Wednesday, March 09, 2011
The UN honours a suicide bomber
UNRWA youth center names football tournament after first Palestinian female suicide bomber Wafa Idris
The Al-Amari Palestinian youth center has announced a football tournament for youth
to be held later this week, named after the first Palestinian female suicide bomber Wafa Idris.
The Al-Amari youth center's website displays its logo with UNRWA's name in the center. On the home page, just below the logo and bordered in red, is the announcement of the Wafa Idris tournament.
[http://www.ammariclub.com/mainPage2.aspx ]
The Al-Amari Palestinian youth center has announced a football tournament for youth
to be held later this week, named after the first Palestinian female suicide bomber Wafa Idris.
The Al-Amari youth center's website displays its logo with UNRWA's name in the center. On the home page, just below the logo and bordered in red, is the announcement of the Wafa Idris tournament.[http://www.ammariclub.com/mainPage2.aspx ]
(After publication of this item UNRWA spokesman called PMW and insisted that they are no longer involved in this youth center and not responsible for the naming of the event after the terrorist.)
Wafa Idris was the first Palestinian female suicide bomber. She blew herself up in Jerusalem, killing one and injuring more than 150 on Jan. 27, 2002. As a volunteer for the Palestinian Red Crescent, she was able to bypass Israeli security and enter Jerusalem in a Palestinian ambulance. Since her bombing, Israel has been forced to delay Palestinian ambulances entering Jerusalem at security check points.
The PA has repeatedly presented Wafa Idris as a hero and role model, naming places and events after her, including a summer camp for youth funded by UNICEF, a Fatah women's military unit, a university students group for Fatah members, a Fatah course, and more. There have been public demonstrations and songs on PA TV to honor her. See listing and video below.
The following is the announcement of the Wafa Idris Tournament in the official PA daily:Headline: "Al-Amari plans to launch the 'Shahida (Martyr) of Honor, Wafa Idris' youth tournament."
"The administration of the Al-Amari youth center has announced its plans to launch a youth tournament (for 19-year-olds) to be named 'Shahida (Martyr) of Honor, Wafa Idris [tournament].' The Al-Am'ari administration is maintaining contacts with the Palestinian Football Association for permission. [The tournament] will commence on March 10. Twelve teams will be participating."
[Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, March 6, 2011]
The Palestinian Authority and Fatah have honored Wafa Idris in numerous ways since her bombing:
Summer camp funded by UNICEF named after Wafa Idris:
"Yesterday, activities ended in the camp named after the Shahida [Martyr for Allah] Wafa Idris, for girls in the city of Kalkiliya. The camp was founded by the Scout general administration in the Ministry of Youth and Sports. The camp was under the supervision of the Scouts in the Kalkiliya Administration and about 100 girls from the organizing committee of the city's Scouts participated... [At the closing ceremonies thanks were given including] to UNICEF for its support of the camps."
The Palestinian Authority and Fatah have honored Wafa Idris in numerous ways since her bombing:
Summer camp funded by UNICEF named after Wafa Idris:
"Yesterday, activities ended in the camp named after the Shahida [Martyr for Allah] Wafa Idris, for girls in the city of Kalkiliya. The camp was founded by the Scout general administration in the Ministry of Youth and Sports. The camp was under the supervision of the Scouts in the Kalkiliya Administration and about 100 girls from the organizing committee of the city's Scouts participated... [At the closing ceremonies thanks were given including] to UNICEF for its support of the camps."
[Al-Ayyam, July 18, 2003]
Fatah names women's terror unit for attacking Israeli civilians after Wafa Idris:
"Senior officials in the Fatah Movement have said that the Al Aqsa Martyr's Brigades... has recently created a women's brigade, in order for women to take an active part in the war being fought in the Palestinian areas. The purpose of this brigade is to carry out attacks on the Israeli home front. The unit has been named 'the brigade in honor of the Martyr Wafa Idris.'"
[Al-Quds, March 1, 2002]
Fatah students' group named after Wafa Idris has course in democracy and human rights:
"The students' committee of the Shabiba [Fatah] student movement, the Shahida Wafa Idris cell in the Al-Quds Open University in Tubass, celebrated yesterday the completion of a course in democracy and human rights.
[Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, Aug. 11, 2002]
Fatah named women's course after Wafa Idris:
"... the General Security Forces held a graduation ceremony for the Shahida (Martyr) Wafa Idris course, for training Fatah women cadres, organized by the Commission in cooperation with the General Union of Women and the Public Relations Department in the Jenin District."
[Al-Hayat Al-Jadida (Fatah), July 3, 2005]
PA TV regularly broadcast a video honoring Idris in the years following her terror attack:
"My sister Wafa, my sister Wafa
Oh the heartbeat of pride,
Oh blossom who was on earth and is now in Heaven.
Allahu Akbar! [Allah is greater]
Oh Palestine of the Arabs,
Allahu Akbar, Oh Wafa!
But you chose Shahada [Martyrdom]
In death you have brought life to the aspiration
But you chose Shahada
In death you have brought life to the aspiration."
[PA TV (Fatah), first broadcast May 2002]
Click to view
Oh blossom who was on earth and is now in Heaven.
Allahu Akbar! [Allah is greater]
Oh Palestine of the Arabs,
Allahu Akbar, Oh Wafa!
But you chose Shahada [Martyrdom]
In death you have brought life to the aspiration
But you chose Shahada
In death you have brought life to the aspiration."
[PA TV (Fatah), first broadcast May 2002]
Click to view
Immediately following the suicide bombing, the Palestinian Authority held a memorial demonstration in her honor. A photograph of this demonstration appeared in a Palestinian daily, featuring posters bearing her picture with the following caption: "The Fatah Movement, Ramallah branch, Al Aqsa Martyr's Brigades, eulogize with great pride the heroic Martyr, of the Al-Amari Refugee Camp, the Martyr Wafa Idris." The demonstrators waving these posters are young girls, perhaps first-graders.[Al-Ayyam, February 1, 2002]
Fatah video honors Wafa Idris
This picture of Wafa Idris with the text "The Shahida (Martyr) Wafa Ali Idris" appeared in a PA TV music video, which blends scenes and pictures paying tribute to the PLO, Fatah, Yasser Arafat and PA and Fatah head Mahmoud Abbas.[PA TV (Fatah), Dec. 31, 2009]
Among the many articles of praise for Wafa Idris:
"Raviha Diyav, member of the administrative staff of the Palestinian Women Union emphasized that the participation of [Wafa] Idris in the attack shows the determination and the resolve of the Palestinian woman to participate as full partners in the national struggle, alongside her brothers."
[Al-Ayyam, Feb. 1, 2002]
"Recently, the heroine Wafa Idris succeeded in carrying out the bombing in Jerusalem, and subsequently, the Martyr Da'arin Abu Asiyah [carried out a suicide bombing at a roadblock]. These actions... attest to the Palestinian woman's capability to perform successful actions."
[Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, March 11, 2002]
Attaf Yussuf, a columnist in the media supplement The Women's Voice, wrote after Idris's bombing:
"Palestinian women desire to participate alongside the men in all aspects of the struggle."
[Al-Quds, March 1, 2002)]
"She [Idris] represents the major role of the Palestinian woman in the national struggle... Zaad Abu Ayin, a member of the high-ranking Movement Committee of Fatah, delivered a speech in which he praised the heroism of Idris, as a member of the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, which belongs to the Fatah Movement."
[Al-Ayyam, Feb. 1, 2002]
From the internet about the UNRWA youth center:"Al-Amari youth center was established in 1953. Since its creation the center has been a subsidiary to the UNRWA youth club centers system. The center is located at Al-Amari refugee camp within Ramallah & Al-Bireh Municipality area."
[http://www.amari.8m.net/center_in_arabic.htm?%da%d1%c8%ed= ]
Tuesday, March 08, 2011
The two-state solution has sown seeds for the de-legitimization of Israel
From Ynet News, 6 March 2011, by Martin Sherman:
Maj.-Gen. (res.) Giora Eiland, Febuary 2009
...The point that many well-intentioned pro-Israeli advocates seem be to missing is that it is precisely "moderate supporters of the two-state solution" that have in large measure sown the seeds for the de-legitimization of Israel. ...For, once the legitimacy of a Palestinian state is conceded, the de-legitimization of Israel cannot be avoided.
...Israel's minimum security requirements necessarily obviate the viability of Palestinian state.
Israel’s security requirements
Ever since Abba Eban's characterization of the 1967 Green Line as "Auschwitz Borders" it has been generally accepted that such a frontier cannot afford Israel acceptable levels of security – except under wildly optimistic and unrealistic assumptions. Iconic Labor party moderates such as Yigal Allon declared that "One does not have to a military expert to easily identify the critical defects of the armistice lines that existed until June 4, 1967," warning that for Israel they could herald "the physical extinction of a large part of its population and the political elimination of the Jewish state."
Shimon Peres concurred that the 1967 lines "constituted almost compulsive temptation to attack Israel from all directions …" and warned that "without a border which affords security, a country is doomed to destruction in war."
Significantly, both Allon and Peres derided the oft-aired claim that modern weaponry largely diminished the strategic value of geographical expanse and topological structures. Allon observed that it "... not only fail to diminish the value of strategic depth and natural barriers, but in fact enhance their importance; while Peres again concurred that with the advances in modern military prowess "the defensive importance of territorial expanse has increased."
This view has been endorsed by US military experts. A study conducted by the US Joint Chiefs of Staff to inform the president on the security concerns of Israel advised that "the security of Israel required Israel to receive parts of the territory of the West Bank as essential to its defense….(including) the prominent high ground running north-south."
Eugene Rostow, who as under-secretary of state was the senior US diplomat involved in the formulation of UN Security Council Resolution 242 and hence clearly familiar with the its intent, remarked that "all the studies of the Israeli security problem reached the same conclusion – from the security point of view, Israel must hold the high points in the West Bank and areas along the Jordan River."
The position of the Joint Chiefs of Staff was reaffirmed by a 1974 US Army Command and Staff College study which also concluded that Israel must control the high ground east of the central axis along the West Bank's mountain ridge.
In a recent study by a host of senior Israeli military and diplomatic figures - including a former IDF chief of staff, a former head of Military Intelligence and the National Security Council, and ambassadors to the UN, US and France – concluded that to maintain minimum security requirements Israel must retain control of the mountain range in Judea and Samaria that commands the coastal metropolis, the Jordan Valley, and the air space up to the Jordan River
So what do these minimum requirements, which require Israeli control of wide swathes of territory in the "West Bank," entail for the viability of Palestinian statehood?
Solomon’s wisdom
The answer is provided by an article, The Myth of Defensible Borders, in the January edition of Foreign Affairs. In it, the authors Omar Dajani and Ezzedine correctly point out that:
Thus, by accepting the admissibility of a Palestinian state, one necessarily admits the inadmissibility of measures required to ensure Israeli security. Conversely any measures required to ensure the viability of Israeli security, necessarily negate the viability of a Palestinian state.
Accordingly for Israel to regain legitimacy, the notion of a Palestinian state must be discredited and removed from the discourse over the resolution of the Israel-Arab conflict.
This of course easier said than done. For rolling back the accumulated decades of distortion, deception and delusion that have become entrenched in the collective international consciousness will be a Herculean task. But the immense scale of the task cannot diminish the imperative of its implementation.
For the unpalatable - and unfashionable - truth is that between the (Jordan) River and the (Mediterranean) Sea, there can prevail (and eventually will prevail) either total Jewish sovereignty or total Arab sovereignty...
Maj.-Gen. (res.) Giora Eiland, Febuary 2009
“…The maximum that any government of Israel will be ready to offer the Palestinians … is much less than the minimum that any Palestinian leader can accept.”The foregoing citation from the former chairman of Israel's National Security Council underscores the essential futility of pursuing ...The two state solution.
...The point that many well-intentioned pro-Israeli advocates seem be to missing is that it is precisely "moderate supporters of the two-state solution" that have in large measure sown the seeds for the de-legitimization of Israel. ...For, once the legitimacy of a Palestinian state is conceded, the de-legitimization of Israel cannot be avoided.
...Israel's minimum security requirements necessarily obviate the viability of Palestinian state.
Israel’s security requirements
Ever since Abba Eban's characterization of the 1967 Green Line as "Auschwitz Borders" it has been generally accepted that such a frontier cannot afford Israel acceptable levels of security – except under wildly optimistic and unrealistic assumptions. Iconic Labor party moderates such as Yigal Allon declared that "One does not have to a military expert to easily identify the critical defects of the armistice lines that existed until June 4, 1967," warning that for Israel they could herald "the physical extinction of a large part of its population and the political elimination of the Jewish state."
Shimon Peres concurred that the 1967 lines "constituted almost compulsive temptation to attack Israel from all directions …" and warned that "without a border which affords security, a country is doomed to destruction in war."
Significantly, both Allon and Peres derided the oft-aired claim that modern weaponry largely diminished the strategic value of geographical expanse and topological structures. Allon observed that it "... not only fail to diminish the value of strategic depth and natural barriers, but in fact enhance their importance; while Peres again concurred that with the advances in modern military prowess "the defensive importance of territorial expanse has increased."
This view has been endorsed by US military experts. A study conducted by the US Joint Chiefs of Staff to inform the president on the security concerns of Israel advised that "the security of Israel required Israel to receive parts of the territory of the West Bank as essential to its defense….(including) the prominent high ground running north-south."
Eugene Rostow, who as under-secretary of state was the senior US diplomat involved in the formulation of UN Security Council Resolution 242 and hence clearly familiar with the its intent, remarked that "all the studies of the Israeli security problem reached the same conclusion – from the security point of view, Israel must hold the high points in the West Bank and areas along the Jordan River."
The position of the Joint Chiefs of Staff was reaffirmed by a 1974 US Army Command and Staff College study which also concluded that Israel must control the high ground east of the central axis along the West Bank's mountain ridge.
In a recent study by a host of senior Israeli military and diplomatic figures - including a former IDF chief of staff, a former head of Military Intelligence and the National Security Council, and ambassadors to the UN, US and France – concluded that to maintain minimum security requirements Israel must retain control of the mountain range in Judea and Samaria that commands the coastal metropolis, the Jordan Valley, and the air space up to the Jordan River
So what do these minimum requirements, which require Israeli control of wide swathes of territory in the "West Bank," entail for the viability of Palestinian statehood?
Solomon’s wisdom
The answer is provided by an article, The Myth of Defensible Borders, in the January edition of Foreign Affairs. In it, the authors Omar Dajani and Ezzedine correctly point out that:
“A policy of defensible borders would...perpetuate the current sources of Palestinian insecurity, further delegitimizing an agreement in the public's eyes. Israel would retain the discretion to impose arbitrary and crippling constraints on the movement of people and goods... For these reasons, Palestinians are likely to regard defensible borders as little more than occupation by another name.”Recent events in the Mid-East, with the specter of an ascendant Muslim Brotherhood in Jordan and Egypt, are hardly likely to contribute to reducing Israeli threat perception and thus serve only to heighten the incompatibility between a viable Palestinian state and a secure Israel.
Thus, by accepting the admissibility of a Palestinian state, one necessarily admits the inadmissibility of measures required to ensure Israeli security. Conversely any measures required to ensure the viability of Israeli security, necessarily negate the viability of a Palestinian state.
Accordingly for Israel to regain legitimacy, the notion of a Palestinian state must be discredited and removed from the discourse over the resolution of the Israel-Arab conflict.
This of course easier said than done. For rolling back the accumulated decades of distortion, deception and delusion that have become entrenched in the collective international consciousness will be a Herculean task. But the immense scale of the task cannot diminish the imperative of its implementation.
For the unpalatable - and unfashionable - truth is that between the (Jordan) River and the (Mediterranean) Sea, there can prevail (and eventually will prevail) either total Jewish sovereignty or total Arab sovereignty...
Arabs don’t want a "two-state solution"
From Ynet News, 27 May 2010, by Dan Calic:
Facts speak for themselves: Arabs don’t accept vision of two sovereign states
Twenty five years after the British gave away 76% of the land they promised as a homeland for the Jewish people [1922] the United Nations voted to partition the remaining 24% into two states, one Arab, one Jewish [1947]. This gave the Jews a mere 12% of what they were originally promised. Nevertheless, the Jews said “yes” to the deal.
The Arab answer was an ominous “no.” One day after Israel declared independence the Arabs attacked intending to destroy it.
Yet here we are more than 60 years later and we are led to believe the answer to the conflict is another two-state “solution,” albeit with the land sacrifices coming from only one side - Israel.
And what are the Arabs offering? In a word, nothing. Unless you consider their vague promises and poor track record on curbing terror as enough.
The repeated Arab failure to live up to promises of curbing terror forced Israel to take the matter into its own hands by constructing the security barrier. This has proven to be a highly effective deterrent, saving untold innocent lives. Since its construction terror attacks from these areas have been all but eliminated.
Another matter Israel took upon itself was a voluntary withdrawal from the Gaza Strip in 2005. The “thank you” it received was approximately 8,000 rocket and mortar attacks until it finally had to take action against Hamas in Jan. ’09.
Does Hamas support a two-state solution? Group leader Khaled Mashaal said “has not and will not recognize Israel.” Hamas’ charter calls for Israel’s destruction. This puts them in the “no” column. Mahmoud Abbas is already on record refusing to accept Israel as a Jewish state. His party’s constitution likewise calls for the destruction of Israel. This puts Fatah in the “no” column.
So who supports a two-state solution?
In spite of undeniable evidence to the contrary, the prevailing opinion of President Obama and most western leaders is that Abbas supports a two-state solution. But is this really the case?
Abbas creating new rules
The facts speak for themselves: He is on record denying any Jewish connection to Jerusalem, saying “I challenge this claim is so.” His demands include making Jerusalem the capital of “Palestine,” thus all Jewish connection to the holy Old City would vanish, leaving Jews without access to their two holiest sites, Temple Mount and the Western Wall.
His precise quote when asked if he would accept Israel as a Jewish state was “I do not accept it.”
He attends mosques where vitriolic sermons are spoken, blaming the Jews for all the Muslim’s problems, suggesting the only course of action is “jihad” against the “Zionist entity.” He routinely attends events where the map of Israel is completely covered by a Palestinian flag. He names public squares after suicide bombers who murdered innocent Israeli civilians.
His continued demand the so-called “refugees” be allowed to flood into Israel, would eliminate its Jewish majority. Yet isn’t the intent of a two-state solution based on two distinct sovereign states, one of which is Jewish?
Former Israeli PM Ehud Barack was willing to give up over 90% of Judea/Samaria and divide Jerusalem in 2000 at the Camp David ll negotiations.
The Arab answer? “No.”
Under PM Ehud Olmert, Israel offered approximately 98% of Judea/Samaria, land swaps and a divided Jerusalem. Abbas dismissed Olmert’s offer, yet he recently told US Envoy George Mitchell, “the points agreed upon with Olmert are agreements with the government of Israel.” Apparently, he’s creating his own rules of diplomatic negotiations now.
While Presidents Bush, Obama and many other world leaders have endorsed a two-state solution, what these same leaders don’t appear to understand is that key Arab players don’t. Some believe Abbas might accept a two-state solution, but only as a first step toward the ultimate elimination of Israel.
Lest we forget a key reason why Hamas and Fatah have been at odds with each other, and what motivated Hamas to violently take over Gaza in 2007: Namely, Fatah’s talks with Israel, which in the mind of Hamas leaders suggests Fatah has given “legitimacy” to Israel. This is completely unacceptable to Hamas to the point of being blasphemous.
The only two-state “solution” the Muslims may truly endorse is one state controlled by Fatah and the other by Hamas…once Israel has been eliminated.
Facts speak for themselves: Arabs don’t accept vision of two sovereign states
Twenty five years after the British gave away 76% of the land they promised as a homeland for the Jewish people [1922] the United Nations voted to partition the remaining 24% into two states, one Arab, one Jewish [1947]. This gave the Jews a mere 12% of what they were originally promised. Nevertheless, the Jews said “yes” to the deal.
The Arab answer was an ominous “no.” One day after Israel declared independence the Arabs attacked intending to destroy it.
Yet here we are more than 60 years later and we are led to believe the answer to the conflict is another two-state “solution,” albeit with the land sacrifices coming from only one side - Israel.
And what are the Arabs offering? In a word, nothing. Unless you consider their vague promises and poor track record on curbing terror as enough.
The repeated Arab failure to live up to promises of curbing terror forced Israel to take the matter into its own hands by constructing the security barrier. This has proven to be a highly effective deterrent, saving untold innocent lives. Since its construction terror attacks from these areas have been all but eliminated.
Another matter Israel took upon itself was a voluntary withdrawal from the Gaza Strip in 2005. The “thank you” it received was approximately 8,000 rocket and mortar attacks until it finally had to take action against Hamas in Jan. ’09.
Does Hamas support a two-state solution? Group leader Khaled Mashaal said “has not and will not recognize Israel.” Hamas’ charter calls for Israel’s destruction. This puts them in the “no” column. Mahmoud Abbas is already on record refusing to accept Israel as a Jewish state. His party’s constitution likewise calls for the destruction of Israel. This puts Fatah in the “no” column.
So who supports a two-state solution?
In spite of undeniable evidence to the contrary, the prevailing opinion of President Obama and most western leaders is that Abbas supports a two-state solution. But is this really the case?
Abbas creating new rules
The facts speak for themselves: He is on record denying any Jewish connection to Jerusalem, saying “I challenge this claim is so.” His demands include making Jerusalem the capital of “Palestine,” thus all Jewish connection to the holy Old City would vanish, leaving Jews without access to their two holiest sites, Temple Mount and the Western Wall.
His precise quote when asked if he would accept Israel as a Jewish state was “I do not accept it.”
He attends mosques where vitriolic sermons are spoken, blaming the Jews for all the Muslim’s problems, suggesting the only course of action is “jihad” against the “Zionist entity.” He routinely attends events where the map of Israel is completely covered by a Palestinian flag. He names public squares after suicide bombers who murdered innocent Israeli civilians.
His continued demand the so-called “refugees” be allowed to flood into Israel, would eliminate its Jewish majority. Yet isn’t the intent of a two-state solution based on two distinct sovereign states, one of which is Jewish?
Former Israeli PM Ehud Barack was willing to give up over 90% of Judea/Samaria and divide Jerusalem in 2000 at the Camp David ll negotiations.
The Arab answer? “No.”
Under PM Ehud Olmert, Israel offered approximately 98% of Judea/Samaria, land swaps and a divided Jerusalem. Abbas dismissed Olmert’s offer, yet he recently told US Envoy George Mitchell, “the points agreed upon with Olmert are agreements with the government of Israel.” Apparently, he’s creating his own rules of diplomatic negotiations now.
While Presidents Bush, Obama and many other world leaders have endorsed a two-state solution, what these same leaders don’t appear to understand is that key Arab players don’t. Some believe Abbas might accept a two-state solution, but only as a first step toward the ultimate elimination of Israel.
Lest we forget a key reason why Hamas and Fatah have been at odds with each other, and what motivated Hamas to violently take over Gaza in 2007: Namely, Fatah’s talks with Israel, which in the mind of Hamas leaders suggests Fatah has given “legitimacy” to Israel. This is completely unacceptable to Hamas to the point of being blasphemous.
The only two-state “solution” the Muslims may truly endorse is one state controlled by Fatah and the other by Hamas…once Israel has been eliminated.
Obama prepares to live with Islamism
From The Washington Post, Friday, March 4, 2011, by Scott Wilson:
The Obama administration is preparing for the prospect that Islamist governments will take hold in North Africa and the Middle East, acknowledging that the popular revolutions there will bring a more religious cast to the region's politics.
...None of the revolutions over the past several weeks has been overtly Islamist, but there are signs that the uprisings could give way to more religious forces. An influential Yemeni cleric called this week for the U.S.-backed administration of President Ali Abdullah Saleh to be replaced with Islamist rule, and in Egypt, an Islamist theoretician has a leading role in drafting constitutional changes after President Hosni Mubarak's fall from power last month.
A number of other Islamist parties are deciding now how big a role to play in protests or post-revolution reforms.
Since taking office, President Obama has argued for a "new beginning" with Islam, suggesting that Islamic belief and democratic politics are not incompatible. But in doing so, he has alarmed some foreign-policy pragmatists and allies such as Israel, who fear that governments based on religious law will inevitably undercut democratic reforms and other Western values.
Some within the U.S. intelligence community, foreign diplomatic circles and the Republican Party say Obama's readiness to accept Islamist movements, even ones that meet certain conditions, fails to take into consideration the methodical approach many such parties adopt toward gradually transforming secular nations into Islamic states at odds with U.S. policy goals.
Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in the Palestinian territories have prospered in democratic elections and exert huge influence. Neither party, each with an armed wing, supports Israel's right to exist, nor have they renounced violence as a political tool.
...[Jonathan Peled, the spokesman for the Israeli Embassy in Washington] said Israel fears that "anti-democratic extremist forces could take advantage of a democratic system," as, he said, Hamas did with its 2006 victory in Palestinian parliamentary elections. Israel allowed Hamas to participate only under pressure from the George W. Bush administration as part of its stated commitment to promote Arab democracy.
...The goal of Islamist movements after taking power is at the root of concern expressed by Republican lawmakers and others in Washington.
...After Hamas won the Palestinian parliamentary elections in 2006, the United States and Israel led an international boycott of the government. But Obama administration officials, reviewing that history with an eye toward the current revolutions, say the reason for the U.S. boycott was not Hamas's Islamic character but its refusal to agree to conditions such as recognizing Israel.
In a speech Monday in Geneva, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton appeared to draw on that lesson, implicitly inviting Islamist parties to participate in the region's future elections with conditions. "Political participation," Clinton said, "must be open to all people across the spectrum who reject violence, uphold equality and agree to play by the rules of democracy."
The Obama administration is preparing for the prospect that Islamist governments will take hold in North Africa and the Middle East, acknowledging that the popular revolutions there will bring a more religious cast to the region's politics.
...None of the revolutions over the past several weeks has been overtly Islamist, but there are signs that the uprisings could give way to more religious forces. An influential Yemeni cleric called this week for the U.S.-backed administration of President Ali Abdullah Saleh to be replaced with Islamist rule, and in Egypt, an Islamist theoretician has a leading role in drafting constitutional changes after President Hosni Mubarak's fall from power last month.
A number of other Islamist parties are deciding now how big a role to play in protests or post-revolution reforms.
Since taking office, President Obama has argued for a "new beginning" with Islam, suggesting that Islamic belief and democratic politics are not incompatible. But in doing so, he has alarmed some foreign-policy pragmatists and allies such as Israel, who fear that governments based on religious law will inevitably undercut democratic reforms and other Western values.
Some within the U.S. intelligence community, foreign diplomatic circles and the Republican Party say Obama's readiness to accept Islamist movements, even ones that meet certain conditions, fails to take into consideration the methodical approach many such parties adopt toward gradually transforming secular nations into Islamic states at odds with U.S. policy goals.
Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in the Palestinian territories have prospered in democratic elections and exert huge influence. Neither party, each with an armed wing, supports Israel's right to exist, nor have they renounced violence as a political tool.
...[Jonathan Peled, the spokesman for the Israeli Embassy in Washington] said Israel fears that "anti-democratic extremist forces could take advantage of a democratic system," as, he said, Hamas did with its 2006 victory in Palestinian parliamentary elections. Israel allowed Hamas to participate only under pressure from the George W. Bush administration as part of its stated commitment to promote Arab democracy.
...The goal of Islamist movements after taking power is at the root of concern expressed by Republican lawmakers and others in Washington.
...After Hamas won the Palestinian parliamentary elections in 2006, the United States and Israel led an international boycott of the government. But Obama administration officials, reviewing that history with an eye toward the current revolutions, say the reason for the U.S. boycott was not Hamas's Islamic character but its refusal to agree to conditions such as recognizing Israel.
In a speech Monday in Geneva, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton appeared to draw on that lesson, implicitly inviting Islamist parties to participate in the region's future elections with conditions. "Political participation," Clinton said, "must be open to all people across the spectrum who reject violence, uphold equality and agree to play by the rules of democracy."
War plans and peace plans
From The Wall Street Journal, MARCH 8, 2011, by RICHARD BOUDREAUX And BILL SPINDLE:
JERUSALEM—Israel may need to boost military spending and could seek as much as an additional $20 billion in U.S. security assistance over the coming years to help it manage potential threats stemming from popular upheavals in the Arab world, Defense Minister Ehud Barak said Monday.
Still, Mr. Barak said Israel shouldn't fear changes in the region or the risk of offering bold concessions in a bid to achieve peace with the Palestinians.
"It's a historic earthquake...a movement in the right direction, quite inspired," Mr. Barak said in an interview with The Wall Street Journal, referring to revolts in Egypt, Tunisia, Libya and the Gulf. "It's a movement of the Arab societies toward modernity."
In the short term, however, Israel worries that Iran and Syria, its chief adversaries in the region, "might be the last to feel the heat" of unrest, he said, and that public pressure could push new leaders in Egypt to question that country's 1979 peace treaty with the Jewish state.
"The issue of qualitative military aid for Israel becomes more essential for us, and I believe also more essential for you," Mr. Barak said. "It might be wise to invest another $20 billion to upgrade the security of Israel for the next generation or so....A strong, responsible Israel can become a stabilizer in such a turbulent region."
Defense analysts say Israel spends about 9% of its gross national product on defense, or roughly $17 billion per year. U.S. military assistance accounts for $3 billion of that. Mr. Barak said Israel faces no imminent threat but would have to increase defense spending over the long-term.
Mr. Barak raised Israel's concerns with Defense Secretary Robert Gates in Washington last month and is due to meet him again in Israel in late March. With the Obama administration pressing Israel and the Palestinians to resume long-deadlocked peace talks, Mr. Barak said Israel could not seek pledges of additional military aid without making a "daring" peace offer.
Israeli officials are debating elements of a peace initiative, he said, and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is expected to announce one soon.
JERUSALEM—Israel may need to boost military spending and could seek as much as an additional $20 billion in U.S. security assistance over the coming years to help it manage potential threats stemming from popular upheavals in the Arab world, Defense Minister Ehud Barak said Monday.
Still, Mr. Barak said Israel shouldn't fear changes in the region or the risk of offering bold concessions in a bid to achieve peace with the Palestinians.
"It's a historic earthquake...a movement in the right direction, quite inspired," Mr. Barak said in an interview with The Wall Street Journal, referring to revolts in Egypt, Tunisia, Libya and the Gulf. "It's a movement of the Arab societies toward modernity."
In the short term, however, Israel worries that Iran and Syria, its chief adversaries in the region, "might be the last to feel the heat" of unrest, he said, and that public pressure could push new leaders in Egypt to question that country's 1979 peace treaty with the Jewish state.
"The issue of qualitative military aid for Israel becomes more essential for us, and I believe also more essential for you," Mr. Barak said. "It might be wise to invest another $20 billion to upgrade the security of Israel for the next generation or so....A strong, responsible Israel can become a stabilizer in such a turbulent region."
Defense analysts say Israel spends about 9% of its gross national product on defense, or roughly $17 billion per year. U.S. military assistance accounts for $3 billion of that. Mr. Barak said Israel faces no imminent threat but would have to increase defense spending over the long-term.
Mr. Barak raised Israel's concerns with Defense Secretary Robert Gates in Washington last month and is due to meet him again in Israel in late March. With the Obama administration pressing Israel and the Palestinians to resume long-deadlocked peace talks, Mr. Barak said Israel could not seek pledges of additional military aid without making a "daring" peace offer.
Israeli officials are debating elements of a peace initiative, he said, and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is expected to announce one soon.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)