From The Australian, July 01, 2009, by Ilan Grapel, researcher with the Australia/Israel and Jewish Affairs Council:
THE Green Left Weekly is probably Australia's best-known radical-left newspaper. While nominally independent, it is affiliated with the Socialist Alliance party and its youth movement Resistance! Like most radical socialist groups, it invariably aligns with the anti-Israel movement.
For some time it has been apparent that an unholy alliance is growing between extreme left-wing groups and Arab and Islamic extremists, despite completely different visions for society. This alliance has been on show in much of the anti-war movement in Britain and other places.
For instance, Britain's "Respect" party is basically an alliance of radical Muslims and old hard-line Marxists such as former Labour MP George Galloway. Galloway was pro-Saddam Hussein before the 2003 Iraq war. Today, he works for the Iranian government mouthpiece television station, Press TV.
But what isn't widely known is that the Green Left Weekly is openly promoting extremism among Arabic speakers in Australia through a monthly Arabic-language insert called the Flame. This support is not limited to Green Left Weekly's own far-left agenda. It supports terrorist groups and promotes violence as the solution to the existence of the "Zionist state."
You would think GLW's declared pursuit of the advancement of "anti-racist, feminist, student, trade union, environment, gay and lesbian, civil liberties" would rule out the promotion of radical Islamist groups such as Hamas, which are deeply hostile to all the above.
Yet alongside content promoting the PFLP, a tiny left-wing and currently marginal Palestinian terror group, Hamas is also promoted by GLW as a positive model of "resistance"; that is to say, terrorism. Those killed as a result of the violence Hamas sparks are "martyrs", terminology Flame shares with Hamas. Further, the terminology of the Flame is openly hostile to the more moderate governments of the region and repeatedly demands all-out war on the "Zionist entity".
The January edition of the Flame was devoted to the conflict in Gaza. The cover page is a compilation of statements from various communist parties in the Arab world. Predictably, the communiques incited its Arabic readers with imagery of "slaughter," and a "waterfall of Palestinian blood washing the streets". More surprisingly, there are implicit calls for other Arab states to expand the Gaza war.
In "Hunt of a people", the paper refers to the 1982 Lebanon war, indignant "Arab capitals stood watching, exactly as is happening now."
The paper targets American-allied Arab governments for their moderation in the war, which it terms "collusion". The front-page article from the Iraqi Communist Party rebukes the Saudi government, Egypt, and the Palestinian Authority, which it disparagingly dubs the "Oslo Authority". The Mubarak government is condemned for being "a loyal accomplice to Israel and the Oslo Authority in their attempt to shut Hamas out". It also accuses the Saudi monarchy of having covert dealings with "the Zionists" stretching back decades. Any non-violent interaction with Israel, whether actual or imagined, is scorned.
In the March edition the Flame was aghast at Egypt for co-operating with the US against Hamas. Its expose was titled "Egypt uses American soldiers to prevent weapons smuggling to the resistance!" In the Arabic, "the resistance" is euphemism for terrorist violence and for Hamas itself.
Another article, "A return to principles is necessary after the Israeli aggression", is more virulent. An illustration shows a Palestinian imprisoned behind barbed wire shaped as a partial Jewish star. The article condemns those calling the Gaza war a victory for the "resistance", given the large proportion of "martyrs" from the Palestinian people in comparison to the "slim" number killed among "soldiers of the Israeli occupation army". The rest of the article is critical of the Palestinian factions for their internecine fight.
It criticises Hamas for abandoning its traditional position as the "resistance" against "the enemy" to fight the PA and calls for a "united Palestinian resistance" which will "return the benefit to the Palestinian people". It is clear that this unity will not negotiate peace with Israel, with the paper stating "this unity in battle must not fall into the trap of dialogue that the decrepit Arab regimes of the region are producing." The Flame defines Israel as "the enemy" and demands violent "resistance" while pouring scorn on negotiations or dialogue, It praises the assassination of a "Zionist minister" as "courageous."
The radical anti-Israel stance of Green Left Weekly is no secret. However, the message it pitches to the Arabic-speaking community of Australia is far more inflammatory. Unbeknown to its English readers, it supports terrorist groups such as Hamas whose goal is to create a state where there would be no place for the gays, lesbians, feminists and trade unionists who read the English-language edition of the paper.
Wednesday, July 01, 2009
What are the chances for peace?
From THE JERUSALEM POST , Jun. 30, 2009, by Yossi Alpher, former director of the Jaffee Center for Strategic Studies at Tel Aviv University [my emphasis added - SL]:
The Israeli-Palestinian final status negotiations launched by the Annapolis meeting of late 2007 never seemed to have a serious chance of success. The leaders on all sides - Israeli, Palestinian and American - were either too weak or too disinterested. Some supporters of the negotiations, which lasted throughout most of 2008, went so far as to argue that even hopeless talks were important as a means of underpinning the security and economic confidence-building measures being implemented simultaneously in the West Bank. And if the talks did somehow succeed, their outcome was in any case destined by Annapolis to become a "shelf agreement" that awaits completion of phase 1 of the road map and the restoration of PLO rule in the Gaza Strip.
Former prime minister Ehud Olmert and Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas recently discussed with the American press (in interviews in The Washington Post on May 29 and Newsweek of June 13, respectively) the extent to which they actually reached agreement in their 2008 negotiations. The "product" they describe is roughly similar to the Clinton parameters of 2000, the Taba agreements of early 2001 and the unofficial Geneva Initiative of 2003. Bearing in mind the two leaders' apparent inability to even contemplate implementing an agreement, these appear to be the not-so-original details of yet another virtual exercise in peacemaking.
PERHAPS THE PROTOCOLS the leaders left behind will prove useful for future peacemakers. But we also have to hope that the ultimate failure of their negotiations will not negatively affect the willingness of the next generation of leaders to try again. Personally, this is why I opposed the Annapolis process: To engage in negotiations that have no chance of reaching fruition and success is liable to mean adding yet another layer of failure to the increasingly depressing structure of abortive Israeli-Palestinian peacemaking enterprises. That is liable to deter rather than assist the next set of negotiators. How many more times will Israeli and Palestinian leaders agree to risk their political careers and perhaps their lives and reinvent the very same peace wheel, only to see it fall off its axle?
Olmert says he offered Abbas 93.5 percent to 93.7% of the West Bank, along with 5.8% in land swaps and a Gaza-West Bank safe passage corridor. Abbas recalls the offer as 97%. Both agree that Israel agreed to accept a small number of Palestinian refugees, with Olmert adding that he rejected the right of return and offered limited return to Israel as a "humanitarian gesture." Olmert also offered to, in effect, internationalize the Jerusalem Holy Basin.
Olmert's interviewer reports that Palestinian chief negotiator Saeb Erekat "confirmed that Olmert had made the offer... [Olmert] was serious." Erekat claims the Palestinians needed time to study Olmert's offer and prepare a reply and that time ran out when Olmert resigned and Israel invaded the Gaza Strip. But that's not what Abbas says (nor has anyone in his entourage denied what he told The Washington Post's Jackson Diehl) - and this is the troublesome part for anyone examining this negotiating experience for clues as to future chances of success.
Every so often, a national leader makes statements in an interview that redefine his position on the world stage. Abbas appears to have done this. Abbas chose to interpret whatever statement of empathy Olmert made about the refugees - the effort he apparently undertook to offer the Palestinians some sort of psychological closure regarding the events of 1948 - as acceptance of the right of return, while Olmert understood he was saying the opposite and rejecting the right of return. Abbas looks at an offer of virtually the entire territory of the West Bank, internationalization of the disputed holy sites in Jerusalem and (according to him) the right of return, turns it down and says "the gaps were wide."
CAN WE be blamed for suspecting that we really do not have a partner for a two-state deal?
This is very bad news indeed. Abbas is about as moderate as the Palestinian leadership gets. Olmert proved to be about as moderate as the Israeli leadership gets, placing himself on a par with Yossi Beilin, the chief Israeli architect of the Geneva Initiative. I know of no other Israeli leader who would wish to offer the Palestinians even more in order to close the gap. I myself would not have offered as much: I believe Palestinians must accept an unequivocal Israeli position that the right of return contradicts the very spirit of a two-state solution. I also would argue that the West Bank-Gaza safe passage corridor is "worth" a lot more than around 1% of the "swaps" calculation, if only because a Palestinian state cannot survive without it.
Be that as it may, I can only hope that somewhere, waiting in the wings, is the Palestinian leader capable of broadly accepting at least Olmert's offer - and without distorting it. Or that some sort of international leadership, Arab or American, will prove ready and able to persuade the Palestinian leadership and public to make the necessary concessions. Otherwise, the chances of a successful two-state breakthrough in the near future were definitely reduced by Abbas' statements.
The Israeli-Palestinian final status negotiations launched by the Annapolis meeting of late 2007 never seemed to have a serious chance of success. The leaders on all sides - Israeli, Palestinian and American - were either too weak or too disinterested. Some supporters of the negotiations, which lasted throughout most of 2008, went so far as to argue that even hopeless talks were important as a means of underpinning the security and economic confidence-building measures being implemented simultaneously in the West Bank. And if the talks did somehow succeed, their outcome was in any case destined by Annapolis to become a "shelf agreement" that awaits completion of phase 1 of the road map and the restoration of PLO rule in the Gaza Strip.
Former prime minister Ehud Olmert and Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas recently discussed with the American press (in interviews in The Washington Post on May 29 and Newsweek of June 13, respectively) the extent to which they actually reached agreement in their 2008 negotiations. The "product" they describe is roughly similar to the Clinton parameters of 2000, the Taba agreements of early 2001 and the unofficial Geneva Initiative of 2003. Bearing in mind the two leaders' apparent inability to even contemplate implementing an agreement, these appear to be the not-so-original details of yet another virtual exercise in peacemaking.
PERHAPS THE PROTOCOLS the leaders left behind will prove useful for future peacemakers. But we also have to hope that the ultimate failure of their negotiations will not negatively affect the willingness of the next generation of leaders to try again. Personally, this is why I opposed the Annapolis process: To engage in negotiations that have no chance of reaching fruition and success is liable to mean adding yet another layer of failure to the increasingly depressing structure of abortive Israeli-Palestinian peacemaking enterprises. That is liable to deter rather than assist the next set of negotiators. How many more times will Israeli and Palestinian leaders agree to risk their political careers and perhaps their lives and reinvent the very same peace wheel, only to see it fall off its axle?
Olmert says he offered Abbas 93.5 percent to 93.7% of the West Bank, along with 5.8% in land swaps and a Gaza-West Bank safe passage corridor. Abbas recalls the offer as 97%. Both agree that Israel agreed to accept a small number of Palestinian refugees, with Olmert adding that he rejected the right of return and offered limited return to Israel as a "humanitarian gesture." Olmert also offered to, in effect, internationalize the Jerusalem Holy Basin.
Olmert's interviewer reports that Palestinian chief negotiator Saeb Erekat "confirmed that Olmert had made the offer... [Olmert] was serious." Erekat claims the Palestinians needed time to study Olmert's offer and prepare a reply and that time ran out when Olmert resigned and Israel invaded the Gaza Strip. But that's not what Abbas says (nor has anyone in his entourage denied what he told The Washington Post's Jackson Diehl) - and this is the troublesome part for anyone examining this negotiating experience for clues as to future chances of success.
Every so often, a national leader makes statements in an interview that redefine his position on the world stage. Abbas appears to have done this. Abbas chose to interpret whatever statement of empathy Olmert made about the refugees - the effort he apparently undertook to offer the Palestinians some sort of psychological closure regarding the events of 1948 - as acceptance of the right of return, while Olmert understood he was saying the opposite and rejecting the right of return. Abbas looks at an offer of virtually the entire territory of the West Bank, internationalization of the disputed holy sites in Jerusalem and (according to him) the right of return, turns it down and says "the gaps were wide."
CAN WE be blamed for suspecting that we really do not have a partner for a two-state deal?
This is very bad news indeed. Abbas is about as moderate as the Palestinian leadership gets. Olmert proved to be about as moderate as the Israeli leadership gets, placing himself on a par with Yossi Beilin, the chief Israeli architect of the Geneva Initiative. I know of no other Israeli leader who would wish to offer the Palestinians even more in order to close the gap. I myself would not have offered as much: I believe Palestinians must accept an unequivocal Israeli position that the right of return contradicts the very spirit of a two-state solution. I also would argue that the West Bank-Gaza safe passage corridor is "worth" a lot more than around 1% of the "swaps" calculation, if only because a Palestinian state cannot survive without it.
Be that as it may, I can only hope that somewhere, waiting in the wings, is the Palestinian leader capable of broadly accepting at least Olmert's offer - and without distorting it. Or that some sort of international leadership, Arab or American, will prove ready and able to persuade the Palestinian leadership and public to make the necessary concessions. Otherwise, the chances of a successful two-state breakthrough in the near future were definitely reduced by Abbas' statements.
Todd Harrison's Memoirs of a Minyan
From The Wall Street Journal, Jun 10, 2009, Chapter 1: "Inmates in the asylum" by Todd Harrison (This e-book, which is published each Wednesday over 18 weeks, is now up to Chapter 4):
How a high-flying trader learned the secret of money
Todd Harrison spent a number of years in the belly of the Wall Street beast and lived to tell about it. In this 18-part series, he relives his days as a highflying trader and what he learned about money.
(WSJ Editor's note: "Memoirs of a Minyan" is a first-person account that follows Minyanville founder Todd Harrison through a Wall Street trading career to the Internet media business, with some important lessons about the nature of money along the way....).
...I struggled whether to share this story because I didn't know if anyone would be interested in my lot in life. As I weaved my way through the many mazes in my mind, I decided to put pen to paper and recount my steps.
If not for you, for me, but with a larger lens on the immediate-gratification, conspicuously consumptive society in which we live. Some might say I bowed to the false idolatry of money, and perhaps I did. I was conditioned to believe that success was measured by a bottom line, and validation could be found in a bank account.
Everything you'll read in this series is true, as seen through my eyes. I share it without vice or virtue, and with all due humility. Lou Mannheim said in the movie "Wall Street": "Man looks in the abyss, there's nothing staring back at him. At that moment, man finds his character. And that is what keeps him out of the abyss."
I've stared into a few black holes during my career and emerged each time with newfound passion and incremental resolve. The ability to turn obstacles into opportunities is one of life's best-kept secrets, and the greatest wisdom is bred as a function of pain.
As with any journey, the path we take is more important than the destination. My particular route included climbing the corporate ladder and chasing the trappings of success. Once I got to where I thought I wanted to be, I realized net worth and self-worth were entirely different dynamics.
That was distinctly different from what I was programmed to believe as a child, and it facilitated a professional and spiritual rebirthing....
...At the age of 13, I began working at the local bagel shop. I awoke at 5 a.m. on Saturdays to prepare for the mad rush of customers, many of whom were the families I aspired to emulate.
I never forgot the symbolism of that counter, a divide representing the chasm between the "haves" and "have nots," as money changed hands for goods and services. Little did I know that I would experience life on both sides of that cash register....
To read the original, follow these links:
• Chapter 1: Inmates in the asylum
• Chapter 2: Animal house
• Chapter 3: Let the games begin
• Chapter 4: War stories
How a high-flying trader learned the secret of money
Todd Harrison spent a number of years in the belly of the Wall Street beast and lived to tell about it. In this 18-part series, he relives his days as a highflying trader and what he learned about money.
(WSJ Editor's note: "Memoirs of a Minyan" is a first-person account that follows Minyanville founder Todd Harrison through a Wall Street trading career to the Internet media business, with some important lessons about the nature of money along the way....).
...I struggled whether to share this story because I didn't know if anyone would be interested in my lot in life. As I weaved my way through the many mazes in my mind, I decided to put pen to paper and recount my steps.
If not for you, for me, but with a larger lens on the immediate-gratification, conspicuously consumptive society in which we live. Some might say I bowed to the false idolatry of money, and perhaps I did. I was conditioned to believe that success was measured by a bottom line, and validation could be found in a bank account.
Everything you'll read in this series is true, as seen through my eyes. I share it without vice or virtue, and with all due humility. Lou Mannheim said in the movie "Wall Street": "Man looks in the abyss, there's nothing staring back at him. At that moment, man finds his character. And that is what keeps him out of the abyss."
I've stared into a few black holes during my career and emerged each time with newfound passion and incremental resolve. The ability to turn obstacles into opportunities is one of life's best-kept secrets, and the greatest wisdom is bred as a function of pain.
As with any journey, the path we take is more important than the destination. My particular route included climbing the corporate ladder and chasing the trappings of success. Once I got to where I thought I wanted to be, I realized net worth and self-worth were entirely different dynamics.
That was distinctly different from what I was programmed to believe as a child, and it facilitated a professional and spiritual rebirthing....
...At the age of 13, I began working at the local bagel shop. I awoke at 5 a.m. on Saturdays to prepare for the mad rush of customers, many of whom were the families I aspired to emulate.
I never forgot the symbolism of that counter, a divide representing the chasm between the "haves" and "have nots," as money changed hands for goods and services. Little did I know that I would experience life on both sides of that cash register....
To read the original, follow these links:
• Chapter 1: Inmates in the asylum
• Chapter 2: Animal house
• Chapter 3: Let the games begin
• Chapter 4: War stories
Tuesday, June 30, 2009
US demand for settlement freeze is 'extortion'
From THE JERUSALEM POST, Jun. 30, 2009, by HERB KEINON, REBECCA ANNA STOIL and HILARY LEILA KRIEGER:
MK Otniel Schneller (Kadima) lashed out Monday against the US demand for a settlement freeze, labeling it "extortion" and warning it could set back Israeli readiness for peace.
In an interview with The Jerusalem Post, Schneller assailed Obama administration officials as holding beliefs shaped by "far-Left opinions outside of the Israeli consensus."
Schneller, who has been involved in peace deals with the Palestinians and Jordan since 1994, sent a letter Sunday to Defense Minister Ehud Barak in advance of the minister's visit to the US in which he said he "searched for ways to find a meeting-point between Israel's desire to advance peace, the recognition of the agreement of the majority of Israeli people to recognize a Palestinian state, and the fatalism of America that is pushing us into a corner."
"The most dangerous thing to the peace process is to push the Israeli public into a corner," he said.
...Schneller argued that the pressure to stop natural growth in settlements was a "fatal mistake," but said that although Israel "must go as much as possible in the direction of American interests through democracy, maintaining peace, continuing to work together with Abu Mazen [PA President Mahmoud Abbas], when the Obama government extorts the government of Israel by putting forward the question of natural growth and settlements opposite the Iranian question, it is extortion in the full meaning of the word."
"What does the president of the United States think - that a nuclear Middle East is less dangerous than natural growth in a small settlement? What does the American Jew who voted for Obama think? To allow him to endanger our physical existence in Israel because my daughter is going to have a baby?
"I think that the US government must stop its charge forward and instead go forward hand in hand with Israel on two channels - one, the Iranian channel, without any connection to the Palestinians, and two, the peace process with the Palestinians while understanding that the consensus within Israel is the most serious lever that can be operated toward that end," Schneller said.
In his letter to Barak, Schneller argued that "in no case can one agree to freezing natural growth - not even temporarily. Beyond the ideological question (the right of people to give birth, to raise children) and beyond the humanitarian questions (preschools, clinics), the believability of Israel's government will be tested. There is no legal or public ability to carry out a complete freeze and there is no chance to prevent all building. America's temporary freeze will cause us to pay a moral price and we will be found untrustworthy opposite the Americans."
Schneller said there was no legal basis for the government to stop private construction that had already been contracted, or to prevent building by those who already had made down payments, unless "we enforce the government's will in an illegal and anti-democratic manner. The American pressure endangers Israeli democracy. Human rights and the power of democracy are not dependent upon the interest of a particular nation."
Instead, Schneller said, the American call to freeze all Jewish building in the West Bank were "unifying the Israeli public against the American demands."
He weighed in on the debate regarding US agreements regarding building in the West Bank, arguing that the Americans had always understood that it was a necessity. As early as Camp David II, which he attended in 2000 as part of then-prime minister Barak's delegation, Schneller said, there was already an understanding. All of the argument regarding whether Israel would keep 8 percent or 12% of the West Bank meant that there was already a recognition that settlement blocs would be maintained, and that the debate centered around how much would be included.
Barak has been saying in recent days that his talks with Mitchell were aimed at moving forward on a comprehensive agreement in the region...
...Barak met with other inner cabinet members - their second meeting on the issue within 24 hours - in which two camps reportedly emerged.
The first, which includes Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and Intelligence Agencies Minister Dan Meridor, as well as Barak, is interested in a compromise - perhaps freezing construction for a limited time while allowing building to continue on housing units that are in an advanced stage - to avoid continued friction with the Obama administration on what they consider a peripheral issue.
Such a move, according to this school of thought, would remove the Palestinian excuse for not restarting negotiations, and paint the Palestinian Authority as the "intransigent" party if it continued to refuse the talks, since they have made a settlement freeze a condition for renewed dialogue.
The other camp, represented by Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman, Minister-without-Portfolio Bennie Begin and Strategic Affairs Minister Moshe Ya'alon, believes it would be a mistake for Israel to stop building in the settlement blocs that will likely remain in Israel's hands in any future agreement. They also are opposed to any pre-conditions to renewed negotiations.
Netanyahu's adviser on the Palestinian issue, Yitzhak Molcho, who also attended, will accompany Barak to New York for the discussion with Mitchell.
The Americans, for their part, are declining to rule out accepting a compromise along the lines of a temporary freeze.
"We've been working with all the parties to try and come up with an environment conducive to the resumption of negotiations. And we look forward to sitting down and talking about what we can do to move this process forward," US State Department spokesman Ian Kelly said ahead of Tuesday's meeting. He called on both the Israelis and Palestinians to meet their road map obligations, which include a freeze on all settlement activity.
"I'm not going to say we're not willing to compromise," Kelly said when pressed on whether that meant the US wouldn't accept such a proposal from Israel....
...Zalman Shoval, an outside adviser to Netanyahu who was in Washington last week and held talks with officials in both the current and previous administration, said his sense was that the Obama administration "was looking for a way out."
Shoval, speaking to the Post from Paris on his way back to Israel, said it was becoming "clearer and clearer" that there had been "tacit understandings governing construction in the settlements" between the Bush administration and then-prime minister Ariel Sharon. He said that if Barak came to New York with some concrete suggestions about how to break the impasse, it could be the basis for an agreement, since the Americans were looking for a way off the "high horse" they had climbed to.
While former US deputy national security adviser Elliott Abrams has publicly said there were understandings on the issue between the Bush and Sharon governments, Shoval said that behind closed doors, more senior members of the previous US administration were saying the same thing. He refused to name them.
There are also signs the Americans are assessing that the focus on Israel and the settlement issue has not been paving the way to a changed dynamic between Israel and the Palestinians and the wider Arab world, and concession from the latter two, as the US had hoped.
White House sources are now speaking more frequently about the need for the Arab world to take steps, and pushing back against the expectation that some have articulated that they expect the US to extract more concessions from Israel.
In The Washington Post on Sunday, columnist David Ignatius quoted White House officials who "grumble about Israeli intransigence," and are "worried about 'squishy' Arab promises and demands for preconditions."
He quoted a senior White House official as saying of the Arab leaders, "Don't keep faxing it in, saying I gave you a peace plan in 2002."
In his column, Ignatius also wrote that Obama's "hardheaded strategy" on the settlements has one big flaw: "The Obama team is assuming that if it can pressure Israel into a real settlements freeze, the Arabs will respond with meaningful moves toward normalization of relations - which will give Israel some tangible benefits for its concessions. But that hope appears to be misplaced."
According to Ignatius, while a settlements halt "would produce some limited Arab response," such as renewed trade or diplomatic contacts with countries like the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Oman and others, "Saudi Arabia, the Arab kingpin, probably wouldn't offer major concessions until the negotiating process was further along."...
MK Otniel Schneller (Kadima) lashed out Monday against the US demand for a settlement freeze, labeling it "extortion" and warning it could set back Israeli readiness for peace.
In an interview with The Jerusalem Post, Schneller assailed Obama administration officials as holding beliefs shaped by "far-Left opinions outside of the Israeli consensus."
Schneller, who has been involved in peace deals with the Palestinians and Jordan since 1994, sent a letter Sunday to Defense Minister Ehud Barak in advance of the minister's visit to the US in which he said he "searched for ways to find a meeting-point between Israel's desire to advance peace, the recognition of the agreement of the majority of Israeli people to recognize a Palestinian state, and the fatalism of America that is pushing us into a corner."
"The most dangerous thing to the peace process is to push the Israeli public into a corner," he said.
...Schneller argued that the pressure to stop natural growth in settlements was a "fatal mistake," but said that although Israel "must go as much as possible in the direction of American interests through democracy, maintaining peace, continuing to work together with Abu Mazen [PA President Mahmoud Abbas], when the Obama government extorts the government of Israel by putting forward the question of natural growth and settlements opposite the Iranian question, it is extortion in the full meaning of the word."
"What does the president of the United States think - that a nuclear Middle East is less dangerous than natural growth in a small settlement? What does the American Jew who voted for Obama think? To allow him to endanger our physical existence in Israel because my daughter is going to have a baby?
"I think that the US government must stop its charge forward and instead go forward hand in hand with Israel on two channels - one, the Iranian channel, without any connection to the Palestinians, and two, the peace process with the Palestinians while understanding that the consensus within Israel is the most serious lever that can be operated toward that end," Schneller said.
In his letter to Barak, Schneller argued that "in no case can one agree to freezing natural growth - not even temporarily. Beyond the ideological question (the right of people to give birth, to raise children) and beyond the humanitarian questions (preschools, clinics), the believability of Israel's government will be tested. There is no legal or public ability to carry out a complete freeze and there is no chance to prevent all building. America's temporary freeze will cause us to pay a moral price and we will be found untrustworthy opposite the Americans."
Schneller said there was no legal basis for the government to stop private construction that had already been contracted, or to prevent building by those who already had made down payments, unless "we enforce the government's will in an illegal and anti-democratic manner. The American pressure endangers Israeli democracy. Human rights and the power of democracy are not dependent upon the interest of a particular nation."
Instead, Schneller said, the American call to freeze all Jewish building in the West Bank were "unifying the Israeli public against the American demands."
He weighed in on the debate regarding US agreements regarding building in the West Bank, arguing that the Americans had always understood that it was a necessity. As early as Camp David II, which he attended in 2000 as part of then-prime minister Barak's delegation, Schneller said, there was already an understanding. All of the argument regarding whether Israel would keep 8 percent or 12% of the West Bank meant that there was already a recognition that settlement blocs would be maintained, and that the debate centered around how much would be included.
Barak has been saying in recent days that his talks with Mitchell were aimed at moving forward on a comprehensive agreement in the region...
...Barak met with other inner cabinet members - their second meeting on the issue within 24 hours - in which two camps reportedly emerged.
The first, which includes Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and Intelligence Agencies Minister Dan Meridor, as well as Barak, is interested in a compromise - perhaps freezing construction for a limited time while allowing building to continue on housing units that are in an advanced stage - to avoid continued friction with the Obama administration on what they consider a peripheral issue.
Such a move, according to this school of thought, would remove the Palestinian excuse for not restarting negotiations, and paint the Palestinian Authority as the "intransigent" party if it continued to refuse the talks, since they have made a settlement freeze a condition for renewed dialogue.
The other camp, represented by Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman, Minister-without-Portfolio Bennie Begin and Strategic Affairs Minister Moshe Ya'alon, believes it would be a mistake for Israel to stop building in the settlement blocs that will likely remain in Israel's hands in any future agreement. They also are opposed to any pre-conditions to renewed negotiations.
Netanyahu's adviser on the Palestinian issue, Yitzhak Molcho, who also attended, will accompany Barak to New York for the discussion with Mitchell.
The Americans, for their part, are declining to rule out accepting a compromise along the lines of a temporary freeze.
"We've been working with all the parties to try and come up with an environment conducive to the resumption of negotiations. And we look forward to sitting down and talking about what we can do to move this process forward," US State Department spokesman Ian Kelly said ahead of Tuesday's meeting. He called on both the Israelis and Palestinians to meet their road map obligations, which include a freeze on all settlement activity.
"I'm not going to say we're not willing to compromise," Kelly said when pressed on whether that meant the US wouldn't accept such a proposal from Israel....
...Zalman Shoval, an outside adviser to Netanyahu who was in Washington last week and held talks with officials in both the current and previous administration, said his sense was that the Obama administration "was looking for a way out."
Shoval, speaking to the Post from Paris on his way back to Israel, said it was becoming "clearer and clearer" that there had been "tacit understandings governing construction in the settlements" between the Bush administration and then-prime minister Ariel Sharon. He said that if Barak came to New York with some concrete suggestions about how to break the impasse, it could be the basis for an agreement, since the Americans were looking for a way off the "high horse" they had climbed to.
While former US deputy national security adviser Elliott Abrams has publicly said there were understandings on the issue between the Bush and Sharon governments, Shoval said that behind closed doors, more senior members of the previous US administration were saying the same thing. He refused to name them.
There are also signs the Americans are assessing that the focus on Israel and the settlement issue has not been paving the way to a changed dynamic between Israel and the Palestinians and the wider Arab world, and concession from the latter two, as the US had hoped.
White House sources are now speaking more frequently about the need for the Arab world to take steps, and pushing back against the expectation that some have articulated that they expect the US to extract more concessions from Israel.
In The Washington Post on Sunday, columnist David Ignatius quoted White House officials who "grumble about Israeli intransigence," and are "worried about 'squishy' Arab promises and demands for preconditions."
He quoted a senior White House official as saying of the Arab leaders, "Don't keep faxing it in, saying I gave you a peace plan in 2002."
In his column, Ignatius also wrote that Obama's "hardheaded strategy" on the settlements has one big flaw: "The Obama team is assuming that if it can pressure Israel into a real settlements freeze, the Arabs will respond with meaningful moves toward normalization of relations - which will give Israel some tangible benefits for its concessions. But that hope appears to be misplaced."
According to Ignatius, while a settlements halt "would produce some limited Arab response," such as renewed trade or diplomatic contacts with countries like the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Oman and others, "Saudi Arabia, the Arab kingpin, probably wouldn't offer major concessions until the negotiating process was further along."...
Monday, June 29, 2009
Obama tells Jews where they can live
From Middle East and Terrorism Blog, Sunday, June 28, 2009, by Joseph Farah, an American journalist of Arabic heritage:
... the U.S. government is now using its clout with Israel to insist Jews, not Israelis, mind you, but Jews, be disallowed from living in East Jerusalem and the historically Jewish lands of Judea and Samaria, often referred to as the West Bank.
I want you to try to imagine the outrage, the horror, the outcry, the clamoring, the gnashing of teeth that would ensue if Arabs or Muslims were told they could no longer live in certain parts of Israel – let alone their own country.
...It's the 1930s all over again. This time, it's the enlightened liberal voices of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama who are telling Jews where they can live, how they can live and how far they must bend if they want to live at all.
...Israel is being reduced to "Auschwitz borders." Jews have already been told they can no longer live in the Gaza Strip. Now they are being told they can no longer choose to live in any of the areas being set aside by international elites for a future Palestinian state.
...Obama and Clinton – and, thus, by definition, you and me, the taxpayers of the United States – have determined they will yield to the racist, bigoted, anti-Semitic demands of the Palestinian Authority that no Jews be allowed to live in their new state.
I like to think that in any other part of the world, this kind of effort at ethnically cleansing a region would be roundly condemned by all civilized people. Yet, because most people simply don't understand the clear, official plan by the Arab leaders to force out all Jews from the new Palestinian state, the policies of capitulation retain a degree of sympathy, even political support, from much of the world.
... Why is the United States supporting the creation of a new, racist, anti-Semitic hate state? Why is the civilized world viewing this as a prescription for peace in the region? Why is this considered an acceptable idea?
Is there any other place in the world where that kind of official policy of racism and ethnic cleansing is tolerated – even condoned?
Why are the rules different in the Middle East? Why are the rules different for Arabs? Why are the rules different for Muslims?
Why are U.S. tax dollars supporting the racist, anti-Semitic entity known as the Palestinian Authority?
That's what we do when we forbid "settlement construction," repairs, natural growth, additions to existing communities.
This is "balance"? Are there any impositions upon the Arabs and Muslims suggesting they can no longer move to Israel? No. Are there any impositions on Arabs and Muslims suggesting they cannot buy homes in Israel? No. Are there any impositions on Arabs and Muslim suggesting they cannot repair their existing homes in Israel? No. Are there any impositions on Arabs or Muslims suggesting the cannot build settlements anywhere they like? No.
Now, keep in mind, there are already quite a few Arab and Muslim states in the Middle East. Many of them already forbid Jews to live in them. Some prohibit Christians as well. But now, the only Jewish state in the world, and one that has a claim on the land dating back to the days of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, is being told Jews must keep off land currently under their own control, but destined for transfer to people who hate them, despise them, want to see them dead and will not even accept living peacefully with them as neighbors.
All the while, Israel continues to hold out its naïve hand of friendship to the Arabs and the Muslims – welcoming them in their own tiny nation surrounded by hateful neighbors. Arabs and Muslims are offered full citizenship rights – and even serve in elected office. They publish newspapers and broadcast on radio and television freely.
But, conversely, Jews are one step away from eviction from homes they have sometimes occupied for generations. Gaza is about to happen all over again.
I hope my Jewish friends remember this well. Many of them voted for Barack Obama. Many of them voted for Hillary Clinton. These are not your friends. These are the same kinds of people who turned away ships of Jewish refugees from Germany in the 1940s. These are the same kinds of people who appeased Adolf Hitler at Munich. These are the same kinds of people who made the reformation of the modern state of Israel so difficult.
I say, "No more ethnic cleansing. No more official anti-Semitism accepted. No more Jew-bashing. No more telling Jews where they can live, how they can – and if they can live."
... the U.S. government is now using its clout with Israel to insist Jews, not Israelis, mind you, but Jews, be disallowed from living in East Jerusalem and the historically Jewish lands of Judea and Samaria, often referred to as the West Bank.
I want you to try to imagine the outrage, the horror, the outcry, the clamoring, the gnashing of teeth that would ensue if Arabs or Muslims were told they could no longer live in certain parts of Israel – let alone their own country.
...It's the 1930s all over again. This time, it's the enlightened liberal voices of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama who are telling Jews where they can live, how they can live and how far they must bend if they want to live at all.
...Israel is being reduced to "Auschwitz borders." Jews have already been told they can no longer live in the Gaza Strip. Now they are being told they can no longer choose to live in any of the areas being set aside by international elites for a future Palestinian state.
...Obama and Clinton – and, thus, by definition, you and me, the taxpayers of the United States – have determined they will yield to the racist, bigoted, anti-Semitic demands of the Palestinian Authority that no Jews be allowed to live in their new state.
I like to think that in any other part of the world, this kind of effort at ethnically cleansing a region would be roundly condemned by all civilized people. Yet, because most people simply don't understand the clear, official plan by the Arab leaders to force out all Jews from the new Palestinian state, the policies of capitulation retain a degree of sympathy, even political support, from much of the world.
... Why is the United States supporting the creation of a new, racist, anti-Semitic hate state? Why is the civilized world viewing this as a prescription for peace in the region? Why is this considered an acceptable idea?
Is there any other place in the world where that kind of official policy of racism and ethnic cleansing is tolerated – even condoned?
Why are the rules different in the Middle East? Why are the rules different for Arabs? Why are the rules different for Muslims?
Why are U.S. tax dollars supporting the racist, anti-Semitic entity known as the Palestinian Authority?
That's what we do when we forbid "settlement construction," repairs, natural growth, additions to existing communities.
This is "balance"? Are there any impositions upon the Arabs and Muslims suggesting they can no longer move to Israel? No. Are there any impositions on Arabs and Muslims suggesting they cannot buy homes in Israel? No. Are there any impositions on Arabs and Muslim suggesting they cannot repair their existing homes in Israel? No. Are there any impositions on Arabs or Muslims suggesting the cannot build settlements anywhere they like? No.
Now, keep in mind, there are already quite a few Arab and Muslim states in the Middle East. Many of them already forbid Jews to live in them. Some prohibit Christians as well. But now, the only Jewish state in the world, and one that has a claim on the land dating back to the days of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, is being told Jews must keep off land currently under their own control, but destined for transfer to people who hate them, despise them, want to see them dead and will not even accept living peacefully with them as neighbors.
All the while, Israel continues to hold out its naïve hand of friendship to the Arabs and the Muslims – welcoming them in their own tiny nation surrounded by hateful neighbors. Arabs and Muslims are offered full citizenship rights – and even serve in elected office. They publish newspapers and broadcast on radio and television freely.
But, conversely, Jews are one step away from eviction from homes they have sometimes occupied for generations. Gaza is about to happen all over again.
I hope my Jewish friends remember this well. Many of them voted for Barack Obama. Many of them voted for Hillary Clinton. These are not your friends. These are the same kinds of people who turned away ships of Jewish refugees from Germany in the 1940s. These are the same kinds of people who appeased Adolf Hitler at Munich. These are the same kinds of people who made the reformation of the modern state of Israel so difficult.
I say, "No more ethnic cleansing. No more official anti-Semitism accepted. No more Jew-bashing. No more telling Jews where they can live, how they can – and if they can live."
Barak-Mitchell meeting soon
From Ynet News, 29/6/09, by Roni Sofer:
... defense minister [Barak] heads to US ...expected to say freeze on settlements can only be part of genuine renewal of talks between Jerusalem, Ramallah
"The settlements will not be an obstacle to peace with the Palestinians." That is the message Defense Minister Ehud Barak will be carrying with him on his upcoming trip to meet with special US envoy George Mitchell....
...Six cabinet ministers will meet on Monday morning to discuss the US and European demands to freeze the settlements, just a few short hours before Barak heads to meet Mitchell. The six ministers – Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Defense Minister Ehud Barak, Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman, Minister Benny Begin, Strategic Affairs Minister Moshe Ya'alon, and Intelligence Minister Dan Meridor – will meet in Netanyahu's office.
The government is leaning towards saying any move to freeze construction can only be part of renewed dialogue with the Palestinians.
...Barak will also emphasize other gestures Israel has recently made to show its intentions are serious, such as the removal of 140 roadblocks and the opening of numerous checkpoints from peripheral villages to main roadways in the West Bank – making it possible to drive from Jenin to Ramallah in an hour and half, and without passing through any obstructions. The US administration has already voiced its appreciation of the measures.
Barak will also discuss the transfer of security oversight to the Palestinian Authority in four West Bank cities – Ramallah, Jenin, Qalqiliya, and Jericho, and improvements to water and road infrastructure.
... defense minister [Barak] heads to US ...expected to say freeze on settlements can only be part of genuine renewal of talks between Jerusalem, Ramallah
"The settlements will not be an obstacle to peace with the Palestinians." That is the message Defense Minister Ehud Barak will be carrying with him on his upcoming trip to meet with special US envoy George Mitchell....
...Six cabinet ministers will meet on Monday morning to discuss the US and European demands to freeze the settlements, just a few short hours before Barak heads to meet Mitchell. The six ministers – Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Defense Minister Ehud Barak, Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman, Minister Benny Begin, Strategic Affairs Minister Moshe Ya'alon, and Intelligence Minister Dan Meridor – will meet in Netanyahu's office.
The government is leaning towards saying any move to freeze construction can only be part of renewed dialogue with the Palestinians.
...Barak will also emphasize other gestures Israel has recently made to show its intentions are serious, such as the removal of 140 roadblocks and the opening of numerous checkpoints from peripheral villages to main roadways in the West Bank – making it possible to drive from Jenin to Ramallah in an hour and half, and without passing through any obstructions. The US administration has already voiced its appreciation of the measures.
Barak will also discuss the transfer of security oversight to the Palestinian Authority in four West Bank cities – Ramallah, Jenin, Qalqiliya, and Jericho, and improvements to water and road infrastructure.
The world according to Fayad
From THE JERUSALEM POST, Jun. 28, 2009, by Barry Rubin:
Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu's big policy speech received global attention. Not so that of his Palestinian Authority counterpart, Salaam Fayad, whose June 22 presentation deserves careful analysis.
...HIS FIRST problem is that Hamas controls the Gaza Strip and seeks the PA's overthrow in the West Bank. Most Fatah and PA leaders prefer peace with Hamas rather than Israel. ...to keep the door open for such conciliation, the PA can't come closer to making a deal with Israel.
...Fayad says Palestinians must avoid "politicizing" the Gaza issue that would enable sanctions to continue against the Hamas regime there. ...By fighting any isolation or sanctions on Hamas, the PA ensures that Hamas tightens its hold on the Gaza Strip ...[and]ensures its Islamist rival appears the more effective fighter.
Second, while not directly endorsing terrorism and violence - in contrast to most of his colleagues and the PA's own institutions - Fayad argues that Israel holding any Palestinian prisoners in jail is "a violation of international law." In other words, if a Palestinian attacks or murders Israelis, Israel has no right to imprison him. What option does it have? Only to set them free to try again. Here, too, Fayad supports and glorifies cost-free terrorism.
Third, Fayad argues that it's not the PA's job to convince Israel by its good behavior or to negotiate bilaterally on the basis of mutual concessions and compromises. Instead, as other PA leaders have openly stated recently, the PA's strategy is to get the world to pressure Israel to give it everything it wants.
While presenting his speech partly as a response to Netanyahu, Fayad confronts none of his points, merely dismissing his position as vague, which it certainly wasn't. (Ironically, in contrast to most Western observers, Fayad acknowledges that Netanyahu endorsed a two-state solution six years ago.)
It's Fayad who is vague - Netanyahu gives a list of specific conditions; Fayad does nothing of the kind. In fact, he does something peculiar. According to him, Netanyahu is presenting an "Israeli narrative" about the conflict, while Palestinians say they have their own "narrative" - one which Fayad says he won't talk about. Why is he vague and not presenting his own case? Because he cannot do so. The narrative as laid out by Netanyahu is clear: Jews want and merit a state; the conflict is due to an Arab refusal to accept that state's existence. This does not prevent a two-state solution, one state for each people.
The Palestinian narrative, to this day, is that Jews have no such right to a state and that all the land is rightly Palestinian, Arab and (for the most part) Muslim. This narrative does prevent a two-state solution. That is what Fayad cannot admit.
...Fayad ...views Israel as the weaker side in relation to the West and thinks those other countries will force it to make concessions without limit.
By feeding the PA's false belief that the West will pressure Israel into giving it a state in the borders it wants, without concessions, restrictions or even implementation of past promises, the US and European governments are doing a very effective job in sabotaging any possibility for peace.
Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu's big policy speech received global attention. Not so that of his Palestinian Authority counterpart, Salaam Fayad, whose June 22 presentation deserves careful analysis.
...HIS FIRST problem is that Hamas controls the Gaza Strip and seeks the PA's overthrow in the West Bank. Most Fatah and PA leaders prefer peace with Hamas rather than Israel. ...to keep the door open for such conciliation, the PA can't come closer to making a deal with Israel.
...Fayad says Palestinians must avoid "politicizing" the Gaza issue that would enable sanctions to continue against the Hamas regime there. ...By fighting any isolation or sanctions on Hamas, the PA ensures that Hamas tightens its hold on the Gaza Strip ...[and]ensures its Islamist rival appears the more effective fighter.
Second, while not directly endorsing terrorism and violence - in contrast to most of his colleagues and the PA's own institutions - Fayad argues that Israel holding any Palestinian prisoners in jail is "a violation of international law." In other words, if a Palestinian attacks or murders Israelis, Israel has no right to imprison him. What option does it have? Only to set them free to try again. Here, too, Fayad supports and glorifies cost-free terrorism.
Third, Fayad argues that it's not the PA's job to convince Israel by its good behavior or to negotiate bilaterally on the basis of mutual concessions and compromises. Instead, as other PA leaders have openly stated recently, the PA's strategy is to get the world to pressure Israel to give it everything it wants.
While presenting his speech partly as a response to Netanyahu, Fayad confronts none of his points, merely dismissing his position as vague, which it certainly wasn't. (Ironically, in contrast to most Western observers, Fayad acknowledges that Netanyahu endorsed a two-state solution six years ago.)
It's Fayad who is vague - Netanyahu gives a list of specific conditions; Fayad does nothing of the kind. In fact, he does something peculiar. According to him, Netanyahu is presenting an "Israeli narrative" about the conflict, while Palestinians say they have their own "narrative" - one which Fayad says he won't talk about. Why is he vague and not presenting his own case? Because he cannot do so. The narrative as laid out by Netanyahu is clear: Jews want and merit a state; the conflict is due to an Arab refusal to accept that state's existence. This does not prevent a two-state solution, one state for each people.
The Palestinian narrative, to this day, is that Jews have no such right to a state and that all the land is rightly Palestinian, Arab and (for the most part) Muslim. This narrative does prevent a two-state solution. That is what Fayad cannot admit.
...Fayad ...views Israel as the weaker side in relation to the West and thinks those other countries will force it to make concessions without limit.
By feeding the PA's false belief that the West will pressure Israel into giving it a state in the borders it wants, without concessions, restrictions or even implementation of past promises, the US and European governments are doing a very effective job in sabotaging any possibility for peace.
Saturday, June 27, 2009
The (US) Seventy-first came to Gunskirchen...
This is of personal significance, because my father Israel Lieblich (Yisrael ben Zvy, z"l) was marched to the horrific Gunskirchen forest camp in North Austria from the Gusen II camp, 50km north east, in the last days of the war, probably arriving on 16th, 18th or 24th of April 1945.
The camp was liberated on 4 May 1945 by the 71st Infantry of the US army, including Ken Hoffman, a member of John Mooney's family. The descriptions you will read of the inmates of the camp could be describing my father at that time.
From the family web site of John Mooney, of Brunswick, Maine, USA:
When my maternal grand-mother passed away, I came into possession of a small pamphlet owned by her second husband's (my step-grandfather) brother. His name was Ken Hoffman and he was a member of the 71st infantry during World War II.
I decided to make placing this material on the web a small personal project of mine and this site is the end result. I have reproduced here all the narrative text and all the black and white photos that appeared in the book. You should be warned that this material very accurately reflects the grisly details of the Army's initial arrival at the camp. I was also motivated to produce this site since the pamphlet, while stored for decades in my family's belongings, is still showing signs of age and becoming somewhat tattered.
The book is divided into 4 sections, with personal accounts by separate members of the liberating division....
The camp was liberated on 4 May 1945 by the 71st Infantry of the US army, including Ken Hoffman, a member of John Mooney's family. The descriptions you will read of the inmates of the camp could be describing my father at that time.
From the family web site of John Mooney, of Brunswick, Maine, USA:
When my maternal grand-mother passed away, I came into possession of a small pamphlet owned by her second husband's (my step-grandfather) brother. His name was Ken Hoffman and he was a member of the 71st infantry during World War II.
I decided to make placing this material on the web a small personal project of mine and this site is the end result. I have reproduced here all the narrative text and all the black and white photos that appeared in the book. You should be warned that this material very accurately reflects the grisly details of the Army's initial arrival at the camp. I was also motivated to produce this site since the pamphlet, while stored for decades in my family's belongings, is still showing signs of age and becoming somewhat tattered.
The book is divided into 4 sections, with personal accounts by separate members of the liberating division....
- Printable Word version [material copied from the Mooney web site - SL]
- Graphic Version [view in a frame-supported browser]
- Text Only
- Images Only - Thumbnail Index
- Mason Dorsey's story
For further background about the Gunskirchen concentration camp see this section of the Gusen memorial Committee web site.
Friday, June 26, 2009
Hillary Is Wrong About the Settlements
I'm posting this must-read article by ELLIOTT ABRAMS* IN FULL from The Wall Street Journal 26/6/09 [with my own emphasis added]:
The U.S. and Israel reached a clear understanding about natural growth.
Despite fervent denials by Obama administration officials, there were indeed agreements between Israel and the United States regarding the growth of Israeli settlements on the West Bank. As the Obama administration has made the settlements issue a major bone of contention between Israel and the U.S., it is necessary that we review the recent history.
In the spring of 2003, U.S. officials (including me) held wide-ranging discussions with then Prime Minister Ariel Sharon in Jerusalem. The "Roadmap for Peace" between Israel and the Palestinians had been written. President George W. Bush had endorsed Palestinian statehood, but only if the Palestinians eliminated terror. He had broken with Yasser Arafat, but Arafat still ruled in the Palestinian territories. Israel had defeated the intifada, so what was next?
We asked Mr. Sharon about freezing the West Bank settlements. I recall him asking, by way of reply, what did that mean for the settlers? They live there, he said, they serve in elite army units, and they marry. Should he tell them to have no more children, or move?
We discussed some approaches: Could he agree there would be no additional settlements? New construction only inside settlements, without expanding them physically? Could he agree there would be no additional land taken for settlements?
As we talked several principles emerged. The father of the settlements now agreed that limits must be placed on the settlements; more fundamentally, the old foe of the Palestinians could -- under certain conditions -- now agree to Palestinian statehood.
In June 2003, Mr. Sharon stood alongside Mr. Bush, King Abdullah II of Jordan, and Palestinian Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas at Aqaba, Jordan, and endorsed Palestinian statehood publicly: "It is in Israel's interest not to govern the Palestinians but for the Palestinians to govern themselves in their own state. A democratic Palestinian state fully at peace with Israel will promote the long-term security and well-being of Israel as a Jewish state." At the end of that year he announced his intention to pull out of the Gaza Strip.
The U.S. government supported all this, but asked Mr. Sharon for two more things. First, that he remove some West Bank settlements; we wanted Israel to show that removing them was not impossible. Second, we wanted him to pull out of Gaza totally -- including every single settlement and the "Philadelphi Strip" separating Gaza from Egypt, even though holding on to this strip would have prevented the smuggling of weapons to Hamas that was feared and has now come to pass. Mr. Sharon agreed on both counts.
These decisions were political dynamite, as Mr. Sharon had long predicted to us. In May 2004, his Likud Party rejected his plan in a referendum, handing him a resounding political defeat. In June, the Cabinet approved the withdrawal from Gaza, but only after Mr. Sharon fired two ministers and allowed two others to resign. His majority in the Knesset was now shaky.
After completing the Gaza withdrawal in August 2005, he called in November for a dissolution of the Knesset and for early elections. He also said he would leave Likud to form a new centrist party. The political and personal strain was very great. Four weeks later he suffered the first of two strokes that have left him in a coma.
Throughout, the Bush administration gave Mr. Sharon full support for his actions against terror and on final status issues. On April 14, 2004, Mr. Bush handed Mr. Sharon a letter saying that there would be no "right of return" for Palestinian refugees. Instead, the president said, "a solution to the Palestinian refugee issue as part of any final status agreement will need to be found through the establishment of a Palestinian state, and the settling of Palestinian refugees there, rather than in Israel."
On the major settlement blocs, Mr. Bush said, "In light of new realities on the ground, including already existing major Israeli populations centers, it is unrealistic to expect that the outcome of final status negotiations will be a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949." Several previous administrations had declared all Israeli settlements beyond the "1967 borders" to be illegal. Here Mr. Bush dropped such language, referring to the 1967 borders -- correctly -- as merely the lines where the fighting stopped in 1949, and saying that in any realistic peace agreement Israel would be able to negotiate keeping those major settlements.
On settlements we also agreed on principles that would permit some continuing growth. Mr. Sharon stated these clearly in a major policy speech in December 2003: "Israel will meet all its obligations with regard to construction in the settlements. There will be no construction beyond the existing construction line, no expropriation of land for construction, no special economic incentives and no construction of new settlements."
Ariel Sharon did not invent those four principles. They emerged from discussions with American officials and were discussed by Messrs. Sharon and Bush at their Aqaba meeting in June 2003.
They were not secret, either. Four days after the president's letter, Mr. Sharon's Chief of Staff Dov Weissglas wrote to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice that "I wish to reconfirm the following understanding, which had been reached between us: 1. Restrictions on settlement growth: within the agreed principles of settlement activities, an effort will be made in the next few days to have a better definition of the construction line of settlements in Judea & Samaria."
Stories in the press also made it clear that there were indeed "agreed principles." On Aug. 21, 2004 the New York Times reported that "the Bush administration . . . now supports construction of new apartments in areas already built up in some settlements, as long as the expansion does not extend outward."
In recent weeks, American officials have denied that any agreement on settlements existed. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton stated on June 17 that "in looking at the history of the Bush administration, there were no informal or oral enforceable agreements. That has been verified by the official record of the administration and by the personnel in the positions of responsibility."
These statements are incorrect. Not only were there agreements, but the prime minister of Israel relied on them in undertaking a wrenching political reorientation -- the dissolution of his government, the removal of every single Israeli citizen, settlement and military position in Gaza, and the removal of four small settlements in the West Bank. This was the first time Israel had ever removed settlements outside the context of a peace treaty, and it was a major step.
It is true that there was no U.S.-Israel "memorandum of understanding," which is presumably what Mrs. Clinton means when she suggests that the "official record of the administration" contains none. But she would do well to consult documents like the Weissglas letter, or the notes of the Aqaba meeting, before suggesting that there was no meeting of the minds.
Mrs. Clinton also said there were no "enforceable" agreements. This is a strange phrase. How exactly would Israel enforce any agreement against an American decision to renege on it? Take it to the International Court in The Hague?
Regardless of what Mrs. Clinton has said, there was a bargained-for exchange. Mr. Sharon was determined to break the deadlock, withdraw from Gaza, remove settlements -- and confront his former allies on Israel's right by abandoning the "Greater Israel" position to endorse Palestinian statehood and limits on settlement growth. He asked for our support and got it, including the agreement that we would not demand a total settlement freeze.
For reasons that remain unclear, the Obama administration has decided to abandon the understandings about settlements reached by the previous administration with the Israeli government. We may be abandoning the deal now, but we cannot rewrite history and make believe it did not exist.
*Mr. Abrams, a senior fellow for Middle Eastern Studies at the Council on Foreign Relations, handled Middle East affairs at the National Security Council from 2001 to 2009.
The U.S. and Israel reached a clear understanding about natural growth.
Despite fervent denials by Obama administration officials, there were indeed agreements between Israel and the United States regarding the growth of Israeli settlements on the West Bank. As the Obama administration has made the settlements issue a major bone of contention between Israel and the U.S., it is necessary that we review the recent history.
In the spring of 2003, U.S. officials (including me) held wide-ranging discussions with then Prime Minister Ariel Sharon in Jerusalem. The "Roadmap for Peace" between Israel and the Palestinians had been written. President George W. Bush had endorsed Palestinian statehood, but only if the Palestinians eliminated terror. He had broken with Yasser Arafat, but Arafat still ruled in the Palestinian territories. Israel had defeated the intifada, so what was next?
We asked Mr. Sharon about freezing the West Bank settlements. I recall him asking, by way of reply, what did that mean for the settlers? They live there, he said, they serve in elite army units, and they marry. Should he tell them to have no more children, or move?
We discussed some approaches: Could he agree there would be no additional settlements? New construction only inside settlements, without expanding them physically? Could he agree there would be no additional land taken for settlements?
As we talked several principles emerged. The father of the settlements now agreed that limits must be placed on the settlements; more fundamentally, the old foe of the Palestinians could -- under certain conditions -- now agree to Palestinian statehood.
In June 2003, Mr. Sharon stood alongside Mr. Bush, King Abdullah II of Jordan, and Palestinian Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas at Aqaba, Jordan, and endorsed Palestinian statehood publicly: "It is in Israel's interest not to govern the Palestinians but for the Palestinians to govern themselves in their own state. A democratic Palestinian state fully at peace with Israel will promote the long-term security and well-being of Israel as a Jewish state." At the end of that year he announced his intention to pull out of the Gaza Strip.
The U.S. government supported all this, but asked Mr. Sharon for two more things. First, that he remove some West Bank settlements; we wanted Israel to show that removing them was not impossible. Second, we wanted him to pull out of Gaza totally -- including every single settlement and the "Philadelphi Strip" separating Gaza from Egypt, even though holding on to this strip would have prevented the smuggling of weapons to Hamas that was feared and has now come to pass. Mr. Sharon agreed on both counts.
These decisions were political dynamite, as Mr. Sharon had long predicted to us. In May 2004, his Likud Party rejected his plan in a referendum, handing him a resounding political defeat. In June, the Cabinet approved the withdrawal from Gaza, but only after Mr. Sharon fired two ministers and allowed two others to resign. His majority in the Knesset was now shaky.
After completing the Gaza withdrawal in August 2005, he called in November for a dissolution of the Knesset and for early elections. He also said he would leave Likud to form a new centrist party. The political and personal strain was very great. Four weeks later he suffered the first of two strokes that have left him in a coma.
Throughout, the Bush administration gave Mr. Sharon full support for his actions against terror and on final status issues. On April 14, 2004, Mr. Bush handed Mr. Sharon a letter saying that there would be no "right of return" for Palestinian refugees. Instead, the president said, "a solution to the Palestinian refugee issue as part of any final status agreement will need to be found through the establishment of a Palestinian state, and the settling of Palestinian refugees there, rather than in Israel."
On the major settlement blocs, Mr. Bush said, "In light of new realities on the ground, including already existing major Israeli populations centers, it is unrealistic to expect that the outcome of final status negotiations will be a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949." Several previous administrations had declared all Israeli settlements beyond the "1967 borders" to be illegal. Here Mr. Bush dropped such language, referring to the 1967 borders -- correctly -- as merely the lines where the fighting stopped in 1949, and saying that in any realistic peace agreement Israel would be able to negotiate keeping those major settlements.
On settlements we also agreed on principles that would permit some continuing growth. Mr. Sharon stated these clearly in a major policy speech in December 2003: "Israel will meet all its obligations with regard to construction in the settlements. There will be no construction beyond the existing construction line, no expropriation of land for construction, no special economic incentives and no construction of new settlements."
Ariel Sharon did not invent those four principles. They emerged from discussions with American officials and were discussed by Messrs. Sharon and Bush at their Aqaba meeting in June 2003.
They were not secret, either. Four days after the president's letter, Mr. Sharon's Chief of Staff Dov Weissglas wrote to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice that "I wish to reconfirm the following understanding, which had been reached between us: 1. Restrictions on settlement growth: within the agreed principles of settlement activities, an effort will be made in the next few days to have a better definition of the construction line of settlements in Judea & Samaria."
Stories in the press also made it clear that there were indeed "agreed principles." On Aug. 21, 2004 the New York Times reported that "the Bush administration . . . now supports construction of new apartments in areas already built up in some settlements, as long as the expansion does not extend outward."
In recent weeks, American officials have denied that any agreement on settlements existed. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton stated on June 17 that "in looking at the history of the Bush administration, there were no informal or oral enforceable agreements. That has been verified by the official record of the administration and by the personnel in the positions of responsibility."
These statements are incorrect. Not only were there agreements, but the prime minister of Israel relied on them in undertaking a wrenching political reorientation -- the dissolution of his government, the removal of every single Israeli citizen, settlement and military position in Gaza, and the removal of four small settlements in the West Bank. This was the first time Israel had ever removed settlements outside the context of a peace treaty, and it was a major step.
It is true that there was no U.S.-Israel "memorandum of understanding," which is presumably what Mrs. Clinton means when she suggests that the "official record of the administration" contains none. But she would do well to consult documents like the Weissglas letter, or the notes of the Aqaba meeting, before suggesting that there was no meeting of the minds.
Mrs. Clinton also said there were no "enforceable" agreements. This is a strange phrase. How exactly would Israel enforce any agreement against an American decision to renege on it? Take it to the International Court in The Hague?
Regardless of what Mrs. Clinton has said, there was a bargained-for exchange. Mr. Sharon was determined to break the deadlock, withdraw from Gaza, remove settlements -- and confront his former allies on Israel's right by abandoning the "Greater Israel" position to endorse Palestinian statehood and limits on settlement growth. He asked for our support and got it, including the agreement that we would not demand a total settlement freeze.
For reasons that remain unclear, the Obama administration has decided to abandon the understandings about settlements reached by the previous administration with the Israeli government. We may be abandoning the deal now, but we cannot rewrite history and make believe it did not exist.
*Mr. Abrams, a senior fellow for Middle Eastern Studies at the Council on Foreign Relations, handled Middle East affairs at the National Security Council from 2001 to 2009.
Iran: Bad Guys are Winners
From JPost 26/6/09:
... Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman ..in an interview published Friday morning.... sharply criticized Obama's approach to the Iranian nuclear debacle.
"This really fanatic extremist regime is still in power, and the young people who are ready to fight and die for change are not getting any real support from the West," he said. "The fact that this regime continues to be an acceptable partner for dialogue is really a bad message. It shows the bad guys are winners."
... Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman ..in an interview published Friday morning.... sharply criticized Obama's approach to the Iranian nuclear debacle.
"This really fanatic extremist regime is still in power, and the young people who are ready to fight and die for change are not getting any real support from the West," he said. "The fact that this regime continues to be an acceptable partner for dialogue is really a bad message. It shows the bad guys are winners."
Iran's Crisis - All Quiet on the Western Front
From GLORIA, June 22, 2009, by Barry Rubin:
The Iranian crisis is being fought out on three fronts.
[1] ... inside Iran itself.
... overall, not much will change within the country. Presumably, there will periodically other such upheavals until the day the regime is overthrown altogether. But how long will that take? None can say.
[2] ... the regional aspect.
Events in Iran will not change minds in the Middle East.
On one side are the radical Islamists. ...Hamas and Hizballah; the Syrian regime, and many in Iraq ...They will go on being radical Islamists ...
The same conclusion, however, will be reached by the anti-Iran Islamists, especially the Muslim Brotherhood, and the much smaller base of al-Qaida. They and their supporters will go on seeking Islamist regimes in their countries, notably Egypt, Jordan, Algeria, and Saudi Arabia. They won't be affected either....
...proving that Iran is repressive will not weaken support for Islamism ...
...The Iranian regime is strong. It fears no one ...defies the West ...rewards its friends and kills its enemies ... And soon it will have nuclear weapons, too.
...how will [Islamists of both varieties] interpret the regime’s no-nonsense, take-no-prisoners, tough-guy approach to internal dissent? ...will they say: Awesome! Are these guys tough, or what? Successful repression, like a successful terrorist attack with maximum civilian casualties, brings admiration, not horror in these circles.
But what about all those in the Middle East who hate Islamism and fear Iran? Well, they already feel that way, don’t they? The Egyptian, Jordanian, Saudi governments, for example, may not be thrilled with the idea of mass street protests against another government, but they aren’t going to dislike Iran more than they already do. They are hardly surprised by that regime’s behavior. And so is the small minority of Arab liberals. No minds or policies changed here either.
Oh, but there is one aspect of the crisis that might affect their thinking:
Wow, those Westerners sure are afraid of criticizing Iran.
[3]And that brings us to the Western front.
Here is the one where change might be most significant.
Will people in western Europe and North America conclude from this that the Iranian regime is mad, bad, and its dangerous if Iran's rulers know how to make nuclear weapons? ...
...Surely, some of this has got to be sinking in, right?
...It isn’t too late to oppose Iran’s ambitions and nuclear weapons’ drive. Are people in democratic states going to wake up about the Iranian regime's threat?
The great danger is that one will be able to say regarding the effect of Iran’s current crisis:
All quiet on the Western front.
The Iranian crisis is being fought out on three fronts.
[1] ... inside Iran itself.
... overall, not much will change within the country. Presumably, there will periodically other such upheavals until the day the regime is overthrown altogether. But how long will that take? None can say.
[2] ... the regional aspect.
Events in Iran will not change minds in the Middle East.
On one side are the radical Islamists. ...Hamas and Hizballah; the Syrian regime, and many in Iraq ...They will go on being radical Islamists ...
The same conclusion, however, will be reached by the anti-Iran Islamists, especially the Muslim Brotherhood, and the much smaller base of al-Qaida. They and their supporters will go on seeking Islamist regimes in their countries, notably Egypt, Jordan, Algeria, and Saudi Arabia. They won't be affected either....
...proving that Iran is repressive will not weaken support for Islamism ...
...The Iranian regime is strong. It fears no one ...defies the West ...rewards its friends and kills its enemies ... And soon it will have nuclear weapons, too.
...how will [Islamists of both varieties] interpret the regime’s no-nonsense, take-no-prisoners, tough-guy approach to internal dissent? ...will they say: Awesome! Are these guys tough, or what? Successful repression, like a successful terrorist attack with maximum civilian casualties, brings admiration, not horror in these circles.
But what about all those in the Middle East who hate Islamism and fear Iran? Well, they already feel that way, don’t they? The Egyptian, Jordanian, Saudi governments, for example, may not be thrilled with the idea of mass street protests against another government, but they aren’t going to dislike Iran more than they already do. They are hardly surprised by that regime’s behavior. And so is the small minority of Arab liberals. No minds or policies changed here either.
Oh, but there is one aspect of the crisis that might affect their thinking:
Wow, those Westerners sure are afraid of criticizing Iran.
[3]And that brings us to the Western front.
Here is the one where change might be most significant.
Will people in western Europe and North America conclude from this that the Iranian regime is mad, bad, and its dangerous if Iran's rulers know how to make nuclear weapons? ...
...Surely, some of this has got to be sinking in, right?
...It isn’t too late to oppose Iran’s ambitions and nuclear weapons’ drive. Are people in democratic states going to wake up about the Iranian regime's threat?
The great danger is that one will be able to say regarding the effect of Iran’s current crisis:
All quiet on the Western front.
Thursday, June 25, 2009
Stop Iran or it'll be too late
From The Australian, June 25, 2009, by Emanuele Ottolenghi, executive director of the Transatlantic Institute in Brussels:
WHETHER Iran's turmoil ends up like the Prague Spring or the Velvet Revolution remains to be seen. But when all is said and done, Iran's nuclear program will still be there. If, as one can anticipate, Iran's regime moves in to repress popular dissent and impose its iron fist on its restive population, it will be hard for the international community to engage the rulers of Iran as if nothing happened.
It will be even harder to make the case that Iran's quest for nuclear power can be excused, trusted, understood or explained away. The protests that are violently shaking the foundations of the Islamic Republic mean that if this regime survives, its cruelty will not confine itself to crushing the innocent at home. Iran's actions abroad will be just as bloody. What is to be done then?
Policy-makers in the West may look apprehensively at the scenes of carnage and hope and wish Iran's protesters will have it their way. After all, a successful democratic revolution would most likely bring an end to the nuclear stand-off. ...But we must have a plan B, one that can be implemented if the hopes of young Iranians are drowned in their blood.
Much depends on how we answer a simple question. How soon will it be too late to stop Iran's nuclear program?
Analysts and government officials routinely offer different timelines for an Iranian bomb, but they tend to put Iran's breakout capacity a few years away...
...But testing a nuclear device comes with a price. Iran is a member of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Crossing the nuclear threshold for a rudimentary nuclear device that Iran may not yet be able to replicate or deliver will be costly and fall short of achieving the strategic goals Iran is pursuing through its nuclear program: the survival of the Islamic Revolution and its rise as the regional hegemon.
Tactically, therefore, Iran may prefer to wait until it has accumulated enough weapons-grade fissile material to build not one but dozens of bombs; until it can build a nuclear device that is small enough to fit into a missile warhead; and until it has perfected its ballistic missile technology to the point where a long-range missile can accurately hit a distant target. That time line is quite long; years, not months.
However, it is not the time line that matters for policy-makers. For long before Iran has accumulated enough fissile material to build an arsenal and enough technological know-how to turn it into deliverable warheads, it will have mastered the technology and cracked the scientific secrets needed to reach that goal. ...The regime is closer to the former than the latter, but once the knowledge is there it will be harder to halt the march to the real thing.
Thus, this time line ...matters more than the actual moment when Iran will break away from the NPT, build several warheads, mount them on missiles and threaten its neighbours. But even this time line is not the one that policy-makers must rely on for their planning. For long before Iran has built its arsenal or acquired the necessary knowledge, it will have shielded dozens of clandestine installations from a possible military strike.
Iran knows that military planners in Israel and the US constantly update their contingency plans for a strike based on fresh intelligence. The more Iran spreads its program, the more it hides it behind an impenetrable shield of defences and fortifications, the harder the job for those in the West tasked with devising a realistic plan of attack. At some point, they will tell the US and Israeli leaders that a military strike to retard or destroy Iran's nuclear program is no longer an option.
From then onward, Iran's run to nuclear capability will be unhindered....
...Tehran will get there long before it can threaten anyone with a deliverable nuclear weapon. Once that happens - months, not years - the game turns to our disadvantage.
As events unfold in Iran, Western leaders must realise that time is fast running out. Now is the time to dramatically increase pressure on Iran. Its brutal repression gives us a cover for enacting extensive sanctions, withdrawing businesses and threatening isolation. This may not help street protests in Iran but it won't hinder them either, and it just may hurt Iran's rulers enough that they could reconsider their calculus.
WHETHER Iran's turmoil ends up like the Prague Spring or the Velvet Revolution remains to be seen. But when all is said and done, Iran's nuclear program will still be there. If, as one can anticipate, Iran's regime moves in to repress popular dissent and impose its iron fist on its restive population, it will be hard for the international community to engage the rulers of Iran as if nothing happened.
It will be even harder to make the case that Iran's quest for nuclear power can be excused, trusted, understood or explained away. The protests that are violently shaking the foundations of the Islamic Republic mean that if this regime survives, its cruelty will not confine itself to crushing the innocent at home. Iran's actions abroad will be just as bloody. What is to be done then?
Policy-makers in the West may look apprehensively at the scenes of carnage and hope and wish Iran's protesters will have it their way. After all, a successful democratic revolution would most likely bring an end to the nuclear stand-off. ...But we must have a plan B, one that can be implemented if the hopes of young Iranians are drowned in their blood.
Much depends on how we answer a simple question. How soon will it be too late to stop Iran's nuclear program?
Analysts and government officials routinely offer different timelines for an Iranian bomb, but they tend to put Iran's breakout capacity a few years away...
...But testing a nuclear device comes with a price. Iran is a member of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Crossing the nuclear threshold for a rudimentary nuclear device that Iran may not yet be able to replicate or deliver will be costly and fall short of achieving the strategic goals Iran is pursuing through its nuclear program: the survival of the Islamic Revolution and its rise as the regional hegemon.
Tactically, therefore, Iran may prefer to wait until it has accumulated enough weapons-grade fissile material to build not one but dozens of bombs; until it can build a nuclear device that is small enough to fit into a missile warhead; and until it has perfected its ballistic missile technology to the point where a long-range missile can accurately hit a distant target. That time line is quite long; years, not months.
However, it is not the time line that matters for policy-makers. For long before Iran has accumulated enough fissile material to build an arsenal and enough technological know-how to turn it into deliverable warheads, it will have mastered the technology and cracked the scientific secrets needed to reach that goal. ...The regime is closer to the former than the latter, but once the knowledge is there it will be harder to halt the march to the real thing.
Thus, this time line ...matters more than the actual moment when Iran will break away from the NPT, build several warheads, mount them on missiles and threaten its neighbours. But even this time line is not the one that policy-makers must rely on for their planning. For long before Iran has built its arsenal or acquired the necessary knowledge, it will have shielded dozens of clandestine installations from a possible military strike.
Iran knows that military planners in Israel and the US constantly update their contingency plans for a strike based on fresh intelligence. The more Iran spreads its program, the more it hides it behind an impenetrable shield of defences and fortifications, the harder the job for those in the West tasked with devising a realistic plan of attack. At some point, they will tell the US and Israeli leaders that a military strike to retard or destroy Iran's nuclear program is no longer an option.
From then onward, Iran's run to nuclear capability will be unhindered....
...Tehran will get there long before it can threaten anyone with a deliverable nuclear weapon. Once that happens - months, not years - the game turns to our disadvantage.
As events unfold in Iran, Western leaders must realise that time is fast running out. Now is the time to dramatically increase pressure on Iran. Its brutal repression gives us a cover for enacting extensive sanctions, withdrawing businesses and threatening isolation. This may not help street protests in Iran but it won't hinder them either, and it just may hurt Iran's rulers enough that they could reconsider their calculus.
Australian senior minister Gillard in Israel
From The Australian, June 25, 2009, by Greg Sheridan, Foreign editor:
RIAD Malki, the foreign minister of the Palestinian Authority, would like to see Australian troops posted to the Gaza Strip as peacekeepers. ...At the moment, Malki's proposal is unrealistic. The Palestinian Authority cannot guarantee its own security in Gaza. Egypt, let alone the US or Australia, would be unlikely to commit troops and the Israelis would not accept a restriction on their right to self-defence...
...The fact that the Palestinian foreign minister suggested Australian soldiers reflects the high reputation of our troops. But it also demonstrates that Australia's deep friendship with Israel has not remotely diminished our credibility with the Arab world.
Deputy Prime Minister Julia Gillard and former treasurer Peter Costello are visiting Israel as part of the inaugural Australia Israel Leadership Forum, organised by Melbourne businessman Albert Dadon.
Gillard deserves particular praise for attending the forum, as she was subject to a nasty campaign from the Left to try to intimidate her out of going.
The Left internationally is going through one of its periodic bouts of trying to isolate Israel. This is one of those demented moments where allegedly progressive opinion believes it's the height of creativity to engage the mullah dictatorship in Iran, as it steals elections and pursues nuclear weapons, but wrong to visit a democratic ally such as Israel.
The Rudd government has stood four square against this nonsensical position...
...there is ...a good political dimension to what Gillard is doing. .... The traditional doubt about the Left is that they tend to be anti-American or simply unreliable on national security. Gillard has given a series of speeches and performances that demonstrate she is 100 per cent with Rudd in the mainstream Curtin-Hawke Labor tradition on the US alliance, the deployment of Australian forces overseas and indeed Israel and the Middle East.
...Without any ambiguity, Gillard celebrated Australia's friendship with Israel. She drew attention, with pride, to Australia's long military involvement in the Middle East. She expressed concern at the frustration of democracy in Iran and at Iran's nuclear ambitions.
Gillard got good press in Israel, where she is widely admired for her strong statements as acting prime minister in support of Israel's right to self-defence when it undertook the operation earlier this year in Gaza to stop the relentless launch of thousands of rockets from Gaza on to the civilian population of Israel's southern cities. Gillard's visit is significant in Australia-Israel relations, in the development of Gillard, and in the maturation of Labor's Left more generally (exceptions notwithstanding).
The other star of the evening was Costello. ...Costello gave a more sweeping account of our military involvement in the Middle East. Australians should be more aware of this. Our premier military historian, Jeffrey Grey, has argued that Australia has had a greater strategic military effect in the Middle East than anywhere else.
In the southern Israeli city of Beersheba there is now a magnificent park and statue commemorating the famous charge of the Australian light horse in 1917, which took Beersheba from the Ottoman Turks. This allowed the British to drive through to Jerusalem and led to the British mandate over Palestine and thus the establishment of Israel. On the same day as the Australian action in Beersheba the British government decided in principle to support the establishment of a Jewish state in Israel.
Then in World War II Australian divisions fought magnificently against Axis forces in the Middle East. Some Arab leaders had petitioned Adolf Hitler to include the Middle East's Jews in the Final Solution. The Australian effort was critical in making sure that didn't happen. More recently, in 2003 the Australian special forces were the first allied troops to go into Iraq. Their priority was to locate and destroy Scud missile launchers that Saddam Hussein might use against Israel.
At the political level the relationship between Australia and Israel is splendid. But perversely there is still a bias against Israel in the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, despite the fine work of the embassy in Tel Aviv. Even more perversely, there is a little bit of a similar bias in the Australian Defence Force, which has an operational relationship with a number of the Gulf State Arab nations, and consequently hosts lots of Arab officers at Australian staff colleges and the like, but no similar relationship with the magnificent Israeli Defence Force, with which it should routinely be sharing strategic insights and tactical expertise.
Nonetheless, in Israel this week Australian political leadership has been on display at its bipartisan best, all to the background of a very good Australian cultural festival. You couldn't really ask for more.
Greg Sheridan visited Israel as a participant in the inaugural Australia Israel Leadership Forum.
RIAD Malki, the foreign minister of the Palestinian Authority, would like to see Australian troops posted to the Gaza Strip as peacekeepers. ...At the moment, Malki's proposal is unrealistic. The Palestinian Authority cannot guarantee its own security in Gaza. Egypt, let alone the US or Australia, would be unlikely to commit troops and the Israelis would not accept a restriction on their right to self-defence...
...The fact that the Palestinian foreign minister suggested Australian soldiers reflects the high reputation of our troops. But it also demonstrates that Australia's deep friendship with Israel has not remotely diminished our credibility with the Arab world.
Deputy Prime Minister Julia Gillard and former treasurer Peter Costello are visiting Israel as part of the inaugural Australia Israel Leadership Forum, organised by Melbourne businessman Albert Dadon.
Gillard deserves particular praise for attending the forum, as she was subject to a nasty campaign from the Left to try to intimidate her out of going.
The Left internationally is going through one of its periodic bouts of trying to isolate Israel. This is one of those demented moments where allegedly progressive opinion believes it's the height of creativity to engage the mullah dictatorship in Iran, as it steals elections and pursues nuclear weapons, but wrong to visit a democratic ally such as Israel.
The Rudd government has stood four square against this nonsensical position...
...there is ...a good political dimension to what Gillard is doing. .... The traditional doubt about the Left is that they tend to be anti-American or simply unreliable on national security. Gillard has given a series of speeches and performances that demonstrate she is 100 per cent with Rudd in the mainstream Curtin-Hawke Labor tradition on the US alliance, the deployment of Australian forces overseas and indeed Israel and the Middle East.
...Without any ambiguity, Gillard celebrated Australia's friendship with Israel. She drew attention, with pride, to Australia's long military involvement in the Middle East. She expressed concern at the frustration of democracy in Iran and at Iran's nuclear ambitions.
Gillard got good press in Israel, where she is widely admired for her strong statements as acting prime minister in support of Israel's right to self-defence when it undertook the operation earlier this year in Gaza to stop the relentless launch of thousands of rockets from Gaza on to the civilian population of Israel's southern cities. Gillard's visit is significant in Australia-Israel relations, in the development of Gillard, and in the maturation of Labor's Left more generally (exceptions notwithstanding).
The other star of the evening was Costello. ...Costello gave a more sweeping account of our military involvement in the Middle East. Australians should be more aware of this. Our premier military historian, Jeffrey Grey, has argued that Australia has had a greater strategic military effect in the Middle East than anywhere else.
In the southern Israeli city of Beersheba there is now a magnificent park and statue commemorating the famous charge of the Australian light horse in 1917, which took Beersheba from the Ottoman Turks. This allowed the British to drive through to Jerusalem and led to the British mandate over Palestine and thus the establishment of Israel. On the same day as the Australian action in Beersheba the British government decided in principle to support the establishment of a Jewish state in Israel.
Then in World War II Australian divisions fought magnificently against Axis forces in the Middle East. Some Arab leaders had petitioned Adolf Hitler to include the Middle East's Jews in the Final Solution. The Australian effort was critical in making sure that didn't happen. More recently, in 2003 the Australian special forces were the first allied troops to go into Iraq. Their priority was to locate and destroy Scud missile launchers that Saddam Hussein might use against Israel.
At the political level the relationship between Australia and Israel is splendid. But perversely there is still a bias against Israel in the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, despite the fine work of the embassy in Tel Aviv. Even more perversely, there is a little bit of a similar bias in the Australian Defence Force, which has an operational relationship with a number of the Gulf State Arab nations, and consequently hosts lots of Arab officers at Australian staff colleges and the like, but no similar relationship with the magnificent Israeli Defence Force, with which it should routinely be sharing strategic insights and tactical expertise.
Nonetheless, in Israel this week Australian political leadership has been on display at its bipartisan best, all to the background of a very good Australian cultural festival. You couldn't really ask for more.
Greg Sheridan visited Israel as a participant in the inaugural Australia Israel Leadership Forum.
Wednesday, June 24, 2009
Stop the Destruction of Nazi Tunnel System “Bergkristall”
This letter from Martha Gammer, a friend in Northern Austria, who is active in The Gusen Memorial Committee, has personal significance, because my father Yisrael ben Zvy z"l was an inmate at the horrific Bergkristall factory:
Estimated 10 000 died during their work inside the halls. They were shot, beaten do death or strangled when not able to pace with the hard working conditions. After 12 hours work in day or nightshifts they were not even able to rest in a bed, the bunks in Gusen II Camp were overcrowded with four prisoners each.
The Soviet occupation army tried to destroy the giant system by remaining war bombs, but the armed concrete walls resisted and remained for 63 years, except some destructed places. When the local municipality allowed private housebuilding on the hill surface above the Bergkristall system, the situation became dangerous. Ordered by the responsibleadministration of the “war relicts” the Federal Ministry of Interior Affairs and Security had the tunnels repaired near the remeining entrance and fullfilled under the 8 private houses in 2003-2004.
Former prisoners were not allowed toenter the tunnels to commemorate their fellow comrades, but the stabilizing work was presented to the Austrian press in October 2006.
Now there are filling works being done in the northern part of the system,where there are no houses standing on the hill top, there are only fields and meadows. There is no reason for the destruction work that is being done. Stabilizing some points would be okay, but local authoroties would like to use the hill as a future building site,when there is sujch a big demandfor house building near the City of Linz. According to the BIG, the Austrian Federal Building Company, there willremain just 1/7th of the former BergkristallSystem.
The local Gusen Commemoration Committee protested against these destruction measurements and sent letters to the St. Georgen Municipality, to the Federal Ministerium and the Austrian Federal Departement of Cultural Heritage (Bundesdenkmalamt). As it seems there is no chance to stop this destruction work.
Neo-Nazis in Austria may say in a ten years’ time: The underground factory with that slave work to kill the European jewery and the resistant people of many nations on now Austrian territory, that has never been. There are no traces.
We want an international action to save wide parts of this largest monument of Nazi terror in Austria. We want a place of commemoration inside and the possibility for visitors’ groups to enter some parts. Historians should present this slave work in an exposition inside.
If you want to join the protest movement, write letters to the Austrian Federal Ministry of Interior Affairs and Security, Herrengasse 7-11, A- 1010 Wien / Vienna, or inform the international press.
St. Georgen, June 23rd, 2009
The horrible slave work inside the giant tunnel system shall be forgotten soon: This will be the effect of the now ongoing destruction work at St. Georgen an der Gusen. The mainly jewish slaves of Gusen II Camp were forced to run the 3km distance between the primitive camp and the Bergkritsall underground system daily to do their forced labour work there producing the German famous “ME 262” Messerschmift jet fighter.
The horrible slave work inside the giant tunnel system shall be forgotten soon: This will be the effect of the now ongoing destruction work at St. Georgen an der Gusen. The mainly jewish slaves of Gusen II Camp were forced to run the 3km distance between the primitive camp and the Bergkritsall underground system daily to do their forced labour work there producing the German famous “ME 262” Messerschmift jet fighter.
Estimated 10 000 died during their work inside the halls. They were shot, beaten do death or strangled when not able to pace with the hard working conditions. After 12 hours work in day or nightshifts they were not even able to rest in a bed, the bunks in Gusen II Camp were overcrowded with four prisoners each.
The Soviet occupation army tried to destroy the giant system by remaining war bombs, but the armed concrete walls resisted and remained for 63 years, except some destructed places. When the local municipality allowed private housebuilding on the hill surface above the Bergkristall system, the situation became dangerous. Ordered by the responsibleadministration of the “war relicts” the Federal Ministry of Interior Affairs and Security had the tunnels repaired near the remeining entrance and fullfilled under the 8 private houses in 2003-2004.
Former prisoners were not allowed toenter the tunnels to commemorate their fellow comrades, but the stabilizing work was presented to the Austrian press in October 2006.
Now there are filling works being done in the northern part of the system,where there are no houses standing on the hill top, there are only fields and meadows. There is no reason for the destruction work that is being done. Stabilizing some points would be okay, but local authoroties would like to use the hill as a future building site,when there is sujch a big demandfor house building near the City of Linz. According to the BIG, the Austrian Federal Building Company, there willremain just 1/7th of the former BergkristallSystem.
The local Gusen Commemoration Committee protested against these destruction measurements and sent letters to the St. Georgen Municipality, to the Federal Ministerium and the Austrian Federal Departement of Cultural Heritage (Bundesdenkmalamt). As it seems there is no chance to stop this destruction work.
Neo-Nazis in Austria may say in a ten years’ time: The underground factory with that slave work to kill the European jewery and the resistant people of many nations on now Austrian territory, that has never been. There are no traces.
We want an international action to save wide parts of this largest monument of Nazi terror in Austria. We want a place of commemoration inside and the possibility for visitors’ groups to enter some parts. Historians should present this slave work in an exposition inside.
If you want to join the protest movement, write letters to the Austrian Federal Ministry of Interior Affairs and Security, Herrengasse 7-11, A- 1010 Wien / Vienna, or inform the international press.
Justice, justice you shall pursue...
From THE JERUSALEM POST, Jun. 22, 2009, by EFRAIM ZUROFF, director of the Israel office of the Simon Wiesenthal Center:
Bringing Sandor Kepiro to trial
This week's visit by Hungarian Prime Minister Gordon Banjai is an excellent opportunity to focus on one of the most important and interesting cases of a Nazi war criminal who can still be brought to justice. I am referring to Dr. Sandor Kepiro, who served as a gendarmerie officer during World War II and was among the key organizers of the mass murder of at least 1,250, but probably as many as 3,000 men, women and children (mostly Jews, but also Serbs and Gypsies) in the Serbian city of Novi Sad on January 23, 1942.
Until now, Israel has done relatively little to press Hungary to prosecute Kepiro, so Banjai's visit might well be the last opportunity of its kind for the government to send a clear-cut message to the Hungarians that their failure to bring Kepiro to justice is incomprehensible and unacceptable.
The Kepiro case has special significance for several reasons. First and foremost is the scope of the massacre in Novi Sad, which was the largest single action of its kind against Jews in Serbia during the Holocaust, and besides the murders carried out by Hungarian troops in Kamenetz-Podolsk, was the worst case of the mass murder of civilians carried out by Hungarian forces during World War II.
Another important point is that if Kepiro is brought to trial in Budapest, he will almost certainly be the first Hungarian Nazi collaborator to be prosecuted since the country became a democracy. Like all the post-communist states of Eastern Europe, Hungary conducted many trials of Nazi collaborators in the immediate aftermath of World War II, but none since the transition to democracy. This would be particularly significant in a country like Hungary, which is only beginning to honestly confront its crimes during the Holocaust, which included mass murder.
THERE ARE ALSO several unique aspects to the Kepiro case which add to its significance. To the best of my knowledge, it is the only case of Holocaust crimes carried out by the forces of a country allied with Nazi Germany, in which the perpetrators were actually prosecuted by their own government in the course of World War II. In December 1943, the 15 officers who organized and carried out the mass murder in Novi Sad were put on trial in Budapest. Not for murder, but rather for violating the code of honor of the Hungarian forces, since the operations they carried out in the Voivodina province had not been approved by their superiors. All of them, including Kepiro, were convicted and sentenced either to death or to lengthy prison terms.
The convicted officers, however, never served their sentences since shortly after the end of the trial and before they could be implemented, Nazi Germany occupied Hungary and pressured the Hungarians to cancel the convictions and the punishments. Thus Kepiro's identity and participation are not in doubt, having already been duly confirmed by a Hungarian court. In fact, Kepiro himself admits his participation in the Novi Sad operation, but simply denies having committed any "war crimes."
In that context, a fascinating aspect of Kepiro's behavior in Novi Sad came to light during his 1944 trial. When Kepiro was briefed on his assignment before the roundups and murder took place, he asked for the orders in writing. Already a lawyer, he apparently immediately recognized their immorality and consequent illegality. His superior responded, however, that orders of this kind were only transmitted verbally, and Kepiro carried them out loyally.
Ironically, this behavior prompted the Hungarian court to reduce his jail sentence, but in theory they should have done the opposite, since Kepiro was, in essence, the worst type of Holocaust perpetrator, an intelligent and educated professional who clearly understood that what he had been told to do was totally reprehensible, yet did it anyway. He was obviously a person who was more concerned about his alibi than about the fate of his innocent victims, and thus someone undeserving of any sympathy.
ON AUGUST 1, it will be three years since I initially notified the Hungarian authorities that Kepiro was alive and living in Budapest. (After the war, he had escaped to Austria and from there to Argentina, where he lived for 48 years.) At that time, the prosecutors assured me that if he had committed war crimes (which obviously was the case), they would immediately implement his original sentence, but six months later I was informed that this was not possible since a Hungarian court had cancelled his conviction.
Instead, prosecutors launched a new investigation against Kepiro, which in theory should have long ago resulted in a trial. But the wheels of justice for a Hungarian Nazi war criminal turn incredibly slowly and without external pressure it appears very doubtful whether Kepiro will ever be punished for his crimes. In the meantime, he is conducting an active legal battle against his prosecution and giving numerous interviews in which he protests his innocence, while admitting his presence in Novi Sad on January 23, 1942.
In these days in which the nationalist extremist Magyar Garda march in the streets of Hungary in black uniforms with symbols reminiscent of the wartime fascist Arrow Cross, and the racist and anti-Semitic Jobbik party garnered 15 percent of the votes in the recent elections for the European Parliament, the fate of an elderly Hungarian Nazi war criminal may not seem particularly pressing. The fact is, however, that precisely by mustering sufficient political will to bring to justice people like Kepiro, the government will be sending an unequivocal and necessary message to Hungarian society and especially to the ultranationalists that the days of Arrow cross terror, anti-Semitism and racism are long gone never to return and that democratic Hungary will not countenance their revival.
Now if only Prime Minister Banjai's hosts in Jerusalem will make sure to deliver the message loud and clear.
Bringing Sandor Kepiro to trial
This week's visit by Hungarian Prime Minister Gordon Banjai is an excellent opportunity to focus on one of the most important and interesting cases of a Nazi war criminal who can still be brought to justice. I am referring to Dr. Sandor Kepiro, who served as a gendarmerie officer during World War II and was among the key organizers of the mass murder of at least 1,250, but probably as many as 3,000 men, women and children (mostly Jews, but also Serbs and Gypsies) in the Serbian city of Novi Sad on January 23, 1942.
Until now, Israel has done relatively little to press Hungary to prosecute Kepiro, so Banjai's visit might well be the last opportunity of its kind for the government to send a clear-cut message to the Hungarians that their failure to bring Kepiro to justice is incomprehensible and unacceptable.
The Kepiro case has special significance for several reasons. First and foremost is the scope of the massacre in Novi Sad, which was the largest single action of its kind against Jews in Serbia during the Holocaust, and besides the murders carried out by Hungarian troops in Kamenetz-Podolsk, was the worst case of the mass murder of civilians carried out by Hungarian forces during World War II.
Another important point is that if Kepiro is brought to trial in Budapest, he will almost certainly be the first Hungarian Nazi collaborator to be prosecuted since the country became a democracy. Like all the post-communist states of Eastern Europe, Hungary conducted many trials of Nazi collaborators in the immediate aftermath of World War II, but none since the transition to democracy. This would be particularly significant in a country like Hungary, which is only beginning to honestly confront its crimes during the Holocaust, which included mass murder.
THERE ARE ALSO several unique aspects to the Kepiro case which add to its significance. To the best of my knowledge, it is the only case of Holocaust crimes carried out by the forces of a country allied with Nazi Germany, in which the perpetrators were actually prosecuted by their own government in the course of World War II. In December 1943, the 15 officers who organized and carried out the mass murder in Novi Sad were put on trial in Budapest. Not for murder, but rather for violating the code of honor of the Hungarian forces, since the operations they carried out in the Voivodina province had not been approved by their superiors. All of them, including Kepiro, were convicted and sentenced either to death or to lengthy prison terms.
The convicted officers, however, never served their sentences since shortly after the end of the trial and before they could be implemented, Nazi Germany occupied Hungary and pressured the Hungarians to cancel the convictions and the punishments. Thus Kepiro's identity and participation are not in doubt, having already been duly confirmed by a Hungarian court. In fact, Kepiro himself admits his participation in the Novi Sad operation, but simply denies having committed any "war crimes."
In that context, a fascinating aspect of Kepiro's behavior in Novi Sad came to light during his 1944 trial. When Kepiro was briefed on his assignment before the roundups and murder took place, he asked for the orders in writing. Already a lawyer, he apparently immediately recognized their immorality and consequent illegality. His superior responded, however, that orders of this kind were only transmitted verbally, and Kepiro carried them out loyally.
Ironically, this behavior prompted the Hungarian court to reduce his jail sentence, but in theory they should have done the opposite, since Kepiro was, in essence, the worst type of Holocaust perpetrator, an intelligent and educated professional who clearly understood that what he had been told to do was totally reprehensible, yet did it anyway. He was obviously a person who was more concerned about his alibi than about the fate of his innocent victims, and thus someone undeserving of any sympathy.
ON AUGUST 1, it will be three years since I initially notified the Hungarian authorities that Kepiro was alive and living in Budapest. (After the war, he had escaped to Austria and from there to Argentina, where he lived for 48 years.) At that time, the prosecutors assured me that if he had committed war crimes (which obviously was the case), they would immediately implement his original sentence, but six months later I was informed that this was not possible since a Hungarian court had cancelled his conviction.
Instead, prosecutors launched a new investigation against Kepiro, which in theory should have long ago resulted in a trial. But the wheels of justice for a Hungarian Nazi war criminal turn incredibly slowly and without external pressure it appears very doubtful whether Kepiro will ever be punished for his crimes. In the meantime, he is conducting an active legal battle against his prosecution and giving numerous interviews in which he protests his innocence, while admitting his presence in Novi Sad on January 23, 1942.
In these days in which the nationalist extremist Magyar Garda march in the streets of Hungary in black uniforms with symbols reminiscent of the wartime fascist Arrow Cross, and the racist and anti-Semitic Jobbik party garnered 15 percent of the votes in the recent elections for the European Parliament, the fate of an elderly Hungarian Nazi war criminal may not seem particularly pressing. The fact is, however, that precisely by mustering sufficient political will to bring to justice people like Kepiro, the government will be sending an unequivocal and necessary message to Hungarian society and especially to the ultranationalists that the days of Arrow cross terror, anti-Semitism and racism are long gone never to return and that democratic Hungary will not countenance their revival.
Now if only Prime Minister Banjai's hosts in Jerusalem will make sure to deliver the message loud and clear.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
