Netanyahu faces double intifada from Palestinians and settlers

Haaretz.com
By Aluf Benn


Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is busy day and night, preparing Israel for a fateful confrontation with Iran. But his real problem may occur elsewhere. The territories are heating up, with the Palestinians escalating their protests against the settlements and the separation fence. The settlers, meanwhile, can smell Netanyahu's weakness and are undermining the authority of the state.

Two events in recent days indicate the threat of an outburst: the protest in Bil'in, which Palestinian Prime Minister Salam Fayyad participated in, where some of the 1,000 demonstrators tore apart a short portion of the fence; and the invasion of dozens of right-wing activists into the ancient synagogue of Na'aran, saying "we will return to Jericho and Nablus." In both incidents, the violence was limited and no one was injured. But the struggle over the West Bank has transitioned to a new stage.

Fayyad, the former darling of official Israel, is proving to be Netanyahu's most problematic rival. The one-time economist and technocrat has gradually become a politician - enjoying exposure, kissing children, stepping up to the head of the "White Intifada," as dubbed by researchers Shaul Mishal and Doron Matza in their article in Haaretz this week. On Monday, the Palestinian government adopted a plan of action for "non-violent opposition" to the settlements and the fence.

Fayyad's White Intifada is different from its predecessors. It has a clear political goal: Declaring a Palestinian state within the 1967 borders by the summer of 2011. By then, Fayyad will have completed the building of national institutions and will work on gaining international recognition through a diplomatic pincer movement on Netanyahu. He is receiving enthusiastic approval from the U.S. administration as a successful manager. Some 2,600 Palestinian policemen have already graduated from the training course run by U.S. General Keith Dayton in Jordan and are back in the territories, expecting to serve an independent state, not as subordinate agents of an Israeli occupation. The foreign ministers of France and Spain, in a joint article published yesterday in Le Monde, called to expedite the establishment of a Palestinian state and complete its recognition by October 2011. The protests against the fence and the settlements, as seen through the lens of the international media, have a strong impact and present Israel with a dilemma. Its initial response was "to strike at the enemy in his home base": a wave of arrests of those who organized protests at Bil'in and Na'alin, and IDF raids in Ramallah to arrest members of the International Solidarity Movement. Israeli security officials explained to their foreign counterparts how these parties "present Israel with an existential threat." But these actions failed. The Palestinians were not deterred and continued to demonstrate, knowing Israel would not dare harm Fayyad and his people. Netanyahu's next step will be a major public relations campaign against "incitement in the Palestinian Authority." But Fayyad is prepared for this: He holds a report from the U.S. administration giving him high marks on ridding Palestinian school books of anti-Israeli propaganda. The prime minister's position is also worsening vis-a-vis the settlers, as the temporary settlement freeze approaches its planned end in September. Will he go back to building at full speed, as promised, and risk creating a rift with U.S. President Barack Obama? Or will he continue with the freeze and risk a settler intifada? Washington is concerned Israel could lose its control over the extremists in the settlements, and of a possible internal rift in the Israel Defense Forces, whose religious soldiers and officers may refuse to obey orders to evacuate or raze settlements. Governments of the "world" are losing their limited patience with Netanyahu and his government, as the criticism in Europe for the "murder" of senior Hamas figure Mahmoud al-Mabhouh - even from the likes of a friend of Israel like Nicolas Sarkozy - has shown. The diplomatic process remains stuck, and the "economic peace" is exhausted. The Red Cross reported last week that the lives of Palestinians have not improved, and that "it is nearly impossible to have a normal life in the West Bank." Netanyahu is in dire straits. His box of tricks is running out. The Palestinians and settlers are exploiting his weakness. The world does not believe him and questions his control on the ground. Unless he surprises everyone with a daring initiative that will restore control to his agenda, the prime minister will be facing a double intifada from Fayyad and the settler hilltop youth.

PROMOTION: Mamilla Hotel

Related articles :

You might like:

• A Palestinian arrest so ridiculous even the Israeli judges smiled
• I envy the people who hate Israel
• Jordan: Israel's addition of 'heritage' West Bank sites is hurting peace
• Work starts to reroute West Bank security fence at Bil'in

.

Netanyahu to Haaretz: Palestinians seem to be backing down

[ great interview but a lousy title]

Netanyahu to Haaretz: Palestinians seem to be backing down
By Ari Shavit, HAARETZ

Benjamin Netanyahu, a year into your term, observers seem to agree: You’re an impressive survivor, but just a survivor. The government you lead has no vision, no destination. It’s not going anywhere.

“That is completely and utterly unfounded. My vision is of an Israel that is a world technological superpower, anchored in values, reaching peace from strength. To this end, we are working to jump-start the economy, to augment our security and to strengthen Israel through inculcating basic national values. I see all this as part of an economic, educational and cultural revolution that is just beginning.

“Your criticism partly stems from the fact both Palestinians and Syrians have adopted a strategy of unwillingness to negotiate. They present us with extremist preconditions that they did not present to earlier Israeli governments. I don’t know any other government in the world that would enter negotiations under conditions that determine in advance how they should conclude. The critics expect us to accept the Palestinian and Syrian dictates; they describe the acceptance of those dictate as a vision. I don’t see it as a vision. The vision is to empower Israel economically, militarily and culturally so as to enable it to make true peace with its neighbors. Not peace on paper, rather peace that will last.

“It will take time for the Palestinians and Syrians to retreat from the positions they have taken. I think the Palestinians, at least, may be backing down. There are signs that negotiations with them will begin in the foreseeable future.”

Today, the cabinet met in Tel Hai to launch a program involving restoration of historical sites. Many see this plan as ridiculous and anachronistic. They say it’s irrelevant to the present-day problems facing Israel.

“Yigal Alon once said that a people that doesn’t know its past cannot be certain of its future. In the storm that is sweeping societies and states across the globe, a process of cultural superficiality is taking place: The dominant global culture is endangering the cultures of smaller nations. Our problem is particularly acute. We are living in this country because we are linked to it; we were exiled, and we have returned. There’s no people that needs to deepen its roots in its land more than we do. That is why I believe national security doesn’t only depend on military and economic might, but also on enhancing the young generation’s knowledge of our past, and strengthening its connection to our land. These are the values I was raised on. These are values familiar to any Israeli over the age of 40. And they are the values that must be renewed today.

“David Ben-Gurion believed the foundation of our nation-building involved studying the Bible, walking the land and preserving archaeological sties. These values have been eroded over the last 30 years, and we are trying to stop that process. Among other things, this involves preserving our cultural treasure troves: Hebrew songs, Jewish and Hebrew writings, films, plays that have been videoed, photographic archives. These assets are being depleted, lost. I don’t think it’s ridiculous or anachronistic to try and save them. I don’t think there’s a contradiction between being open to the world, and preserving our culture and imparting it to our youth. The Americans know how to appreciate the Lincoln Memorial, the Gettysburg National Cemetery and the Alamo site in Texas, but this does not affect their openness to technological innovation.

“I’ll give you an example. [Tel Aviv's] Rothschild Boulevard is a thriving street of cafes and bars, of innovative street shows and ‘White Night’ festivals. I think it’s wonderful. But at No. 16 Rothschild Boulevard, there’s a peeling old hall where Ben-Gurion announced the establishment of the State of Israel. Why not renovate and reopen it? Why not allow the young people who are out having fun on the boulevard to go inside and see what it represents? I’m certain they would like that. This is why I see the resolution we made today as one of the most important in many years.”

Which of the sites slated for renovation are you particularly fond of?

“Tel Hai, obviously. My father arrived at Rosh Pina in 1920, and in 1923 he broke his arm playing soccer. He was treated in the beautiful old hospital in Safed by the same physician who treated Trumpeldor, and he and others told my father of the famous words that Trumpeldor uttered before he died - probably based on the Latin phrase: dolce et decorum est pro patria mori. I think the spirit of sacrifice embodied by Tel Hai is still just as vital today, not so that we will die, but so that we can live.”

There’s another plan you are going to present to the cabinet this week - not about historical legacies but about transportation. You intend to pave roads and build railroad tracks on an unprecedented scale. Why spend money that we don’t have on asphalt and concrete?

“It’s not that much money. We’re talking about some NIS 30 billion over 10 to 15 years. In terms of our gross national product, this is quite manageable. The country has been concentrated for 60 years between Gedera and Hadera, with one main transportation corridor ‘copied’ along Highway No. 6. The Negev and the Galilee are off the map. Both economically and in terms of the expansion of the population and closing gaps, there’s tremendous importance to integrating the north and south in the transportation network.

“The United States carried out a similar revolution twice: first in the 19th century, with trains, and then in the 1950s, with highways. This is why you can hit the road in Boston and reach Los Angeles without stopping at a single traffic light. In Israel, you can’t go from Kiryat Shmona to Tel Aviv without waiting at lights. This is what we’re going to change. We won’t just bring the center to the north: We’ll bring the north to the center.

“We’ll increase local tourism, increase employment, but most importantly, we’ll facilitate social mobility. Look at the revolution happening in Yokneam and Or Akiva, which were seen as God-forsaken places until they started blooming thanks to nearby highways, rail lines or intersections. Together with the Israel Land Administration reform and the reforms in planning and construction, the new routes will encourage faster growth, open up opportunities and free us from being stuck between Gedera and Hadera.”

Wouldn’t it be better to invest the money in education? NIS 30 billion could revolutionize elementary, high school and university education.

“We’ll be investing in education, too. But it’s important to understand that investing in transportation infrastructure creates growth. We believe it will contribute enormous resources and add some 2 percent to annual growth, creating new budget sources to fund education, health and welfare for the elderly. Investment in roads is a prime growth engine. Together with our other recent moves, it will help increase the size of the national pie, which we can then divide up according to different needs: security, education and society. At the end of the day, in one year we’ve done more to promote our vision than many other governments.”

I won’t ask you about Dubai, of course. But I’ll ask you this: Would you say that today you still have the same faith in the Mossad and its chief?

“I won’t comment on journalistic speculation, even from such an esteemed journalist as Ari Shavit.”

Netanyahu and perception of a foul-up in Dubai

Photo by: AP

Analysis: Miles away from Mashaal

BY GIL HOFFMAN
19/02/2010 00:31

Netanyahu and the perception of a foul-up in Dubai.

n the second year of Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu’s first term as prime minister, the Mossad’s botched assassination attempt on Hamas leader Khaled Mashaal in Jordan caused Netanyahu great embarrassment.

The operation, which Netanyahu personally approved, resulted in the arrest of two Mossad agents, the release from prison of Hamas founder Sheikh Ahmed Yassin to bring them home, and Mashaal living to order countless more terrorist attacks against Israelis. It also had a grave political impact on Netanyahu, who was already losing support to Labor’s new leader, Ehud Barak.

Now in the second year of Netanyahu second term, the perception of a foul-up in Dubai, possibly involving the Mossad, could have triggered a diplomatic crisis with Israel’s allies and caused Netanyahu similar political problems.

But 2010 is not 1997, Dubai is not Amman, the political opposition to Netanyahu today is nowhere near what it was back then, and most importantly, Hamas weapons procurement director Mahmoud Mabhouh is no longer among the living.

Israel already had strained relations with Jordan at the time of the Mashaal incident in September 1997, three years after Israel reached a peace agreement with its eastern neighbor, due to the turmoil surrounding Netanyahu’s opening of an exit to the Western Wall tunnel a few months before. In Dubai, there was comparably nothing to lose, because Israel does not have relations with the United Arab Emirates.

The potential for diplomatic fallout with Britain appeared to dissipate following the brief meeting that Israeli Ambassador Ron Prosor had Thursday with Peter Ricketts, the permanent under secretary of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. And even if Gordon Brown’s government was upset about the use of British passports, he might not be prime minister after the election expected in May.

Diplomatic officials in Jerusalem said that even had Netanyahu known there would be the amount of fallout from the assassination that there has been so far, he still would have proceeded with it. It has not gone unnoticed by Netanyahu’s associates that he has faced no political criticism whatsoever for the affair, even at the height of the uproar over the assassins caught on tape and the Israelis whose identities were used.

One reason for this is that Barak is now defense minister and not opposition leader. It also helps that the current head of the opposition, Tzipi Livni, happens to be a former employee of the Mossad. Livni has resisted repeated requests to comment publicly about what happened in Dubai.

Kadima MKs with a background in security did not want to be seen as attacking the Mossad or helping Israel’s enemies. For instance, MK Gideon Ezra, a former deputy Shin Bet chief, said that any comment about it was one too many.

“People are blabbering too much,” Ezra said. “This story might sell papers, but I think we need to give it time to pass and allow people to forget about it.”

Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee chairman Tzahi Hanegbi of Kadima said that under no circumstances would his committee discuss the affair.

Although it was initially reported that Kadima MK Yisrael Hasson, another former Shin Bet deputy chief, had requested that a hearing be held on the issue, in the end no such request was filed with the committee.

Kadima MK Nachman Shai said the reason Netanyahu was not facing criticism was that there was a consensus in Israeli society that assassinations of terrorist leaders were necessary and that the Mossad was a sacred cow.

“It’s not a failure like what happened with Mashaal, because the scoundrel is dead, no one was arrested, and no terrorists were released from prison,” Shai said. “The Mossad has an ethos and you don’t hurry to come out against it. It would look very bad to the public. It’s political suicide to come out against the Israeli consensus on something like this.”

And yet it is possible that the main political fallout from the incident could be that it would be more difficult for Netanyahu to extend Mossad chief Meir Dagan’s term beyond the already unheard of eight years he has already been given in a job normally held for no more than four.

Dagan has his share of enemies and is seen as difficult to work with.Danny Yatom lost his job as head of the Mossad over what happened in Amman.

When Netanyahu took over, he replaced almost everyone from the previous Kadima administration. But he insisted on keeping the two men playing the most serious roles on the Iranian issue, which is by far the most important to Netanyahu: Barak and Dagan. For that reason, it is important to Netanyahu that Dagan not become a victim of the incident in Dubai.

How the Likud’s Agenda Alienates Americans (utter nonsense!)

[Utter nonsense]

By Jeffry Goldberg, The Atlantic

A very smart bit of analysis from Blake Hounshell:

Sullivan’s criticism of Israel ought to worry defenders of the Jewish state, then, because he is a bellwether for a broader shift in American media and society that has happened over the last few years. Israel is using up a lot of the goodwill it had built up in the 1990s, when eminent statesmen like Yitzhak Rabin and Shimon Peres made good-faith efforts toward peace with the Palestinians. Since then, the country has been governed by a series of unimaginative right-wing leaders who have pandered constantly to their settler base and chosen to solve political problems through the use of force. Benjamin Netanyahu and his Likud Party may have their fingers on the pulse of their public right now, but their agenda is not one that appeals to most Americans, who strongly support Israel’s right to exist but have little interest in underwriting the permanent occupation of the West Bank.

I don’t think Andrew is necessarily a bellwether on this — he’s a bit too mercurial — but as a general proposition I think Hounshell has it right. It seems as if many people in the American elite have decided that Israel is just as dysfunctional (and, sometimes, as brutal) as its Arab foes. Americans don’t like intractable crises, and the Israeli government needs to understand this (it needs to understand, as well, that young American Jews are less likely to be reflexive defenders of Israel than their parents are). At the risk of repeating myself (unavoidable on a blog, I guess), it will be risky for Israel to pull out its settlements from the West Bank, but it will be fatal for Israel to remain in the settlements, for moral and demographic reasons.

What Israel needs is a leader who will step forward and say, “Here is the way things should look,” and then present an outline for the creation of a viable Palestine. The settlers will go nuts, but that’s what they do. Hamas will go nuts, because that’s what it does. But Hounshell is right: What is needed is a Rabin. I tend to think that Netanyahu has the potential to be this leader. Maybe it’s more a hope than a reality at this point, but only someone from the right can bring the majority of Israelis to the painful compromises that are obviously necessary. And, to make the obvious point, one of the reasons this compromise is necessary is because American public opinion is one of Israel’s most important battlegrounds.

Note: The problem I see is that Israel does not get a true picture of the American public's opinion. They read what is in most of American newspapers - listen to America's media - and this gives Israel a false picture of how American patriots' feel about President Obama's agenda! Israel THINKS that the majority of Americans support Obama, and this is WRONG! WRONG! WRONG!

Israel needs to stop listening to America's press/media coverage and begin listening to their own hearts and minds; do what is right for their country without seeking an American President's approval - because this President's approval rating is on the downward path within America, becuase we DO NOT agree with his policies for America!! And that goes for his foreign policies that undermine our allies!

Israel, please begin listening to your own citizens, first; and then, listen to the heart of America - a heart that Obama does not have - as a matter of fact, if a physician were to give Obama a checkup, they would find him a man without a heart! BeeSting

Obama, Netanyahu, Blair and Fayyad are in agreement

Israpundit.com

Essentially what Barry Rubin is pointing out is that the US position is in line with Israel’s position as I reported earlier when discussing Meridor’s speech. Obama, Netanyahu, Blair and Fayyad are all on the same page for now. Bottom up first.

Many people wrote to me to complain that they didn’t like Israel’s position because they didn’t want to build the Palestinians up. Perhaps they are right but they should keep in mind that Obama argued that negotiations should start without preconditions. That’s what Bibi wanted. Israel’s position is really “Autonomy only” for the Palestinians and no uprooting of the vast majority of settlers. She can still pull it off.

The Region: Quick, look busy!
By BARRY RUBIN

The Obama administration has signaled that it will go through the motions of Mideast involvement while awaiting some future opportunity for renewed talks.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton issued a nominally routine communiqué last week after her meeting with Tony Blair, former prime minister of Great Britain and now messenger of the Quartet on Israeli-Palestinian matters. This two-paragraph document, dated February 11, 2010, indicates the new direction of US policy on Israel-Palestinian/Arab-Israeli conflict issues.

It, somewhat disingenuously, defines the Obama administration policy as seeking a two-state solution right from the start through three tactics:

“(1) To help build the economy and capacity to govern a Palestinian state;
(2) to renew political negotiations to enable the earliest possible establishment of that state; and
(3) to achieve these in a manner that ensures the security of Israel and of the Palestinians.”

Wait a minute! Up until now, item two has been in the top position. Last September, the president announced that intensive talks to reach a comprehensive peace agreement would start in early November! Three months later, not even the most minor direct talks are in sight. So now the administration has shifted gears and the main priority is a process of state-building and community organizing among Palestinians to get them ready for statehood.

Notice it doesn’t even say the “earliest possible” renewal of political negotiations but implies that economic and infrastructure change will achieve the “earliest possible establishment” of a Palestinian state. To further this goal, while Blair and Senator George Mitchell, the US envoy, will act as partners to support political negotiations, Blair’s task is: “(1) to build support for the institutional capacity and governance of a future Palestinian state, including on the rule of law; (2) to improve freedom of movement and access for Palestinians; (3) to encourage further private sector investment; and (4) to bring change in the living conditions of the people in Gaza.”

This mission is defined as being “consistent with Prime Minister Fayyad’s plan for a future Palestinian state.” That means the Palestinian Authority prime minister’s two-year plan to build the Palestinian state economically and institutionally can be launched in 2012.

But in the Fayyad approach, negotiations with Israel come only at the end of the process, when everything is already prepared. This gives the administration the rationale to get nothing done in the meantime on the diplomatic level. It is thus a complete reversal in practice of previous administration policy. The US government can “look busy” while doing precisely what its predecessor did: realize nothing much is possible at the present while awaiting some future opportunity.

The emphasis is on helping the Palestinians and not pressing them to give Israel anything. At the same time, however, there is not going to be a big effort to pressure Israel except on two points: One is the “freedom of movement” issue, asking Israel to dismantle more roadblocks, which will depend, of course, on the security situation; the other is the phrase, “To bring change in the living conditions of the people in Gaza.” Unfortunately, this doesn’t mean overthrowing Hamas and freeing Gazans from that dictatorship of genocidal-minded terrorists. Rather, it implies more pressure on Israel to reduce embargos on the Gaza Strip without removing Hamas, blocking arms-smuggling, or forcing any change in Hamas’s plan for future attacks on Israel. In other words, still another Israeli concession, though Israel will keep it to a minimum.

MEANWHILE, THE United States won’t push the PA to come to the negotiating table, or reduce incitement, or really convey to its people the need to give up hope of wiping out Israel and taking all the land, or punish terrorists. Such activities would make the PA unhappy; stir up Arab and Muslim complaints, and not work anyway. Of course, failing to do these things will also make any real progress on peace impossible as well.

The truth is, of course, that Fayyad’s two-year plan will fail completely. He is too weak to strengthen Palestinian institutions; the regime is too corrupt, incompetent, and ready to toy with violence to attract foreign investment. Even the welcome Palestinian economic boom is merely based on spending aid money and real estate speculation, not any solid foundation.

In this context, the administration has made a choice it would never admit: maximum popularity, minimum friction, no real change. That is a reasonable choice under the circumstances. It is also in real terms the same policy the Bush administration had and the Obama administration has ridiculed.

All this greater recognition of reality – whatever the rhetoric employed – should be accompanied with a corresponding shift in wider public understanding. Solving the Arab-Israeli conflict is not the key to the Middle East. There isn’t going to be a peace deal. The reason is internal Palestinian politics. The leadership is still radical, more eager to reconcile with Hamas than to make peace with Israel. The world view is extremist and geared toward total victory. PA media and clerics encourage violence and teach that Israel is temporary and illegitimate.

Nevertheless, the new US policy is not bad, especially given where the administration could have gone. It does seem as if the White House has realized the PA is not ready for peace and is thus reluctant to commit much effort to the issue.

Meanwhile, it will just go on saying how much it loves the Palestinians and look active while trying to keep things quiet as it deals with other issues.

Bibi has a full plate

By Ted Belman

You would think that Netanyahu had his hands full with the freeze and Iran, but no he has been busy with various initiatives.

1. He has a record of removing red tape. Now he is revolutionizing the approval of building permits.

The approved reform defines three tracks for receiving construction permits. The “permit-free” track will give immediate approval for small projects like construction of fences up to 2 meters high, addition of industrial air conditioners and installation of solar panels. The “short track” for projects like the closing of a porch, addition of a pergola and other small scale construction will take no more than 45 days. The “full track” for larger projects, like construction of a new building or bridge, will not take more than 90 days.

2. The bulk of Netanyahu’s speech at Herzliya was to announce his many initiatives to restore the Zionist ethos to the Israeli public and particularly the students. He will beef up the curriculum to cover Jewish and Zionist history. He will revitalize Jewish and Zionist landmarks and memorabilia. He will promote the love of “walking the land”.

3. In this speech he referred to Israel’s stellar emergence from the economic crises and valued the fact that our taxes were still too high.
Why? Because that meant that Israel has the opportunity to lower them further to stimulate even more growth.

4. There is now talk of enabling soldiers to earn B.A.’s during their three years of service. Thus university education would be free and universal. WOW

_______________________

Note: the following is a comment posted to this article on the website American Thinker.com

Does this mean he is going to muzzle Barak? (Please, please, please)

There are so many conflicting signals coming from the government, by design I suppose. I’m sick of the diplomatic way - just say the truth and move forward. We will back you.

Shalom, I’m a frequent lurker and new poster to this site.

Yonatan

Comment by Yonii — February 7, 2010 @ 3:01 pm

Bibi, not Bam, has Iran plan

New York Post.com

Last Updated: 7:44 PM, February 4, 2010

Posted: 3:58 AM, February 3, 2010

TEL AVIV, Israel -- Here's the nightmare scenario. Prime Minis ter Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel requests an urgent, private meeting with President Obama. At the White House, the two men sit alone and Netanyahu, looking grave, dispenses with pleasantries and gets to the point:

"Our intelligence services have determined that Iran is less than three months from making a nuclear bomb. Mr. President, as I have told you, no Israeli leader can let that happen because a nuclear-armed Iran is an existential threat to our country.

"You previously asked that I not surprise you with any unilateral action. Therefore, I am here to inform you that we have decided to take military action against Iran. Based on weather conditions, our air force will carry out the raids in the next week

"Furthermore, my military advisers all agree that we do not have sufficient conventional firepower to accomplish the mission. We are compelled to use tactical nuclear weapons. It is the only way we can be sure of success.

"Mr. President, I assure you that Israel fully appreciates the seriousness of this decision and the potential consequences. My Cabinet fully supports this decision. Opposition leaders also have been informed and they, too, agree this is the only responsible course."

If the scenario sounds too cinematic and far-fetched, consider this. It was suggested to me by one of Israel's top political insiders as the almost-certain outcome of the failed international efforts to get Iran to stop enriching uranium.

And his is not a lonely voice. The growing threat from Iran is Topic-A here, replacing the seemingly permanent conflict with Palestinians as the most pressing national issue. The Palestinian dispute drags on, but there is a sense of urgency about Iran's nuke program.

Ehud Barak, the defense minister and the government official most trusted on military matters, told top defense officials Monday that "all options are on the table and we mean it," according to a report in the newspaper Haaretz.

Unlike the Palestinian issue, political differences on Iran do not appear to be significant. Tzipi Livni, the head of the opposition party and a former foreign minister, used a speech on Israel-US relations to warn that time was running out for Obama to act.

"We understand that Iran is a threat to Israel," she told the 10th annual Herzliya Conference on national security. "But it is not only our problem. It is also a problem for the US as the leader of the free world."

That's not to suggest there is an eagerness for a military strike, especially one with nuclear weapons that might ignite a wider war

But the belief that Israel will have to act because no one else will is fueling a damn-the-critics determination. That beleaguered feeling is not exactly new here, but it is especially sharp now because of the one-sided UN report accusing the Israeli military of committing war crimes in Gaza last year.

Outrage over the report, combined with the failure of the United States to get a new round of Iran sanctions through the same United Nations and a refusal of Obama to do anything on his own, is creating the sense that Israel is being backed into a corner

"What is happening is that Obama is forcing Israel to take action by not doing anything to stop Iran," the political insider told me.

Amid growing certainty that Israel will act, speculation is shifting to what Obama would do. How would he respond to a Netanyahu heads-up that an attack was imminent?

After trying and failing to get Netanyahu to back off, we can assume he would consult his own national-security team and demand to know if Israeli intelligence was correct about Iran's bomb-making capability.

He would notify world leaders and probably try to get China and Russia to lean on Iran to agree to a halt in enrichment. He might even warn Iran himself that the attack was coming unless it stopped enriching.

Above all, we can be certain he would try to buy time to avoid a showdown, which is exactly what he has been doing for the last year.

That, by the way, is the same feckless policy that has produced this nightmare scenario.

Harold hit 'no trial here' buzzer first

Now that Democrats who supported holding the 9/11 trial in New York are suddenly running for the hills, Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand and likely challenger Harold Ford Jr. both claim they voiced their opposition before their rival. I'm happy to referee because I have the facts.

On Jan. 26, I interviewed Ford and asked him his thoughts on the White House's plan to hold the trial in lower Manhattan. Without hesitation he said he was opposed, citing the estimated cost of $200 million a year, and adding that a military tribunal was "the way to go."

He also noted the recession and high unemployment and said spending that much money for a trial "made no sense."

Even if Washington paid, he argued, the money could better be spent on tax cuts or helping people get jobs.

His comments appeared in this space the next day, Jan. 27, where I noted that his opposition put him at odds with Gillibrand, who supported the White House plan.

Perhaps coincidentally, also on the 27th, Mayor Bloomberg reversed his position and said he hoped the trial could be moved. He spoke in the morning and late in the afternoon, Gillibrand put out a statement noting the mayor's change and saying "I am open to alternative locations."

But she didn't say she was opposed to holding the trial in New York. She also said that, if it were held here, she wanted to make sure Washington paid for it.

That's hardly a strong opposition and certainly Ford beat her to the punch.

Not incidentally, the wishy-washy Washington-must-pay dodge was the same position her puppet master, Sen. Chuck Schumer, held then. Subsequently, Schumer declared he did not want the trial to be held anywhere in the state.

Can Gillibrand be far behind?

Gov bleeds money

Gov. Paterson preaches fiscal austerity, but he doesn't always practice it. The latest case in point is his $6 million interest-free loan to St. Vincent's Hospital so workers can get paid.

The hospital already has $700 million in debts and is losing up to $10 million a month, a spokesman said.

It's burning cash so fast, it's hard to see how the state money will make a difference.

The most likely outcome is that Paterson has just blown $6 million to help the hospital staff. If only he had the same compassion for taxpayers.

Bad for the Jews, good for a laugh

Asked at the Herzlyia Conference about why Israel gets so much negative coverage in the world press, communications honcho Eyal Arad drew laughs with his response. "Jews are news," he said. "For the media, bad news is always good news. Thus, bad Jews are great news."

February 4, 2010 Peace will be found in Damascus, not Ramallah

[Netanyahu cool to calls for fresh Syria talks ]

By Ari Shavit, HAARETZ

When the Oslo process was at its height, a right-wing intellectual irked his left-wing friends by comparing Israel’s peace movement to a girl trying to seduce a gay man. It caught the Palestinians’ eye, but they never responded, they received a phone number but never called, they were invited to the bedroom but never showed up. They’re simply not interested. Peace just doesn’t do it for them. The two-state solution doesn’t turn them on. But the peaceniks still don’t get what their non-partner has made clear in a thousand and one ways. They go on stalking someone who has no interest in them. They want to be loved by someone who has no love to give.

Some positive murmurings could be heard in Jerusalem this week. While the media is taking potshots at Sara Netanyahu without letup, her husband believes that he’s approaching something of a breakthrough. People close to the prime minister predict that negotiations with the Palestinians will resume soon; the time has not yet been set, but it may be March or April.

The format has also not been decided on, with both indirect talks and shuttle trips possible. But according to the prevailing thinking, the pressure that the Americans, Europeans and Arabs are applying on Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas is beginning to bear fruit. The chances are good that, one year late, a diplomatic dialogue between him and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu will finally begin.

It’s not clear whether this Israeli optimism has a leg to stand on. But it’s clear that even if the process gets underway, it will soon reach a dead end. It will be good if the two sides start talking and prevent an outbreak of violence, but it’s very unlikely that they can reach a peace agreement. An Israeli prime minister committed to the integrity of Jerusalem and a Palestinian president committed to the sanctity of the right of return cannot get very far. Even if they begin, there’s no way they will be able to make a deal.

When the Oslo process was at its height, a right-wing intellectual irked his left-wing friends by comparing Israel’s peace movement to a girl trying to seduce a gay man. It caught the Palestinians’ eye, but they never responded, they received a phone number but never called, they were invited to the bedroom but never showed up. They’re simply not interested. Peace just doesn’t do it for them. The two-state solution doesn’t turn them on. But the peaceniks still don’t get what their non-partner has made clear in a thousand and one ways. They go on stalking someone who has no interest in them. They want to be loved by someone who has no love to give.

A lot of water has flowed down the Yarkon River since our right-winger came up with his metaphor. The peace movement has melted away, several peace-making experiments have failed. But the one-sided-courtship syndrome has endured. Israelis, Europeans and Americans continue to waste precious time trying to get the Palestinians into the bridal bed, even though they don’t want to go there. They put on their powder, makeup and perfume to try to arouse the Palestinians’ peace-process libido, but there is no such thing. Although this unrequited love is already 20 years old, it won’t die down. Paradoxically, it helps perpetuate the occupation.

After 20 years, there is a clear conclusion: To really partition the country, a new diplomatic strategy is called for. Coordinated unilateral processes must be launched that will constrict the occupation while building a new Palestinian society. It must be understood that only after most Palestinians are living in a free space of their own that offers them a sane existence will the conditions ripen to enable them to choose true peace.

But there is also another clear conclusion: There will be no dramatic breakthrough on the Palestinian track in the near future, so a breakthrough on the Syrian track must be initiated. Because of the complexity of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the only chance for generating change lies in the north. There is no certainty at all that peace is in the offing. But if it is, it is to be found not in Ramallah but in Damascus.

The problem is basically political. Peace with Syria has no party and no leader. And it has no libido. Oddly, the remnants of the Israeli left relate to peace with Syria like some kind of stepchild. Their passion is for the Palestinians, not the Syrians. The ardent courting is all aimed at the disinterested Palestinians. Even today, Israel is expending most of its peace-seeking energy on a useless effort to cajole the wrong neighbor.

The time has come to reset the system and change course. To forestall the evil rising in the east, every effort must be made to enter a dialogue with Syrian President Bashar Assad. To avert a horrendous war, not a stone on the road to Damascus should be left unturned. To offer hope to the Middle East, the prospects held out by the secular regime in Syria must be exhausted. It may be that at the end of the day, the Syrians, too, will turn their backs on us, but every day that goes by without an effort to reach peace with Syria is a day marked by criminal negligence.

PM: Peace talks could resume in weeks without preconditions

Photo by: GPO

Jerusalem Post.com
ByBY HERB KEINON
04/02/2010 01:59

Speaking at Herzliya Conference, Netanyahu praises Palestinian efforts to improve economy and build institutions, appeals to them to accept resumption of efforts toward peace accordSeven years after then-prime minister Ariel Sharon unveiled his Gaza disengagement plan at the Herzliya Conference, Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu took the same podium Wednesday evening and delivered what he said was a call for the engagement of the country with Jewish heritage, Zionism and history.

“Here in the land of our fathers, which is also the land of our children and grandchildren, in order to determine our fate we need to strengthen our collective efforts in three primary spheres: security, economy and education,” Netanyahu said.

But before turning to those matters, especially education and linking the youth to Israel’s history, he addressed diplomatic matters, perhaps feeling an obligation to do so because that is generally the subject discussed by prime ministers at the final session of the Herzliya Conference.

“I have reason to hope, realistically, that in the next few weeks we will renew the peace process with the Palestinians, without preconditions,” Netanyahu said. “I have been saying now for a long time that among the international community there is recognition that Israel wants and is prepared to renew the diplomatic process. And once this recognition emerged among the central players in the international community, the practical preparations for this step are also ripening.”

In an apparent reference to “proximity talks,” the idea broached recently by US Middle East envoy George Mitchell whereby talks would begin with him shuttling between the two sides, Netanyahu said that while the customary phrase is “it takes two to tango,” in the Middle East, “sometimes it takes three to tango, or at least to begin to dance. Afterward we will be able to engage in a couple’s dance.”

Netanyahu said that if the Palestinians demonstrated the will not only to build up the Palestinian economy and institutions, but also “peace itself, then we will see the beginning of the process in the coming weeks.”

One senior diplomatic source, however, said it was unlikely that Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas would renew negotiations until after the next Arab League summit, scheduled for the end of March in Libya. The hope is that this summit would give him the green light to return to talks.

Netanyahu, speaking at the concluding session of the four-day conference, said that Israel would need to continue strengthening the IDF.

“The weak do not survive in the difficult geographic region in which we find ourselves,” he said. “And peace is not made with the weak. I want to make clear that our security needs will increase over the next decade, and in my mind over the next two decades.”

Netanyahu said that Israel’s defense needs required it to have a strong, growing economy. But, he said as a segue to the main part of his address, a strong army and economy were not enough to ensure the country’s existence; it also needed a commitment from the people to be here, and an understanding of why they are here.

And this, he said, depended on education.

The educational basis so important for the country’s strength and existence, he said, was not only math, English and reading comprehension, but also the strengthening and deepening of “all of our connection to each other and this place.”

“I think that this type of education begins with the Book of Books, it begins with the Bible,” he said, adding that “this is a subject close to my heart these days.”

On Tuesday his youngest son, Avner, won the Jerusalem Regional Bible Quiz for state schools, and will now go on to participate in the National Bible Quiz at the end of the month.

Netanyahu said that the education so critical for the existence of the state starts with the Bible and runs through all of Jewish history up to the Zionist present.

“A nation must know its past to ensure its future,” he said, then adding a quotation from Yigal Alon that a nation that does not know its past will find that neither its present nor future are secure.

“The guarantee for our existence is dependent first and foremost on the knowledge and national consciousness that parents and the educational system impart to our children,” he said.

During an address which prime ministers have used in the past to discuss high policy, Netanyahu quite simply called on the youth, and the nation, to go out, walk the land and discover the country.

He said that in less than a month his government would launch an initiative to restore and preserve historic landmarks, as well as develop two new trails alongside the popular Israel National Hiking Trail (Shvil Yisrael)..One of these new trails will concentrate on historic archeological landmarks, and another will focus on places of historic interest to the “Israeli experience,” – a trail he called a “living Eretz Yisrael museum.”

Preempting questions about why he chose to talk about these matters at the Herzliya Conference, Netanyahu said – to applause – that “sometimes small steps lead to big things.”

Enlightened nations of the world are on a coffee-break from enlightenment.

by Caroline B. Glick
MIDDLE EAST AND TERRORISM.com

"Never again!"

So declared Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu as he spoke at Auschwitz-Birkenau on Wednesday, the 65th anniversary of its liberation.

Netanyahu used his speech at the notorious death camp to nudge what he referred to as "the enlightened nations of the world," to recognize that "murderous evil" has to be stopped as early as possible to prevent it from achieving its aims. Unfortunately, the events of the past week show clearly that evil is on the march, and "the enlightened nations of the world" are on a coffee-break from enlightenment.

As Netanyahu addressed the world from the site of the most prolific genocide factory in human history, at the place where over a million Jews were gassed, starved, beaten, raped, frozen, shot and hanged and then burned in ovens, Iran's leaders were declaring loudly that they intend to finish what the Nazis started. They will destroy the Jewish people.

Iran's dictator supremo Ali Khamenei used a photo op with Mauritania's President Mohammed Ould Abdel Aziz — who cut his own country's diplomatic ties with Israel last January -- to renew his pledge to commit yet another Holocaust. As he put it, "Surely, the day will come when the nations of the region will witness the destruction of the Zionist regime… When the destruction happens will depend on how the Islamic nations approach the issue."

And as he spoke, "the enlightened nations of the world's" ability to deny that the Iranian regime is building a nuclear arsenal was finally and utterly wiped away. On Monday Germany's Der Speigel reported that evidence gleaned from document intercepts and from the testimony of two senior Iranian defectors who were involved in Iran's nuclear program, proves beyond a reasonable doubt that Iran's nuclear program is not a peaceful one. The Iranians are designing and building nuclear warheads for their Shihab-3 ballistic missiles. According to a summary of the findings now circulating through the halls of power, Iran will have the wherewithal to build nuclear warheads by 2012.

So the Der Spiegel report showed that Iran is developing the capacity to carry out a second Holocaust in under a hundred years. And yet, in the face of their sure knowledge that evil is on the march, as they did 70 years ago, the "enlightened nations" of Europe are siding with evil against its would-be victims.

On a popular level, as Sunday's release of the Jewish Agency's annual report on global anti-Semitism documented, there were more anti-Semitic attacks in Europe in 2009 than there had been in any single year since the Holocaust. The report stated that the attacks were carried out by Jew haters on both the Left and the Right.

Europe's anti-Semites wasted no time in proving the report was accurate. Monday Polish Catholic Bishop Tadeusz Pieronek said that Jews have "expropriated" the Holocaust as "a propaganda weapon." Jews, he claimed, "enjoy good press because they have powerful financial means behind them, enormous power and the unconditional backing of the United States and this favors a certain arrogance that I find unbearable."

Then we have the political alliance of Leftist anti-Semites with Muslim anti-Semites. Together they not only attack Jews, they provide political cover for expanding those attacks by rejecting Israel's right to exist and justifying violent attacks against Jews outside Israel as the logical outcome of their politically correct anger at Israel for refusing to destroy itself. Case in point is Ilmar Reepalu, the mayor of Malmo, Sweden.

Malmo is one of the most dangerous places for Jews in Europe. The city's small Jewish population is fleeing. The situation in Malmo was graphically demonstrated last March when Israel's tennis stars Amir Haddad and Andy Ram faced off against Swedish rivals at a Davis Cup tournament in Malmo and Swedish authorities closed their game to the public. Malmo's Muslim residents and their post-Christian partners on the Left threatened to attack them. Malmo's authorities didn't think it was their responsibility to protect their Israeli guests. So Haddad and Ram were forced to play to an empty stadium.

Interviewed in a local paper this week about the rise of anti-Semitic attacks in his city, Reepalu blamed Israel. In his view, the violence against Jews in Malmo by the far left and Muslims, "spilled over from Gaza." By his lights the Jewish national liberation movement is just as bad as the Jewish annihilation movement. As he put it, "We accept neither Zionism nor anti-Semitism. They are extremes that place themselves above other groups they think are less important."

Reepalu then blamed Malmo's Jews for their victimization by his fellow Leftists and his Muslim comrades. As far as he is concerned, the Jews brought the violence on themselves last March when they responded to Haddad's and Ram's treatment by holding a demonstration supporting Israel. In his view, Malmo's Jews need to separate themselves away from Israel, not support it.

Since the Holocaust old-style right wing anti-Semites in Europe have had a hard time getting political traction for their desire to see Jews suffer. But by conflating Jews with Israel, their colleagues on the Left have made sticking it to the Jews, our state and our supporters the easiest way to score political points. So it was that in her first speech as the EU's new foreign policy chief, Britain's Catherine Ashton went out of her way to condemn Israel for building in Jerusalem, closing its border with Hamas-controlled Gaza and defending itself from Palestinian terrorists in Judea and Samaria.

As for Israel's friends, they are hounded, driven out of Europe and where possible placed on trial. Dutch MP Geert Wilders, the head of Holland's Freedom Party is one of Israel's greatest supporters in Europe. Today Wilders is on trial for publically criticizing what he views as the endemic anti-Semitism of the Koran.

Against the backdrop of the persistence of right-wing Jew hatred, and the politically ascendant Red-Green alliance of anti-Semites, it makes sense that Europe will not raise a finger to prevent another Holocaust.

And so, not surprisingly, in the wake the Der Spiegel report, the EU's foreign ministers got together and decided not to support any new sanctions against Iran — unless they are passed by the UN Security Council. Since Europe's foreign ministers all know full well the UN Security Council will not pass sanctions against Iran because veto-wielding China has announced that it will veto any sanctions against Iran, this week the EU's foreign ministers got together and said their okay with another Holocaust.

With Europe out, and with "enlightened" Asian, African and South American countries never really in the game, the only "enlightened" country that might be expected to stop murderous evil before it can carry out its aims is the United States. But unfortunately, like the Europeans, the Americans don't feel like being responsible. President Barack Obama, his administration and many of his fellow Democrats would rather take on Israel.

This week 54 Democratic members of Congress wrote Obama a letter asking him to apply pressure on Israel to remove its restrictions on the import of goods -- including dual use goods like construction materials -- to Hamas-controlled Gaza. Never mind that under US law it is legally problematic to provide any aid, (including the $300 million Obama has pledged) to Gaza in light of the fact that it is controlled by a terrorist organization.

For its part, the administration apparently believes that there is no reason to seek the overthrow of Hamas simply because the US is required by US law and binding UN Security Council resolutions to do so. The US Treasury Department has reportedly just removed all but one Hamas official from its list of known terrorists and so paved the way for Hamas to receive funding from Europe.

As for Israel, during his trip here this week, Obama's Middle East envoy George Mitchell came up with a revolutionary new idea. In the face of Palestinian intransigence, Mitchell introduced the earthshaking concept of pressuring Israel to make concessions to the Palestinians.

This week Mitchell asked Israel to stop all of its counter-terror operations in Judea and Samaria, and allow Palestinian forces to operate not only in the Palestinian areas, but in predominantly Israeli areas as well. Specifically, Mitchell asked Israel to allow Palestinian forces to deploy in what the arguably defunct Oslo agreements refer to as Area C, where the Palestinian Authority has no security authority whatsoever.

When it comes to Iran, the Obama administration behaves as though the jury is still out on whether the mullahs are even seeking nuclear weapons. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said last Thursday that Iran might face some tough statements from the world if it continues to refuse to be appeased by the Obama White House, although she couldn't say whether any actual steps would be taken to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons which she wouldn't acknowledge the mullahs are developing.

And at his State of the Union address on Wednesday, Obama himself made clear that the US will do nothing to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons. As far as Obama is concerned, the nuclear arsenal in most urgent need of evisceration is the US's nuclear arsenal.

All of this just goes to show that at the end of the day, now when the chips are down, there is only one "enlightened" nation in the world that may actually do something to prevent the advance of murderous evil. And Israel unfortunately is of two minds on the issue.

On the one hand, we have Netanyahu, who is clearly focused on preventing another Holocaust of Jewry. But on the other hand, we have Defense Minister Ehud Barak, who on Tuesday claimed that the absence of peace with the Palestinians - not Iran - is the greatest threat that Israel faces today. As he put it, "The lack of defined boundaries within Israel, and not an Iranian bomb, is the greatest threat to our future."

Barak's outrageous pronouncement is a succinct encapsulation of the great aspiration of the Israeli Left. If he could only be right, then Israel would be able to singlehandedly solve all the problems of the region and be immediately adored by the likes of the EU and the Obama administration just by making itself smaller.

So with the scourge of moral and strategic blindness rampant not only in Europe and America, but within his own government, Netanyahu rapidly approaches his moment of truth.

In what will undoubtedly be the most fateful decision of his life, he will have to decide whether Iran will become a nuclear power, or whether Israel, standing alone, will prevent it from becoming a nuclear power. Was his declaration of "Never Again," at Auschwitz just the bloviating of yet another "enlightened" leader who lacks the courage of his convictions? Or was it a solemn vow that Zionism's promise will be kept?

Caroline B. Glick is the senior Middle East Fellow at the Center for Security Policy in Washington, DC and the deputy managing editor of The Jerusalem Post.

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

The Return of “Defensible Borders”?

Friday, January 29, 2010
MIDDLE EAST AND TERRORISM.com

by Evelyn Gordon

When Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu told foreign journalists last week that under any peace agreement, Israel would insist on maintaining a presence along the Palestinian-Jordanian border to thwart arms smuggling, he provoked some predictably negative responses. Writing in the Jerusalem Post this week, for instance, Ben-Gurion University Professor David Newman termed this "a return to a way of thinking … thought to have disappeared over a decade ago." Claiming that "most generals" no longer consider this necessary, he accused Netanyahu of simply trying "to hammer the nails even more strongly into the coffin of peace."

In fact, Newman is almost entirely wrong but through no fault of his own — because the one thing he's right about is that Netanyahu's statement "reinserted the defensible border concept into public discourse," whence it had virtually disappeared. And since Israeli premiers stopped talking about it more than a decade ago, how was anyone to know that every prime minister, and the defense establishment, continued to insist on defensible borders in practice?

Two weeks ago, Haaretz's veteran diplomatic correspondent Aluf Benn detailed the security demands that Netanyahu's predecessor Ehud Olmert received from the defense establishment, which Olmert approved, forwarded to then president George Bush, and later asked Bush to pass on to Barack Obama. These demands included "the rights to supervise Palestine's border crossings, to fly in Palestinian airspace, to regulate radio frequencies and to build hilltop warning stations."

And Olmert is the prime minister who offered the most far-reaching concessions in Israel's history, including the equivalent of 100 percent of the West Bank and international Muslim control over the Temple Mount.

Indeed, as Benn noted yesterday, "Netanyahu's political positions, which call for annexing the major West Bank settlement blocs and maintaining military control over the Jordan Valley, are no different from those of his predecessors, Ehud Olmert and Ehud Barak."

This invites an obvious question: if all Israeli prime ministers agreed that Israel needs defensible borders under any agreement, why did they stop saying so — thereby leading the world, and their own citizens, to assume that this demand had been dropped and that the security issue could thus be easily resolved, whereas in fact, as one veteran negotiator told Benn, it's the hardest of all, the one on which "the agreement will stand or fall"? Did they assume the world would oppose these demands and want to avoid opening yet another front of international criticism of Israel? Or did they simply consider it irrelevant, given that Israeli-Palestinian disagreements on other issues show no signs of being resolved anytime soon?

Whatever the reason, it was a disastrous negotiating tactic. If Israel is to have any hope of achieving these demands, it cannot spring them as a surprise at the last minute, when an agreement is otherwise at hand; it must state them upfront — clearly, forcefully, and consistently — both to prepare international public opinion and to make it clear that Israel deems this issue critical.

It is therefore encouraging that Netanyahu has finally started reviving the "defensible borders" concept. Now he must ensure that it remains on the public agenda.

Evelyn Gordon

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Palestinians are avoiding meaningful negotiations.

Sever Plocker

Palestinians:“The demographic clock is ticking and the option of a bi-national state is being realized.”

The Palestinian leadership has thus far refused to engage in talks with the Netanyahu-led Israeli government. This is not an insignificant matter: The Palestinians engaged in talks with all Israeli governments since the Oslo Accords.[..]

The difficulty to explain the current Palestinian position has reached all the way to the White House. Those who carefully read the full Obama interview with Time Magazine realize that he has lost patience with the Palestinians’ elusive conduct. Officials around Obama have spoken harshly: They charged that the Palestinians humiliated the president and screwed up his policy.

What prompts the Palestinian leadership to adopt such stubborn refusal and shun the initiative of a US Administration that may be the most convenient for them? The Palestinians do not wish to negotiate with Netanyahu because they perceive him as a practical politician seeking practical solutions; this is the kind of mess the current Palestinian leadership wishes to stay away from. It doesn’t even want to get close to it.

Palestinian leaders did not mind talks with former PM Olmert, because they knew he had no mandate to finalize any deal, and certainly not a “final-status agreement” which the talks focused on. They in fact liked the futile talks and arguments. Yet when the possibility of a practical agreement first came up and they had to respond to it, they left the talks and did not return.

In the backdrop to the talks with Olmert and Livni was the Bush Administration, which the entire Arab world loved to hate, and whose involvement could be used to explain the failure. Yet with Obama and Bibi negotiations can take a different path. Both of them are politicians who seek results and who are unwilling to waste time on verbal and ideological quarrels.

Palestinian consensus of refusal

Netanyahu, with Washington’s support, therefore offers the Palestinians two parallel tracks. One track will see endless negotiations on a “final-status agreement” where each side will be presenting its version of absolute justice. The second track of dialogue will be practical, closely linked to reality, and brief; it will conclude with the Palestinian Authority being upgraded to the status of state, or at least “state in progress.”

Yet this is precisely what the Palestinian leadership in the West Bank wishes to avoid like the plague.

“We won’t be signing yet another interim agreement with Israel,” a very senior Palestinian figure says in closed-door sessions. “Ever since the Camp David talks, no agreements have been signed with Israel, and the Abbas government will not breach the Palestinian consensus of refusal. We also don’t wish to get our ‘state in progress’ from Israel. We already have it. We got it on our own.”

“The current situation serves us well. Palestine is growing, the security situation is decent, Hamas is under siege in Gaza, and global public opinion endorses us and opposes the occupation. There is no rush for us. The demographic clock is ticking and the option of a bi-national state is being realized. We have no incentive for entering talks with an Israeli prime minister who wants to get down to business, that is, who wants to show results.”

This then is the absurdity of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in 2010. The Palestinians are willing to engage in vague negotiations with the Netanyahu government while knowing in advance that this will not lead to any results, but are unwilling to embark on practical talks as long as there is a chance that this will lead to results on the ground. They fear a situation whereby they will be asked to reject or accept a viable interim agreement, which includes the evacuation of some settlements and the transfer of more land to their control.

The Palestinians are shunning Bibi, because in their view he is a serious statesman.

Israpundit.com
January 27, 2010

J'lem preparing report for UN despite refusal to recognize Goldstone

Haaretz.com
By Barak Ravid

Israel is preparing a report in advance of the United Nations General Assembly meeting to discuss progress in implementing the Goldstone report - even though Israel doesn't recognize that document.

The Goldstone report accused Israel of war crimes during Operation Cast Lead in Gaza, sparking a storm of controversy.Israel and the Palestinian Authority have been asked to report on their progress to UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, who will present this at the February 5 meeting.

However, Israel is not planning to give its report directly to Ban, as the United Nations had requested, because it does not officially recognize the Goldstone report

Instead, it wants Ban to tell the General Assembly that he supports the Israeli report, which is being prepared by the Foreign Ministry and the Israel Defense Forces. Israel intends to distribute it at the United Nations before February 5.

A senior official in Jerusalem said, "The secretary general wants to be the messenger, not to take a stand." This would work against Israel in the General Assembly, because Israel "doesn't stand a chance" there.

Israel's report will include summaries of its investigation of injured Palestinian non-combatants during the Gaza operation.

The Israeli report was compiled by the Foreign Ministry, the Justice Ministry, the IDF Military Advocate General and the IDF's planning branch. It details 100 cases investigated by the IDF, 30 of which were cited in the Goldstone report.

A Foreign Ministry source said they fear Israel's report will not satisfy the international community, because "the world wants to know how many convictions or indictments there are" against soldiers for violating orders.

This is not the report that the IDF leaked to the New York Times on Saturday. That report is being written by the IDF to counter the Goldstone report and has "no diplomatic significance" an official said.

Meanwhile, outgoing Attorney General Menachem Mazuz has been pushing for an independent probe into the Gaza operation by a committee headed by a retired High Court justice. The Foreign Ministry, the Justice Ministry and the Prime Minister's Bureau reportedly favor the move, while the IDF and Defense Minister Ehud Barak oppose it.

Israel is not expected to present the idea of a probe to Ban, but senior officials in Jerusalem said the matter is still under discussion and things may change.

MYTH “There is urgency to resolve the Palestinian-Israel conflict.”

FACT

President Barak Obama has said the Palestinian-Israeli conflict “is a critical issue to deal with, in part because it is in the United States’ interest to achieve peace; that the absence of peace between Palestinians and Israelis is a impediment to a whole host of other areas of increased cooperation and more stable security for people in the region, as well as the United States.”²⁸⁹

It may be argued that resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is urgent for the United States if you believe that the conflict is really an impediment to Arab cooperation on the Iranian nuclear issue. The evidence, however, is that the Arab states have never seriously cared about the Palestinians and that they have their own self-interest in seeing Iran’s nuclear ambitions thwarted, an issue which has nothing to do with the Palestinian question.

The parties also do not see any urgency. In fact, in September 2008, Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas turned down then-Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert’s sweeping offer for Palestinian statehood that would have given the Palestinians 98.1% of the West Bank and allowed thousands of Palestinians to return to Israel.²⁹⁰ Yet, Abbas turned down the offer, claiming there were “gaps,”²⁹¹ and failed to offer a viable counteroffer.

Following his May 2009 meeting with President Obama, Abbas also made clear the Palestinians are in no hurry to negotiate with Israel, let alone make any concessions. He expressed the view that Obama’s opposition to Israeli settlements would eventually bring down the Netanyahu government and he was content to put off any peace talks until Netanyahu is out of office. Jackson Diehl wrote in The Washington Post that “Abbas and his team…plan to sit back and watch while U.S. pressure slowly squeezes the Israeli prime minister from office. ‘It will take a couple of years,’ one official breezily predicted.”²⁹² Until then, Abbas stated, “in the West Bank we have a good reality… we are having a good life”²⁹³.

This statement contrasts starkly with the typical image projected by the PA and the media of the Palestinians as an impoverished, suffering people. Abbas also left no doubt that the Palestinian leadership feels no urgency for a resumption of the peace process. Abbas told Obama, “There’s just about nothing you can do.”²⁹⁴

Israelis also see no urgency. While the Israeli public and prime minister are committed to peace with the Palestinians they are very cognizant of the Palestinians’ obstinate position. Furthermore, Israelis see no chance of reaching an agreement with the Palestinians so long as their leadership remains splintered with Hamas controlling the Gaza Strip and the West Bank barely controlled by the unpopular and politically weak Abbas.

Israelis also need confidence building time to recover from fighting three wars in the last nine years that have cost more than 1,200 Israeli lives and forced parts of the country to live in a state of almost constant anxiety as a result of years of rocket bombardments. Indeed, during Obama’s meeting with Abbas, the president told the Palestinian president that the Israelis have good reason to be concerned about security.²⁹⁵ The American president should therefore understand that now is not the time for a rush to diplomacy and that the first priority should be creating a sense of security in Israel.

“Peace now” is not just a slogan, it is what every Israeli wants. President Obama should be applauded for sharing this desire and wanting to make it a reality; however, the conditions in the region will have to radically improve before it will be possible to achieve the goal Americans and Israelis share.

MYTH

“Palestinian leaders are committed to peace.”

FACT

On June 14, 2009, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu called for negotiations with the Palestinians to resume without preconditions. He also described his vision of peace as one between two sovereign nations living side-by-side. To achieve this two-state solution, he said, the Palestinians must recognize the State of Israel and accept a demilitarized state.²⁹⁶

Following Netanyahu’s speech, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs issued a statement praising Netanyahu’s remarks, “The President is committed to two states, a Jewish state of Israel and an independent Palestine, in the historic homeland of both peoples. He believes this solution can and must ensure both Israel's security and the fulfillment of the Palestinians' legitimate aspirations for a viable state, and he welcomes Prime Minister Netanyahu's endorsement of that goal.”²⁹⁷

The response of the Palestinian leadership to Netanyahu’s invitation to revive the peace process, however, was hostile. Chief Palestinian Authority negotiator, Saeb Erekat, called on the Arab countries to suspend the Arab peace initiative. Multiple spokesmen for PA President Mahmoud Abbas called on the international community to isolate Netanyahu for what they describe as his “sabotage” of the peace process, and PA officials in Ramallah warned of a new round of violence and a new intifada.²⁹⁸ This followed Abbas’s earlier remarks suggesting that he was prepared to wait for years, until he believed Netanyahu was forced from office, before resuming negotiations with Israel.²⁹⁹