|
Middle East Update - Obama pressures Netanyahu as AIPAC campaigns against Obama Democrats |
|
|
|
July 11, 2010
Obama applies subtle pressure to Netanyahu's government via military channels, while AIPAC campaigns against Obama Democrats in Congress.
Alan Dershowitz is the leading US-based spokesman for Israel, and he has been campaigning against Jan Schakowsky (D-Il) a member of Congress who supports Obama's policies on peace negotiations between the Palestinians and the Israelis.
Netanyahu promises "goodwill gestures" in "the next few weeks" to launch direct peace negotiations with the Palestinians. The Prime Minister has promised Obama to:
- Lift IDF roadblocks on the West Bank;
- Release circa 1000 Palestinian political prisoners and
- Transfer security and law enforcement authority over Palestinian towns on the West Bank to the Palestinian Authority.
Obama is now imposing a new deadline for a peace agreement between the Palestinians and the Israelis--the end of his first term in office.
In the USA, the Presbyterian Church, one of America's most powerful ecclesiastical organizations, voted overwhelmingly to back a report urging the US government to end all aid to Israel that was approved by a massive majority of 82%.
The Hill
Obama's Israel policy could loom large as midterm election issue in key races
By Russell Berman
July 10, 2010
Washington - As the Obama administration tries to mend its strained ties with Israel, strategists say U.S. policy on the Jewish state could influence several battleground House and Senate races this fall.
Jewish leaders from both parties are watching Senate campaigns in Pennsylvania, Ohio, Illinois and Florida, and a pair of House races in President Barack Obama's home state where they say Israel policy could loom large.
The president held a high-profile White House meeting Tuesday with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu designed to present a united front after tensions between the allies spilled into a rare public dispute over settlement policy earlier this year.
Republicans have tried to exploit the rift to make inroads among Jewish voters, long a reliably Democratic constituency that goes to the polls in midterm elections more often than voters at large.
The executive director of the Republican Jewish Coalition (RJC), Matthew Brooks, said that “despite the warm and fuzzy photo-op” between Obama and Netanyahu, Jewish voters “are rightly troubled and rightly concerned” about the U.S. relationship with Israel.
“I’d characterize the relationship as very cool,” Brooks said.
Brooks said Democratic candidates would have to choose between defending Obama’s record on Israel on one side and “standing with the Jewish community” on the other. “It’s going to be a very uncomfortable place for them,” he said.
The president said after the meeting with Netanyahu that the U.S. bond with Israel is “unbreakable,” and Democrats say GOP attempts to question Obama’s support for Israel represent a familiar — but failed — strategy. The RJC in particular warned during the 2008 presidential campaign that Obama would be hostile to Israel as president; Obama went on to win 78 percent of the Jewish vote, better than Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) in 2004.
The U.S.-Israel alliance “has never been stronger or more strategically aligned than it is today,” said David Harris, president of the National Jewish Democratic Council.
Divisions over Israel policy have already cropped up in the Pennsylvania Senate race between Democratic Rep. Joe Sestak and former GOP Rep. Pat Toomey. The RJC has attacked Sestak for being among the 54 House Democrats to sign a January letter criticizing the Israeli blockade of Gaza as unduly punishing Palestinians.
“Sestak is absolutely one of the worst Democrats when it comes to the pro-Israel issues,” Brooks charged.
Sestak’s campaign, backed by the liberal Jewish group J Street, pointed out that the substance of the letter effectively became Israeli policy when Netanyahu moved to ease the blockade months later.
"As a former three-star admiral who directly participated in the defense of Israel, Joe Sestak’s commitment to Israel's security is beyond question,” a campaign spokesman, Jonathon Dworkin, said. “He has always voted in the interest of Israel's security.”
Dworkin also pointed out that Toomey, as a member of Congress in the 1990s, had twice voted against funding bills that included aid to Israel.
“We feel very comfortable with his support for Israel,” NJDC’s political director, Linda Berg, said.
Jewish Democrats have high hopes for Lee Fisher, the Jewish lieutenant governor of Ohio who is running for the open Senate seat against Republican Rob Portman. And Republicans hope to make Israel policy an issue in the race for Obama’s old Senate seat in Illinois, where the GOP nominee, Rep. Mark Kirk, is a familiar face to Jewish voters with a long record of support for Israel.
In that race, Jewish Democrats are trying to change the subject. Kirk “has an excellent track record of lulling American Jews into forgetting that they disagree with him on everything except Israel,” Harris said.
Allies of the White House – and the White House itself – insist that reports of a rift between the administration and Israel have been exaggerated. Still, they have found themselves on the defensive amid an aggressive GOP effort to win the support of voters for whom Israel is a prime concern.
Democrats say the Jewish leadership in Washington has moved to the right and is now out of step with rank-and-file Jewish voters. The liberal J Street, which has at times criticized Israeli policy, has emerged in the last two years to challenge the lobbying supremacy of the more hawkish American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). The group wants greater U.S. involvement to effect a peaceful end and a two-state solution to the Middle East conflict.
The battle between J Street and other Jewish groups has flared in a House race in Illinois, where incumbent Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D), has come under fire from a Republican challenger, Joel Pollak, for her stance on Israel. Pollack won the endorsement of Harvard professor Alan Dershowitz, a Democrat known for his hawkish support of Israel. In response, J Street circulated an online fund-raising petition for Schakowsky, collecting $40,000 in a day.
Israel policy could also be a factor in the competitive House race to replace Kirk in Illinois’s 10th district, one of the few that Democrats hope to pick up this year. Both the Democrat, Dan Seals, and the GOP candidate, Bob Dold, have pledged support for the Jewish state.
J Street officials boast that their political action committee has distributed more money to candidates for the 2010 elections – some $680,000 – than during the entire 2008 campaign. But J Street also argues that Israel policy is not a top priority for most Jewish voters. The group’s president, Jeremy Ben-Ami, said a recent poll it commissioned found that less than 10 percent of American Jews cited Israel as one of their top two voting issues.
“It’s really a small percentage for whom this is a top-tier issue,” Ben-Ami said.
Democrats have tried to win over Jewish voters by pushing other issues. The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee spent days highlighting a report that a prominent GOP fundraiser, Fred Malek, had provided a list of Jews working in the Bureau of Labor Statistics to President Richard Nixon, upon Nixon’s request.
Haaretz
ANALYSIS / Obama has ways and means to check on Netanyahu
The argument the Israeli prime minister is presenting in Washington is not the only one going.
By Amir Oren
July 11, 2010
Tel Aviv - Three brigadiers general in the reserves met secretly last month with a retired American admiral in Rome. This was at the Defense College of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. The Americans warned that should this became known, they would deny it and refrain from additional such meetings. A similar warning accompanied the strategic talks held in Israel at the end of June by teams headed by U.S. Deputy Defense Secretary Michele Flournoy and Udi Shani, Defense Ministry director general.
The reserve brigadier generals are civilians who do not pretend to represent the government of Israel or its military. Why was Rear Admiral John Sigler, who heads the Middle East research institute at the Joint Chiefs of Staff, so cautious about exposure of his meeting with Shlomo Brom, Udi Dekel and Baruch Spiegel, along with retired Foreign Ministry envoys? Is there a connection to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's meetings with President Barack Obama and top American administration people in Washington?
The White House staff prepared the public part of the hosting of Netanyahu by the book: smiles and handshakes - check; talk about our wonderful relations - check; a distinction between the good Israeli atom and the bad Iranian atom - check; hugs for Sara - check.
The U.S. administration really is committed to Israel's security but not to hanging on to the territories or the Jewish settlements. Obama is trying to clarify whether in the dispute between the two approaches Netanyahu truly represents the majority in Israel. He can get a partial answer, for example, in meetings between Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Admiral Michael Mullen and Chief of Staff Gabi Ashkenazi or the meeting between Sigler and the retired officers in Rome.
The demonstrable warmth in Obama's reception of Netanyahu is at most one third of the story. Another third is the American communications channel with other Israelis, and the remaining third is the channel the United States has with Arab figures, who hear from Obama and his envoys messages that are not identical to those Netanyahu is trying to emphasize in Washington.
Brom and Dekel served with air force intelligence and the general staff planning branch. Spiegel was the liaison officer to foreign forces, deputy coordinator of activities in the territories and an adviser to the defense minister. The possible alternatives for bargaining with the Palestinians, the Syrians and the Lebanese can come as no surprise to them: They formulated the headquarters document that gets passed from one chief of staff to the next, from one defense minister to the next and from one prime minister to the next.
When Netanyahu tells Obama there is something he can't do because it would be the death of him, experts like the three brigadiers general can map out Israel's ranges of flexibility to Sigler, and through him pass them along to Mullen and thus to Obama. Sigler, a retired senior naval officer, heads an institute attached to the National Defense University in Washington (the research and education institution directly under the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff ). The regional institutes provide data and infrastructure for meetings with various elements, including those prohibited to diplomats, such as Hamas. This is a means for the two-way transmission of messages.
Another benefit, which is not unique to the NDU, derives from the education of foreign officer cadres. A lieutenant colonel or colonel who spends a year at such an institution soaks up America's power and acquires a proportionate approach to his own country's place in the universe. Today the top echelon of the Israel Defense Force boasts about a dozen officers who studied at American military colleges and/or served as military attaches at the embassy in Washington and its offshoots, including C-o-S Ashkenazi.
In their many conversations Mullen and Ashkenazi discuss security - heaven forbid, they would discuss politics - and exchange data and professional analyses. Were the veteran naval officer called upon to testify before the Turkel committee, he would say the Americans, too, lack the means for stopping a large ship like the Mavi Marmara without a takeover by fighters and friction with the passengers.
Mullen is able to explain the American problems in Israel effectively, and vice versa. However, since discussion of certain matters is prohibited to officers in uniform, there is scope for channels like the one Sigler set up with Brom, Dekel and Spiegel.
At the Jerusalem Conference last February, Sigler overflowed with friendliness toward Israel ("My father was Jewish" ) and expressed the hope it would reestablish its deterrent power. The word "victory," said Sigler, differs in meaning in different contexts. Israel will win if it continues to flourish, in the far future as well, as a strong democratic and Jewish country.
At the Pentagon they are far from seeing Israel as one of the major problems in the Middle East, but it's enough that Israel also contributes to the perpetuation of the problem - the danger of extremist Islam - and not only to its solution. Is Israel an asset or a burden? The answer is both - a tactical asset, a strategic burden.
Last month's American air force magazine referred to the 1966 operation in which the Mossad lured a MiG-21 pilot to defect from Iraq with his plane. The MiG was examined by Israel's air force and then lent to the Americans to be examined, tested and brought into in air maneuvers. Identifying its limitations enabled U.S. fighter pilots to overcome their inferiority in air battles with the North Vietnamese and to end the war with a certain advantage.
This sort of praise for the Israeli military improves, at least among the defense community, the image of Israel's professionalism and the amity between the two countries. In the wake of praise like this, one must note the same magazine issue says the F-35, the next combat aircraft for America and for Israel, can also carry tactical nuclear weapons, bombs and missiles. It is a dual-purpose plane.
Foreign reports say Israel has surface-to-surface missiles and submarine-launch missiles. An American willingness to provide it with an advanced dual-purpose airplane would strengthen its deterrence.
Talking to the Arabs
The Americans also talk to the Arabs. Recently, for example, the transcript of a fascinating conversation was revealed - a December 1975 conversation between the then U.S. secretary of state, Henry Kissinger, and his Algerian counterpart, Abdulaziz Bouteflika, who was 38 at the time and had held the post for 12 years. (Bouteflika is now president of Algeria ).
Kissinger, expressing bitterness about the government of Yitzhak Rabin and his defense minister to his right, Shimon Peres, says: "Public opinion in America is more ready to do something than ever before. But we have a period of about nine months [the run-up to the elections] when we can't do everything.
"The attempt of the Israelis is to create maximum commotion in the Middle East. They think we can't do much to them. That is why they bombed in Lebanon. You saw in The Herald Tribune a report that we asked them to check with us. That isn't what we asked: We said we wouldn't be responsible for the actions they took without consulting us. That is very different. And we protested their settlements on the Golan."
Bouteflika got no satisfaction from Kissinger's words: "The implication which can be drawn [is] that all previous Israeli actions have been with American connivance."
Kissinger: "No, we have never known. They never tell us ahead of time.
"But that is not my major point. My major point is: They are deliberately provocative now. They established settlements; they announce they will never give up more than 200 meters of territory - which is an insult to Syria, because it is Syrian territory... The F-15 we promised a year and a half ago - but there was a delay because of delivery and the reassessment. Then he announced it as a new thing, as a response to Syrian MiG-25s. He did it to provoke the Arabs. It was a lie....
"They want to go back to the 1967-1973 period, when they were our only friend in the Middle East. They know time is running out. They can't get $2 billion a year for many more years. And they know they can't get deliveries on what is voted this year unil 1978-79. So we have all the means of pressure in our hands. That is why they are trying to undermine my authority. But that isn't the main thing.
"The main thing I want to say is the Arabs should show restraint for a year. A war wouldn't be so bad for us - we could show we are tough. The main thing is to make what little progress is possible this year, and work for next year. I say this as a friend."
Bouteflika: "We are grateful."
Kissinger: "Because you have practically won. You must not let yourselves be provoked. The Syrians must understand this, too."
Bouteflika: "You have some problems with them?"
Kissinger: "No. I'm afraid their pride may lead them to do something later on."
Obama is not Kissinger, but who knows what messages his administration is sending the Arabs? One thing is for sure: This didn't appear on the White House page of talking points this week.
Haaretz
Abbas: No direct peace talks before progress made in proximity talks
Palestinian president seeks progress on security arrangements and borders of future Palestinian state; Both Netanyahu and Obama urge direct talks.
By Reuters
July 10, 2010
Ramalllah - Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas said on Saturday he wanted progress in indirect peace talks with Israel before any move to face-to-face talks, which the United States wants the two sides to begin.
U.S. President Barack Obama urged the two sides this week to resume direct talks by September. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who met Obama in Washington on Tuesday, says he wants to negotiate directly with Abbas.
But Abbas faces heavy domestic criticism over the failure of past negotiations and is wary of agreeing to more direct talks with Netanyahu's right-wing government.
Speaking in Ramallah, Abbas reiterated the Palestinian demand for progress in the indirect "proximity" talks, being mediated by U.S. envoy to the region George Mitchell, before any move to direct negotiations.
The indirect talks have been under way for two months.
"We said that if there is progress we will go to direct talks. If no progress happens, what is the benefit of negotiations that will be futile and useless," he said.
The Palestinian president spoke Saturday at a religious event marking the ascension to heaven of the Prophet Mohammed.
Abbas said the Palestinians wanted the indirect talks to make progress on two issues: security arrangements and the borders of the state the Palestinians aim to establish in the West Bank, the Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem.
"We are still hoping to realize success that will allow us to launch serious negotiations leading to peace," said Abbas, who spoke to Obama by phone on Friday.
The White House said the leaders "reviewed ways to advance to direct talks in the near term".
Abbas said Israel must stop building settlements on Palestinian land in the West Bank and East Jerusalem and remove the Jewish enclaves under a final peace deal. He did not repeat his previous demand for a complete halt to settlement building as a condition for direct peace talks.
The Palestinians say the settlements, which pepper the West Bank, will make it impossible to establish a viable Palestinian state alongside Israel - the outcome envisaged by major powers.
Netanyahu signaled on Thursday he would not extend beyond September a 10-month moratorium on new home building in West Bank settlements. He said this week he was prepared to discuss the future of the settlements "right away" if the Palestinians entered direct peace talks.
Haaretz
Obama to Abbas: I will make every effort to ensure Palestinian statehood
U.S. President calls Abbas days after meeting with Prime Minister Netanyahu to voice support for Palestinian leadership.
By Natasha Mozgovaya and Avi Issacharoff
July 9, 2010
Washington - U.S. President Barack Obama phoned Mahmoud Abbas on Friday to brief the Palestinian president on the American leader's recent meeting with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and voice his strong support for Abbas' leadership and commitment to peace.
Obama promised Abbas that he would exert every effort to ensure the establishment of an independent Palestinian state living side by side in peace and security with Israel.
Abbas' spokesman Nabil Abu Rudeineh told the Palestinian news agency WAFA following the phone conversation that Abbas expressed his commitment to a serious peace process that would "end the occupation" and result in an independent Palestinian state.
During the conversation, Obama noted the positive momentum generated by recent improvements on the ground in Gaza and in the West Bank, the restraint shown by both Israel and the Palestinians over recent months, and progress in the ongoing Israeli-Palestinian proximity talks.
Obama also noted that his envoy to the Middle East George Mitchell would be traveling to the region soon, and will meet with Abbas to build on this momentum to advance the common goals of the Americans and the Palestinians.
On Tuesday, Obama and Netanyahu held what the U.S. president described as an "excellent" meeting at the White House. Both leaders came out of the meeting convinced that direct peace talks between Israel and the Palestinians were imminent.
Haaretz
U.S. Presbyterians urge government to end Israel aid over settlements
Presbyterian Church publishes report on Middle East issues that was approved with 82% of the vote during the church's annual general assembly in Minneapolis.
By Associated Press
July 10, 2010
Minneapolis - Presbyterian leaders strongly backed a proposal Friday calling for the U.S. government to end aid to Israel unless the country stops settlement expansions in disputed Palestinian territories. The move was immediately criticized by Jewish groups.
But other aspects of the report on Middle East issues adopted by delegates of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) earned qualified praise from pro-Israel organizations, which have long taken issue with various Presbyterian statements on Middle East peace.
The report is meant as a guide for the denomination's more than 2 million members in many facets of the Israeli-Palestinian relationship. It was approved with 82 percent of the vote during the church's annual general assembly in Minneapolis.
"We feel we've brought together people who previously had trouble talking about some of these issues together," said the Rev. Karen Dimon of Northminster Presbyterian Church in North Syracuse, N.Y., and chairwoman of the committee that produced the 172-page report.
Ethan Felson, vice president of the Jewish Council for Public Affairs, said he still took issue with major aspects of the report, but said it contained important signals that could lessen long-standing tension between Presbyterians and pro-Israel Jews. He said it strengthens support for Israel's right to exist and removes comparisons of Israeli policy to apartheid.
"Concerns remain, but I have hope that authentic dialogue and better relations can come of this," Felson said.
The Anti-Defamation League said the report managed to avoid a rupture with Jewish people, but bias against Israel continues.
The Protestant denomination's relationship with Jewish groups took a hit in 2004, when its general assembly voted to authorize phased selective divestment in multinational corporations operating in Israel because of Israel's policies toward Palestinians. That stance has since been softened, and this year convention delegates voted down an amendment to the Middle East report that would have put divestment back on the table.
Despite the strong convention vote, some delegates expressed concern that the Middle East report remained too slanted toward a Palestinian perspective.
"There are many longtime friends in the Jewish community who believe this report misstates Jewish theology and misquotes the Jewish voice," said the Rev. Susan Zencka, pastor at Frame Memorial Presbyterian Church in Stevens Point, Wisconsin. "We have come to a position of Palestine good, Israel bad. Life is not that simple."
But supporters stressed that the overarching goal of the report is to encourage activism toward peace in the Middle East.
"I fully support a state of Israel, but I also believe Israel's peace will not come until they seek peace with Palestinians," said Dottie Villesvik, a church elder from Everett, Washington.
The church's annual convention began July 3, and is scheduled through Saturday.
Haaretz
Netanyahu: Mideast deal possible in year if direct peace talks start
PM tells Council on Foreign Relations he did not resume post of premier in order to do nothing, says he is willing to make unprecedented concessions.
By Barak Ravid
July 9, 2010
New York - Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu told the Council on Foreign Relations in New York on Thursday that if direct negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian Authority begin, it would be possible to reach a peace deal within a year.
In his speech to the prestigious foreign-policy think tank, Netanyahu stressed that he did not return to the post of prime minister in order to do nothing and said he was willing to make unprecedented concessions.
One participant asked him whether direct talks with PA President Mahmoud Abbas, with U.S. President Barack Obama serving as mediator, would lead to an agreement within a year. "Yes, I think so," Netanyahu said.
When asked whether the freeze on settlement construction was likely to be extended, he avoided a clear answer. As in previous cases where he has been asked about this issue in recent weeks, his response could be interpreted as an intention either to build or to freeze.
"I did the temporary freeze as an incentive for the Palestinians to enter direct talks," Netanyahu said. "Now, seven months into the freeze, the Palestinians have not entered direct talks, and they already want to extend it. The right thing to do is to enter talks. We have shown good will ... I think we have done enough, let us move onto direct talks."
Netanyahu said security and legitimacy are the two essential components of real peace in the Middle East. He said there should be "two states for two peoples," but Israel's security must be guaranteed, and a "demilitarized Palestinian state must recognize the State of Israel."
During a separate interview with Larry King, Netanyahu was asked about his meeting with Obama.
"I think there's an underlying relationship there that people don't appreciate," he replied. "We have our ups and downs. People focus on the downs and the downs are exaggerated and sometimes distorted. But there [are] ups and there's a basic bedrock of identification, common values between Israel and the United States. I think there is a solidity of ties between Israel and the United States that the president of the United States and the prime minister of Israel reflect in their meeting."
Netanyahu used the interview to again urge Abbas to "meet me and let's talk peace."
"I use this forum today to say, President Abbas, meet me, and let's talk peace. We all have our grievances. We all have our, you know, our questions and things that we want answered. But the most important thing is to get together, sit down in a room and begin to negotiate peace. You cannot resolve a conflict, you cannot successfully complete a peace negotiation if you don't start it. And I say let's start it right now, today, tomorrow, in Jerusalem, in Ramallah or anywhere else. I'm prepared to go to a warm city like New York or a cool city anywhere. Let's get on with the business of talking peace and concluding the peace agreement."
Asked whether he would be willing to talk with Hamas, Netanyahu said he was willing to "sit down with anyone who will recognize my existence. Somebody who calls for our destruction, my destruction, is unfortunately not a partner for peace."
On the crisis with Turkey, Netanyahu said that "the relationship began to deteriorate with the Turkish policy, a new policy, that basically veers away from the West and I think Israel - what has happened with Israel [is] a result of that policy and not its cause.
"But nevertheless, I look for every opportunity to see if we can stop this deterioration and somehow get things back to normal or relatively normal. Last week, I authorized a meeting with one of my senior ministers and the Turkish foreign minister. They met in Zurich, in the airport. I can't tell you that something positive came out of it."
Jerusalem Post
Goodwill moves likely upon PM’s return
By Yaakov Katz
July 9, 2010
Jerusalem - The Defense Ministry is drafting a comprehensive list of confidence-building measures that it anticipates it will be asked to implement after Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu returns to Israel on Friday from his meeting with US President Barack Obama, The Jerusalem Post has learned.
It has not been decided if the measures will be taken only following an announcement on the opening of direct negotiations with the Palestinian Authority, which Netanyahu has said will likely begin in the coming weeks, or will be initiated sooner, as part of an Israeli and American effort to get the PA to sit down at the negotiating table.
The gestures under consideration include the release of Palestinian prisoners from Israeli jails, the lifting of IDF roadblocks in the West Bank and the transfer of security authority over Palestinian towns in the West Bank to PA security forces.
On Monday, Defense Minister Ehud Barak met with PA Prime Minister Salam Fayyad in Jerusalem, in the first high-level meeting between top officials from the sides in about a year.
A senior defense official said that Fayyad urged Barak to move forward with the confidence-building measures and to include an Israeli commitment not to deport Hamas legislators from Jerusalem.
Four Hamas-affiliated Palestinian Legislative Council members currently face expulsion from Jerusalem. One of them, Muhammad Abu Tir, is in police custody for refusing to leave the city in late June, shortly after he was released from jail after serving close to four years.
Jerusalem Post
PA wants guarantees for direct talks
By Lahav Harkov
July 9, 2010
Jerusalem - On Friday, Chief Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat accused Israel of pressuring the Palestinians into joining direct talks without meeting the basic condition for moving forward, freezing the expansion of the settlements, Army Radio reported.
"The manner of the talks is not important, just their content. The keys are in Netanyahu's hands. The talks will continue the moment he agrees to freeze building in the settlements," said Erekat.
Senior Palestinian officials also told the London-based al-Hayat newspaper on Friday that the American government had asked Palestinian Authority chairman Mahmoud Abbas to participate in direct talks with Israel because of the difficulties Special Mideast Envoy George Mitchell had experienced in mediating talks.
"Abbas wants American and Israeli guarantees [before joining direct talks] so that the goal of the conversations will be clear," the officials were cited by Army Radio as telling the newspaper.
The guarantees the officials mentioned included, "the establishment of an independent Palestinian state on the lands captured in the 1967 war and small territory exchanges to solve the problem of the settlements."
A poll of Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza, released Wednesday, showed that most Palestinians do not want a renewal of violence.
Arab World for Research and Development, an institute located in Ramallah polled 1,2000 Palestinians - men and women, refugees and non-refugees - in 16 towns at the end of June.
Two-thirds of those surveyed believe Hamas should renew its ceasefire with Israel after it expires in September, and it should not resume use of missiles against targets in Israel. However, nearly half oppose direct talks with Israel.
Jerusalem Post
PM: Peace plan possible by end of '11
By Herb Keinon and Jordana Horn
July 9, 2010
Jerusalem - Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu told the Council of Foreign Relations in New York on Thursday that all core issues could be discussed in direct negotiations, and that if it were up to him, a peace deal with the Palestinians could be signed by the end of 2011.
“If it’s up to me, we’ll have an agreement,” Netanyahu said.
But he stressed that an accord would require a willing and able partner in Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas. While he expressed a reluctance to criticize Abbas, Netanyahu said, “I tend to confound the critics and the skeptics, but I need a partner. You can’t go out on a trapeze, hold out your hand and not have a partner on the other side.”
Netanyahu implied he would not extend the moratorium on settlements, due to expire on September 26, saying Israel had already shown its good faith, and decried the position that a moratorium extension should be a precondition for peace talks.
“Nobody’s going to deliver an agreement or a settlement from the outset,” the prime minister said. “If they’re waiting for that, I think that’s a big mistake. We’re prepared to talk about everything.”
The prime minister was winding up his trip to the US before flying back to Israel on Thursday evening.
Meanwhile, US President Barack Obama took his efforts to improve his relations with Israel out of the confines of the Oval Office and into Israel’s living rooms on Thursday, giving an interview to Channel 2 during which he articulated an understanding of the country’s fears and strong support for its security.
“Israeli people are going to have to overcome legitimate skepticism and more than legitimate fears in order to get a change that I think will secure Israel for another 60 years,” Obama said during the interview taped on Wednesday night and aired two days after he warmly welcomed Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu to the White House.
Obama insists previous Netanyahu meeting was 'terrific'
Obama’s reception of Netanyahu was markedly different from their last meeting, which was held without photographers present or a joint statement.
But during his interview, Obama said that the earlier meeting had been badly misrepresented.
“The last time the prime minister came here, we had a terrific meeting,” he said, adding that reports that he had somehow snubbed Netanyahu were patently false, and that the lack of a photo-opportunity and statement “fed this impression that there were more strains then there were.
“I don’t want to be disingenuous, there have been differences,” Obama said. “Our view on settlements, for example, is consistent with all previous US administrations.”
He said that the positions his administration had voiced on the settlements had been done “not in the spirit of trying to undermine Israel’s security, but to strengthen it. Because we believe strongly that if we can achieve calm on the ground, that will help in the negotiations that lead to peace.”
Regarding whether he had urged Netanyahu to extend the 10-month settlement moratorium, Obama echoed what he said on Tuesday with Netanyahu at his side: that he would like to see the direct Israeli-Palestinian talks begin before then.
Trust must be built so both sides will not be 'paranoid'
One result of the direct talks, he said, would be to build trust between the sides so they would not be “so jumpy or paranoid about every single move being made, whether it is being related to Jerusalem, or any other issues that have to be dealt with.”
Obama’s interview came just a week after Abbas also appealed directly to the Israeli public, giving a rare interview to the Hebrew press in which he tried to convince the public of his sincerity about peace.
Netanyahu on Thursday gave a number of interviews, including to CNN, ABC and CBS. In these interviews, he tried to convince the American public of the need for direct talks with the PA now, and he also, like Obama, downplayed reports of a crisis over the last year in his ties with the US president.
Obama said in his interview that not only was Netanyahu a “smart and savvy politician,” but the fact that “he is not perceived as a dove can in some ways be helpful.”
Obama said that just as former US president Richard Nixon had been uniquely positioned to make his groundbreaking trip to China because of his anti-communist credentials, so, too, Netanyahu may be positioned to help shepherd in a peace accord, because “any successful peace will have to include the hawks and doves on both sides.”
The president said Netanyahu understood that there was currently a “fairly narrow window of opportunity” because Abbas and PA Prime Minister Salam Fayyad were willing “to make concessions and engage in negotiations that can result in peace, but that their time frame in power might be limited if they can’t deliver for their people.”
Obama points to Emanuel, Axelrod as proof that he supports Israel, Jews
Asked about the lack of trust many Israelis had in him and his commitment to Israel, Obama said this was ironic, considering that “I’ve got a chief of staff named Rahm Israel Emanuel, and my top political adviser [David Axelrod] is somebody who is a descendant of Holocaust survivors.”
Obama said his closeness to the American Jewish community “is probably what propelled me to the US Senate,” and that his “knowledge, sympathy and identification with the Jewish experience” is rooted in part with the “historic connection with the African-American freedom movement here in the US, and the civil rights efforts of Jewish Americans, and some of the same impulses that led to the creation of Israel.”
He also said that some of the mistrust of him in Israel stemmed from the suspicion caused by his middle name, Hussein, and that he had actively made overtures to the Muslim world.
“I think that sometimes, particularly in the Middle East, there is a feeling that the friend of my enemy must be my enemy,” he said. “The truth of the matter is that my outreach to the Muslim community is designed precisely to reduce the antagonism and the dangers posed by a hostile Muslim world to Israel and the West.”
Obama said Netanyahu would attest “that the US under my administration has provided more security assistance to Israel than any administration in history, and we have greater security cooperation between our two countries than at any time in our history.
And the single most important threat to Israel – Iran – has been my No. 1 foreign policy priority over the last 18 months. So it’s hard, I think, to look at that track record, and look at my public statements, and in any way think my passion for Israel’s survival, security and its people are in any way diminished.”
Obama is convinced Israel will not make a unilateral strike on Iran
Regarding Iran, Obama said that the US would continually ratchet up the cost to Iran of pursuing its nuclear weapons program, while at the same time “keeping the door open for a diplomatic resolution for this challenge” and not taking any “options off the table.”
Asked whether he was concerned about unilateral Israeli military action, Obama replied, “I think the relationship between the United States and Israel is sufficiently strong, and that neither of us tries to surprise each other, but that we try to coordinate on issues of regional concern. That approach is one that I think Prime Minister Netanyahu is committed to.”
Even with Obama’s obvious overture to the Israeli public, White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said Wednesday that Obama had no plans to visit Israel this year. Netanyahu invited him during their meeting on Tuesday.
“It’s not on the books at this point,” Gibbs said.
At a special meeting Wednesday of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, Netanyahu characterized his talks with Obama as “very good” and said he expected direct talks with the PA, with the end goal of achieving a demilitarized Palestinian state, to commence “right away.”
“I want to enter direct talks with the Palestinian leadership now,” Netanyahu said he had told Obama.
“I call on Abbas to meet me to begin peace talks so we can fashion a final peace between Israel and its Palestinian leaders.
“Direct negotiations will start right away,” Netanyahu told the audience of over 500 attendees in the ballroom of the Plaza Hotel. “I hope they will and believe they will very soon.”
Netanyahu to Obama - 'We want Palestinians to have independent life'
In an answer to a question about peace negotiations, Netanyahu alluded obliquely to a possibility that neighborhoods within Jerusalem itself would be up for discussion in the context of peace talks.
“Everybody knows that there are Jewish neighborhoods in Jerusalem that under any peace plan will remain where they are,” Netanyahu said, implying that there could be Arab neighborhoods in Jerusalem that might not remain under Israeli rule.
Netanyahu said he had told Obama that he wanted to see a demilitarized Palestinian state that would recognize the State of Israel.
“We don’t want to govern the Palestinians,” Netanyahu said he had stated to Obama. “We want to make sure that they have their own independent, dignified life, but that they don’t threaten the State of Israel.”
He told the group that he had expressed his concern to Obama that areas previously vacated in an attempt to make peace were now being used as staging grounds for terror attacks against Israel.
“Strike one was withdrawal from Lebanon. Strike two: withdrawal from Gaza,” Netanyahu said. “We cannot have a strike three.”
Netanyahu: Israel's biggest challenges are a nuclear Iran and lasting peace
In his remarks, Netanyahu said the two greatest challenges Israel faced were preventing Iran from developing nuclear weapons, and advancing a “secure and prosperous peace” with the Palestinians. He complimented Obama on his efforts to derail Iran’s progress toward nuclear weapons with sanctions, but noted, “I cannot tell you that [sanctions] will stop Iran’s nuclear program. It is important to understand that it must be stopped.”
Netanyahu also spoke to the theme of asserting the legitimacy of the Jewish state.
“The Jews will no longer be passive victims of history,” he said to the approval of the gathered crowd. “We are now actors on the stage of history. We now chart our own collective destiny.”
In addition, he responded to charges of Israeli impropriety in the May 31 Gaza flotilla incident.
“For 2,000 years, the Jews were the perfect victims,” he said. “They may be perfectly moral, but they’re still victims.The purpose of the Jewish state is to defend Jewish lives. The standard that must be applied to Israel is not perfection, but the standard applied to any other country faced with similar circumstances.”
“I think he covered all the bases,” the Conference’s vice chairman, Malcolm Hoenlein, told The Jerusalem Post after the speech. “He is clearly intent on moving the peace process forward, and is issuing a challenge to Abbas to come forward as well.”
Jerusalem Post
PM on Larry King: Direct talks now
By Jordana Horn
July 9, 2010
New York - As part of his trip to the United States, Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu gave televised interviews Wednesday to CNN’s Larry King and CBS’s Katie Couric, in which he repeatedly highlighted his willingness to engage Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas in direct talks – even on television.
“Let’s get on with the business of concluding peace,” Netanyahu told King in the interview, saying he would be willing to meet Abbas in any location to start direct talks with the PA.
King then asked if Netanyahu would be willing to talk through issues with Abbas on the Larry King Live show, referencing his 1995 show with former prime minister Yitzhak Rabin, PLO leader Yasser Arafat and Jordan’s King Hussein.
“You’re on, Larry,” Netanyahu told the soon-toretire newsman. “From my point of view, immediately.No problem.”
Netanyahu also reiterated his interest in direct talks during his interview with Couric, saying that when it came to the peace process, he had “been pretty bold, but I’m willing to be bolder.”
The prime minister told both interviewers that he would be willing to discuss settlements within the context of direct talks with the Palestinians. He qualified the statement in the Couric interview, saying that he was not talking about “Jewish neighborhoods of Jerusalem that everybody recognizes are going to remain part of Israel”; rather, unspecified parts of the West Bank would be up for discussion in the context of final negotiations.
Netanyahu was asked in both interviews about the apparent positive tenor of his meetings with US President Barack Obama.
“You know, you... you remind me of the Israeli press. They say, ‘How come you had a good meeting with President Obama?’ Well, because I did,” Netanyahu responded when Couric pressed him on whether he had any disagreements with the Obama administration.
“Because we, we actually see eye to eye on... some central issues. The quest for peace. The danger of Iran.The need to bolster security, for Israel and the region. That’s the truth. We do see it. Have we had differences? Of course we have,” he said.
“Some awkward moments?” Couric asked.
Netanyahu replied, not a little dismissively, “Yeah, of course, we’ve had. So what?” In both interviews, Netanyahu reiterated that “common interests” bound the United States and Israel.
“We have our ups and downs. People focus on the downs, and the downs are exaggerated and sometimes distorted,” Netanyahu told King in reference to the USIsrael relationship. “But there are ups and there’s a basic bedrock of identification, common values between Israel and the United States.”
He added, “I think the support for Israel and the American people and the intertwining of interests and cooperation between our governments is increasing all the time. It’s obscured by the bumps on the road. But there’s no question that the road is going forward and going upwards, I have no doubt about that.”
While Couric’s interview largely focused on the peace process, King’s interview spent a significant amount of time on the Iranian threat.
Both interviewers asked Netanyahu about the Gaza flotilla incident. Couric asked if Netanyahu had any regrets as to Israel’s conduct, to which Netanyahu responded that while he regretted the loss of life, he did not have misgivings about Israeli conduct in the raid.
New York Times
Israel Vows to ‘Take Risks’ in Talks With Palestinians
By Kyle Crichton and Isabel Kershner
July 8, 2010
New York - Declaring that he intended to “confound the critics and the skeptics,” an upbeat Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel told an audience of foreign policy experts in New York on Thursday that he was ready to begin direct peace talks with the Palestinians “next week” or even sooner. “Just get on with it,” he said.
Mr. Netanyahu acknowledged in an address to the Council on Foreign Relations that “skepticism is warranted,” given the dismal record of such negotiations and the precariousness of his own position at the head of a fractious coalition dominated by pro-settler parties. But he vowed he was “prepared to take risks, political risks,” to achieve peace.
President Obama seemed to offer Mr. Netanyahu some political cover on the issue in a meeting on Tuesday at the White House, widely seen as a attempt to patch relations after public disagreements between the allies about the expansion of Israeli settlements in the West Bank. Mr. Obama shifted the emphasis from stopping settlements to reinvigorating the peace process, saying he hoped the establishment of direct talks would “create a climate” that would lead to breakthroughs.
In an interview with Israel’s Channel 2 News, Mr. Obama’s first with an Israeli television station since he became president, he continued with that theme, saying he believed that Mr. Netanyahu was well placed to reach a peace deal with the Palestinians. Mr. Obama said that a deal, though wrenching and difficult, could be achieved in his presidential term.
It was unclear whether the upbeat assessments by the two leaders were based mainly on a desire to signal a more cooperative relationship between them, or on genuine optimism that the conditions for negotiating a peace agreement with the Palestinian Authority had improved. Neither mentioned any substantive change in policy, including on the deeply divisive settlements question, which could break the impasse in talks with the Palestinians.
Mr. Netanyahu, in fact, indicated that he did not intend to extend a 10-month moratorium on housing starts in West Bank settlements that expires in September, saying, “I think we’ve done enough.”
In his television interview, Mr. Obama struck a relaxed and friendly tone and emphasized his commitment to Israel’s security.
Asked about the anxiety of many Israelis who feel that he does not have a special bond with Israel, Mr. Obama said that “some of it may just be the fact that my middle name is Hussein, and that creates suspicion.” His reaching out to the Muslim world might have been another factor, he added.
But he noted: “Ironically, I’ve got a chief of staff named Rahm Israel Emanuel. My top political adviser is somebody who is a descendant of Holocaust survivors. My closeness to the Jewish-American community was probably what propelled me to the U.S. Senate.”
Speaking to Israeli fears over making concessions to the Palestinians, he referred to the rocket attacks that followed Israeli withdrawals from Gaza and southern Lebanon and failed attempts to negotiate a peace deal in the past. He described Israeli skepticism and worries as “legitimate,” but he argued that they had to be overcome, as the window of opportunity was “fairly narrow.”
“We probably won’t have a better opportunity than we have right now. And that has to be seized,” he said.
Mr. Netanyahu delivered much the same message in New York on Thursday, saying, “I think that we should seize the moment, and it is a challenging and important moment, when we have the ability to achieve peace.” But he added, “I need a partner.”
Asked later whether he thought the Palestinian president, Mahmoud Abbas, were such a partner, Mr. Netanyahu offered a tepid endorsement, saying, “I won’t rule out the possibility of leadership.”
In other Israel news:
¶The government of the Palestinian Authority called on the Obama administration on Thursday to end tax breaks to American donors financing Jewish settlements and settler groups in the West Bank. The government issued a statement citing a New York Times investigation published Tuesday, which found that at least 40 American groups had collected more than $200 million in tax-deductible gifts for settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem in the last decade.
¶The family members of a captured Israeli soldier, Staff Sgt. Gilad Shalit, on Thursday completed a 12-day march from their home in northern Israel to Jerusalem, part of a public campaign to press the government to reach a prisoner exchange deal with the Islamic militant group Hamas. Tens of thousands of Israelis joined segments of the march and rallies along the way. Sergeant Shalit, 23, was seized by Hamas in June 2006.
Haaretz
Obama: Israel won't attack Iran without coordinating with U.S.
U.S. president tells Channel 2 there probably won't be a better opportunity for Middle East peace than right now.
By Haaretz Service
Tel Aviv - U.S. President Barack Obama told Channel 2 News on Wednesday that he believed Israel would not try to surprise the U.S. with a unilateral attack on Iran.
In an interview, to be aired Thursday evening, Obama was asked whether he was concerned Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu would try to attack Iran without clearing the move with the U.S., to which the president replied "I think the relationship between Israel and the U.S. is sufficiently strong that neither of us try to surprise each other, but we try to coordinate on issues of mutual concern."
Obama spoke to Channel 2's Yonit Levy one day after what he described as an "excellent" meeting with Netanyahu at the White House. The two leaders met alone for about 90 minutes Tuesday evening, during which time they discussed the peace process with the Palestinians, the contested Iranian nuclear program, and the strategic understandings between their two countries on Tehran's efforts to achieve nuclear capabilities.
Netanyahu promised Obama during their meeting that Israel would undertake confidence-building measures toward the Palestinian Authority in the coming days and weeks. These steps are likely to include the transfer of responsibility over more parts of the West Bank over to PA security forces.
During the interview Wednesday, Obama went on to say that he believed a peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinians could be achieved within his current term. "I think [Netanyahu] understands we've got a fairly narrow window of opportunity… We probably won’t have a better opportunity than we have right now. And that has to be seized. It’s going to be difficult."
The American President entirely sidestepped the question of whether the U.S. would pressure Israel to extend a current 10-month moratorium on construction in West Bank settlements, failing to give a clear answer. The moratorium is set to expire in September, and Netanyahu has announced that he would not extend the timeframe. The U.S., however, views continued Israeli settlement construction as a serious obstacle to peace efforts.
When asked whether he thought Netanyahu was the right man to strike a peace deal with the Palestinians, the U.S. President said that "I think Prime Minister Netanyahu may be very well positioned to bring this about," adding that Israel will have to overcome many hurdles in order to affect the change required to "secure Israel for another 60 years"
In a separate interview with another Israeli media outlet, Obama proclaimed that he was not "blindly optimistic" regarding the chances of a Middle East peace agreement.
Israel is right to be skeptical about the peace process, he said in another yet-to-be-aired interview that was taped on Wednesday. He noted during the interview that many people thought the founding of Israel was impossible, so its very existence should be "a great source of hope."
Meanwhile on Wednesday, Netanyahu told U.S. Jewish leaders that direct Palestinian-Israeli talks would begin "very soon", but warned that they would be "very, very tough."
Netanyahu told his cabinet earlier this week before flying to Washington that the time had come for Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas to prepare to meet directly with the Israelis, as it was the only way to advance peace.
Israelis and Palestinians have been holding indirect talks mediated by Obama's special envoy to the Middle East, George Mitchell. Aides to Obama sounded a hopeful tone regarding the negotiations last week, telling reporters that the shuttle diplomacy between the two sides had paid off and the gaps have narrowed.
At a meeting with representatives of Jewish organizations at the Plaza Hotel late Wednesday, Netanyahu discussed the efforts to promote Middle East peace. "This is going to be a very, very tough negotiation," he said, adding "the sooner the better."
"Direct negotiations must begin right away, and we think that they will," he said.
Jerusalem Post
PM: Talks must begin right away: Netanyahu meets Jewish leaders; agrees to talk peace on Larry King.
By AP & JPost.com staff
July 8, 2010
New York - Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu addressed Jewish leaders in New York on Wednesday, stating that peace negotiations with the Palestinians would be "very, very tough," but that it was imperative that direct talks begin soon.
"The sooner the better," the Israeli leader said of the talks. "Direct negotiations must begin right away, and we think that they will."
Netanyahu said Wednesday "it was a very good meeting with president Obama," adding "America has no better friend, no better ally than the state of Israel."
Later, in an interview with CBS anchor Katie Couric, Netanyahu was asked why he was being so positive and whether anything in his talks with Obama had been disappointing.
"You know, you ... you remind me of the Israeli press. They say, 'How come you had a good meeting with President Obama?' Well, because I did. Because we, we actually see eye to eye on ... some central issues. The quest for peace. The danger of Iran. The need to bolster security, for Israel and the region. That's the truth. We do see it. Have we had differences? Of course we have."
"Some awkward moments?" Couric asked. He replied: "Yeah, of course, we've had. So what?"
The prime minister said he would be willing to hold peace talks on Larry King's CNN show, during an interview on Wednesday night. Netanyahu said he would like to begin direct talks "right now."
Jerusalem Post
Obama identifies with Jewish struggle: US President: Outreach to Muslims designed to reduce antagonism.
By Jpost.com Staff & AP
July 8, 2010
Washington - US President Barak Obama discussed his affiliation with the Muslim community on Thursday in a yet-to-be-aired Channel 2 television interview.
"My middle name is Husssain and that attracts suspicion," Obama said. He continued by stating that his outreach to the Muslim community is designed to reduce the antagonism towards Israel.
Obama said that he is able to identify with the Jewish struggle for a state because there are many similarities to the African American freedom movement.
The US President also discussed Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu.
"Not only is Netanyahu smart and savvy, the fact that he is not perceived as a dove in some ways can be helpful. Any successful peace will have to include the hawks and the doves on both sides," the US president said.
Obama used examples from US history and said "In the same way [former US president] Nixon was able to go to China with strong anti-communist credentials, I think Netanyahu is well positioned to bring about peace."
Regarding the recent talks between the two on Wednesday, Obama noted, "I had the impression that Netanyahu is not just interested in occupying a space and filling a role, he is interested in being a statesman and putting his country on more secure tracks."
Obama also said that Israel is right to be skeptical about the peace process. But he noted that many people thought the founding of Israel was impossible, so its very existence should be "a great source of hope."
The US president also recalled visiting Jerusalem before he became president. He escribed wandering anonymously through the Old City as "a profound pleasure" that he's too well-known to enjoy now. Obama laughed about leaving a prayer at the Western Wall during his most recent visit, only to have someone remove it and print it in a newspaper.
Obama's comments came after he and Netanyahu exchanged affirmations of the strength of the US-Israel relationship during an Oval Office meeting Tuesday in which they stressed the shared goal of quickly moving forward with the peace process.
Jerusalem Post
New booklet reveals Muslim acts of heroism during Holocaust
By Jonny Paul
July 7, 2010
London - A new publication highlighting Muslim acts of heroism during the Holocaust will be published on Wednesday, chronicling the role played by Muslims who defended Jews during World War II.
The 34-page booklet, titled “The Role of Righteous Muslim Persons,” was initiated by Faith Matters, a London-based interfaith organization that works toward reducing extremism and fostering social cohesion in the UK. The aim of the booklet is to inform religious communities and the general public about the littleknown stories of courageous Muslims who stood up against injustice, protecting Jews during the Holocaust.
Guided by their Muslim faith and personal desire to do what was right, they protected and saved the lives of many potential victims. The publication also aims to counter the narrative that no Muslims played a part in the defense of Jewish communities during the War.
The work focuses on people deemed ”Righteous Gentiles” by Jerusalem’s Yad Vashem and highlights the role played by individuals, families and communities in countries such as Albania, Algeria, Tunisia, Morocco, Turkey, Croatia, and Bosnia and Herzegovina.
In Albania, Jews were not victims of the Nazis because of a national code of honor called “Besa,” a desire to help those in need, even those of another faith or origin.
The booklet also tells the story of Muslim lawyer Khaled Mahameed, founder and curator of the first Arab Holocaust museum in Nazareth, who believes that by understanding such atrocities, one can stand up for justice and equality.
“This booklet is needed now more than ever, especially when there is very little in the public domain about the role that Muslim communities played in the Holocaust, as well as numerous articles and Web sites which repeat the mantra that Muslim communities are overwhelmingly negative in their thoughts and views about the Holocaust,” said Fiyaz Mughal, founder of Faith Matters and editor of the booklet.
“It highlights the noble deeds and courageous acts carried out by Muslims towards their Jewish neighbors, and I hope that faith communities will use the booklet as a tool to encourage greater understanding and respect towards each other,” he added.
“It is important to remember and learn from the actions of brave people who risked their lives to save others during the Holocaust,” said Karen Pollock, chief executive of the Holocaust Educational Trust. “These stories of individuals who faced great dangers to help Jewish people are inspirational.”
Haaretz
Netanyahu's second chance
It's Netanyahu's turn to prove Obama's statment that he believes the PM wants peace and is ready to take risks for it.
Haaretz Editorial
July 8, 2010
Tel Aviv - Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu received a second chance from U.S. President Barack Obama on Tuesday.
After more than a year of tension between Washington and Jerusalem, accompanied by expressions of mutual dissatisfaction, Netanyahu received a friendly welcome in the White House. Obama was profuse in his praise, smiles and florid figures of speech, and said he believes that Netanyahu wants peace. The president also called on the Palestinians to open direct talks with Netanyahu and indicated support for Israel's policy of nuclear ambiguity.
The close ties with the United States are Israel's strategic support, and it is difficult to overstate their importance to Israel's survival, security and prosperity. If Netanyahu came under justified criticism for his role in damaging relations with the Obama administration over the past year, he can feel content with these efforts at rehabilitation.
But don't get confused: Obama's gestures of friendship, which can be partly attributed to the impending congressional elections, do not change anything about the administration's basic policy.
Obama has made it clear that his goal was, and still is, the establishment of a Palestinian state alongside Israel. And he expects Netanyahu to help reach that objective, through negotiations with the Palestinians and confidence-building measures aimed at strengthening the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank and improving the economic situation in the Gaza Strip.
Netanyahu must take advantage of the chance he has been given, say yes to Obama, and act seriously and swiftly to end the occupation and establish an independent Palestine. But his appearance at the White House on Tuesday raises doubt if he will do so. Netanyahu was careful not to make any statement deviating from the political line of the watchful right wing. He did not say the words "Palestinian state" and focused on warning of the security risk involved in withdrawal and on the demand to change Palestinian textbooks. Once again, it seems that Netanyahu prefers his political partnership with Avigdor Lieberman, Moshe Ya'alon and Eli Yishai to a partnership with the president of the United States.
Obama says he believes Netanyahu wants peace and is ready to take risks for it. Now it's the prime minister's turn to prove, in words and in deed, that he is worthy of this belief and is not merely trying, as is his wont, to gain more time in power without taking the peace process forward.
Haaretz
An excellent meeting
Two statesmen met in Washington on Tuesday who are looking smaller and smaller, who are taking smaller and smaller steps.
By Gideon Levy
July 8, 2010
Tel Aviv - It really was an excellent meeting: The chance that a binational state will be established has improved as a result; relations between Israel and the United States are indeed "marvelous." Israel can continue with the whims of its occupation. The president of the United States proved Tuesday that perhaps there has been change, but not as far as we are concerned.
If there remained any vestiges of hope in the Middle East from Barack Obama, they have dissipated; if some people still expected Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to lead a courageous move, they now know they made a mistake (and misled others ).
The masked ball is at its peak: Preening each other, Obama and Netanyahu have proved that even their heavy layer of makeup can no longer hide the wrinkles. The worn-out, wizened old face of the longest "peace process" in history has been awarded another surprising and incomprehensible extention. It's on its way nowhere.
The "warm" and "sympathetic" reception, albeit a little forced, including the presidential dog, Bo, the meeting of the wives, with the U.S. president accompanying the Israeli prime minister to the car in an "unprecedented" way, as the press enthused, cannot obscure reality. The reality is that Israel has again managed to fool not only America, but even its most promising president in years.
It was enough to listen to the joint press conference to understand, or better yet, not understand, where we are headed. Will the freeze continue? Obama and Netanyahu squirmed, formulated and obfuscated, and no clear answer was forthcoming. If there was a time when people marveled at Henry Kissinger's "constructive ambiguity," now we have destructive ambiguity. Even when it came to the minimum move of a construction freeze, without which there is no proof of serious intent on Israel's part, the two leaders threw up a smoke screen. A cowardly yes-and-no by both.
More than anything, the meeting proved that the criminal waste of time will go on. A year and a half has passed since the two took office, and almost nothing has changed except lip service to the freeze. A few lifted roadblocks here, a little less blockade of Gaza there - all relatively marginal matters, a bogus substitute for a bold jump over the abyss, without which nothing will move.
When direct talks become a goal, without anyone having a clue what Israel's position is - a strange negotiation in which everyone knows what the Palestinians want and no one knows for sure what Israel wants - the wheel not only does not go forward, it goes backward. There are plenty of excuses and explanations: Obama has the congressional elections ahead of him, so he mustn't make Netanyahu angry.
After that, the footfalls of the presidential elections can be heard, and then he certainly must not anger the Jews. Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman is pressuring Netanyahu now; tomorrow it might be Likud MK Danny Danon, and after all, you can't expect Netanyahu to commit political suicide. And there you have it, his term in office is over, with no achievements. Good for you, Obama; bravo Netanyahu. You managed to make a mockery of each other, and together, of us all.
Netanyahu will be coming back to Israel over the weekend, adorned with false accomplishments. The settlers will mark a major achievement. Even if they don't not admit it - they are never satisfied, after all - they can rejoice secretly. Their project will continue to prosper. If they have doubled their numbers since the Oslo Accords, now they can triple them.
And then what? Here then is a question for Obama and Netanyahu: Where to? No playing for time can blur the question. Where are they headed? What will improve in another year? What will be more promising in another two years? The Syrian president is knocking at the door begging for peace with Israel, and the two leaders are ignoring him. Will he still be knocking in two years? The Arab League's initiative is still valid; terror has almost ceased. What will the situation be after they have finished compromising over the freeze in construction of balconies and ritual baths?
Two statesmen met in Washington on Tuesday who are looking smaller and smaller, who are taking smaller and smaller steps. They have decided not to decide, which in itself is a decision. When the chance of a two-state solution has long since entered injury time, they have decided on more extra time. Get ready for the binational state, or the next round of bloodletting.
Haaretz
King for a day
If Netanyahu does not immediately take advantage of the hard-won credit he has been granted in order to come out with an Israeli diplomatic initiative, his situation will become desperate again.
By Ari Shavit
July 8, 2010
Tel Aviv - A week ago Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's condition was nearly desperate. The Turkel committee became a committee with teeth liable to bite the prime minister, while State Comptroller Micha Lindenstrauss' scrutiny of the flotilla affair threatened to wound the prime minister. Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman started making threats again and Defense Minister Ehud Barak continued to make trouble. Many observers are predicting that the government will start to disintegrate by September. The man who is conducting an intimate dialogue with history has realized that by next summer, he may well become an obscure and marginal historical footnote himself.
There were also other troubles. In private, Netanyahu was told he was surrounded. After all, the international community is closing in on him; he lost Turkey, is losing Europe and is liable to lose the United States. If he doesn't break through the noose, his fate is sealed.
Worse than that were the words of the defense minister. Very, very quietly, without anyone knowing about it, Barak laid a pistol on the table. The man on whom Netanyahu depends - politically, diplomatically, strategically and emotionally - made it clear he will not stay with him forever. If Netanyahu does not make U.S. President Barack Obama a real offer, he will remain all alone under siege.
A week has gone by and things have turned around. Netanyahu is king. The White House is welcoming him with flowers, smiles and unprecedented affability. Blair House, Oval Office, press conference. The man who was anathema in March is given a royal reception in July. After a long period during which the president of the United States and the prime minister of Israel were adversaries, they are now falling all over each other.
And this is not just atmosphere, not just manners and politeness. Netanyahu is extracting from Obama a series of diplomatic achievements: an unambiguous commitment to Israel's unique needs, acknowledgment that Israel has to defend itself from the violent neighborhood in which it lives, a promise not to detract from Israel's defense capability. And by implication: recognition of Dimona. Recognition of the Iranian threat. Recognition that the way to Israeli-Palestinian peace is through direct talks.
After 18 wasted months during which Obama was the president who exerted pressure, he has become the president who embraces. Obama is embracing the State of Israel and the prime minister of Israel. What happened?
Three things have happened. On one level, Netanyahu waged a struggle. And the statesman who is depicted as susceptible to pressure did not succumb to the American pressure of this past spring. He fought back. The price for what Netanyahu did was felt by Obama in Chicago. The Israeli leader applied hidden pressure to the American leader, which made it perfectly clear to him: No more.
On another level, the Americans realized one-sided pressure on Israel is dangerous. It hurts them, keeps peace at bay and undermines stability in the Middle East. Even if Israel can be irritating, it is a fact. And even if Netanyahu arouses wrath, he is the only game in town. If there is peace during the Obama years, it won't be Tzipi Livni's peace. Nor will it be Yair Lapid's peace. The peace will be solely Netanyahu's.
On a third level, Israel demonstrated its seriousness. For many months, the two government engaged in an ongoing and in-depth working dialogue. The Israelis made it clear to the Americans that they are serious. In order to receive diplomatic and strategic credit, they deposited guarantees in the hands of their discussion partners - guarantees that will need to be put into effect in the coming months. That which sweetened the prime minister's visit to the White House is liable to embitter his life at home.
Thus the royal visit to Washington is not the end of the story. The Americans gave, and the Americans are expecting to get. Netanyahu must not let himself become confused. Now he is king for a day, maybe for a summer. However, if he does not immediately take advantage of the hard-won credit he has been granted in order to come out with an Israeli diplomatic initiative, his situation will become desperate again. Turkel and Lindenstrauss are still out there. So are Lieberman and Barak, as well as Hamas, Hezbollah and Iran. The noose is still closing in on Netanyahu, and it is his obligation to slough it off.
Haaretz
A peace crime
What more can Assad say that he hasn't already? How long must he knock in vain on Israel's locked door?
By Gideon Levy
July 11, 2010
Tel Aviv - It couldn't have been spelled out more explicitly, clearly and emphatically. Read and judge for yourselves: "Our position is clear: When Israel returns the entire Golan Heights, of course we will sign a peace agreement with it .... What's the point of peace if the embassy is surrounded by security, if there is no trade and tourism between the two countries? That's not peace. That's a permanent cease-fire agreement. This is what I say to whoever comes to us to talk about the Syrian track: We are interested in a comprehensive peace, i.e., normal relations."
Who said this to whom? Syrian President Bashar Assad to the Lebanese newspaper As-Safir last week. These astounding things were said to Arab, not Western ears, and they went virtually unnoticed here. Can you believe it?
What more can Assad say that he hasn't already? How many more times does he have to declare his peaceful intentions before someone wakes up here? How long must he knock in vain on Israel's locked door? And if that were not enough, he also called on Turkey to work to calm the crisis with Israel so it can mediate between Israel and Syria.
Assad's words should have been headline news last week and in the coming weeks. Anwar Sadat said less before he came to Israel. In those days we were excited by his words, today we brazenly disregard such statements. This leads to only one conclusion: Israel does not want peace with Syria. Period. It prefers the Golan over peace with one of its biggest and most dangerous enemies. It prefers real estate, bed and breakfasts, mineral water, trendy wine and a few thousand settlers over a strategic change in its status.
Just imagine what would happen if we emerged from the ruins of our international status to sign a peace agreement with Syria - how the international climate regarding us would suddenly change, how the "axis of evil" would crack and Iran's strongholds weaken, how Hezbollah would get a black eye, more than in all the Lebanon wars. And maybe even Gilad Shalit, held by the Damascus-based Hamas, would be freed. Sound too good to be true? Maybe, but Israel is not even trying. A prime minister who ignores this chance is no less than a peace criminal.
Instead of the Shalit march that has just ended, a different march should have set out this week, one more massive and determined, calling on the Israeli government, the peace refuser, to do something. Hoarse shouts should have gone up: Peace with Syria now. But this march will not go forward this week. Apparently it will never happen. Singer-songwriter Shlomo Artzi, Zubin Mehta and the respectable demonstrators who marched on behalf of one soldier will not do so to support a move that could save the lives of many soldiers and civilians. Why? Because that takes courage. Why? Because Assad was right when he told La Repubblica in Italy: "Israeli society has tilted too far to the right, and it is not capable of making peace with Syria."
True, they say the Mossad chief thinks that Assad will never make peace because the whole justification for his regime is based on hostility toward Israel. Our experts are never wrong, but similar things were said about Sadat. True, Assad also said other things. Other? Not really. He said that if he does not succeed through peace, he will try to liberate the Golan through resistance. Illogical? Illegitimate? Not a reason to try to challenge him? What do we have to lose but the chance? Even the latest fig leaf a few prime ministers have used here - the assessment that the U.S. opposes peace with Syria - is absurd. Does anyone see U.S. President Barack Obama opposing a peace move with Syria? What a pity that he is not pressing Israel to move ahead with it.
And then there is the old refrain: "Assad doesn't mean it." When Arab leaders make threats, they mean it; when they talk peace, they don't. And also: "We'll return the Golan and end up with a piece of paper and missiles." Remember how that was said about Egypt? But we persist: The prime minister is criminally missing a historic chance for peace, and we yawn apathetically. Sounds logical, right?
Jerusalem Post
Israel is waiting for Palin
By Larry Derfner
July 8, 2010
Jerusalem - Israel’s worldwide “loyal opposition” is asking: Where is this country going? Where is Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu going? Where is this government’s policy headed? Do they think they can go on with the occupation forever, do they plan to fight the whole world forever? What is their goal and how do they expect to get there? When these gung-ho Israelis try to plot the future, what do they have in mind for a happy ending?
Simple: The Republican Party’s return to power. The happy ending they envision is this: The Republicans retake the White House and Congress so Bibi, the settlers and the whole Israeli Right can do whatever the hell they want and America will back them up, no questions asked.
This strategy came into focus clearly enough with Netanyahu’s victorious visit to the White House this week. Everyone knows President Barack Obama and his administration can’t stand Netanyahu or his policies, but Obama had to smile and pretend because he’s scared stiff of giving the Republicans more ammunition for the November elections.
Look at what’s happening: The prime minister of Israel is holding the president of the United States at bay, bending him to his will, because he’s got the Republicans behind him.
Not a bad strategy, I’d say. For the time being.
In the long run, I don’t think it’s going to work. It’ll take Israel through the midterm elections, and maybe beyond; after November, Obama may be too weak to pressure Israel into making peace. And two years later, with the way the US economy’s going, the Israeli Right may have its prayers answered by a Republican presidential candidate defeating Obama.
But if Netanyahu and the gang think a President Sarah Palin or a President Newt Gingrich and all their yahoos in Congress can make the world safe for West Bank settlements, or for the blockade of Gaza, or for Israeli militarism in general, they’re wrong. The Republicans are the American equivalent of the Likud, and vice versa.
They both see the world in terms of us vs. them, they both hate Muslims and liberals, they both see war with one Muslim enemy after another as the only way to solve their problems, they’re both clueless about how to make peace or stability and, thus, the only friends they have in the world are each other.
SORRY, IT’S not enough. The American Right and the Israeli Right against the world – how far can they get? The Likud thinks the Republicans will prop them up? Instead, they’ll drag each other down. They’ll be like Thelma and Louise, holding hands as they drive over the cliff.
But that’s at least a few years away. In the meantime, Israel is becoming an ever more powerful “wedge issue” for the Republicans. It goes like this: Either you’re for Israel or you’re for the Democrats, you can’t be both. Put another way: Either you’re for the Republicans or you’re for the terrorists, you have to choose one.
The message is working well and it’s cost Obama a lot of support – mainly among Jews but also among middle-of-the-road gentiles. And it is, indeed, forcing Americans who love Israel – including those who don’t hate Muslims and liberals – to choose sides. For this wing of the pro-Israel community, the choice goes like this: Either you’re against Palin, Gingrich, Rush Limbaugh, Fox News, Pastor John Hagee and all the other Republicans who just love the direction Israel’s going in, or you’re for the Netanyahu government’s policies – you can’t be both.
Put another way: Either you want Israel to remain a part of the democratic world, or you want to change the Likud-led, Republican-backed, belligerent, separatist direction it’s going in – you can’t have both.
American, Israeli, whoever’s interested – you have to choose.
Haaretz
Report: Netanyahu asks Bill Clinton to mediate Shalit release
Prime Minister reportedly suggests that former U.S. president visit Gaza, speak with Hamas officials.
By Haaretz Service
July 11, 2010
Tel Aviv - Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu asked former U.S. president Bill Clinton to help mediate the release of captive Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit, the Palestinian news agency Ma'an reported Sunday.
During his recent visit to Washington, Netanyahu met with the former U.S. leader and proposed that the latter visit Gaza and negotiate with senior Hamas officials in efforts to finalize a prisoner exchange deal that would see hundreds of Palestinian prisoners freed from Israeli jails in exchange for Shalit.
Shalit was captured by Gaza militants in 2006 and has been held by Hamas for over four years.
According to Ma'an, the Hamas government of Gaza has received no information on Clinton's potential visit, but Gaza Foreign Ministry undersecretary Ahmed Yousef told journalists on Saturday that Hamas "welcomes every effort to expose Israeli crimes against the population of Gaza.”
“The government is open to the world through contact with Western officials, who are well briefed on the suffering of the Palestinian people,” he added.
Meanwhile, dozens of people flocked to a protest tent set up by Noam and Aviva Shalit, Gilad's parents, in Jerusalem on Saturday. The family set up the protest tent at the culmination of a 12-day protest march from their home in the Galilee to the prime minister's residence in Jerusalem, and vowed to demonstrate outside the weekly cabinet meetings until the Israel Defense Forces soldier was free.
|
|
|
Middle East Update - Obama to visit Israel as Netanyahu promises direct talks in "next few weeks" |
|
|
|
July 7, 2010
After their private meeting where Netanyahu agreed to transfer more of the security operations on the West Bank to the Palestinian Authority and to meet other preconditions for direct negotiations including restricting new construction to already agreed areas of the West Bank and East Jerusalem, the two heads of state performed the de rigeur press briefing and photo opportunity signifying unity on the peace plan and moving forward to direct negotiations in the near term well before the deadline set by the Arab League in September. Netanyahu said the time frame was imminent, "When I
say the next few weeks, that's what I mean. The president
means that too."
The major announcement was that Obama will be going to Israel where he will address the Knesset and the Palestinian Authority laying out the parameters of the peace plan emerging through the indirect negotiations by his Envoy Senator George Mitchell.
Haaretz
Obama: We need to advance to direct Israeli-Palestinian talks
U.S. President hosts Netanyahu at White House in what analysts dub a 'make up' visit, after snub during Netanyahu's March trip to Washington.
By Natasha Mozgovaya and News Agencies
July 6, 2010
Tel Aviv - U.S. President Barack Obama voiced hope in a fence-mending meeting on Tuesday with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu that direct Israeli-Palestinian talks would begin before a temporary moratorium on Israeli settlement construction expires in September.
"We expect proximity talks to lead to direct talks," Obama said as he and Netanyahu appeared before reporters in the Oval Office. The joint appearance was intended to display warmer relations after ties reached a low point in March in a feud over Israeli settlement expansion.
Netanyahu echoed Obama, who said he hoped direct negotiations would get under way "well before" the 10-month Israeli freeze on settlement construction in the West Bank expires in September.
Netanyahu has called on Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas to meet him and move from the current U.S.-mediated "proximity talks" to face-to-face negotiations on Palestinian statehood.
It was "high time," Netanyahu said, to begin direct talks. Obama said he hoped confidence-building measures by both sides would help ease the way to such negotiations. Obama added, however that the "U.S. will never ask Israel to do anything that undermines its security."
Netanyahu said without elaborating that he and Obama discussed specific steps that could be taken in the coming weeks to move the peace process forward. "When I say the next few weeks, that's what I mean," he said. "The president means that too."
Netanyahu and Obama talked in the Oval Office as protesters gathered across the street in Lafayette Park and chanted "No More Aid" and "End the Blockade" referring to Israel's blockade of the Gaza Strip.
Obama expressed belief that Israel truly "wants peace" and that Netanyahu was serious about resuming direct peace talks with the Palestinians. The U.S. president also hailed "real progress" in Gaza, praising Israel's decision to allow in more goods. Obama added that the bond between Israel and the U.S. was "unbreakable."
Obama went on to day that he disagreed with notions of a rift between Israel and the U.S., saying that his support for Israel had never wavered. In response, Netanyahu said that reports of demise of U.S.-Israeli relationship were "flat wrong."
Netanyahu then invited Obama and his wife to visit Israel, to which the U.S. president replied "I'm ready. We look forward to it."
Netanyahu received a warmer welcome than he did in March, when Obama kept him at arm's length in what was widely viewed as a snub over settlement policy. Washington views Israel's expanding settlements in the West Bank, a territory slated for a future Palestinian state, as an obstacle to U.S.-led peace efforts.
Expectations for a major breakthrough were low. But the meeting, postponed a month ago after a deadly Israeli raid on a Gaza aid flotilla, could test whether the two leaders can overcome recent tensions and work together to restart long-stalled direct Israel-Palestinian peace talks.
Both leaders face domestic pressures and need to downplay their differences.
Obama is unlikely to risk another diplomatic clash with Netanyahu with pivotal U.S. congressional elections looming in November and pro-Israel sentiment strong among American lawmakers and voters.
After an overnight flight from Tel Aviv, Netanyahu stepped out of a limousine and walked into the White House west wing.
Carefully choreographing what some analysts have dubbed a "make-up" visit, Obama's aides arranged media coverage after the Oval Office talks, when body language is sure to be scrutinized. Afterward, the leaders were to eat lunch together.
Last time, there was no photo-op and no meal for Netanyahu, whose visit marked a low point in his relationship with Obama.
The rare chill in relations has thawed recently with Obama shifting to a gentler tone and Netanyahu offering conciliatory gestures. The two also have found common ground opposing Iran's nuclear program, which will be high on Tuesday's agenda.
A big question hanging over the fragile peace process is whether Netanyahu will extend the moratorium on new settlement construction past its September expiration date. The 10-month construction freeze was agreed upon only under pressure from Obama.
Extending the moratorium beyond the agreed upon 10-month period would put a strain on Netanyahu's governing coalition, which includes a key far-right party.
Following the meeting, Netanyahu's close associates said that Obama did not "push" on the topic of the settlement freeze, as he was previously expected to do. Both sides maneuvered around the issue of the settlements, they said.
Pushing the peace process forward is central to Obama's agenda for repairing U.S. relations with the Muslim world, which have been strained by wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Netanyahu's visit was originally scheduled for June 1. That meeting was scrapped after the Israeli raid on a Gaza aid ship on May 31, which sparked an international outcry and prompted Israel to ease its land blockade of the Hamas-ruled territory.
Obama has limited room to maneuver in pressuring Israel. Hoping to stave off big losses by his Democrats in the mid-term elections, he wants to avoid giving Republicans ammunition to sow public doubt about his commitment to Israel.
The administration has worked hard to soften its tone toward Netanyahu after a diplomatic blowup sparked by Israel's March 9 announcement - during a visit by U.S. Vice President Joe Biden - of plans to build 1,600 more settler homes in an area of the West Bank it annexed to Jerusalem.
For his part, Netanyahu is keen to show the Israeli public that relations with their superpower ally are back on track but will be reluctant to offer major concessions that would anger pro-settler parties in his fragile coalition.
Meanwhile, first lady Michelle Obama met with Sarah Netanyahu at the White House, in what they described as a warm encounter. The scheduled half-hour meeting turned into an hour-long friendly chat.
In an article coinciding with Netanyahu's visit, the New York Times said U.S. and Israeli public records showed at least 40 American groups collected more than $200 million in tax-deductible gifts for Jewish settlement in the West Bank and East Jerusalem over the last decade.
Two years ago, a review by Reuters of U.S. tax records found 13 tax-exempt organizations openly linked to settlements that had raised more than $35 million between 2003 and 2008.
Jerusalem Post
'US will attack Iran if it must'
By Herb Keinon and Lahav Harkov
July 7, 2010
Jerusalem - After a meeting with Defense Minister Ehud Barak in Jerusalem at the David Citadel Hotel on Wednesday, US Senators John McCain, Joseph Lieberman and Lindsey Graham held a press conference where they spoke about several pressing foreign policy issues in the region.
Senator Lieberman used some very harsh language at the Wednesday press conference to describe the Iranian nuclear program, saying the US must do everything it can to stop Iran from becoming a nuclear power. The US will address the Iranian threat "through diplomatic efforts and economic sanctions if we can, but through military action if we must," said Lieberman.
Although US officials often say no option should be taken off the table in relation to Iran's nuclear program, this is one of the few times an official of Lieberman's standing has explicitly used the term "military action" while in Israel.
Lieberman also referred to Tuesday's meeting between Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and US President Barack Obama.
The senator, who related that he had spoken with people in Washington, said that "it was a very positive meeting. We can say with some encouragement that the relationship is back on track."
Senator McCain, referring to the recent tensions between Israel and Turkey, said that Turkey was one of the US's oldest and best allies.
"Of course, we have been disappointed by the actions and words the Turkish government was used," said McCain. "I hope that at sometime the Turkish leadership would lower the rhetoric, reduce it, and try to solve differences in a quiet way."
Barak also addressed the meeting between Netanyahu and Obama, calling it "successful."
"I spoke to the prime minister and part of the American National Security Council on the telephone, and we feel that there is a good chance to open direct talks between us and the Palestinians on all of the relevant topics," Barak said.
"I think that the success of this meeting expresses the depth of the basic relationship between us and the US, and between us and the Obama administration, and of the importance of this special relationship on the subject of Israel's security," Barak added.
However, Barak said, "I don't want to delude us - there will be rises and falls and difficult moments throughout the process, but I believe and hope that we, in the next few weeks, will be in the middle of direct talks that will promote the chances for peace and will ensure the security and interests of Israel." (emphasis added--Planetary)
Later Wednesday, McCain, Lieberman and Graham plan to visit IDF Chief of Staff Gabi Ashkenazi, Minister of Intelligence Affairs Dan Meridor, and Opposition Leader Tzipi Livni.
The senators arrived in the West Bank on Tuesday, where they visited PA Prime Minister Salam Fayyad and a Palestinian National Security Forces Operations Camp.
The Guardian
Obama and Netanyahu put fallout behind them at talks
Israeli prime minister taking risks for peace, says US president at first meeting since March
Chris McGreal
July 6, 2010
Washington - Barack Obama and Binyamin Netanyahu today sought to paper over the deep political rift between the US and Israel and publicly avoided any mention of the main areas of friction, including the continued expansion of Jewish settlements.
In stark contrast to their last meeting, in March, when Obama humiliated Netanyahu by refusing to hold a press conference with him and leaving the Israeli prime minister to eat dinner alone at the White House, the president described their latest discussions as excellent. Seated alongside Netanyahu in the Oval Office, Obama said he believed the Israeli prime minister was a man of peace.
"I think he's willing to take risks for peace," said Obama.
Netanyahu added: "We're committed to that peace. I'm committed to that peace. And this peace will better the lives of Israelis, Palestinians, and certainly would change our region.
"Israelis are prepared to do a lot to get that peace in place but they want to make sure that after all the steps we take that what we get is a secure peace," he said. "It is high time to begin direct talks [with the Palestinians]."
Obama praised Israel for easing the blockade on Gaza following the international outcry over its deadly raid on a flotilla of aid ships in which eight Turkish activists were killed. The US president said he recognised the Jewish state's "unique security requirements".
Despite the dramatic change in public tone, there was little sign of significant movement on the underlying issues that led the Israeli ambassador to the US, Michael Oren, to say last month there had been a "tectonic shift" in relations.
The two leaders avoided speaking publicly about the issues that have led some in his administration to question whether the Israeli government is as serious about negotiations as it says.
Obama said nothing about the continued construction of Jewish settlements in occupied East Jerusalem which had prompted a bitter showdown in March after the Israeli authorities announced the building of 1,600 more homes exclusively for Jews while the US vice-president, Joe Biden, was visiting Jerusalem. Washington viewed that as a sign of contempt and evidence of Israeli indifference to the political impact of the construction on peace prospects.
Neither was there any mention of an extension to the partial freeze on building in Jewish settlements in the West Bank, which is due to expire in September.
Some members of Netanyahu's coalition cabinet, such as Benny Begin, son of the former hardline prime minister Menachem Begin, have said construction will resume at full force because there is little prospect of a peace agreement.
"The prime minister said a few times that the status of settlements would be determined only in a final-status peace agreement with our neighbours," he told Israel Radio. "Such agreement is not imminent at all. In the meantime, we have to ensure that our settlements are developed."
Obama denied there had been any rift with Israel or its prime minister.
"I trusted prime minister Netanyahu since I met him before I was elected president. He is dealing with a very complex situation in a very tough neighbourhood," he said.
The president noted that the two sides have held five tentative meetings, known as proximity talks, under the guidance of the US Middle East envoy, George Mitchell. But the Palestinians continue to suspect that Netanyahu is paying lip service to the establishment of their own state in order to pacify the Americans.
The Palestinian president, Mahmoud Abbas, told Jordanian journalists that initial talks with Israel had not made any progress.
Earlier this week an Arabic-language newspaper in London reported that Abbas had submitted written proposals to Mitchell on core issues such as the borders of a Palestinian state and Jerusalem. According to the report, the Palestinians are prepared to consider a land swap that would allow Israel to retain the major Jewish settlements. But, according to the proposal, the Palestinians would gain control of East Jerusalem with the exception of the religiously significant Jewish quarter of the Old City and the Wailing Wall.
The reality of the settlements was highlighted by a new report by the leading Israeli human rights group, B'Tselem, today, which said that Jewish settlements now control nearly half of all land in the occupied West Bank.
The report said that the settlements take over land far beyond their nominal boundaries, ostensibly for security, much of it privately owned by Palestinians in breach of an Israeli supreme court ruling. B'Tselem calculated that more than 42% of the West Bank is under the control of the 300,000 Israeli settlers who live there. Settler organisations say the settlements control less than 10%.
The Guardian
Israel has never lacked enemies but now it risks losing its friends
Netanyahu went into his meeting with Obama believing he has time on his side. But he's wrong: the clock is ticking
By Jonathan Freedland
July 6, 2010
London - The advance word was that this was to be a "holding meeting" and not much more. Barack Obama and Binyamin Netanyahu would not launch some grand initiative for the Middle East. Instead they would sit together, chat chummily and pose for photographers – particularly important given what happened a couple of months back, when an angry Obama kept Bibi waiting for hours in the West Wing, only to cut their meeting short without so much as posing for a souvenir snap.
Accordingly, today's summit was all warm hugs and making nice. Obama spoke of the "special bond" between the two nations – even if there did have to be the occasional "robust discussion". Bibi nodded, adding that disagreements were what you got in a close "family" relationship like this one. Reports of any strain between them were "flat wrong", and to prove it Bibi invited the Obamas to Israel; Michelle showed Sara round the White House; and reporters were kept waiting during a long Bibi-Obama lunch, surely proof that the two men just couldn't get enough of each other.
For all that, the advance billing of a holding meeting was not so far off the mark. The US president was certainly in no rush to make waves: he is four months away from midterm elections, in which support for Israel threatens to become an issue, at least in the handful of states where Jewish voters might make a difference. In several congressional contests Republicans are making mischief over the administration's recent relative firmness towards Israel, with one candidate accusing Obama of "browbeating" the Jewish state, while others suggest the Democratic administration is fraying the historic ties that have bound the two countries. Small wonder, then, that Obama was and remains keen to be all smiles with Bibi – at least until polling day on 2 November.
The Israeli PM does not face imminent elections, but he too has been happy to go along with a strategy of pause and delay. For Netanyahu inaction is always preferable to action: only a demand for tricky concessions – say an extension of the current, partial moratorium on settlement building in the West Bank – might imperil his fragile coalition, by prompting the ultra-hawkish parties to bolt. So long as the Americans are not asking anything of him, Bibi can stay comfortably in his seat.
There is a larger explanation for why the prime minister might be fond of stasis and inertia. The operating assumption held by both him and the nationalist right he leads is that Israel has time on its side. This is a belief deeply ingrained, one that draws sustenance from a century of Zionist history. The first Jewish settlers in Palestine pushed the boundaries of the possible, establishing themselves in places that initially seemed insanely ambitious, only for time to reward their daring. The Jews accepted a UN partition plan in 1947 that gave them 56% of Palestine, only to see their share leap to 78% by the end of the war of 1948-9. Playing the long game has worked before and, the Israeli right assumes, it will work again.
You can see why Bibi would be drawn to such thinking. Each day that passes entrenches the Israeli presence in the West Bank. Consider that there were no Jewish settlers in 1967, around 120,000 in 1994 and more than 300,000 now – those numbers alone, which exclude East Jerusalem, constitute a powerful argument for playing it long, letting time change the facts on the ground until they are unalterable.
Besides, what's the urgency? The Israeli economy is ticking along nicely, defying the global trends; the beachside cafes are full; Tel Aviv is even becoming the hot destination for gay tourism. Why risk change when the status quo is so tolerable?
And yet the underlying assumption is almost certainly wrong. Israel does not have time on its side. On the contrary, time is running out fast.
Israel is surrounded by evidence that it is, in the words of one Ha'aretz columnist, "hurtling down the slippery slope of pariahdom". The Gaza flotilla episode exposed that fact most starkly, as Israel found itself isolated diplomatically, chastised by those it normally relies on as friends.
First among those has always been the US. Israel has long been able to depend on rock-solid support from a Washington that saw merit in a loyal, semi-dependent state in a region that was unreliable at best and hostile at worst. But now that calculus has been shaken. Note the 54 Congressmen who issued a statement rebuking Israel over the flotilla. Note the paper by Anthony Cordesman, a fixture of the US foreign policy establishment, asking if Israel has become a "strategic liability" for America. Note too the comments of David Petraeus, now Nato commander in Afghanistan, warning that Israeli intransigence was adversely affecting US interests in the Middle East. This adds up to a new climate of opinion in which Obama can afford to be firm with Netanyahu because he knows he is not alone.
The second source of previously iron support has been the mainstream Jewish diaspora, especially in the US. For decades, the official voices of American Jewry have uttered only words of unity and support; criticism was confined to the fringes. But now that too is changing.
The institutional manifestation has been J Street, which in three short years has signed up some 100,000 supporters for its alternative to the dogmatic Israel-right-or-wrong stance of American Israel Public Affairs Committee. A key recent text is an essay by Peter Beinart that appeared in the New York Review of Books, castigating the US Jewish leadership for failing to condemn the ever-rightward drift of Israeli policy.
Of course there is nothing new about Jewish opponents of Israel: they are older than the country itself. But what makes these interventions different is that they come from those who are avowedly Israel's friends. J Street's slogan is that it is "pro-Israel, pro-peace"; Beinart is a former editor of the staunchly Zionist New Republic.
There are echoes outside the United States, too. In Europe, JCall, an online petition, has rapidly attracted the signatures of those who have previously devoted themselves to public defences of Israel, including the French glamour-intellectuals Bernard-Henri Lévy and Alain Finkielkraut. Even the head of Britain's biggest pro-Israel charity last month insisted on the right of diaspora Jews to speak out, and bemoaned the lack of a peace strategy from the Israeli government.
It is this that should shatter any Israeli complacency. For these are stirrings from deep within the pro-Zionist mainstream. They cannot be dismissed as the words of implacable enemies of Israel or the Jews; they are palpably nothing of the sort. Nor can they be ignored. Beinart's essay began with survey evidence showing young American-Jewish youth alienated and remote from Israel, with many expressing "a near-total absence of positive feelings". That sentence should strike fear into all those looking to Israel's long-term future.
Until now, the chief long-range concern of the Israeli right was demographic, the fear that eventually Israel would rule over more Arabs than Jews, given the combined populations of Israel, the West Bank and Gaza. Now they have another concern: "delegitimisation", what they perceive as a global campaign to ostracise, or boycott, Israel, until it is banished from the family of nations. It is undeniable that Israel has bitter enemies. But the longer the occupation endures, the more Israel risks losing its friends. Netanyahu has to realise that Israel does not have time on its side: it needs to end this conflict – and with the utmost urgency.
Haaretz
Palestinian negotiator: Netanyahu blocking path to direct peace talks
Netanyahu says Israel it is prepared to take additional steps to ease Palestinian movement in the West Bank in a bid to coax Abbas into direct negotiations.
By News Agencies
July 7, 2010
Tel Aviv - Palestinians responded coolly on Wednesday to calls by U.S. President Barack Obama and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to move from indirect to direct peace negotiations.
Chief Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat blamed Netanyahu for blocking the way to direct negotiations, because of his refusal to meet Palestinian demands for a full freeze on Israeli construction in the West Bank and East Jerusalem.
Asked if he expected more U.S. pressure on the Palestinians in the wake of Tuesday's meeting between Obama and Netanyahu, Erekat said: "The whole world and the U.S. administration knows that the one who is blocking the door to direct negotiations is Netanyahu."
"We are sincerely interested in starting direct negotiations, but Netanyahu keeps closing the door in front of us," Erekat told Voice of Palestine Radio. "Netanyahu must decide if he wants peace or settlements. He cannot have both."
He also reiterated that the Palestinians first want to see progress in indirect talks on the issues of borders and security, and for direct negotiations to resume from where they ended in December 2008, during an election campaign in Israel that saw Netanyahu return to power.
"The world knows that starting direct talks is in the hands of Netanyahu. All he has to do is say that all settlement activities, even those in Jerusalem, will stop," Erekat, a top aide to Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, said.
"We have had a peace process for 19 years, but the Israeli settlement policy has not changed," he added.
Indirect talks initiated in May by U.S. mediator George Mitchell are about halfway through their agreed four-month lifetime. They are to conclude in September, around the same time as a partial freeze that Netanyahu ordered last November on Israeli settlement building on West Bank land.
Israel said it is prepared to take additional steps to ease Palestinian movement in the West Bank in a bid to coax Abbas into direct peace talks, Netanyahu said on Wednesday.
Netanyahu, however, sidestepped questions in an interview on ABC's "Good Morning America" about whether he was prepared to extend beyond September a 10-month moratorium on new construction in West Bank settlements.
One day after a fence-mending meeting with Obama at the White House, Netanyahu repeated a call for a restart of peace talks with Abbas.
Palestinians have reacted cautiously to Netanyahu's promise of "concrete steps" within weeks to persuade them to hold direct talks.
Netanyahu said he was prepared to take steps including "additional easing of movements" and some economic projects.
"The point is, we are prepared to do them. But what we want to see finally is one thing: We want President Abbas to grasp my hand ... to shake it, sit down and negotiate a final settlement of peace between Israel and the Palestinians," he said.
Netanyahu was scheduled to meet UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon and address U.S. Jewish leaders in New York on Wednesday.
Meanwhile, Sami Abu Zuhri, Hamas' spokesman in Gaza, said his Islamist organization "refutes Obama's call for direct negotiations," which he said would only serve as a "cover up" for continuing the occupation. He also charged that Obama's and Netanyahu's statements again showed "there is no hope for change in U.S. foreign policy."
He additionally rejected Obama's praise of Israeli steps to ease its economic blockade of Gaza, saying "we want the siege to be completely lifted."
Tuesday's White House meeting - Netanyahu's first since a chilly reception in March - revived heated differences within his largely hardline cabinet on whether Israel should extend its partial moratorium on Israeli construction in the West Bank.
Ministers of the left-to-center Labor Party support an extension, while hawks in Netanyahu's nationalist Likud and in other right-wing and ultra-right coalition parties oppose it.
The moratorium, which excludes Jewish neighborhoods built in annexed East Jerusalem, is due to expire on September 26.
Ultra-right Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman insisted Wednesday that Israel has not made "any promises" to Obama regarding an extension of the settlement moratorium and that the issue had not been the main one on the agenda.
"We must ensure that normal life continues [in the settlements] for those who were sent there by all the governments of Israel," Lieberman, who himself lives in a settlement near Jerusalem, told Israel Radio.
Defense Minister Ehud Barak of the Labor Party insisted, however, that there was more to the White House meeting than published. He said Netanyahu had shown Obama that he was serious and prepared to act regarding the peace process. That was the reason for the Labour Party to stay in the coalition, he said.
Barak has been criticized internally for serving as a "fig leaf" in Netanyahu's otherwise right-wing coalition, despite the absence of a meaningful peace process.
Direct talks with the previous Israeli government of Ehud Olmert collapsed when Israel bombed the Gaza Strip 18 months ago to suppress rocket fire from Palestinian Islamists headed by the Hamas movement, which rejects a peace treaty with Israel.
In his Cairo speech 13 months ago, Obama said: "The U.S. does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements. This construction violates previous agreements and undermines efforts to achieve peace. It is time for these settlements to stop."
U.S. pressure restarted the process in 2009. But Abbas was politically embarrassed when Obama later retreated on his call for a total settlement freeze.
A report this week by the Israeli human rights group B'Tselem says more than 300,000 Israelis now live on 42 percent of the West Bank land where the Palestinians want to establish their future country in a "two-state solution" with Israel.
Haaretz Editorial
Challenge Hamas
Haaretz Editorial
July 7, 2010
Tel Aviv - The writer David Grossman called on the government of Israel in these pages yesterday to cease its preoccupation with the number and identity of Palestinian prisoners who would potentially be swapped for captive Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit. Grossman believes Israel should make Hamas a broader offer that would involve "a total cease-fire, an end to all terror activities from Gaza and a lifting of the siege." The start of such negotiations would see Shalit and the prisoners exchanged.
The proposal deserves serious consideration as the basis for a new policy. It is unfortunate that four years have been wasted and something along these lines was not adopted soon after Shalit's abduction in 2006. There is no certainty, however, that Hamas would have agreed to the proposal then, or that it will do so now. It is also worth examining the impact such a deal would have on the Palestinian Authority, Egypt and Jordan. But the point of departure is that there is no sense in allowing the existing situation to continue.
A few days after the abduction and the failure of operation "Southern Shalit" to locate and rescue the soldier, astute voices from the top ranks of the Israel Defense Forces reached the conclusion that if Shalit was to be brought back, a new policy was necessary. These voices, which apparently reflected the position of GOC Southern Command Yoav Galant and then chief of staff Dan Halutz, sought to recognize the reality that had been created in Gaza following the Hamas victory in the PA elections four months earlier, and the establishment of the Ismail Haniyeh government (Hamas' violent takeover of the Strip only took place in June 2007 ).
The IDF wanted to pose the following option to Hamas: Preserve your rule of power or continue your violent struggle against Israel. A proposal to seek a broad agreement on Israel-Hamas relations was drafted - which was to include a cease-fire, an end to terrorist attacks and the launching of Qassam rockets, an end to efforts to acquire more weapons for use against Israel and the release of Palestinian prisoners in exchange for Shalit. A report on this attitude held by the IDF, published by Haaretz, angered then-prime minister Ehud Olmert, who opposed a prisoner exchange deal. He shelved the idea and subsequently rejected similar ones raised during Operation Cast Lead.
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is not bound by Olmert's objections. He should revive the idea and challenge Hamas. Israel needs to embark on an initiative that would fundamentally alter the situation along the southern border, without fearing dialogue with Hamas. It must not regard the current situation as simply fate.
The Guardian
Meg Ryan and Dustin Hoffman miss Jerusalem film festival after Gaza raid
'It was clear it had something to do with what had happened,' says organiser after stars pulled out following flotilla attacks
Ben Child
July 7, 2010
London - Hollywood actors Meg Ryan and Dustin Hoffman cancelled plans to attend the Jerusalem film festival following Israel's raid on the Gaza-bound aid flotilla that left nine dead earlier this year, an official has told the Jerusalem Post newspaper.
Yigal Molad Hayo – associate director of the Jerusalem Cinemateque, the main venue for the event – said neither actor had cited the international outcry over the country's actions as a reason for pulling out of the annual festival, but added: "It became quite clear that this was the reason."
"Meg Ryan was supposed to come here – it had all been closed with her people," he told the Post. "A day after the flotilla incident we got an email saying she was not going to attend, and although they claimed it was because she was too busy it was clear to me that it probably had something to do with what had happened."
Hayo added: "We were very close to reaching an agreement with [Hoffman], then the flotilla happened and correspondence was ended."
The two-week festival, which opens tomorrow, will nevertheless play host to some 150 international guests including heads of other international festivals, actors, producers and directors. It will debut around 50 Israeli movies, documentaries and short films. More than 70,000 people are expected to attend.
Hayo said the festival remained keen to help Israeli and Palestinian film-makers work together. "We are well-known for encouraging cooperation between Palestinian and Israelis in the area of film," he said.
The Jerusalem film festival has been running since 1984, when the pioneering art-film programmer and archivist Lia van Leer decided to set up an event in her home country after serving as a jury member in Cannes.
The Guardian
Methodists vote for settlements boycott
The Methodist conference has voted for a boycott on good produced in illegal Israeli settlements
By Karen Burke
July 2, 2010
London - The Methodist Church voted on Wednesday to boycott products from Israeli settlements recognised as illegal under international law at its annual Conference in Portsmouth. It took the decision following a call from a group of Palestinian Christians, a number of Jewish organisations, both within Israel and worldwide, and the World Council of Churches.
In December, the Department for Environment food and Rural Affairs introduced new advice on food labelling, recommending that the packaging of products imported from the West Bank should distinguish between Palestinian areas and Israeli settlements. The former President of the Methodist Church, Revd David Gamble, wrote to major supermarket chains earlier this year to ask how they labelled their food. Many of the responses he received explained that processes were already in place to label products accurately or that processes were being put in place. The European Court of Justice has ruled that imports from Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank should not benefit from a trade agreement between Israel and the European Union.
Methodists in favour of boycotting Israeli goods from what the General Assembly of the United Nations voted were "illegal settlements" in 2004 believe that disinvestment from those settlements is one measure among many that will help to highlight injustice suffered in the region and, by highlighting it, take a step towards a just peace for Israelis and Palestinians.
It is a decision that has caused pain. Christine Elliott, Secretary for External Relationships at the Methodist Church, addressed the Conference to express the distress felt by senior representatives of the British Jewish community whom she met once the Methodist report became a public document. One of their profound concerns was with the historical account of Israel and Palestine presented in the report that was written to resource yesterday's debate. The Revd Graham Carter, chair of the working party that compiled the report, acknowledged the history was not complete and that, given the time constraints for the compilation of the report, the working group had to present what it believed was a fair selection from a variety of narratives. The report's historical account is not Methodist Church doctrine.
The conflict in Israel and Palestine is not a one-sided conflict. The Israeli settlements internationally recognised as illegal are not the only barrier to peace. Arab terrorist organisations and states intent on destroying Israel are also a barrier to peace. Any debate genuine about peace in the region should take as its starting point Israel's right to exist and its right to defend itself. Israel should not be singled out above all other countries for opprobrium and international sanction.
The report received by the Methodist Conference stated in its introduction: "We continue to affirm the right of the State of Israel to exist and that all the inhabitants of Israel/Palestine are entitled to their full human rights, including the right to live in peace and security and without the threat of violence." The Methodist Church has a long history of interfaith relationships; it greatly values the relationship it shares with its Jewish brothers and sisters and hopes that that relationship will continue to flourish.
The Methodist Conference also passed a resolution commending all people of the region to the loving care of Almighty God and urged the Methodist people to engage in regular, informed prayer for the needs of the Land of the Holy One. The President of Conference, Revd Alison Tomlin, asked Conference to pass this particular resolution as a standing vote and, from where I was watching, everyone on the floor rose to their feet.
The New York Times
Tax-Exempt Funds Aid Settlements in West Bank
By Jim Rutenberg, Mike McIntire and Ethan Bronner
July 5, 2010
HAR BRACHA, West Bank — Twice a year, American evangelicals show up at a winery in this Jewish settlement in the hills of ancient Samaria to play a direct role in biblical prophecy, picking grapes and pruning vines.
Believing that Christian help for Jewish winemakers here in the occupied West Bank foretells Christ’s second coming, they are recruited by a Tennessee-based charity called HaYovel that invites volunteers “to labor side by side with the people of Israel” and “to share with them a passion for the soon coming jubilee in Yeshua, messiah.”
But during their visit in February the volunteers found themselves in the middle of the fight for land that defines daily life here. When the evangelicals headed into the vineyards, they were pelted with rocks by Palestinians who say the settlers have planted creeping grape vines on their land to claim it as their own. Two volunteers were hurt. In the ensuing scuffle, a settler guard shot a 17-year-old Palestinian shepherd in the leg.
“These people are filled with ideas that this is the Promised Land and their duty is to help the Jews,” said Izdat Said Qadoos of the neighboring Palestinian village. “It is not the Promised Land. It is our land.”
HaYovel is one of many groups in the United States using tax-exempt donations to help Jews establish permanence in the Israeli-occupied territories — effectively obstructing the creation of a Palestinian state, widely seen as a necessary condition for Middle East peace.
The result is a surprising juxtaposition: As the American government seeks to end the four-decade Jewish settlement enterprise and foster a Palestinian state in the West Bank, the American Treasury helps sustain the settlements through tax breaks on donations to support them.
A New York Times examination of public records in the United States and Israel identified at least 40 American groups that have collected more than $200 million in tax-deductible gifts for Jewish settlement in the West Bank and East Jerusalem over the last decade. The money goes mostly to schools, synagogues, recreation centers and the like, legitimate expenditures under the tax law. But it has also paid for more legally questionable commodities: housing as well as guard dogs, bulletproof vests, rifle scopes and vehicles to secure outposts deep in occupied areas.
In some ways, American tax law is more lenient than Israel’s. The outposts receiving tax-deductible donations — distinct from established settlements financed by Israel’s government — are illegal under Israeli law. And a decade ago, Israel ended tax breaks for contributions to groups devoted exclusively to settlement-building in the West Bank.
Now controversy over the settlements is sharpening, and the issue is sure to be high on the agenda when President Obama and the Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, meet in Washington on Tuesday.
While a succession of American administrations have opposed the settlements here, Mr. Obama has particularly focused on them as obstacles to peace. A two-state solution in the Middle East, he says, is vital to defusing Muslim anger at the West. Under American pressure, Mr. Netanyahu has temporarily frozen new construction to get peace talks going. The freeze and negotiations, in turn, have injected new urgency into the settlers’ cause — and into fund-raising for it.
The use of charities to promote a foreign policy goal is neither new nor unique — Americans also take tax breaks in giving to pro-Palestinian groups. But the donations to the settler movement stand out because of the centrality of the settlement issue in the current talks and the fact that Washington has consistently refused to allow Israel to spend American government aid in the settlements. Tax breaks for the donations remain largely unchallenged, and unexamined by the American government. The Internal Revenue Service declined to discuss donations for West Bank settlements. State Department officials would comment only generally, and on condition of anonymity.
“It’s a problem,” a senior State Department official said, adding, “It’s unhelpful to the efforts that we’re trying to make.”
Daniel C. Kurtzer, the United States ambassador to Israel from 2001 to 2005, called the issue politically delicate. “It drove us crazy,” he said. But “it was a thing you didn’t talk about in polite company.”
He added that while the private donations could not sustain the settler enterprise on their own, “a couple of hundred million dollars makes a huge difference,” and if carefully focused, “creates a new reality on the ground.”
Most contributions go to large, established settlements close to the boundary with Israel that would very likely be annexed in any peace deal, in exchange for land elsewhere. So those donations produce less concern than money for struggling outposts and isolated settlements inhabited by militant settlers. Even small donations add to their permanence.
For example, when Israeli authorities suspended plans for permanent homes in Maskiot, a tiny settlement near Jordan, in 2007, two American nonprofits — the One Israel Fund and Christian Friends of Israeli Communities —raised tens of thousands of dollars to help erect temporary structures, keeping the community going until officials lifted the building ban.
Israeli security officials express frustration over donations to the illegal or more defiant communities.
“I am not happy about it,” a senior military commander in the West Bank responded when asked about contributions to a radical religious academy whose director has urged soldiers to defy orders to evict settlers. He spoke under normal Israeli military rules of anonymity.
Palestinian officials expressed outrage at the tax breaks.
“Settlements violate international law, and the United States is supposed to be sponsoring a two-state solution, yet it gives deductions for donation to the settlements?” said Saeb Erekat, the chief Palestinian negotiator. The settlements are a sensitive issue among American Jews themselves. Some major Jewish philanthropies, like the Jewish Federations of North America, generally do not support building activities in the West Bank.
The donors to settlement charities represent a broad mix of Americans — from wealthy people like the hospital magnate Dr. Irving I. Moskowitz and the family behind Haagen-Dazs ice cream to bidders at kosher pizza auctions in Brooklyn and evangelicals at a recent Bible meeting in a Long Island basement. But they are unified in their belief that returning the West Bank — site of the ancient Jewish kingdoms — to full Jewish control is critical to Israeli security and fulfillment of biblical prophecies.
As Kimberly Troup, director of the Christian Friends of Israeli Communities’ American office, said, while her charity’s work is humanitarian, “the more that we build, the more that we support and encourage their right to live in the land, the harder it’s going to be for disengagement, for withdrawal.”
Sorting Out the Facts
Today half a million Israeli Jews live in lands captured during the June 1967 Middle East war. Yet there is a strong international consensus that a Palestinian state should arise in the West Bank and Gaza, where all told some four million Palestinians live.
Ultimately, any agreement will be a compromise, a sorting out of the facts on the ground.
Most Jewish residents of the West Bank live in what amount to suburbs, with neat homes, high rises and highways to Jerusalem and Tel Aviv. Politically and ideologically, they are indistinguishable from Israel proper. Most will doubtless stay in any peace deal, while those who must move will most likely do so peacefully.
But in the geographically isolated settlements and dozens of illegal outposts, there are settlers who may well violently resist being moved. The prospect of an internal and deeply painful Israeli confrontation looms.
And the resisters will very likely be aided by tax-deductible donations from Americans who believe that far from quelling Muslim anger, as Mr. Obama argues, handing over the West Bank will only encourage militant Islamists bent on destroying Israel.
“We need to influence our congressmen to stop Obama from putting pressure on Israel to self-destruct,” Helen Freedman, a New Yorker who runs a charity called Americans for a Safe Israel, told supporters touring the West Bank this spring.
Israel, too, used to offer its residents tax breaks for donations to settlement building, starting in 1984 under a Likud government. But those donations were ended by the Labor Party, first in 1995 and then, after reversal, again in 2000. The finance minister in both cases, Avraham Shohat, said that while he only vaguely recalled the decision-making process, as a matter of principle he believed in deductions for gifts to education and welfare for the poor, not to settlement building per se.
In theory, the same is true for the United States, where the tax code encourages citizens to support nonprofit groups that may diverge from official policy, as long as their missions are educational, religious or charitable.
The challenge is defining those terms and enforcing them.
There are more than a million registered charities, and many submit sparse or misleading mission summaries in tax filings. Religious groups have no obligation to divulge their finances, meaning settlements may be receiving sums that cannot be traced.
The Times’s review of pro-settler groups suggests that most generally live within the rules of the American tax code. Some, though, risk violating them by using the money for political campaigning and residential property purchases, by failing to file tax returns, by setting up boards of trustees in name only and by improperly funneling donations directly to foreign organizations.
One group that at least skates close to the line is Friends of Zo Artzeinu/Manhigut Yehudit, based in Cedarhurst, N.Y., and co-founded by Shmuel Sackett, a former executive director of the banned Israeli political party Kahane Chai. Records from the group say a portion of the $5.2 million it has collected over the last few years has gone to the Israeli “community facilities” of Manhigut Yehudit, a hard-right faction of Mr. Netanyahu’s governing Likud Party, which Mr. Sackett helps run with the politician Moshe Feiglin.
American tax rules prohibit the use of charitable funds for political purposes at home or abroad. Neither man would answer questions about the nature of the “community facilities.” In an e-mail message, Mr. Sackett said the American charity was not devoted to political activity, but to humanitarian projects and “educating the public about the need for authentic Jewish leadership in Israel.”
Of course, groups in the pro-settler camp are not the only ones benefiting from tax breaks. For example, the Free Gaza Movement, which organized the flotilla seeking to break Israel’s blockade of Gaza, says on its Web site that supporters can make tax-deductible donations to it through the American Educational Trust, publisher of an Arab-oriented journal. Israeli civil and human rights groups like Peace Now, which are often accused of having a blatant political agenda, also benefit from tax-deductible donations.
Some pro-settler charities have obscured their true intentions.
Take the Capital Athletic Foundation, run by the disgraced Washington lobbyist Jack Abramoff. In its I.R.S. filings, the foundation noted donations totaling more than $140,000 to Kollel Ohel Tiferet, a religious study group in Israel, for “educational and athletic” purposes. In reality, a study group member was using the money to finance a paramilitary operation in the Beitar Illit settlement, according to documents in a Senate investigation of Mr. Abramoff, who pleaded guilty in 2006 to defrauding clients and bribing public officials.
Mr. Abramoff, documents show, had directed the settler, Shmuel Ben Zvi, an old high school friend, to use the study group as cover after his accountant complained that money for sniper equipment and a jeep “don’t look good” in terms of complying with the foundation’s tax-exempt status.
While the donations by Mr. Abramoff’s charity were elaborately disguised — the group shipped a camouflage sniper suit in a box labeled “Grandmother Tree Costume for the play Pocahontas” — other groups are more open. Amitz Rescue & Security, which has raised money through two Brooklyn nonprofits, trains and equips guard units for settlements. Its Web site encourages donors to “send a tax-deductible check” for night-vision binoculars, bulletproof vehicles and guard dogs.
Other groups urge donors to give to one of several nonprofits that serve as clearinghouses for donations to a wide array of groups in Israel and the West Bank, which, if not done properly, can skirt the intent of American tax rules.
Americans cannot claim deductions for direct donations to foreign charities; tax laws allow deductions for domestic giving on the theory that charities ultimately ease pressure on government spending for social programs.
But the I.R.S. does allow deductions for donations to American nonprofits that support charitable projects abroad, provided the nonprofit is not simply a funnel to another group overseas, according to Bruce R. Hopkins, a lawyer and the author of several books on nonprofit law. Donors can indicate how they would like their money to be used, but the nonprofit must exercise “some measure of independence to deliberate on grant-making,” he said.
A prominent clearinghouse is the Central Fund of Israel, operated from the Marcus Brothers Textiles offices in the Manhattan garment district. Dozens of West Bank groups seem to view the fund as little more than a vehicle for channeling donations back to themselves, instructing their supporters that if they want a tax break, they must direct their contributions there first. The fund’s president, Hadassah Marcus, acknowledged that it received many checks from donors “who want them to go to different programs in Israel,” but, she said, the fund retains ultimate discretion over the money. It also makes its own grants to needy Jewish families and monitors them, she said, adding that the fund, which collected $13 million in 2008, was audited and complies with I.R.S. rules.
“We’re not a funnel. We’re trying to build a land,” she said, adding, “All we’re doing is going back to our home.”
Support From a Preacher
Late one afternoon in March, Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. landed in Israel and headed to his Jerusalem hotel to prepare for a weeklong effort to rekindle Middle East peace talks.
Across town, many of the leading Israeli officials on Mr. Biden’s schedule, among them Prime Minister Netanyahu, were in a convention hall listening to the Rev. John Hagee, an influential American preacher whose charities have donated millions to projects in Israel and the territories. Support for the settlements has become a cause of some leading conservative Republicans, like Mike Huckabee and Sarah Palin.
“Israel exists because of a covenant God made with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob 3,500 years ago — and that covenant still stands,” Mr. Hagee thundered. “World leaders do not have the authority to tell Israel and the Jewish people what they can and cannot do in the city of Jerusalem.”
The next day, Israeli-American relations plunged after Israel announced plans for 1,600 new apartments for Jews in East Jerusalem, which the Palestinians want as their future capital.
Israeli officials said Mr. Hagee’s words of encouragement had no effect on government decision making. And the preacher’s aides said he was not trying to influence the peace talks, just defending Israel’s right to make decisions without foreign pressure.
Still, his presence underscored the role of settlement supporters abroad.
Nowhere is that effort more visible, and contentious, than in East Jerusalem, which the Netanyahu government says must remain under Israeli sovereignty in any peace deal.
The government supports privately financed archaeological projects that focus on Jewish roots in Arab areas of Jerusalem. The Obama administration and the United Nations have recently criticized a plan to raze 22 Palestinian homes to make room for a history park in a neighborhood where a nonprofit group called El’Ad finances digs and buys up Arab-owned properties.
To raise money, groups like El’Ad seek to bring alive a narrative of Jewish nationalism in living rooms and banquet halls across America.
In May, a crowd of mostly Jewish professionals — who paid $300 a plate to benefit the American Friends of Ateret Cohanim — gathered in a catering hall high above Flushing Meadows-Corona Park in Queens to dine and hear John R. Bolton, United Nations ambassador under President George W. Bush, warn of the danger of a nuclear-armed Iran.
A few days earlier, the group’s executive vice president, Susan Hikind, had gone on a Jewish radio program in New York to proclaim her group’s resistance to American policy in the Middle East. The Obama administration, she said, did not want donors to attend the banquet because it believed Jerusalem should “be part of some future capital of a Palestinian state.”
“And who’s standing in the way of that?” Ms. Hikind said. “People who support Ateret Cohanim’s work in Jerusalem to ensure that Jerusalem remains united.”
The Jerusalem Reclamation Project of Ateret Cohanim works to transfer ownership of Arab homes to Jewish families in East Jerusalem. Such efforts have generated much controversy; Islamic judicial panels have threatened death to Palestinians who sell property in the occupied territories to Jews, and sales are often conducted using shell companies and intermediaries.
“Land reclamation is actually sort of a bad name — redeeming is probably a better word,” said D. Bernard Hoenig, a New York lawyer on the board of American Friends of Ateret Cohanim. “The fact of the matter is, there are Arabs who want to sell their homes, and they have offered our organization the opportunity to buy them.”
Mr. Hoenig said that Ateret Cohanim bought a couple of buildings years ago, but that mostly it helps arrange purchases by other Jewish investors. That is not mentioned, however, on its American affiliate’s tax returns. Rather, they describe its primary charitable purpose as financing “higher educational institutions in Israel,” as well as children’s camps, help for needy families and security for Jews living in East Jerusalem.
Indeed, it does all those things. It houses yeshiva students and teachers in properties it helps acquire and places kindergartens and study institutes into other buildings, all of which helps its activities qualify as educational or religious for tax purposes.
The American affiliate provides roughly 60 percent of Ateret Cohanim’s funding, according to representatives of the group. But Mr. Hoenig said none of the American money went toward the land deals, since they would not qualify for tax-deductible donations.
Still, acquiring property has been an integral part of Ateret Cohanim’s fund-raising appeals.
Archived pages from a Web site registered to the American affiliate — taken down in the last year or so — described in detail how Ateret Cohanim “quietly and discreetly” arranged the acquisition of buildings in Palestinian areas. And it sought donations for “the expected left-wing Arab legal battle,” building costs and “other expenses (organizational, planning, Arab middlemen, etc.)”
An Unyielding Stance
Deep inside the West Bank, in the northern region called Samaria, or Shomron, lie 30 or so settlements and unauthorized outposts, most considered sure candidates for evacuation in any deal for a Palestinian state. In terms of donations, they do not raise anywhere near the sums produced for Jerusalem or close-in settlements. But in many ways they worry security officials and the Palestinians the most, because they are so unyielding.
Out here, the communities have a rougher feel. Some have only a few paved roads, and mobile homes for houses. Residents — men with skullcaps and sidelocks, women with head coverings, and families with many children — often speak in apocalyptic terms about the need for Jews to stay on the land. It may take generations, they say, but God’s promise will be fulfilled.
In November, after the Netanyahu government announced the settlement freeze, Shomron leaders invited reporters to watch them shred the orders.
David Ha’Ivri, the public liaison for the local government, the Shomron Regional Council, has positioned himself as a fierce yet amiable advocate. As a leader of an American-based nonprofit, he also brings a militant legacy to the charitable enterprise.
Mr. Ha’Ivri, formerly David Axelrod, was born in Far Rockaway, Queens, and was a student of the virulently anti-Arab Rabbi Meir David Kahane and a top lieutenant and brother-in-law to the rabbi’s son, Binyamin Kahane. Both Kahanes, who were assassinated 10 years apart, ran organizations banned in Israel for instigating, if not participating in, attacks against Arabs. The United States Treasury Department later added both groups, Kach and Kahane Chai, to its terrorism watch list.
As recently as four years ago, Mr. Ha’Ivri was involved in running The Way of the Torah, a Kahanist newsletter designated as a terrorist organization in the United States. He has had several run-ins with the authorities in Israel over the last two decades, including an arrest for celebrating the assassination of Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin in a television interview and a six-month jail term in connection with the desecration of a mosque.
Treasury officials said a group’s presence on the terror list does not necessarily extend to its former leaders, and indeed Mr. Ha’Ivri is not on it.
Mr. Ha’Ivri said he no longer engaged in such activism, adding that, at 43, he had mellowed, even if his core convictions had not. “I’m a little older now, a little more mature,” he said.
A Sunday in late May found him in New York, on a stage in Central Park, speaking at the annual Salute to Israel celebration. “We will not ever, ever give up our land,” Mr. Ha’Ivri said.
He posed for pictures with the Republican National Committee chairman, Michael Steele, and distributed fliers about the “501 c3 I.R.S. tax deductible status” of his charity, Shuva Israel, which has raised more than $2.6 million since 2004 for the Shomron communities.
Although I.R.S. rules require that American charities exhibit “full control of the donated funds and discretion as to their use,” Shuva Israel appears to be dominated by Israeli settlers.
Mr. Ha’Ivri, who lives in the settlement of Kfar Tapuach, was listed as the group’s executive director in its most recent tax filing; Gershon Mesika, the Shomron council’s leader, is the board’s chairman; and Shuva Israel’s accountant is based in the settlement of Tekoa. Its American presence is through a post office box in Austin, Tex., where, according to its tax filings, it has two volunteers who double as board members.
“I’ve never been to the board,” said one of them, Jeff Luftig.
When asked about his dual status as leader of the charity and an official with the council it supports, Mr. Ha’Ivri said he was no longer executive director, though he could not recall who was. He said he was confident the charity was following the law, adding that the money it raises goes strictly toward improving the lives of settlers.
Exacting a Price
If Mr. Ha’Ivri has changed tactics, a new generation has picked up his aggressive approach. These activists also receive American support.
Their campaign has been named “Price Tag”: For every move by Israeli authorities to curtail settlement construction, the price will be an attack on an Arab mosque, vineyard or olive grove.
The results were on display during a recent tour through the Arab village of Hawara, where the wall of a mosque had been desecrated with graffiti of a Jewish star and the first letters of the Prophet Muhammad’s name in Hebrew. In the nearby Palestinian village of Mikhmas, the deputy mayor, Mohamed Damim, said settlers had come in the dark of night and uprooted or cut down hundreds of olive and fig trees.
“The army has done nothing to protect us,” he said. Though the attacks are small by nature, Israeli commanders fear they threaten to scuttle the uneasy peace they and their Palestinian Authority partners have forged in the West Bank.
“It can bring the entire West Bank to light up again in terror and violence,” a senior commander said in an interview.
Israeli law enforcement officials say that in investigating settler violence in the north, they often turn to people connected to the Od Yosef Chai yeshiva in the Yitzhar settlement. After the arson of a mosque in Yasuf in December, authorities arrested the yeshiva’s head rabbi, Yitzhak Shapira, and several students but released them for lack of evidence. Rabbi Shapira denied involvement. He is known in Israel for his strong views. He was co-author of a book released last year that offered religious justification for killing non-Jews who pose a threat to Jews or, in the case of young children, could in the future.
A plaque inside the recently built yeshiva thanks Dr. Moskowitz, the hospitals entrepreneur, and his wife, Cherna, for their “continuous and generous support.” Another recognizes Benjamin Landa of Brooklyn, a nursing home operator who gave through his foundation, Ohel Harav Yehoshua Boruch. Mr. Landa said he donated to the yeshiva after its old building was destroyed in an Arab ransacking. None of the American donations have been linked to the campaign of attacks.
The Israeli military has activated outstanding permit violations that have set the stage for the yeshiva’s threatened demolition. And officials have barred some of the yeshiva’s students from the West Bank for months on end.
Od Yosef Chai’s director, Itamar Posen, said in an interview that the military was unfairly singling out the yeshiva because “the things that we publish are things that are against their ideas, and they are frightened.” Mr. Ha’Ivri and Mr. Mesika have charged the military with jeopardizing the men’s livelihoods without due process.
A settler legal defense fund, Honenu, with its own American charitable arm, has sought to provide a safety net.
An online appeal for tax-deductible donations to be sent to Honenu’s Queens-based post office read, “If the 3 men can have their families supported it will cause others at the Hilltops to brave military and government threats against them.”
Reached last month, one of the men, Akiva HaCohen, declined to say how much support he had received from American donors; Honenu officials in Israel declined to comment as well.
There is no way to tell from Honenu’s American tax returns; none was available through Guidestar, a service that tracks tax filings by nonprofits. Groups that raise less than $25,000 a year are not required to file. But a review of tax returns filed by other charities showed that one American family foundation gave it $33,000 in a single year, enough to have required filing.
Asked whether it had ever filed a tax return, Aaron Heimowitz, a financial planner in Queens who collects Honenu’s donations there, responded, “I’m not in a position to answer that.”
Opaque Finances
Religious charities are still more opaque; the tax code does not require them to disclose their finances publicly.
Mr. Hagee is one of the few Christian Zionists who advertises his philanthropy in Israel and its territories, at least $58 million as of last year, distributed through a multimedia empire that spins out a stream of books, DVDs and CDs about Israel’s role in biblical prophecy.
Mr. Hagee’s aides say he makes a large majority of his donations within Israel’s 1967 boundaries and seeks to avoid disputed areas. Yet a sports complex in the large settlement of Ariel — whose future is in dispute — bears his name. And a few years ago, according to officials at the yeshiva at Har Bracha, Mr.
Hagee donated $250,000 to expand a dormitory.
The yeshiva is the main growth engine of the settlement, attracting students who put down roots. (Some are soldiers, and the head rabbi there has called upon them to refuse orders to evict settlers.) After the yeshiva was started in 1992, “the place just took off,” growing to more than 200 families from 3, said the yeshiva’s spokesman, Yonaton Behar. “The goal,” he added, “is to grow to the point where there is no question of uprooting Har Bracha.”
Various strains of American pro-settlement activity come together in Har Bracha. The Moskowitz family helped pay for the yeshiva’s main building. Nearby, a winery was built with volunteer help from HaYovel ministries, which brings large groups of volunteers to prune and harvest. Mr. Ha’Ivri’s charity promotes the program.
The winery’s owner, Nir Lavi, says his land is state-sanctioned. But officials in the neighboring Palestinian village of Iraq Burin say part of the vineyard was planted on ground taken from their residents in a parcel-by-parcel land grab.
Such disputes are typical for the area, as are the opposing accounts of what happened that February day when HaYovel’s leader, Tommy Waller, and his volunteers say they came under attack and the shepherd was shot.
“They came up screaming, slinging their rock-slings like David going after a giant,” Mr. Waller said. A Har Bracha security guard came to the rescue by shooting in the air, not aiming for the attackers, he added.
But, in an interview, the shepherd, Amid Qadoos, said settlers started the scuffle by throwing rocks at him as he was grazing his sheep on village land a few yards from the vineyard, telling him, “You are not allowed here.” He and his friends then threw rocks in retaliation, he said, prompting the security guard to shoot him in the back of his leg. His father, Aref Qadoos, added, “They want us to go so they can confiscate the land, through planting.”
Though two volunteers were hurt, Mr. Waller said neither he nor his group would be deterred. “People are drawn to our work who believe the Bible is true and desire to participate in the promises of God,” he said. “We believe the restoration of Israel, including Samaria and Judea, is part of that promise.”
In the last year, he said, he brought 130 volunteers here. This coming year, he said, he expects as many as 400.
Haaretz
Netanyahu heads to Washington hoping to regain Obama's trust
Prime Minister to present U.S. President with outline of new policy ideas regarding the peace process, with goal of transitioning from proximity talks to direct negotiations.
By Barak Ravid
July 5, 2010
Tel Aviv - Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu will fly to Washington on Monday evening to meet with President Barack Obama for the fifth time since the two leaders took office.
A senior source in Jerusalem said that Netanyahu hoped the meeting would enable him to regain Obama's trust after months of tension regarding West Bank settlement construction. Netanyahu was planning to present Obama with a number of proposals for coordinating progress in the Middle East peace process, said the source.
Netanyahu and Obama have not yet managed to establish close and intimate working relations since taking leadership of their respective countries. The level of trust between the two appears very low, making it difficult to yield significant progress in the peace process.
Obama is not convinced that Netanyahu is serious in his declared intentions regarding the process, and the Israeli premier is not confident that the current American administration is committed to maintaining the same relations with Israel as those held by its predecessors.
Netanyahu will present Obama with a few new ideas for the political process, and he hopes that the consolidation of a new policy outline will assist the two countries in overcoming the "hurdles" that will surface when the temporary settlement freeze ends in September.
The prime minister has spent the last few days before his trip meeting with senior Israeli ministers to sort out the new ideas.
Netanyahu is still debating whether to enter direct negotiations with Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas with an agenda focused solely on a permanent peace settlement or to base the talks on a temporary arrangement whereby a Palestinian state would be built in stages. He is also considering the possibility of opening negotiations with both options on the table.
Netanyahu convened senior ministers from his Likud party on Monday to brief them on what he wants to be conveyed to the media during his trip to the United States. He stressed that the central goal of his meeting with Obama was to jump-start the transition from proximity talks with the Palestinians to direct negotiations.
The White House also wants Netanyahu's visit to pass smoothly and to avoid the crises and confrontations that overshadowed the prime minister's last three trips to Washington.
The Americans will greet Netanyahu with a particularly warm welcome, which will include a join press conference alongside Obama and a lavish luncheon comprising both delegations.
First Lady Michelle Obama, has also made the unusual gesture of inviting Netanyahu's wife, Sara, for a personal visit to the White House while the two leaders are meeting.
Netanyahu will also meet Secretary of State Hillary Clinton during his visit.
On Wednesday, the prime minister will head to New York for meetings with Jewish leaders and will grant interviews to major American television stations. He will also deliver a policy speech Thursday to the Foreign Relations Council in New York.
Upon his return to Israel, Netanyahu will travel to Egypt to update President Hosni Mubarak on his visit to Washington.
Jerusalem Post
'We must give US clear peace plan'
By JPost.com Staff
July 5, 2010
Jerusalem - Defense Minister Ehud Barak on Monday said Israel must present a clear peace initiative to the US, showing proposed borders between Israel and a future Palestinian state.
Speaking at the Knesset's Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee Barak noted that "Israel must present Obama with a clear initiative that discusses drawing a border in Israel in a way that settlement blocs along the border will remain in our hands and have a solid Jewish majority for generations, but in a way that will enable the establishment of an independent and demilitarized Palestinian state."
Barak added that Israel must present an assertive political initiative to strengthen ties with the US and moderate Arab countries.
Barak said that the recent meeting between Industry, Trade, and Labor Minister Binyamin Ben-Eliezer and Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu was bad timing.
Barak said that Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu asked him about a possible meeting between Ben-Eliezer and the Turkish foreign minister and he responded by saying it was not a suitable time for such a meeting.
Barak said that during his recent trip to the United States the Turks wanted him to meet with their foreign minister and ambassador in Washington.
The defense minister explained that it was clear to him that the meeting was aimed at presenting claims against Israel and therefore did not agree to holding such a meeting.
Speaking about relations with Turkey, Barak said Israel is not looking to create a conflict but it is not possible to ignore the depth and nature of the trends that are being seen there.
Barak added that there has been a big change in Turkish policy recently. The fact that these changes happened in Turkey caused the results of the flotilla raid.
The defense minister also warned that aditional flotillas that were planned by Lebanon and Iran may still set out on their way to the Gaza Strip.
A feud between Barak and Ben-Eliezer escalated to harsh tones at Labor’s ministerial meeting on Sunday when Ben-Eliezer threatened to “skewer” Barak’s spokesman.
Ben-Eliezer was upset that after he had told Barak in advance about his meeting last week with Davutoglu and the defense minister wished him good luck, Barak’s spokesman Barak Seri briefed reporters that his boss opposed the meeting.
Haaretz
Fayyad to Barak: Give Palestinian forces more power in West Bank
Palestinian PM and Israeli defense minister meet for first high-level talks since U.S. began proximity negotiations; Barak: Netanyahu must give Obama plan for borders.
By Reuters
July 5, 2010
Ramallah - Palestinian Prime Minister Salam Fayyad urged Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak on Monday to grant Palestinian security forces a wider mandate in the West Bank.
The meeting between Fayyad and Barak was the first high-level contact between Israel and the Palestinians since the U.S. began mediating proximity peace negotiations earlier this year.
Fayyad told Barak that the Palestinian forces- which have been retrained in the last three years with financial and technical support from the United States and the European Union - must be allowed to operate in wider areas of the West Bank, most of which falls under complete Israeli control. Likewise, Fayyad said, Israeli forces must halt raids into Palestinian towns and cities.
"Quick resolution of both issues is very important in order for there to begin to develop a sense of a state in the making," said Fayyad, briefing journalists on the meeting several hours later from Ramallah, where his government is based.
There was no immediate comment from Barak on the meeting, which was held at the King David Hotel. Barak's office said on Sunday that he would discuss "various issues related to relations between Israel and the Palestinians".
Fayyad said he pressed other Palestinian demands including that Israel quickly and entirely lift its blockade of the Gaza Strip, governed by the Hamas group which is openly hostile to Fayyad and the Palestinian Authority headed by President Mahmoud Abbas.
Fayyad said Barak had promised the issues he raised, among them Israeli actions in East Jerusalem, would "be seriously studied and there will be specific and clear answers to all the issues that were discussed".
Barak urged Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu earlier Monday to present U.S. President Barack Obama with a clear peace initiative that includes a proposed border between Israel and a future Palestinian state, when the two leaders meet in Washington on Tuesday.
"Israel must pull that bull by the horns [during the meeting with Obama] and present a clear initiative that discusses drawing a border in Israel in a way that settlement blocs along the border will remain in our hands and have a solid Jewish majority for generations, but in a way that will enable the establishment of an independent and demilitarized Palestinian state," Barak told a hearing for the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee.
He added that Israel must present an "assertive political initiative' to strengthen ties with the United States and moderate Arab countries, as well as curb the international de-legitimization of Israel.
"We tend to ignore the importance of our peace with Egypt and Jordan," said Barak, "and we cannot be allowed to forget it."
The defense minister also addressed the feud between him and Trade Minister Benjamin Ben-Eliezer over the latter's secret meeting last week with the Turkish foreign minister in an effort to defuse the crisis surrounding Israel's deadly raid on a Gaza-bound aid flotilla.
Barak said that when he was in the U.S. last week, officials tried to schedule a meeting between him and the Turkish foreign minister and ambassador, but he declined.
"It was clear these meetings were intended to raise Turkish complaints about the flotilla deaths and to demand compensation for those killed and injured, because of which I thought it is not the right time to meet them," said Barak.
Barak added that upon his return to Israel he told Netanyahu that it would be an inappropriate time for Ben-Eliezer to meet Turkish officials.
Haaretz
Report: U.S. tax breaks aiding illegal outposts in West Bank
Findings could embarrass Obama as he seeks to persuade Netanyahu to extend settlement building freeze, New York Times reports.
July 6, 2010
New York - U.S. Treasury tax breaks have helped West Bank settlers to receive $200 million in tax-free funding from American donors, according to a report published in the United States on Tuesday.
Differences in U.S. and Israeli law means it is easier to fund illegal outposts through donations from New York than from Jerusalem, according to an investigation by the New York Times.
An examination of public records in the United States and Israel pinpointed at least 40 American groups that have raised over $200 million in tax-deductible gifts for Jewish settlers in the West Bank and East Jerusalem over the past decade.
The findings could embarrass U.S. President Barack Obama, an outspoken opponent of Israel's settlement policies who is expected to use a Tuesday meeting with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to push for a continued freeze on Jewish building in the West Bank.
According to the Times report, lenient American tax regulations allow funds to flow to settlement outposts that are illegal under Israel law – as opposed to larger settlement blocks that receive money from the Israeli government.
The result is that it is easier to fund outposts from the United States than from Israel, which over a decade ago outlawed tax breaks for contributions to groups devoted exclusively to settlement-building in the West Bank.
U.S. tax law applies to all nonprofit groups and there are Palestinian organizations that also benefit from U.S. donations, as does the Free Gaza movement, whose controversial aid flotilla was stormed by Israeli commandos a month ago. Nine activists were killed in the raid.
But the flow of cash to settler groups is particularly awkward for the Obama administration as it mediates renewed peace talks between Israel and the Palestinians. Washington has refused to allow Israel to spend American government aid on settlements and some U.S. officials fear the consequences of being seen to fund them indirectly.
"It’s a problem,” one unnamed senior State Department official was quoted as saying, adding, “It’s unhelpful to the efforts that we’re trying to make.”
Daniel Kurtzer, the U.S. ambassador to Israel from 2001 to 2005, said the issue was an unspoken source of embarrassment for American diplomats.
“It drove us crazy,” Kurtzer told the Times. But “it was a thing you didn’t talk about in polite company.”
He added that while the private donations could not sustain the settler enterprise on their own, “a couple of hundred million dollars makes a huge difference,” and if carefully focused, “creates a new reality on the ground.”
Israeli military commanders are also angry that U.S. funds are going to extremists groups whose leaders have urged resistance to any attempt to evict them.
“I am not happy about it,” a senior military commander in the West Bank.
The Daily Beast
Does Israel Make Us Safer?
by Thaddeus Russell
July 5, 2010
New York - Israel just announced it has loosened Gaza blockade rules to allow in consumer goods and Turkey is demanding an apology for the flotilla raid. As Obama and Netanyahu await tomorrow's meeting, historian Thaddeus Russell argues that it's time to ask if the country makes Americans safer—even if the answer makes everyone very uncomfortable.
When Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu visits the White House Tuesday, President Obama will have the chance to be the first American president since the founding of Israel to ask The Question.
The Question is never addressed by Israel's supporters and rarely raised by Israel's detractors. But for those of us who are taxpayers in a nation that has been the state of Israel’s chief benefactor for 42 years—or those of us with Jewish ancestry—it is becoming the only question to ask. It is simple, self-interested, and fundamental: Does the existence of Israel make Americans and Jews safer?
And here is the paradox: Though support for Israel among Americans, and especially Jewish Americans, remains high according to recent Gallup polls, historical evidence says the answer to The Question is “no.”
“There was not a single act of Arab terrorism against Americans before 1968, when the U.S. became the chief supplier of military equipment and economic aid to Israel.”
The history of Israel and its relationship with the U.S. is infinitely complex, but there’s one damning fact that’s ignored as often as The Question: There was not a single act of Arab terrorism against Americans before 1968, when the U.S. became the chief supplier of military equipment and economic aid to Israel. In light of this fact, it’s difficult to credibly sustain the argument that Arab terrorism is spawned by Islam’s alleged promotion of violence and antipathy toward American culture or by a “natural” Arab anti-Semitism. It also suggests that no matter what policies Israel enacts to protect itself—even a withdrawal from the occupied territories or a two-state “solution”—it must be a perpetual wartime state.
Very few Americans today are aware that the question of American and Jewish self-interest was first raised at the time of Israel's founding by officials in the highest levels of the U.S. government. In 1948, several members of Harry Truman's Cabinet predicted that the creation of a Jewish state in the Middle East would spur Arab violence against Jews and Americans, advising the president to shun Israel.
These included Secretary of State George Marshall, Defense Secretary James Forrestal, and George Kennan, then the leading policy strategist in the State Department. They argued that if the United States helped to set up an independent Jewish nation it would provoke terrorist attacks on Americans and inaugurate an endless war between Arabs and Jews. “There are 30 million Arabs on one side and about 600,000 Jews on the other,” Forrestal told those in the administration who favored recognizing Israel. “Why don’t you face up to the realities?”
To support their argument, the anti-Israel faction in the White House pointed to two facts. First, the establishment and maintenance of a Jewish state required at least a partial displacement and disenfranchisement of non-Jews. Second, though not free of bloodshed, relations between Jews and Arabs in the Palestine area were relatively peaceful before the establishment of Zionist settlements there in the early 20th century. The first acts of political violence against Jews in the region took place in 1920, when local Arabs responded to the influx of tens of thousands of Zionist settlers by attacking Jewish settlements in Galilee and rioting in the streets of Jerusalem.
The subsequent increase in Jewish migration to Palestine was met by increased violence by Arabs, who feared—rightly—that many of them would have to be removed from the area so that a Jewish majority could be established. The founding of Israel in 1948—which was advocated by many as the establishment of a safe haven for European Jews who had been driven from their homes by the Third Reich—was met by full-scale war.
Though many Americans think of Islamic terrorism against the U.S. as part of an inevitable “clash of cultures,” not one American died at the hands of a politically motivated Arab or Muslim until June 5, 1968, when Robert F. Kennedy was shot to death by Sirhan Sirhan. The killing came shortly after President Lyndon Johnson declared that the U.S. would become Israel’s major sponsor, and Kennedy announced that if elected president he would supply Israel with whatever weapons it needed so that the Jewish state “can protect itself” against its Arab neighbors.
There is wide agreement that Sirhan's principal motivation was his anger over U.S. support of Israel generally and Kennedy’s pledge in particular. A Palestinian born in Jerusalem, Sirhan had filled notebooks with rage against Zionists—and against Kennedy, for what the Los Angeles Times reported as “the senator’s advocacy of U.S. support for Israel.”
Since then, the United States has given more than $100 billion in aid to Israel, which has been roughly one-third of all foreign aid given by the U.S. Also since then, some 15,000 Israelis and nearly 5,000 Americans have been killed by Arabs opposed to the existence of Israel. Not one of those Israelis would have died had they lived in New York or Los Angeles, and it is reasonable to argue that many more Americans would be alive today had the United States never given aid to Israel.
In 1998, the World Islamic Front confirmed the forgotten fears of Forrestal, Marshall, and Kennan by issuing a fatwa “to kill the Americans and their allies—civilians and military” for grievances including U.S. support of “the Jews' petty state” and “its occupation of Jerusalem and murder of Muslims there.” Three years later, two leaders of the organization, Ayman Al-Zawahiri and Osama Bin Laden, followed their own edict.
Though the motivations of Al-Zawahiri and Bin Laden were not limited to outrage over Israel, the heads of al Qaeda have benefited greatly from continued U.S. support of the Jewish state. Recently, Centcom commander Gen. David Petraeus stunned many in Washington when he suggested during a Senate hearing and in a briefing to the Joint Chiefs of Staff that perceived U.S. complicity in the oppression of Palestinians is serving as the most powerful recruiting tool for anti-American terrorist organizations.
This evidence, these arguments, or even The Question itself will never move those who believe—for religious, political, or emotional reasons—that a Jewish state must exist in the Middle East. They will not change the minds of Israelis who would rather live in perpetual war than leave the land they say belongs to them. But they might very well convince Americans, and even some Jews, to no longer participate in what now is clearly an act of self-destruction.
Jerusalem Post
'Settlements control 42% of West Bank'
By Dan Izenberg and Gil Hofmann
July 6, 2010
Jerusalem - Human rights group B’Tselem purposely released a report accusing Israel of stealing Arab land in the West Bank on the day of Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu’s visit to Washington in order to ruin his meeting with US President Barack Obama, critics of the organization charged Monday.
The report on government settlement policy and settlement growth was sent to news organizations with a request to embargo its publication until Tuesday.
B’Tselem’s critics compared the move to Peace Now leaking the approval of Jewish construction in Jerusalem’s Sheikh Jarrah neighborhood an hour ahead of Netanyahu’s last meeting with Obama in March.
“The fact that B’Tselem decided to publish it on the day of Netanyahu’s meeting with Obama to try to make it go badly reveals the organization’s face as a systemic harmer of Israeli interests,” said Dani Dayan, chairman of the Council of Jewish Communities in Judea, Samaria and the Gaza Strip.
NGO Monitor president Gerald Steinberg added that “B’Tselem claims to be a human rights organization, but they write blatantly political reports that are timed to have the most negative impact, such as when Netanyahu is visiting Washington.”
B’Tselem spokeswoman Sarit Michaeli responded that the release date for the report had been set about a month and a half ago, long before the date of the Netanyahu-Obama meeting in Washington was known.
“We decided not to change the release date, because we have an obligation to inform the people about Israel’s obligations,” Michaeli said. “We hope that human rights issues, including the implications of the settlements, will be on the table at the meeting.”
According to the B’Tselem study, the Jewish settlements are in control of 42 percent of all the land in the West Bank, even though the built-up areas constitute only 1% of it.
The municipal boundaries of the settlements are on average 10 times larger than their built-up areas, the report says.
B’Tselem also reports that the settler population has tripled since 1993, from 110,000 to 301,200.
The organization accuses the government of violating the commitment it made to the US as part of former president George W. Bush’s 2003 road map. According to the plan, Israel promised to freeze all settlement activity.
“Israel was supposed to begin implementing its road map obligations in May 2003,” the report says. “Since 2004, however, due to extensive construction in the settlements and the generous incentives Israel offers settlers, the settler population (not including those in east Jerusalem) grew by 28%, from 235,263 to 301,200 persons by the end of 2009.
In 2008, the annual growth of the settler population was three times greater than the natural growth of the population inside Israel – 5% as opposed to 1.8% respectively.”
Furthermore, according to an analysis based on a database collected by Brig.-Gen. (res.) Baruch Spiegel, there is potential for the construction of 50,000 apartments in the settlements under existing plans.
The report goes on to explain how the government amassed the 2.39 million dunams of land in the West Bank since it took control of the territory in 1967.
The most effective means was declaring a large swath of it state land.
The criteria for determining what constituted state land were based on the 1858 Ottoman Land Law.
Most of the land declared state land by the government was taken over between 1979 and 1992. This included 913,000 dunams (almost 20%) of the entire West Bank. Since then, another 5,114 dunams have been declared state land.
The report adds that the government announced last year in the Arab-language newspaper Quds that it was going to declare another 138,000 dunams state land.
All of this must be added to the 600,000 dunams of land already designated state land during the years of the British Mandate and the Jordanian government.
The government has also requisitioned private Palestinian land on the basis of security needs, an action that is in keeping with international law. However, according to that law, the military may not give the land to anyone else and must return it at the end of the occupation. According to the report, though, the army has requisitioned 31,000 dunams of land and given it to 42 settlements since 1967.
The government also effectively annexed privately owned Palestinian land, the report says. Between 1994 and 2006, it defined and expanded the jurisdictional areas of 92 settlements.
The new boundaries contained Palestinian-owned land that was not officially annexed but which effectively fell under settlement control because the Palestinian owners were not allowed to access it.
The report concludes that the settlement enterprise “has caused continuing cumulative infringement of the Palestinians’ human rights, including the right of property, the right to equality and due process, the right to an adequate standard of living, the right to freedom of movement and the right to self-determination.”
Dayan, however, responded that many of the numbers in the report were incorrect and many of its claims were distortions. For instance, he said, the percentage of land in Judea and Samaria controlled by Jewish councils was 9%, not 42%.
“The organization has been taken over by a group of anti-Israel supporters of the most extreme Palestinian groups and the Palestinian right of return,” Dayan said.
Steinberg said that a lot of the report was based on legal interpretations without regard for historical realities.
“It claims the government manipulated the law, but land ownership is so complicated that any decision is interpreted,” Steinberg said. “It can just as easily be said that B’Tselem manipulated the law to score political points. In this report, there is no historical context of decades of Arab hostility, the 1967 war and unreciprocated Israeli peace efforts. Instead it artificially blames everything on Israel.”
|
|
IT IS, of course, all the fault
of Judge Richard Goldstone. He is to blame for it, as he is to blame
for all the other ills that are befalling us now.
