Clinton: Everyone should do more for Mideast peace

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/afp/100430/usa/us_mideast_diplomacy_1


WASHINGTON (AFP) - US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on Thursday urged Arab states to do more to back Israeli-Palestinian peace moves while warning Syria against arming Lebanon's anti-Israeli Hezbollah.

But Clinton, speaking to a pro-Israel group, said she also expected Israel to halt settlements in occupied land, meet the humanitarian needs of Gazans, and help the Palestinian Authority build institutions needed for statehood.

"We do not expect the Arab states to move forward in a vacuum," the chief US diplomat said in remarks to the American Jewish Committee.

President Barack Obama's administration is trying hard to relaunch indirect Israeli-Palestinian peace talks that were aborted last month when the right-wing Israeli government announced new settlements in east Jerusalem.

Clinton also urged the US-backed Palestinian Authority -- which controls only the West Bank and not the extremist Hamas-run Gaza Strip -- to continue its work to improve security and stop anti-Israeli militancy in the West Bank.

Although she hit familiar themes, Clinton was more explicit than in the past about what steps the Arabs should take for peace after they ignored previous pleas because of what they consider Israel's intransigence.

"They should take specific steps that show Israelis, Palestinians and their own people that peace is possible and that there will be tangible benefits if it is achieved," Clinton said in a speech to a pro-Israel group.

The chief US diplomat urged Arab states to offer more financial support to the Palestinian Authority and its two-year development plan as well as move toward ending Israel's isolation by opening or re-opening trade offices.

"The United States has done our part, becoming the PA's largest bilateral donor, and Europe also has stepped up," she said. "Arab states need to share a greater portion of these responsibilities."

Gulf Arab states like Qatar and Oman closed Israeli trade offices in 2000 when the Oslo the peace process collapsed in violence. Qatar closed the Israeli trade office when Israel launched an offensive in Gaza in December 2008.

Clinton also suggested that Arab states grant Israel the right to fly over their territories as well as allow cultural or educational exchanges between Israelis and Arabs.

The moves involving Israel, the Palestinians and Arab state amounted to a complex choreography.

"As negotiations proceed between the Israelis and Palestinians, and mutual confidence increases, Arab states should reach out to the Israeli public," she said.

They should do so by "demonstrating that Israel's isolation in the region is ending, and all sides should resume multilateral discussions on critical regional issues," she said.

Under the 1993-2000 peace process launched in Oslo, Arab and Israeli delegations had discussed regional issues like sharing water and trade.

She also addressed Israeli allegations that Syria is arming Hezbollah with long-range Scud missiles.

"Transferring weapons to these terrorists -- especially longer-range missiles -- would pose a serious threat to the security of Israel," Clinton said.

"We do not accept such provocative and destabilizing behavior -- and nor should the international community.

"President Assad is making decisions that could mean war or peace for the region. We know he's hearing from Iran, Hezbollah and Hamas," the chief US diplomat said.

"It is crucial that he also hear directly from us, so that the potential consequences of his actions are clear."

She also urged states in the region to stop supplying rockets and other weapons to Hamas.

ADL: Supreme Court Decision on Religious Monument 'Disappointing'

New York, NY, April 28, 2010 … The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) today called the Supreme Court's decision in Salazar v. Buono "a disappointing ruling that will have little impact."

The case asked – but did not answer – whether the government may transfer a small piece of land in the middle of a public park to private control merely to protect the religious monument that stands on it.  In its amicus brief, ADL urged the Court to find the cross display unconstitutional.

Robert G. Sugarman, ADL National Chair, and Abraham H. Foxman, National Director, issued the following statement:

    We are disappointed by the Court's action, but this is not a case destined to have much impact on religious freedom.   The unique facts and the splintered, technical nature of the decision provide minimal guidance on the broader issue of the display of religious symbols on public property.  This case will only add to the confusion surrounding what the First Amendment allows, requires and prohibits.

    One troubling aspect of this decision is that the plurality drew far-reaching theological conclusions when it determined that the cross has some universal meaning beyond Christianity.   This claim should be equally as offensive to Christians and non-Christians.

Haass: Don't exaggerate the centrality of the Israel-Palestinian issue

    * The Wall Street Journal     * OPINION     * APRIL 26, 2010

The Palestine Peace Distraction
Announcing a comprehensive plan now—one that is all but certain to fail—risks discrediting good ideas, breeding frustration in the Arab world, and diluting America's reputation for getting things done.

      
By RICHARD N. HAASS

President Obama recently said it was a "vital national security interest of the United States" to resolve the Middle East conflict. Last month, David Petraeus, the general who leads U.S. Central Command, testified before Congress that "enduring hostilities between Israel and some of its neighbors present distinct challenges to our ability to advance our interests." He went on to say that "Arab anger over the Palestinian question limits the strength and depth of U.S. partnerships with governments and peoples . . . and weakens the legitimacy of moderate regimes in the Arab world."

To be sure, peace between Israelis and Palestinians would be of real value. It would constitute a major foreign-policy accomplishment for the United States. It would help ensure Israel's survival as a democratic, secure, prosperous, Jewish state. It would reduce Palestinian and Arab alienation, a source of anti-Americanism and radicalism. And it would dilute the appeal of Iran and its clients.

But it is easy to exaggerate how central the Israel-Palestinian issue is and how much the U.S. pays for the current state of affairs. There are times one could be forgiven for thinking that solving the Palestinian problem would take care of every global challenge from climate change to the flu. But would it? The short answer is no. It matters, but both less and in a different way than people tend to think.

Take Iraq, the biggest American investment in the Greater Middle East over the past decade. That country's Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds are divided over the composition of the new government, how to share oil revenues, and where to draw the border between the Kurdish and Arab areas. The emergence of a Palestinian state would not affect any of these power struggles.

Soon to surpass Iraq as the largest U.S. involvement in the region is Afghanistan. Here the U.S. finds itself working against, as much as with, a weak and corrupt president who frustrates American efforts to build up a government that is both willing and able to take on the Taliban. Again, the emergence of a Palestinian state would have no effect on prospects for U.S. policy in Afghanistan or on Afghanistan itself.

What about Iran? The greatest concern is Iran's push for nuclear weapons. But what motivates this pursuit is less a desire to offset Israel's nuclear weapons than a fear of conventional military attack by the U.S. Iran's nuclear bid is also closely tied to its desire for regional primacy. Peace between Israel and the Palestinians would not weaken Iran's nuclear aspirations. It could even reinforce them. Iran and the groups it backs (notably Hamas and Hezbollah) would be sidelined by the region's embrace of a Palestinian state and acceptance of Israel, perhaps causing Tehran to look to nuclear weapons to compensate for its loss of standing and influence.

Nor is it clear what effect successful peacemaking would have on Arab governments. The Palestinian impasse did nothing to dissuade Arab governments from working with the U.S. to oust Saddam Hussein from Kuwait in the Gulf War when they determined it was in their interest to do so. Similarly, an absence of diplomatic progress would not preclude collaboration against an aggressive Iran. Just as important, a solution would not resolve questions of political stability and legitimacy within the largely authoritarian Arab world.

Alas, neither would terrorism fade if Israelis and Palestinians finally ended their conflict. Al Qaeda was initially motivated by a desire to rid the Arabian Peninsula of infidels. Its larger goal is to spread Islam in a form that closely resembles its pure, seventh-century character. Lip service is paid to Palestinian goals, but the radical terrorist agenda would not be satisfied by Palestinian statehood.

What is more, any Palestinian state would materialize only amidst compromise. There will be no return to the 1967 borders; at most, Palestinians would be compensated for territorial adjustments made necessary by large blocs of Jewish settlements and Israeli security concerns. There will be nothing more than a token right of return for Palestinians to Israel. Jerusalem will remain undivided and at most shared. Terrorists would see all this as a sell-out, and they would target not just Israel but those Palestinians and Arab states who made peace with it.

The danger of exaggerating the benefits of solving the Palestinian conflict is that doing so runs the risk of distorting American foreign policy. It accords the issue more prominence than it deserves, produces impatience, and tempts the U.S. government to adopt policies that are overly ambitious.

This is not an argument for ignoring the Palestinian issue. As is so often the case, neglect will likely prove malign. But those urging President Obama to announce a peace plan are doing him and the cause of peace no favor. Announcing a comprehensive plan now—one that is all but certain to fail—risks discrediting good ideas, breeding frustration in the Arab world, and diluting America's reputation for getting things done.

As Edgar noted in "King Lear," "Ripeness is all." And the situation in the Middle East is anything but ripe for ambitious diplomacy. What is missing are not ideas—the outlines of peace are well-known—but the will and ability to compromise.

The Palestinian leadership remains weak and divided; the Israeli government is too ideological and fractured; U.S.-Israeli relations are too strained for Israel to place much faith in American promises. The West Bank is the equivalent of a fragile state at best. What is needed are sustained efforts to strengthen Palestinian economic, military and governing capacities on the West Bank so that Israel will come to see the Palestinian Authority as a partner it can work with.

Also needed are efforts to repair U.S.-Israeli ties. The most important issue facing the two countries is Iran. It is essential the two governments develop a modicum of trust if they are to manage inevitable differences over what to do about Iran's nuclear program, a challenge that promises to be the most significant strategic threat of this decade. A protracted disagreement over the number of settlements or the contours of a final settlement is a distraction that would benefit neither the U.S. nor Israel, given an Iranian threat that is close at hand and a promise of peace that is distant.

Mr. Haass is president of the Council on Foreign Relations and the author of "War of Necessity, War of Choice: A Memoir of Two Iraq Wars" (Simon & Schuster, 2009).

Source: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704448304575196312204524930.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_sections_opinion

Rare color footage of Israel, 1947- 1967, found!

The unmarked reels which had sat for decades were about to be disposed of.  Fortunately, the family of the late Fred Monoson sought help in determining what was on the reels.  Here is a selection of the films, as aired recently on Israeli TV.  The segment has now been provided with English subtitles.  Enjoy!
 


Source:  http://blip.tv/play/hK8_gbOSAwI
More: 

hat tip: Israel Matzav

ADL: Obama's clear statements in support of Israel reassuring

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.

Obama to US Jews: peace cannot be imposed

US president in letter to head of Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish Organizations says is 'deeply committed to fulfilling role US must play for peace to be realized' but recognizes that for agreement to endure, 'peace cannot be imposed from outside'
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."

 

United States envoy George Mitchell arrived in Israel Thursday for a surprise visit. Mitchell is expected to remain in Israel until Sunday, and to meet with Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas. Thus far, no official statement has been made regarding the purpose of his visit.