ADL Welcomes President's Strong Statements Of Support For Israel
New York, NY, April 22, 2010 … The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) today welcomed President Barack Obama's strong statements of support for Israel, coming after months of public disagreement and tension that had cast doubts on the terms of the special relationship.
"These are very clear statements from the president that we find reassuring," said Abraham H. Foxman, ADL National Director. "This reassurance is very significant after months of public disagreement and tension between the United States and Israel, which many analysts saw as a softening of the special relationship."
"We appreciate and welcome the president's reiteration of the fact that the U.S.-Israel relationship is in our national interest, and of the 'unshakable' commitment of the United States to the security and well-being of the State of Israel," added Robert G. Sugarman, ADL National Chair.
In a letter to the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, President Obama reaffirmed his commitment to strong U.S.-Israel relations. He wrote that "… all sides should understand that our commitment to Israel's security is unshakable and that no wedge will be driven between us."
Earlier in the week, the president had issued a strong statement on Yom Ha'Atzmaut, Israel Independence Day, in which he reaffirmed the "enduring commitment" of the United States to Israel's security.
Thursday, April 22, 2010
ADL: Obama's clear statements in support of Israel reassuring
Obama to US Jews: peace cannot be imposed
Yitzhak Benhorin http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3879473,00.html 4/22/10
WASHINGTON - While US special envoy to the Middle East George Mitchell makes his way to Israel [ Mitchell has apparently arrived in Israel today -- mf], American President Barack Obama vows he does not intend to force his own peace plan on the Middle East. In a letter to the Alan Solow, the chairman of the Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish Organizations, Obama wrote that he does plan to impose peace "from the outside".
Obama's letter came in response to concerns voiced by Jewish leaders over Washington's policies towards Israel. Recent times have seen increased behind-the-scenes activity by Jewish organizations aimed at curbing the trend.
"Since we have known each other for a long time," Obama wrote, "I am sure you can distinguish between the noise and distortion about my views that have appeared recently, and the actual approach of my administration toward the Middle East."
The American president stressed in his letter that, "for over 60 years, American presidents have believed that pursuing peace between Arabs and Israelis is in the national security interests of the United States." He added that he has made the pursuit of this peace a top priority since his first day in the White House.
He wrote, "I am deeply committed to fulfilling the important role the United States must play for peace to be realized, but I also recognize that in order for any agreement to endure, peace cannot be imposed from the outside; it must be negotiated directly by the leaders who are required to make the hard choices and compromises that take on history.
"We are determined to help them, particularly because the status quo does not serve the interests of Israel, the Palestinians, or the United States."
'Special relationship will not change'
The US president wished to stress that American-Israeli ties would not be damaged as a result of the current disagreement between his administration and the Netanyahu government. "Let me be very clear," he said, "We have a special relationship with Israel and that will not change."Our countries are bonded together by shared values, deep and interwoven connections, and mutual interests. Many of the same forces that threaten Israel also threaten the United States and our efforts to secure peace and stability in the Middle East. Our alliance with Israel serves our national security interests."
In conclusion, Obama wrote, "As we continue to strive for lasting peace agreement between Israel, the Palestinians, and Israel's neighbors, all sides should understand that our commitment to Israel's security is unshakable and that no wedge will be driven between us. We will have our difference, but when we do, we will work to resolve them as close allies."
Wednesday, April 21, 2010
Gen. Jones; The U.S. will never waiver in defense of Israel's security
Excerpts of prepared remarks of Gen. James L. Jones at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy
Wednesday, April 21, 2010
“Since taking office, President Obama has pursued a two-state solution—a secure, Jewish state of Israel living side by side in peace and security with a viable and independent Palestinian state. This is in the United States’ interest. It is in Israel’s interest. It is in the Palestinians’ interest. It is in the interest of the Arab countries, and, indeed, the world. Advancing this peace would also help prevent Iran from cynically shifting attention away from its failures to meet its obligations.”
“As President Obama declared in Cairo, “America's strong bonds with Israel are well known. This bond is unbreakable.” They are the bonds of history—two nations that earned our independence through the sacrifice of patriots. They are the bonds of two people, bound together by shared values of freedom and individual opportunity. They are the bonds of two democracies, where power resides in the people. They are the bonds of pioneers in science, technology and so many fields where we cooperate every day. They are the bonds of friendship, including the ties of so many families and friends.”
“This week marked the 62nd anniversary of Israeli independence—a nation and a people who have survived in the face of overwhelming odds. But even now, six decades since its founding, Israel continues to reside in a hostile neighborhood with adversaries who cling to the false hope that denying Israel’s legitimacy will ultimately make it disappear. But those adversaries are wrong. As the President said in Cairo, for the entire world to hear, the State of Israel “will not go away.”
“So America’s commitment to Israel will endure.. And everyone must know that there is no space—no space—between the United States and Israel when it comes to Israel’s security. Our commitment to Israel’s security is unshakable. It is as strong as ever. This President and this Administration understands very well the environment—regionally and internationally—in which Israel and the United States must operate. We understand very well that for peace and stability in the Middle East, Israel must be secure. The United States will never waiver in defense of Israeli’s security.”
“It is time for all leaders in the region—Israeli, Palestinian, and Arab—to support efforts for peace. It is time for today’s leader to demonstrate the courage and leadership of Anwar Sadat, King Hussein, and Yitzhak Rabin.”
##
Tuesday, April 20, 2010
Richman: There Could Have Been Two Independence Days
There Could Have Been Two Independence Days
Rick Richman - 04.20.2010
Today is the celebration of Israel’s Independence Day, which commemorates something as close to a miracle as we are ever likely to see — the re-creation of an ancient state in the Land in which it stood 2,000 years before, the resurrection of an ancient language to provide for common discourse, the ingathering of millions of exiles who had no other place to live, the creation of a democracy that extended citizenship not only to Jews but also to Arabs in the midst of an Arab war to destroy the state, the safeguarding of all holy places of all religions and the provision of free access to them, the creation and maintenance of a free and vibrant civil society while under continuous terrorist attack and multiple genocidal wars, and the growth of the nation from a third-world economy into one of the most technologically advanced in the world. It is no exaggeration to say, in the words of Hillel Halkin, that “for all its shortcomings and mistakes, Israel is and will always be one of the most glorious historical adventures in the history of mankind.”
But didn’t this new state cause the creation of a new group of refugees, whose own plight remains unresolved 62 years later? The short answer is “no,” but the longer answer is one that many have forgotten or in some cases may not have been permitted to know. The Jewish Press excerpts on its front page Israeli UN Ambassador Abba Eban’s November 17, 1958, speech to the General Assembly’s Special Political Committee (worth reading in its entirety), which began as follows:
The Arab refugee problem was caused by a war of aggression, launched by the Arab states against Israel in 1947 and 1948. … If there had been no war against Israel, with its consequent harvest of bloodshed, misery, panic and flight, there would be no problem of Arab refugees today.
Once you determine the responsibility for that war, you have determined the responsibility for the refugee problem. Nothing in the history of our generation is clearer or less controversial than the initiative of Arab governments for the conflict out of which the refugee tragedy emerged. …
“This will be a war of extermination,” declared the secretary-general of the Arab League speaking for the governments of six Arab states, “it will be a momentous massacre to be spoken of like the Mongolian massacre and the Crusades.”
The assault began on the last day of November 1947. From then until the expiration of the British Mandate in May 1948 the Arab states, in concert with Palestine Arab leaders, plunged the land into turmoil and chaos. On the day of Israel’s Declaration of Independence, the armed forces of Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon and Iraq, supported by contingents from Saudi Arabia and the Yemen, crossed their frontiers and marched against Israel.
The tragedy of the Palestinians is that they could have been celebrating today the 62nd anniversary of their own state as well. But 62 years ago, they rejected a two-state solution and commenced the first of multiple wars to extinguish the other one. They have rejected multiple offers of a state since then. Six decades after their first war, they are left without a state but with the refugees created by their attempt to destroy the Jewish one. It is a nakba, but it is not one that Israel caused.
Source: http://www.commentarymagazine.com/blogs/index.php/richman/281211
DoD report to Congress: By 2015, Iran may develop missiles capable of reaching the U.S.
"With sufficient foreign assistance, Iran could probably develop and test an intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) capable of reaching the United States by 2015," the report by the US Department of Defense states.
It adds that "Iran's nuclear program and its willingness to keep open the possibility to develop nuclear weapons is a central part of its deterrent strategy."
The report indicates that while Iran has a sizeable conventional military force, it would be no match for a “well trained, sophisticated military such as that of the United States or its allies" in the event of armed conflict.
Abu Toameh: Fayyad nice guy, can't deliver peace
The Palestinians: Why Salam Fayyad Cannot Deliver
Fatah, whose followers control large parts of the West Bank, views Fayyad as a major threat to its power.
Palestinian Authority Prime Minister Salam Fayyad may be a good man with good intentions, but those who think that he will be able to persuade the Palestinians to make peace with Israel are deluding themselves.
In Palestinian culture, it is more important if one graduates from an Israeli prison than from the University of Texas at Austin.
Fayyad never spent a day in an Israeli jail. Nor did he or any of his sons take an active role in the “struggle” against Israel.
The first question that people would ask Fayyad -- when and if he runs in a new election -- is, “What sacrifices did you make in the struggle against Israel?”
Palestinians will want to know if Fayyad has ever been detained or targeted in any other way by Israel. They would want to know if any of Fayyad’s sons had participated in demonstrations or attacks against Israel. This is why Palestinians who have sat in Israeli prisons for security offenses now hold senior positions in the Palestinian Authority.
Many Palestinians see Fayyad as someone who was “imposed” on them by Americans and Europeans and are willing to accept him as long as he is dealing only with the economy and infrastructure. But Fayyad, who appears to be more popular in Washington and London than in the Gaza Strip’s Jabalya refugee camp or Hebron in the West Bank, will never be able to sell a peace agreement with Israel to his people.
In the parliamentary election that took place in January 2006, Fayyad ran as an independent candidate at the head of a party called “Third Way”. His number two was the prominent Palestinian spokeswoman Hanan Ashrawi. The party got less than two percent of the votes. Like Fayyad, Ashrawi never spent a day in an Israeli prison. Nor had she or her daughters been involved in anti-Israel violence. This is the main reason “Third Way” did not appeal to the Palestinians. Because both Fayyad and Ashrawi lived and studied abroad for many years, they still have no grassroots following in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Fayyad’s “Third Way” won only two seats in the Palestinian Legislative Council, turning him and Ashrawi into lawmakers. But shortly after the election, a sharp dispute erupted between the two and Ashrawi chose to break away. Since then, “Third Way” has been a one-man party headed by Fayyad. The party has since been completely paralyzed, and some say it no longer even exists.
If Fayyad runs in a new election, both and his party and he are unlikely to get more than the two percent again that they got in the last vote. While he may have done wonderful things for the economy in the West Bank, Fayyad continues to lack popular support. Moreover, the two major parties in the Palestinian arena, Fatah and Hamas, have a common interest in preventing Fayyad from rising to power.
Fatah, whose followers control large parts of the West Bank, views Fayyad as a major threat to its power. In fact, Fatah officials have long been accusing Fayyad of working, with the help of the Americans and Israelis, to undermine Fatah’s authority in the West Bank. Fayyad has been accused, among other things, of cutting off funds to Fatah figures and institutions. On a number of occasions, disgruntled Fatah activists have distributed leaflets denouncing Fayyad as a “collaborator” with Israel.
Hamas, at the other end, considers itself to be at war with the Fayyad government. The Islamic movement has held Fayyad responsible for the massive crackdown on its members and institutions in the West Bank over the past three years. Hamas has even demanded that Fayyad be removed from his post as a pre-condition for achieving “national unity” with Fatah.