoints can be removed when the time comes.

But unless and until Israel's neighbors recognize its inherent legitimacy, and stop viewing it as a temporary interloper that can be defeated militarily or swamped by Palestinian "refugees," then whatever the IOI crowd insists upon will be a secondary issue in the real world.

Unless and until this recognition is reflected in Palestinian and other Arab textbooks, where children have been taught for generations that Israelis are modern-day Crusaders to be driven out, then what hope is there for the future?

Unless and until the Palestinian Authority succeeds in building a serious governing structure, including an enhanced capacity and political will to combat Palestinian terrorism, then Israel will have no choice but to operate in the West Bank to prevent attacks against its civilians.

And unless and until the forces seeking Israel’s annihilation - from Iran's current regime to Hamas to Hizbullah - are marginalized or replaced by those committed to coexistence, then there will always be a long shadow cast over the road to peace. Some would argue that this view gives the spoilers too much power over the process. I believe it simply acknowledges the inescapable and ominous reality that Israel faces.

As Prime Minister Netanyahu makes his first visit to Washington since his election earlier this year, and as the IOI chorus once again raises the decibel level, let's hope that cooler heads prevail.

Israel doesn't need sanctimonious lectures on peace. It needs genuine partners for peace. Without them, peace remains elusive. With them, peace becomes inevitable.

President proclaims Jewish American Heritage Month

THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
For Immediate Release May 12, 2009
JEWISH AMERICAN HERITAGE MONTH, 2009
- - - - - - -
BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
A PROCLAMATION

The Jewish American tradition exemplifies the strength of the American immigrant tradition. Since Jews arrived in New Amsterdam in 1654, Jewish Americans have maintained a unique identity just as they have enmeshed themselves in the fabric of the United States. This month we celebrate this inspiring and unifying narrative.
Jewish Americans across the United States practice the faith and celebrate the culture of their ancestors. Across the Nation every day, individuals emulate their forebears by seeking to perform mitzvot, the hundreds of commandments set forth in the Torah. The term "mitzvah" has come to mean "good deed," and many Jews have adopted these practices to serve their communities. Other mitzvot include observing holidays, such as Passover, which marks the exodus from Egypt; and Yom Kippur, a time to contemplate and seek forgiveness for the sins of the past year; and Shabbat, the weekly day of rest.

The focus on preserving traditions is a notable characteristic of Jewish culture. Many Jewish religious and cultural practices have developed and adapted over the millennia, yet the fundamental exhortation to ensure that long-cherished ways of life are passed on to future generations remains as strong as ever before. Many Jewish Americans carry on this belief as they instill these traditions in their children.

Seeking to preserve their culture and start anew, Jewish immigrants have departed familiar lands to pursue their own American dreams for more than 300 years. During some periods, Jews sought refuge in the United States from the horrors and tragedies of persecution, pogroms, and the Holocaust. During other times, they came to seek better lives and greater economic opportunities for themselves and their children.
Jewish Americans have immeasurably enriched our Nation. Unyielding in the face of hardship and tenacious in following their dreams, Jewish Americans have surmounted the challenges that every immigrant group faces, and have made unparalleled contributions. Many have broken new ground in the arts and sciences. Jewish American leaders have been essential to all branches and levels of government. Still more Jewish Americans have made selfless sacrifices in our Armed Forces. The United States would not be the country we know without the achievements of Jewish Americans.

Among the greatest contributions of the Jewish American community, however, is the example they have set for all Americans. They have demonstrated that Americans can choose to maintain cultural traditions while honoring the principles and beliefs that bind them together as Americans. Jewish American history demonstrates how America's diversity enriches and strengthens us all.

NOW, THEREFORE, I, BARACK OBAMA, President of the United States of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and the laws of the United States, do hereby proclaim May 2009 as Jewish American Heritage Month. I call upon all Americans to commemorate the proud heritage of Jewish Americans with appropriate ceremonies and activities.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this twelfth day of May, in the year of our Lord two thousand nine, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and thirty-third.

BARACK OBAMA

Why the Obama administration has it backwards on Iran

DON'T BLAME ISRAEL

By ALAN M. DERSHOWITZ


May 9, 2009 --

"The task of forming an international coalition to thwart Iran's nuclear program will be made easier if progress is made in peace negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians, White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel has said, according to sources in Washington. Israeli TV stations had reported Monday night that Emanuel had actually linked the two matters, saying that the efforts to stop Iran hinged on peace talks with the Palestinians." - Jerusalem Post, May 4

Rahm Emanuel is a good man and a good friend of Israel, but in a highly publicized recent statement he linked American efforts to stop Iran from developing nuclear weapons to Israeli efforts toward establishing a Palestinian state. This is dangerous.

I have long favored the two-state solution, as do most Israelis and American supporters of Israel. I have also long opposed civilian settlements deep into the West Bank. I hope that Israel does make efforts, as it has in the past, to establish a Palestinian state as part of an overall peace between the Jewish state and its Arab and Muslim neighbors.

Israel in 2000-2001 offered the Palestinians a state in the entire Gaza Strip and more than 95% of the West Bank, with its capital in Jerusalem and a $35 billion compensation package for the refugees. Yassir Arafat rejected the offer and instead began the second intifada in which nearly 5,000 people were killed. I hope that Israel once again offers the Palestinians a contiguous, economically-viable, politically independent state, in exchange for a real peace, with security, without terrorism and without any claim to "return" 4 million alleged refugees as a way of destroying Israel by demography rather than violence.

But the threat from a nuclear Iran is existential and immediate for Israel. It also poses dangers to the entire region, as well as to the US - not only from the possibility that a nation directed by suicidal leaders would order a nuclear attack on Israel or its allies, but from the likelihood that nuclear material could end up in the hands of Hezbollah, Hamas or even Al Qaeda. Recall what Hashemi Rifsanjani said to an American journalist:

[Rifsanjani] "boast[ed] that an Iranian [nuclear] attack would kill as many as five million Jews. Rafsanjani estimated that even if Israel retaliated by dropping its own nuclear bombs, Iran would probably lose only fifteen million people, which he said would be a small 'sacrifice' from among the billion Muslims in the world."

Israel has the right, indeed the obligation, to take this threat seriously and to consider it as a first priority. It will be far easier for Israel to make peace with the Palestinians if it did not have to worry about the threat of a nuclear attack or a dirty bomb. It will also be easier for Israel to end its occupation of the West Bank if Iran were not arming and inciting Hamas, Hezbollah and other enemies of Israel to terrorize Israel with rockets and suicide bombers.

In this respect, Emanuel has it exactly backwards: if there is any linkage, it goes the other way - defanging Iran will promote the end of the occupation and the two-state solution. Threatening not to help Israel in relation to Iran unless it moves toward a two-state solution first is likely to backfire.

After all, Israel is a democracy and in the end the people decide. A recent poll published in Haaretz concluded that 66% of Israelis favored a preemptive military strike against Iran's nuclear facilities, with 75% of those saying they would still favor such a strike even if the US were opposed.

Israel's new government will accept a two-state solution if they are persuaded that it will really be a solution - that it will assure peace and an end to terrorist and nuclear threats to Israeli citizens. I have known Prime Minister Netanyhu for 35 years and I recently had occasion to spend some time with Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman. I am convinced that despite their occasional tough talk, both want to see an end to this conflict.

Israelis have been scarred by what happened in Gaza. Israel ended the occupation, removed all of the settlers, and left behind millions of dollars worth of agricultural and other facilities designed to make the Gaza into an economically-viable democracy. Land for peace is what they sought. Instead they got land for rocket attacks against their children, their women and their elderly. No one wants to see a repeat of this trade-off.

Emanuel's statements were viewed with alarm in Israel because most Israelis, though they want to like President Obama, are nervous about his policies toward Israel. They are prepared to accept pressure regarding the settlements, but they worry that the Obama Administration may be ready to compromise, or at least threaten to compromise, Israel's security, if its newly elected government does not submit to pressure on the settlements.

Making peace with the Palestinians will be extremely complicated. It will take time. It may or may not succeed in the end, depending on whether the Palestinians will continue to want their own state less than they want to see the end of the Jewish state. Israel should not be held hostage to the Iranian nuclear threat by the difficulty of making peace with the Palestinians. Israel may be rebuffed again, especially if Palestinian radicals believe that such a rebuff will soften American action against Iran. In the meantime, Iran will continue in its efforts to develop nuclear weapons.

That cannot be allowed to happen, regardless of progress on the ground toward peace with the Palestinians. These two issues must be delinked if either is to succeed. There are other ways of encouraging Israel to make peace with the Palestinians. Nuclear blackmail is not one of them.

Alan M. Dershowitz is the author of "The Case Against Israel's Enemies" (Wiley).

Islamic Radicals Blame Jews for Swine Flu
(Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center)

For Hamas, Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood, Iran, and Arab cartoonists, the spread of swine flu and the panic it caused was an opportunity to associate the disease with Jews and Zionists in order to incite hatred against the Jewish people and the State of Israel.
On May 6, the Hamas organ Felesteen charged "that Zionists began spreading the disease."
Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood published an anti-Semitic video on April 30 titled "Swine Flu or Jew Flu," in an attempt to associate swine flu with the Jews.

Benny Morris: Secular Palestine, the myth

"The phrase ... "a secular, democratic Palestine" ...serves merely as camouflage for the goal of a Muslim Arab-dominated polity to replace Israel." -- Benny Morris

The myth of a secular Palestine

Benny Morris, National Post Tuesday, May 12, 2009

The Palestinian national movement started life with a vision and goal of a Palestinian Muslim Arab-majority state in all of Palestine -- a one-state "solution" -- and continues to espouse and aim to establish such a state down to the present day. Moreover, and as a corollary, al-Husseini, the Palestinian national leader during the 1930s and 1940s; the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), which led the national movement from the 1960s to Yasser Arafat's death in November, 2004; and Hamas today --all sought and seek to vastly reduce the number of Jewish inhabitants in the country, in other words, to ethnically cleanse Palestine. Al-Husseini and the PLO explicitly declared the aim of limiting Palestinian citizenship to those Jews who had lived in Palestine permanently before 1917 (or, in another version, to limit it to those 50,000-odd Jews and their descendants). This goal was spelled out clearly in the Palestinian National Charter and in other documents. Hamas has been publicly more reserved on this issue, but its intentions are clear.

The Palestinian vision was never -- as described by various Palestinian spokesmen in the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s to Western journalists -- of a "secular, democratic Palestine" (though it certainly sounded more palatable than, say, the "destruction of Israel," which was the goal it was meant to paper over or camouflage). Indeed, "a secular democratic Palestine" had never been the goal of Fatah or the so-called moderate groups that dominated the PLO between the 1960s and the 2006 elections that brought Hamas to power.

Middle East historian Rashid Khalidi has written that "in 1969 [the PLO] amended [its previous goal and henceforward advocated] the establishment of a secular democratic state in Palestine for Muslims, Christians and Jews, replacing Israel." And Palestinian-American journalist Ali Abunimah has written, in his recent book, One Country: "The PLO did ultimately adopt [in the late 1960s or 1970s] the goal of a secular, democratic state in all Palestine as its official stance."

This is hogwash. The Palestine National Council (PNC) never amended the Palestine National Charter to the effect that the goal of the PLO was "a secular democratic state in Palestine." The words and notion never figured in the charter or in any PNC or PLO Central Committee or Fatah Executive Committee resolutions, at any time. It is a spin invented for gullible Westerners and was never part of Palestinian main-stream ideology. The Palestinian leadership has never, at any time, endorsed a "secular, democratic Palestine."

The PNC did amend the charter, in 1968 (not 1969). But the thrust of the emendation was to limit non-Arab citizenship in a future Arab-liberated Palestine to "Jews who had normally resided in Palestine until the beginning of the Zionist invasion" -- that is, 1917. True, the amended charter also guaranteed, in the future State of Palestine, "freedom of worship and of visit" to holy sites to all, "without discrimination of race, colour, language or religion." And, no doubt, this was music to liberal West-ern ears. But it had no connection to the reality or history of contemporary Muslim Arab societies. What Muslim Arab society in the modern age has treated Christians, Jews, pagans, Buddhists and Hindus with tolerance and as equals? Why should anyone believe that Palestinian Muslim Arabs would behave any differently?

Western liberals like, or pretend, to view Palestinian Arabs, indeed all Arabs, as Scandinavians, and refuse to recognize that peoples, for good historical, cultural and social reasons, are different and behave differently in similar or identical sets of circumstances.

So where did the slogan of "a secular, democratic Palestine" originate? That goal was first explicitly proposed in 1969 by the small Marxist splinter group the Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine (DFLP). According to Khalidi, "It was [then] discreetly but effectively backed by the leaders of the mainstream, dominant Fatah movement ... The democratic secular state model eventually became the official position of the PLO." As I have said, this is pure invention. The PNC, PLO and Fatah turned down the DFLP proposal, and it was never adopted or enunciated by any important Palestinian leader or body -- though the Western media during the 1970s were forever attributing it to the Palestinians. As a result, however, the myth has taken hold that this was the PLO's official goal through the late 1960s, 1970s and 1980s.

And today, again, and for the same reasons -- the phrase retains its good, multicultural, liberal ring -- "a secular, democratic Palestine" is bandied about by Palestinian one-state supporters. And a few one-statists, indeed, may sincerely believe in and desire such a denouement. But given the realities of Palestinian politics and behaviour, the phrase objectively serves merely as camouflage for the goal of a Muslim Arab-dominated polity to replace Israel. And, as in the past, the goal of "a secular democratic Palestine" is not the platform or policy of any major Palestinian political institution or party.

Indeed, the idea of a "secular democratic Palestine" is as much a nonstarter today as it was three decades ago. It is a nonstarter primarily because the Palestinian Arabs, like the world's other Muslim Arab communities, are deeply religious and have no respect for democratic values and no tradition of democratic governance.

And matters have only gotten worse since the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s. For anyone who has missed the significance of Hamas's electoral victory in 2006 and the violent takeover of the Gaza Strip in 2007, a mere glance at the West Bank and Gaza today (and, indeed, at Israel's Arab minority villages and towns) reveals a landscape dominated by rapidly multiplying mosque minarets, the air filled with the calls to prayer of the muezzins and alleyways filled with hijab-ed women. Only fools and children were persuaded in 2006-07 that Hamas beat Fatah merely because they had an uncorrupt image or dispensed aid to the poor. The main reasons for the Hamas victory were religious and political: the growing religiosity of the Palestinian mass-es and their "recognition" that Hamas embodies the "truth" and, with Allah's help, will lead them to final victory over the infidels, much as Hamas achieved, through armed struggle, the withdrawal of the infidels from the Gaza Strip in 2005.

-Excerpted from One State, Two States by Benny Morris. Published by Yale University Press. © 2009 by Benny Morris. Reprinted by permission of Yale University Press.

Americans: diplomatic efforts can't stop Iranian nuclear quest

A recent Rasmussen poll indicates that Most Americans think that

Iran is developing nuclear weapons,

that it cannot be stopped by diplomatic efforts,

that this situation is so dangerous
that Israel is justified in attacking the Iranian regime’s installations, and

if that were to happen,
the United States should either help Israel or do nothing to punish or oppose it.
----------
From:
American Public Opinion, Iran, and Iraq: The People, Yes! By Barry Rubin. Monday, May 11, 2009

US 'deadline' for concluding talks with Iran?

Negotiating Negotiations
Shmuel Rosner - 05.10.2009

I don’t know whether this report is accurate but I doubt it is. It reads that “The United States has set October as its target for completing the first round of talks with Iran on its nuclear program, according to confidential reports sent to Jerusalem” — but is based on “classified notice reporting on a meeting between a senior European official and the special U.S. envoy on Iran, Dennis Ross.” That’s second or third hand reporting. Contradicting it, just a week ago, an American official spoke on the record with reporters:

White House National Security Council spokesman Mike Hammer told foreign journalists Wednesday that “it’s not appropriate at this time to be trying to establish timetables, but rather seeing how the engagement can move forward.”

Contrary to what critics on the left tend to argue, Israel isn’t the only one thinking that a deadline is necessary. Nicholas Burns, former Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs, and today a Harvard Professor, had more Iran-related negotiating hours in recent years than anyone, and he seems to think that prolonging the talks will not produce for better results:

“We’ve got to negotiate from a position of strength. We can’t go hat in hand to these negotiations and think by just talking we are going to make progress,” Burns said. Any negotiations with Tehran must have a strict timetable and include a previous agreement with both Russia and China for harsh sanctions if the talks fail, Burns said. And they should be backed up by the possibility of military action, he added.

Assuming that the U.S.-Iran dialogue will start in earnest only after Iran’s June election, October seems like a sensible date to Israel:

“It is important that the dialogue with Iran be limited, and if after three months it will become clear that the Iranians stalling and are not shelving their nuclear program, the international community will be required to take practical measures against them,” Lieberman said in a meeting with Italy’s Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi on Tuesday.

Whether or not there’s some truth to the fresher report from Jerusalem, “deadline” talk will be at the center of Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu’s talk with President Obama next week. According to many reports, Obama realizes that the Iranians might be playing for time, and the Senate report, confirming Israel’s claims that “Iran could have enough material for a nuclear bomb in six months,” gives Netanyahu some additional ammunition for this meeting. The danger one might detect in the different, sometimes conflicting reports on “deadline yes or no” — is that time can’t only lapse in negotiations with Iran — it can also pass in negotiation over the right deadline for negotiation.