Friday, April 9, 2010 - 8:06 PM

Although the public fireworks between top U.S. and Israeli officials may have died down in recent days, a fully fledged debate has erupted inside the Obama administration over how to best bring Middle East peace talks to fruition, let alone a successful conclusion.
Some reports have suggested there are two camps within Obamaland -- one favoring an incremental approach focused on persuading the Israelis and Palestinians to return to negotiations, and a second group pushing the president to lay his own "American plan" on the table.
But one U.S. official close to the issue told The Cable there's a more diverse spectrum of opinion inside the administration, with different officials exhibiting a range of views on what the tactics and tone of the U.S. approach should be going forward. There is no prospect of an Obama peace plan surfacing anytime soon, however.
"That's obviously an option we have. At some point we may exercise it," the administration official told The Cable. "There's been no decision to do it and there's no plan to do it."
National Security Advisor Jim Jones is the one most clearly advocating for a more definite American plan for how to proceed. Washington Post columnist David Ignatius and New York Times reporter Helene Cooper both described Jones as the prime mover behind a recent White House meeting in which a group of former national security advisors urged Obama to consider proposing his own peace initiative.
But Jones denied Friday that Obama has decided to take their advice.
"These are ongoing discussions, and I think that while we've not taken any decision to jumpstart any dramatic shift in our strategy, I think we should say, to make clear, that we don't intend to surprise anybody at any time," Jones told reporters.
"Some people suggested an American plan; other people had problems with it. Obama didn't weigh in one way or the other," the official said.
Meanwhile, Special Envoy George Mitchell, who has been shepherding the negotiations over the proximity talks that are meant to lead to direct talks, isn't necessarily opposed to a U.S. plan, but believes even talking about it now is premature.
Mitchell is for "getting to the negotiations, somehow" and is not in favor of releasing U.S. ideas "at this time," the official explained. That's different than being for "incrementalism," which in and of itself is a misleading term, in this insider's view.
"By definition all processes are incremental until they're not," the official said. Mitchell's other concern is that announcing a plan could be disastrous because the outlines of such a deal would certainly contain items that would upset each side.
"There are issues that are nonstarters on both sides, so what happens when both side reject it?," the official wondered.
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton agrees with Mitchell that it's not yet time for an American plan. But she is also saying inside the discussions that both sides need a lot of pushing to do things they don't want to do.
That's somewhat different than Vice President Joseph Biden, who leans more toward thinking about how to solve the logjam between the U.S. and Israel first, and then figuring out how to solve the overall issue after that. He is not thought to be in favor of announcing an American plan in the near term.
Add to that line of thinking the National Security Council's Dennis Ross, who due to his experience and inclination is also said to be more focused on solving the dispute over Israel's settlements. Yes, Ross argues for going a little easier on the Israelis than the other members of the team, the official said, but recent attacks on his loyalty to America from unnamed sources were way overblown.
Valerie Jarrett is another team member to watch. Two officials confirmed she is in almost all the meetings, although one official cautioned that doesn't mean she has a foreign-policymaking decision role, per se.
"Certainly how we handle Israel has implications for the public, nongovernmental organizations, and Congress, so understanding how the public and the interest groups will react is important and you have to loop her in," the official said.
To the extent that Jones and Jarrett seem to have increasing clout with Obama, that worries outsiders who fear they are pushing him toward a tougher stance vis-à-vis Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who abruptly cancelled his plans to come to Washington next week for the nuclear summit.
And amid reports that Obama personally directed the harsh response to Netanyahu following the settlements dispute last month and the dressing down Netanyahu received at the Oval Office, Israel supporters worry that he is determined to make Netanyahu come to him.
That still hasn't happened, as the White House waits for Netanyahu's response to the list of ideas Obama gave him to prove Israel's commitment to the process.
"We are still in consultations," the official could only say.
(Correction: Netanyahu's title corrected to "prime minister.")
AFP/Getty Images
EXPLORE:ARAB WORLD, MIDDLE EAST, DIPLOMACY, ISRAEL/PALESTINE, OBAMA ADMINISTRATION, STATE DEPARTMENT
The current administration has obviously not learned from recent history in the region,
The assumption is thaqt Israel has everything to lose (e.g., eventual loss of the West Bank settlements and at least a part of Jerusalem) and is therefore reluctant to enter any negotiations resulting in a Palestinian state, need a push in the right direction, while the Palestinians, who seemingly have everything to gain (statehood), are more than eager to enter into such negotiations with no prompting from anyone. Accordingly, no concessions on their part are necessary.
Upon closer examination however, we find that is not really the case. While the Netanyahu government has specifically stated its support for the existence of two states, one Palestinian and the other Jewish living side by side, the PA refuses to acknowledge Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state. While Israel has lent its support for the creation of an infrastructure essential to the existence of a Palestinian state, the PA continually places roadblocks to the resumption of talks aimed at creating that state.. To make things worse, the Obama administration insists on implementing the long since discredited 'if-we-push-Israel-to-make-meaningful-concessions-the-Palestinians-will-come-tothe-table' strategy by creating obstacles to negotiations that were never obstacles before.
The US insisted on a freeze on the expansion of existing settlements by Israel and Abbas immediately made this a precondition to negotiations, despite the fact that the settlement issue had never before been a precondition to talks between Israel and the PA. When the US originally accepted Israel''s partial freeze and left Abbas up a tree without a ladder, the US supplied him with that ladder by accepting the premise of indirect negotiations, a step backward to the pre-Madrid days of the late 80's - early 90's. That done, the US next demanded a freeze on Israeli building in what had once been Jordanian controlled territory around Jerusalem. Again, the PA seized on this as an excuse for cancelling even indirect talks, even though such construction had never before been an issue, thus throwing the situation back to what it was in the 1960's, when there was little or no contact at all.
In both instances many of Israel's critics in the US (Roger Cohen is one that comes to mind) were hoping, if not predicting outright that US pressure on the Netanyahu government would cause its fall and replacement by a more accomodating Kadima-led government. In actuality, what has happened is this pressure has unified the Israeli public behind Netanyahu in a way that he could only have dreamt about.. Only with this support could he have successfully resisted US demands. In the meantime the Kadima party that appears to have replaced Labor on the Israeli left has become weaker and more fractionalized.
So what is the upshot? The two sides are farther apart than they have been in over 40 years and each side's most intransigent elements have been further strengthened. In short, by any measure, the Obama administration's Middle East policy has been an abject failure. Why? Not only because of its pursuit of a discredited strategy, but also because it refuses to come to grips with what has been the major obstacle to peace all along - the Palestinians' refusal to accept Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state, i.e., the denial of a Jewish right to self determination.
Netanyahoo should call their bluff
If you ask Israelis to day if they are willing to agree to a peace plan along the lines of camp David with land swaps, shared sovereignty over Jerusalem, refugees compansation etc...
90% of all Israelis agree to this type of agreement and want peace.
If you ask the Palestinians if they agree to something along those lines they will find a reason not to agree, just like they did in Camp David, like Alan Dershowitz says they never miss an oppertunity to miss an oppertunity. They are not willing to give up the right of return, and some are not willing to put their arms down.
How can we even be talking about a Palestinian state when we have 2 Palestinian states already, the Hamas in Gaza and the Fatach in the west bank, they have not been talking since the Hamas violent take over of the Gaza strip in 2007, the Egyptians have been trying to get them to sign a palestinian unity agreement in order to bridge the gaps and make peace between them yet it hasn't worked so far.
Hamas is not willing to give up control of the gaza strip and they are not willing to change their ideology so untill one of those things happen, we have no chance of achieving any peace while there is an Islamofacist ragime in Gaza who's sole purpose is the destruction of Israel. I am not a big expert on Arabs but I do know that in this tribal society they don't forgive these blood feuds very easily, they are aressting each other and are cruel to each other, ironically the only reason the hamas has not taken over the West Bank is because of the IDF's presence and actions against the hamas.
I don't think there is any chance to get peace untill the palestinians are united and they agree to give up terror, no Israeli government will be willing to do that, even the leftiest one.
What I don't understand is how people just seem to ignore the facts on the ground and are just throwing words like peace and agreements, all it would do is bring about another piece of paper which is good for wiping ones ..........
So I say to Netanyahoo to agree to all of the white houses demands for a while to show the world again that Israel is not the problem, just like the palestinians ruined Oslo, didn't agree to camp david, Abbas had not agreed to olmerts offer, just like they keep inciting to violence and naming streets and squares after terrorists, the world will see that Israel is not the one who is the problem here. Call on their bluff, Abbas is not negotiating because he knows he can't really deliver anything besides a piece of paper. Netanyahoo should agree to all the U.S and the
Quartets conditions and make a few brave steps as he did by freezing the building in the west bank. Call on their bluff so the world will see the truth, if they truely want peace we will get an agreements if they don't we will see them for what they truely are
Maybe so but if they are not bluffing we will have real peace
and we all win even netanyahoo. what kind of prime minister doesn't want to be the one who brought peace
We can't agree to sign peace without securities from the rest of the world, if the palestinians will prove they are not responsible than we will do what we have to do. You are right that it will not be a fair deal, I am sure that if the palestinians were in control of west Jerusalem we will never see a piece of it, but I think that if it will bring to the end of the conflict it will be worth it.
You have to make some concesssions in order to get peace, now why would Israel want the Arab neighboorhoods, I understand if they were important for security reasons, but if they are not let them have it, why keep a hostile population with A right to vote that recieves social security and gives nothing back to the country, who wants them?
Having said all of that I don't think that the other side can make good on an agreement, the hamas and the incitment on the palestinian street are way too powerfull and that is why I am afraid we won't be able to solve this in our generation, I think we need to coexist near each other for a generation before we can start talking about peace.
If barack was going to do it and Perez and Rabin and Olmert someone will offer the same things again, let's let the whole world see this time what is really the issue and they wouldn't be able to blame us.
I know we said the same in Gaza and the world still blames us, and what do we do if we sign an agreement and they won't keep their part and we have to go to war again? That is the toughest question and I will let the leaders think about it
I am not sure I undrstand where u stand on these issues, you sound akward when you suggest to do ethnic cleansing, and kick the peopel out of jerusalem I am not sure I like your sarcasm.
Sharon did not try to sell it as peace or anything it was unilatteral move, what I meant was that the word saw we left gaza and got attcked for doing it. after thousends of rockets we defended ourself the world didn't blame the hamas, a lot of it blamed Israel.
Water issues and religious people don't matter it can all be resolved by agreement before, when there is an agreement the religous people won't say anything, and I don't know what you mean about Israeli terror, you mean Israeli Arabs?
Bill clinton seems pretty reliable to me and he said arafat screwed the agreement so I'll take his word for it.
I see but Israel is still a country with rules as much as people don't like to believe it, we can't do that although who knows what will be, we have to wait for some brave leaders with vision and creativity.
We attcked in Gaza after years of rocket attacks on civilian population, saying the hamas strikes back is simply wrong, we target terror heads and they target civilians, the blockade started after they started shooting at the passages, and it matters when you have lies like the goldstone report being spread around the world it doesn't put us in the best light
I understand there are two points of view to every side, but you cannot compare the Israeli actions to the terrorists actions, although we are stronger it doesn't mean we have to retalliate with bullets against rockets, unfortunately civilians do die while Israel attcks back, but what kind of people take revenge on other civilians and kids and women and children, the passages were wide open untill they were attcked, israel attacks what is called ticking bombs which are terrorists leaders who are responsible for killing Israelis and planing attcks noor trying to kill israelis, or people who are on their way to shoot rockets.
We have a right to do what we need to do to protect our population, Israel has left Gaza and the passages were open and the palestinians had a chance to show the world now when they are not under any occupation they can rule themselves make a better life and future for their people, but they chose to invest their time and money in weapons and war, Israel would have not shot one bullet at Gaza if there were no rockets coming from there, the palestinians in gaza need no weapons to defend themselves all they need to do is not shoot at us and they will never see any Israeli soldier or weapon again.
The goldstone report is full of lies because I know what we are educated for and I know my country, second we have proof of the report being filled with lies, third the people who conducted the report and the u.n are a jjoke they blamed Israel before the investigation, if you are interested you can watch this it is kind of long but it prove sgoldstone wrong. It is a debate between Goldstone and Dory Gold
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DxLa9f1Md34
And I am sure we will all have a big shok once Israel publishes the evidance against Goldstone and the lies in it.
No worries it isn't a private conversation funny guy, the hamas needs to meet certain conditions in order to get the passages open now right, why would you send more than the basic needs to your enemies hand, the Hamas government which was elected by the palestinian people swore to fight Israel to the death.
We let in the basic humanatarian stuff, and the situation now is different than it was when they took over once they started attcking them we closed them ,they are pretty unreasonable you are just wrong if you think that the passages were closed before they were attcked, why would they attck in the first place?, they have their Egyptian "brothers" why is Israel responsible for the palestinians it even used to be under Egyptian control and they didn't want that problem to come back in the peace agreement.
Israel actually send the evidance to the U.N or maybe to the head of it I am not sure maybe it is already public. Look at the link I posted there is plenty there.
J thomas Israel only attacked active terrorists which are in the middle of en ececution of an attack which includes getting it ready not only during it. If there was a ceasefire we would shoot to prevent an attack from happening not to take revenge on someone, otherwise there would not be many hamas leaders alive today.
Like I said Freeda you can make excuses for terrorists and say it is an act of war, if Israel shot thousands of rockets at Egypt first I think that the Egyptians would have considered that an act of war and it isn't the same thing anyway.
What is the benefit to the US?
The admin simply needs to ask itself: what do we get for our $$$$$ and freindship with Isarel?
What are the benefits to the US, of the special relationship?
None.
There is ONLY a downside: we become the targets of terrorism for supporting the war crminal Israeli government. (See Goldstone Report).
We lose US tax dollars.
We support Apartheid.
For God's sake, even Israeli govt officials admit Apartheid -- see:
http://www.counterpunch.org/aloni01082007.html
This Road is for Jews Only
Yes, There is Apartheid in Israel
By SHULAMIT ALONI
Shulamit Aloni is the former Education Minister of Israel. She has been awarded both the Israel Prize and the Emil Grunzweig Human Rights Award by the Association for Civil Rights in Israel.
Jewish self-righteousness is taken for granted among ourselves to such an extent that we fail to see what's right in front of our eyes. It's simply inconceivable that the ultimate victims, the Jews, can carry out evil deeds. Nevertheless, the state of Israel practises its own, quite violent, form of Apartheid with the native Palestinian population.
The US Jewish Establishment's onslaught on former President Jimmy Carter is based on him daring to tell the truth which is known to all: through its army, the government of Israel practises a brutal form of Apartheid in the territory it occupies. Its army has turned every Palestinian village and town into a fenced-in, or blocked-in, detention camp. All this is done in order to keep an eye on the population's movements and to make its life difficult. Israel even imposes a total curfew whenever the settlers, who have illegally usurped the Palestinians' land, celebrate their holidays or conduct their parades.
If that were not enough, the generals commanding the region frequently issue further orders, regulations, instructions and rules (let us not forget: they are the lords of the land). By now they have requisitioned further lands for the purpose of constructing "Jewish only" roads. Wonderful roads, wide roads, well-paved roads, brightly lit at night--all that on stolen land. When a Palestinian drives on such a road, his vehicle is confiscated and he is sent on his way.
On one occasion I witnessed such an encounter between a driver and a soldier who was taking down the details before confiscating the vehicle and sending its owner away. "Why?" I asked the soldier. "It's an order--this is a Jews-only road", he replied. I inquired as to where was the sign indicating this fact and instructing [other] drivers not to use it. His answer was nothing short of amazing. "It is his responsibility to know it, and besides, what do you want us to do, put up a sign here and let some antisemitic reporter or journalist take a photo so he that can show the world that Apartheid exists here?"
Indeed Apartheid does exist here. And our army is not "the most moral army in the world" as we are told by its commanders. Sufficient to mention that every town and every village has turned into a detention centre and that every entry and every exit has been closed, cutting it off from arterial traffic. If it were not enough that Palestinians are not allowed to travel on the roads paved 'for Jews only', on their land, the current GOC found it necessary to land an additional blow on the natives in their own land with an "ingenious proposal".
Humanitarian activists cannot transport Palestinians either.
Major-General Naveh, renowned for his superior patriotism, has issued a new order. Coming into affect on 19 January, it prohibits the conveyance of Palestinians without a permit. The order determines that Israelis are not allowed to transport Palestinians in an Israeli vehicle (one registered in Israel regardless of what kind of numberplate it carries) unless they have received explicit permission to do so. The permit relates to both the driver and the Palestinian passenger. Of course none of this applies to those whose labour serves the settlers. They and their employers will naturally receive the required permits so they can continue to serve the lords of the land, the settlers.
Did man of peace President Carter truly err in concluding that Israel is creating Apartheid? Did he exaggerate? Don't the US Jewish community leaders recognise the International Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination of 7 March 1966, to which Israel is a signatory? Are the US Jews who launched the loud and abusive campaign against Carter for supposedly maligning Israel's character and its democratic and humanist nature unfamiliar with the International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid of 30 November 1973? Apartheid is defined therein as an international crime that among other things includes using different legal instruments to rule over different racial groups, thus depriving people of their human rights. Isn't freedom of travel one of these rights?
In the past, the US Jewish community leaders were quite familiar with the meaning of those conventions. For some reason, however, they are convinced that Israel is allowed to contravene them. It's OK to kill civilians, women and children, old people and parents with their children, deliberately or otherwise without accepting any responsibility. It's permissible to rob people of their lands, destroy their crops, and cage them up like animals in the zoo. From now on, Israelis and International humanitarian organisations' volunteers are prohibited from assisting a woman in labour by taking her to the hospital. [Israeli human rights group] Yesh Din volunteers cannot take a robbed and beaten-up Palestinian to the police station to lodge a complaint. (Police stations are located at the heart of the settlements.) Is there anyone who believes that this is not Apartheid?
Jimmy Carter does not need me to defend his reputation that has been sullied by Israelophile community officials. The trouble is that their love of Israel distorts their judgment and blinds them from seeing what's in front of them. Israel is an occupying power that for 40 years has been oppressing an indigenous people, which is entitled to a sovereign and independent existence while living in peace with us. We should remember that we too used very violent terror against foreign rule because we wanted our own state. And the list of victims of terror is quite long and extensive.
We do limit ourselves to denying the [Palestinian] people human rights. We not only rob of them of their freedom, land and water. We apply collective punishment to millions of people and even, in revenge-driven frenzy, destroy the electricity supply for one and half million civilians. Let them "sit in the darkness" and "starve".
Employees cannot be paid their wages because Israel is holding 500 million shekels that belong to the Palestinians. And after all that we remain "pure as the driven snow". There are no moral blemishes on our actions. There is no racial separation. There is no Apartheid. It's an invention of the enemies of Israel. Hooray for our brothers and sisters in the US! Your devotion is very much appreciated. You have truly removed a nasty stain from us. Now there can be an extra spring in our step as we confidently abuse the Palestinian population, using the "most moral army in the world".
[Translated by Sol Salbe]
Shulamit Aloni is the former Education Minister of Israel. She has been awarded both the Israel Prize and the Emil Grunzweig Human Rights Award by the Association for Civil Rights in Israel.
There's only a downside to the US relationship with Israel you say.
The avionics in our F-15 and F-16 fighters were designed by an Israeli company -Elbit and built under license from them in the US. Both aircraft are acknowledged as among the best of their type. Building these systems in the US provides jobs for US workers and revenues for their employers.
Joint American-Israeli research has been instrumental in the development of ABM programs for both countries.
American access to real time Israeli intelligence data has been invaluable in the War on Terror and instrumental in the development of US military doctrine. Contrary to what you apparently believe, the US relationship with Israel has helped, rather than hindered us in acting against terrorist organizations as well as in the prevention of attacks.
That the US relationship with Israel puts us at greater risk of a terrorist attack is a fiction. The fact is that groups like al-Qaida are more concerned with the influence of western civilization in the Islamic world than Israel's existence. Like many other groups their interest in the Palestinian cause rarely extends past lip service.
On another board in FP I asked for your opinion on the poor treatment of Palestinians in the Arab world and you responded by calling me names and posting a completely unrelated article.
I'll ask you again; how do you feel about the fact that people of Palestinian descent are unable to become citizens of any other Arab country except Jordan (and then only on a limited basis)? There are over 1 million Arabs who hold Israeli citizenship. Palestinians in PA controlled areas are subject to PA law and hold PA issued identity papers.
How do you feel about the fact that Arab countries such as Lebanon and Syria prohibit Palestinians from owning property, entering certain professions or holding government jobs? Israeli Arabs are not prevented from owning property, entering any profession or working in government.
How do you feel about the expulsion of 250,000 Palestinians from Kuwait after Gulf War I? A great many of these Palestinians found refuge in the West Bank and Gaza.
I guess the real question is, are you really interested in the welfare of Palestinians or only how their cause can be used as a club with which to bash Israel?
A note on Ms Aloni's polemic...
If this were truly an apartheid society she was talking about, the restrictions she mentions would be applicable to ALL Arabs in Israeli controlled areas, just as South Africa's apartheid policies were applicable to all non-whites in South Africa. Moreover, what she ignores is the context of these restrictions, which were put in place for security reasons (you do remember the multitude of terrorist attacks on Israel's civilian population after 2000, don't you?), as opposed to South Africa's Apartheid regime which was instituted strictly on a racial basis.
As for your compalint about your tax money being sent to Israel, it amounts to roughly $10 a head for each resident of the US. I suggest you write your congressperson or senator and demand your $10 back.
You're right - any technology developed jointly by Israel and the US might well have eventually been developed by the US on its own. But at what cost and in how long a period of time? This is more than just a few joint development projects however, this is cooperation on strategies, the ability to stockpile weapons and supplies on Israeli territory, the use of Israeli airspace when needed (What happened when the US asked its NATO ally Turkey to use its airspace? It was turned down.) and a commonality of politgical systems, heritage and common goals. After the 1967 War, the Israelis turned over a great deal of captured Soviet made tanks and aircraft to US military intelligence so that they could be thoroughly examined. In September 1970, when the Syrians invaded northern Jordan in support of the PLO, Israel agreed to allow US forces a corridor through Galilee to Jordan should it be necessary (ships of the US Sixth Fleet were already in Haifa harbor) as well as the use of Israeli airspace. A similar request for the use of airspace to our allies the Saudis was rejected. How many other countries would reneder assistance in a situation that meant supporting the government of a country (Jordan) with whom it was technically at war? In 1991 Israel refrained from retaliating against Saddam Hussein when it was attacked by Iraqi Scuds.
I could go on, but the point here is that thee is a history here of mutual support, not just working together on a couple of science projects.
You say that we know that US support for Israel is what drives terrorism based on information gleaned from captured terrorists. I wasn't aware that transcripts of their interrogations were available to the public. Can you tell me where I can find them? And the 'Arab street' has been anti-American for decades before there was an Israel. Ever hear of the Muslim Brotherhood? It was founded in 1928, 20 years before there was a State of Israel. Within 10 years it had pver a half million members in Egypt alone. Its goal was a return to Islamist rule and the elimination of western influence in the Muslim world. Anyone who knows anything about the subject will tell you that the teachings of the Muslim Brotherhood are the basis for groups like al qaida.
Mixxalot did not espouse the virtues of any Arab state. I never said that he did. What I asked him was to compare the treatment of Palestinians by Israel and their treatment at the hands of the same people who profess to support their cause and tell me which was really apartheid, that is borne of ancestry as opposed to being borne out of a need for self defense. You also stated that Israel is in violation of international law. Please be specific as to what provision they have violated. International law prohibits the forcible transfer of population. Israel has not expelled a single Palestinian (or forced them to relocate) in order to build communities in the West Bank and Gaza. It is also acceptable under international law to fight wars of self defense, pre-emptive or otherwise.
With regard to US 'bankrolling' of Israel... The aid Israel receives amounts to less than 5% of its annual budget. While things would be more difficult for the Israelis should there be a cutoff of US aid, it could survive, just as it did in the years before 1970 when US aid to Israel was all but non existent and the Israeli economy was in a far more precarious position.
I too support the idea of a rollback with border adjustments (and the dismantling of most Israeli settlements that would go along with it), but I don't agree with the repartitionuing of Jerusalem, because it diesn't solve anything to return the city to an artificial status it endured for only 19 years of its entire history. Furthermore, the Palestinian claim to the city has more of a religious significance (sovereignty over Muslim holy places there) than any actual historical basis. Jerusalem has had a Jewish majority for more than the last 150 years and has never served as an Arab capital or in any way even so much as an administrative center, while it has served as not only a capital, but the spiritual and cultural center of the Jewish people for three millenia . During the Jordanian occupation (1948-67) it was virtually ignored by the Hashemite kingdom.
The Dark Underbelly of Israel's Security State
http://www.counterpunch.org/cook04092010.html
The Anat Kamm Affair
The Dark Underbelly of Israel's Security State
By JONATHAN COOK
in Nazareth.
Next week 23-year-old Anat Kamm is due to stand trial for her life -- or rather the state’s demand that she serve a life sentence for passing secret documents to an Israeli reporter, Uri Blau, of the liberal Haaretz daily.
She is charged with spying.
Blau himself is in hiding in London, facing, if not a Mossad hit squad, at least the stringent efforts of Israel’s security services to get him back to Israel over the opposition of his editors, who fear he will be put away too.
This episode has been dragging on behind the scenes for months, since at least December, when Kamm was placed under house arrest pending the trial.
Not a word about the case leaked in Israel until this week when the security services, who had won from the courts a blanket gag order -- a gag on the gag, so to speak -- were forced to reverse course when foreign bloggers began making the restrictions futile. Hebrew pages on Facebook had already laid out the bare bones of the story.
So, now that much of the case is out in the light, what are the crimes committed by Kamm and Blau?
During her conscription, Kamm copied possibly hundreds of army documents that revealed systematic law-breaking by the Israeli high command operating in the occupied Palestinian territories, including orders to ignore court rulings. She was working at the time in the office of Brig Gen Yair Naveh, who is in charge of operations in the West Bank.
Blau’s crime is that he published a series of scoops based on her leaked information that have highly embarrassed senior Israeli officers by showing their contempt for the rule of law.
His reports included revelations that the senior command had approved targeting Palestinian bystanders during the military’s extra-judicial assassinations in the occupied territories; that, in violation of a commitment to the high court, the army had issued orders to execute wanted Palestinians even if they could be safely apprehended; and that the defence ministry had a compiled a secret report showing that the great majority of settlements in the West Bank were illegal even under Israeli law (all are illegal in international law).
In a properly democratic country, Kamm would have an honorable defence against the charges, of being a whistle-blower rather than a spy, and Blau would be winning journalism prizes not huddling away in exile.
But this is Israel. Here, despite a desperate last-stand for the principles of free speech and the rule of law in the pages of the Haaretz newspaper today, which is itself in the firing line over its role, there is almost no public sympathy for Kamm or even Blau.
The pair are already being described, both by officials and in chat forums and talkback columns, as traitors who should be jailed, disappeared or executed for the crime of endangering the state.
The telling comparison being made is to Mordechai Vanunu, the former technician at the Dimona nuclear plant who exposed Israel’s secret nuclear arsenal. Inside Israel, he is universally reviled to this day, having spent nearly two decades in harsh confinement. He is still under a loose house arrest, denied the chance to leave the country.
Blau and Kamm have every reason to be worried they may share a similar fate. Yuval Diskin, the head of the Shin Bet, Israel’s secret police, which has been leading the investigation, said yesterday that they had been too “sensitive to the media world” in pursuing the case for so long and that the Shin Bet would now “remove its gloves”.
Maybe that explains why Kamm’s home address was still visible on the charge sheet published yesterday, putting her life in danger from one of those crazed talkbackers.
It certainly echoes warnings we have had before from the Shin Bet about how it operates.
Much like Blau, Azmi Bishara, once head of a leading Arab party in Israel, is today living in exile after the Shin Bet put him in their sights. He had been campaigning for democratic reforms that would make Israel a “state of all its citizens” rather than a Jewish state.
While he was abroad in 2007, the Shin Bet announced that he would be put on trial for treason when he returned, supposedly because he had had contacts with Hizbullah during Israel’s attack on Lebanon in 2006.
Few experts believe Bishara could have had any useful information for Hizbullah, but the Shin Bet’s goals and modus operandi were revealed later by Diskin in a letter on its attitude to Bishara and his democratisation campaign. The Shin Bet was there, he said, to thwart the activities of groups or individuals who threatened the state’s Jewish character “even if such activity is sanctioned by the law”.
Diskin called this the principle of “a democracy defending itself” when it was really a case of Jewish leaders in a state based on Jewish privilege protecting those privileges. This time it is about the leaders of Israel’s massive security industry protecting their privileges in a security state by silencing witnesses to their crimes and keeping ordinary citizens in ignorance.
Justifying his decision to “take the gloves off” in the case of Kamm and Blau, Diskin said: “It is a dream of every enemy state to get its hands on these kinds of documents” -- that is, documents proving that the Israeli army has repeatedly broken the country’s laws, in addition, of course, to its systematic violations of international law.
Diskin claims that national security has been put at risk, even though the reports Blau based on the documents -- and even the documents themselves -- were presented to, and approved by, the military censor for publication. The censor can restrict publication based only on national security concerns, unlike Diskin, the army senior command and the government, who obey other kinds of concerns.
Diskin knows there is every chance he will get away with his ploy because of a brainwashed Israeli public, a largely patriotic media and a supine judiciary.
The two judges who oversaw the months of gagging orders to silence any press discussion of this case did so on the say-so of the Shin Bet that there were vital national security issues at stake. Both judges are stalwarts of Israel’s enormous security industry.
Einat Ron was appointed a civilian judge in 2007 after working her way up the ranks of the military legal establishment, there to give a legal gloss to the occupation. Notoriously in 2003, when she was the chief military prosecutor, she secretly proposed various fabrications to the army so that it could cover up the killing of an 11-year-old Palestinian boy, Khalil al-Mughrabi, two years earlier. Her role only came to light because a secret report into the boy’s death was mistakenly attached to the army’s letter to an Israeli human rights group.
The other judge is Ze’ev Hammer, who finally overturned the gag order this week -- but only after a former supreme court judge, Dalia Dorner, now the head of Israel’s Press Council, belatedly heaped scorn on it. She argued that, with so much discussion of the case outside Israel, the world was getting the impression that Israel flouted democratic norms.
Judge Hammer has his own distinguished place in Israel’s security industry, according to Israeli analyst Dimi Reider. During his eight years of legal study, Hammer worked for both the Shin Bet and Israel’s Mossad spy agency.
Judge Hammer and Judge Ron are deeply implicated in the same criminal outfit -- the Israeli security establishment -- that is now trying to cover up the tracks that lead directly to its door. Kamm is doubtless wondering what similar vested interests the judges who hear her case next week will not be declaring.
Writing in Haaretz today, Blau said he had been warned “that if I return to Israel I could be silenced for ever, and that I would be charged for crimes related to espionage”. He concluded that “this isn’t only a war for my personal freedom but for Israel’s image”.
He should leave worrying about Israel’s image to Netanyahu, Diskin and judges like Dorner. That was why the gag order was enforced in the first place. This is not a battle for Israel’s image; it’s a battle for what is left of its soul.
Jonathan Cook is a writer and journalist based in Nazareth, Israel. His latest books are “Israel and the Clash of Civilisations: Iraq, Iran and the Plan to Remake the Middle East” (Pluto Press) and “Disappearing Palestine: Israel's Experiments in Human Despair” (Zed Books). His website is www.jkcook.net.
A version of this article originally appeared in The National (www.thenational.ae), published in Abu Dhabi.
Life in the settlements -- 60 Minutes
CBS News' 60 minutes:
http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=4752349n
Sir Mix alot of crap , where are u from mixalot?
You are telling half the truth and you are altering all the details of this incident so please stop lying, that is the problem with you Israel haters you just start lying once you feel like it.
Where did you get the info about the mossad hit squad???? Wow you must be very well connected with Israeli intelligence haha, what the hell are u talking about permission to target innocent bystanders.
Azmi Bahsaara didn't have any usefull info for the Hizbullah, then why would he be giving them any information during a war with Israel, why would he be talking to our sworn enemies while we are at war definitly not to promote democracy, I don't think democracy is on the hizbullahs priority list, there is compelling evidence against him and he knows it that is why he isn't coming back.
You obviously don't know the Israeli media since it is a very left wing establishment, and because you say it isn't doesn't make you right. Do you read hebrew?
I don't know about the documents yet but if there is something not kosher there they will pay the price, but this women stole 2000 documents from a military office, and she gave it to a reporter, I don't care what is in it, in any other country it would have been called treason.
Only part of the document's were made public a tiny portion, the rest are top secret and if fall into the wrong hands could pose serious risks.
You throw the word aparatheid so easily maybe you don't know what it means, when was the last time you were in Mecca Or Medina mr human rights. The reason there are seperate roads are because of terrorists or did you forget about that, Israeli arabs and christians are allowed on any road anytime. Before the terror started everybody was allowed everywhere and arabs and jews would come to each others towns every weekend they would come to the beach and israelis would go shopping and eating in the west bank those were the good old times before " oslo peace".
You have never been here and you claim that Israel is fencing in every village and town it is a blunt lie, there are fences around jewish settlements and there is the seperation wall that prevents suicide bombers from coming in. Why the heck would we want to control the palestinians nobody in the world wants them what good do you think it brings us, you keep spreading lies and deligitimazing Israel because you hate it for some reason maybe jealousy of israel's success or maybe just blind hate, but for those who know the truth you seem pathetic.
You ignore terorists completly do you think it is ok, how would you deal with Hamas and terrorist, tell me if you are so well informed, there are no sttelers in Gaza and look the terror is flourishing.
BUDAHH,SARK, TRANSTRIST, OHREALLY--SIEG HEIL!
Ethnic cleansing, invasions, jews only laws, jews only roads, jews only towns, bombings, jinvasions, the Gaza/Warsaw Ghetto Redux, beatings, bulldozings, land theft, water theft, murders, assasinations,spying ( Rosen Weissman, Harman, Franklin, Perle, Feith, Wolfawitz, Libby, Ledeen, Abramoff, Pollard).........Tell us what there is that gets you guys so enthusiastically goose stepping in Israels defense. Are you part of the PAID JA WOHL ISRAEL SET, or DO YOU BELIEVE IN the ongoing APARTHEID and ATTROCITIES. Perhaps you just like to support organizations that spy on the US. Just keep repeat ing (in german) WE ARE THE MASTER RACE, THEIR LAND IS OUR LAND, and of course, THEY ARE ONLY PALESTINIANS!
I am a Jew.
Listen to this:
Shulamit Aloni is the former Education Minister of Israel. She has been awarded both the Israel Prize and the Emil Grunzweig Human Rights Award by the Association for Civil Rights in Israel.
http://www.counterpunch.org/aloni01082007.html
This Road is for Jews Only
Yes, There is Apartheid in Israel
By SHULAMIT ALONI
Jewish self-righteousness is taken for granted among ourselves to such an extent that we fail to see what's right in front of our eyes. It's simply inconceivable that the ultimate victims, the Jews, can carry out evil deeds. Nevertheless, the state of Israel practises its own, quite violent, form of Apartheid with the native Palestinian population.
The US Jewish Establishment's onslaught on former President Jimmy Carter is based on him daring to tell the truth which is known to all: through its army, the government of Israel practises a brutal form of Apartheid in the territory it occupies. Its army has turned every Palestinian village and town into a fenced-in, or blocked-in, detention camp. All this is done in order to keep an eye on the population's movements and to make its life difficult. Israel even imposes a total curfew whenever the settlers, who have illegally usurped the Palestinians' land, celebrate their holidays or conduct their parades.
If that were not enough, the generals commanding the region frequently issue further orders, regulations, instructions and rules (let us not forget: they are the lords of the land). By now they have requisitioned further lands for the purpose of constructing "Jewish only" roads. Wonderful roads, wide roads, well-paved roads, brightly lit at night--all that on stolen land. When a Palestinian drives on such a road, his vehicle is confiscated and he is sent on his way.
On one occasion I witnessed such an encounter between a driver and a soldier who was taking down the details before confiscating the vehicle and sending its owner away. "Why?" I asked the soldier. "It's an order--this is a Jews-only road", he replied. I inquired as to where was the sign indicating this fact and instructing [other] drivers not to use it. His answer was nothing short of amazing. "It is his responsibility to know it, and besides, what do you want us to do, put up a sign here and let some antisemitic reporter or journalist take a photo so he that can show the world that Apartheid exists here?"
Indeed Apartheid does exist here. And our army is not "the most moral army in the world" as we are told by its commanders. Sufficient to mention that every town and every village has turned into a detention centre and that every entry and every exit has been closed, cutting it off from arterial traffic. If it were not enough that Palestinians are not allowed to travel on the roads paved 'for Jews only', on their land, the current GOC found it necessary to land an additional blow on the natives in their own land with an "ingenious proposal".
Humanitarian activists cannot transport Palestinians either.
Major-General Naveh, renowned for his superior patriotism, has issued a new order. Coming into affect on 19 January, it prohibits the conveyance of Palestinians without a permit. The order determines that Israelis are not allowed to transport Palestinians in an Israeli vehicle (one registered in Israel regardless of what kind of numberplate it carries) unless they have received explicit permission to do so. The permit relates to both the driver and the Palestinian passenger. Of course none of this applies to those whose labour serves the settlers. They and their employers will naturally receive the required permits so they can continue to serve the lords of the land, the settlers.
Did man of peace President Carter truly err in concluding that Israel is creating Apartheid? Did he exaggerate? Don't the US Jewish community leaders recognise the International Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination of 7 March 1966, to which Israel is a signatory? Are the US Jews who launched the loud and abusive campaign against Carter for supposedly maligning Israel's character and its democratic and humanist nature unfamiliar with the International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid of 30 November 1973? Apartheid is defined therein as an international crime that among other things includes using different legal instruments to rule over different racial groups, thus depriving people of their human rights. Isn't freedom of travel one of these rights?
In the past, the US Jewish community leaders were quite familiar with the meaning of those conventions. For some reason, however, they are convinced that Israel is allowed to contravene them. It's OK to kill civilians, women and children, old people and parents with their children, deliberately or otherwise without accepting any responsibility. It's permissible to rob people of their lands, destroy their crops, and cage them up like animals in the zoo. From now on, Israelis and International humanitarian organisations' volunteers are prohibited from assisting a woman in labour by taking her to the hospital. [Israeli human rights group] Yesh Din volunteers cannot take a robbed and beaten-up Palestinian to the police station to lodge a complaint. (Police stations are located at the heart of the settlements.) Is there anyone who believes that this is not Apartheid?
Jimmy Carter does not need me to defend his reputation that has been sullied by Israelophile community officials. The trouble is that their love of Israel distorts their judgment and blinds them from seeing what's in front of them. Israel is an occupying power that for 40 years has been oppressing an indigenous people, which is entitled to a sovereign and independent existence while living in peace with us. We should remember that we too used very violent terror against foreign rule because we wanted our own state. And the list of victims of terror is quite long and extensive.
We do limit ourselves to denying the [Palestinian] people human rights. We not only rob of them of their freedom, land and water. We apply collective punishment to millions of people and even, in revenge-driven frenzy, destroy the electricity supply for one and half million civilians. Let them "sit in the darkness" and "starve".
Employees cannot be paid their wages because Israel is holding 500 million shekels that belong to the Palestinians. And after all that we remain "pure as the driven snow". There are no moral blemishes on our actions. There is no racial separation. There is no Apartheid. It's an invention of the enemies of Israel. Hooray for our brothers and sisters in the US! Your devotion is very much appreciated. You have truly removed a nasty stain from us. Now there can be an extra spring in our step as we confidently abuse the Palestinian population, using the "most moral army in the world".
[Translated by Sol Salbe]
Shulamit Aloni is the former Education Minister of Israel. She has been awarded both the Israel Prize and the Emil Grunzweig Human Rights Award by the Association for Civil Rights in Israel.
In the past, the US Jewish community leaders were quite familiar with the meaning of those conventions. For some reason, however, they are convinced that Israel is allowed to contravene them.
It's OK to kill civilians, women and children, old people and parents with their children, deliberately or otherwise without accepting any responsibility. It's permissible to rob people of their lands, destroy their crops, and cage them up like animals in the zoo.
From now on, Israelis and International humanitarian organisations' volunteers are prohibited from assisting a woman in labour by taking her to the hospital. [Israeli human rights group] Yesh Din volunteers cannot take a robbed and beaten-up Palestinian to the police station to lodge a complaint. (Police stations are located at the heart of the settlements.) Is there anyone who believes that this is not Apartheid?
Jimmy Carter does not need me to defend his reputation that has been sullied by Israelophile community officials. The trouble is that their love of Israel distorts their judgment and blinds them from seeing what's in front of them. Israel is an occupying power that for 40 years has been oppressing an indigenous people, which is entitled to a sovereign and independent existence while living in peace with us. We should remember that we too used very violent terror against foreign rule because we wanted our own state. And the list of victims of terror is quite long and extensive.
We do limit ourselves to denying the [Palestinian] people human rights. We not only rob of them of their freedom, land and water. We apply collective punishment to millions of people and even, in revenge-driven frenzy, destroy the electricity supply for one and half million civilians. Let them "sit in the darkness" and "starve".
Employees cannot be paid their wages because Israel is holding 500 million shekels that belong to the Palestinians. And after all that we remain "pure as the driven snow". There are no moral blemishes on our actions. There is no racial separation. There is no Apartheid. It's an invention of the enemies of Israel. Hooray for our brothers and sisters in the US! Your devotion is very much appreciated. You have truly removed a nasty stain from us. Now there can be an extra spring in our step as we confidently abuse the Palestinian population, using the "most moral army in the world".
Life in the settlements -- 60 Minutes
CBS News' 60 minutes:
http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=4752349n
YOu keep posting the same long things every post seriously, please don't post the same things over and over,
Shulamit Aloni is one of the Extereme left elements in this country and she has a right to her opinion although most of the country doesn't agree with her, unfortunately I cant find one Imam in gaza or in the west bank that says we should strive for peace, Maybe there are a few in America And India, not many in the middle east.
You keep saying I am Jewish as if it makes a difference
Vie haf vays of making those untermensch squirm!
Don't you BUDDAH. Tell us about the extreme left and your democracy!
Being jewish sure makes a difference in your democracy.
Don't you wish that hizbollah was more like Gaza and didn't actually shoot back!
Shoot back, we shoot back my friend they are muslim fanatics which you seem to admire so much.
The hizbullah hasn't shot at anyhting for a long time, why would they shoot in the first place we are not in Lebanon, we left at 2000, all it would do is bring death and destruction and they know it that is why they have been tamed for the time being.
Budahh what planet are you on.
The facts are Israel occupies land and has ethnically cleansed it in order to grow. The remainder of Palestinians are treated like criminals. And you complain they are resisting?
Would you have liked Jews in Germany to call for appeasement in the 1940s as well?
Ethnically cleansed? You mean like Yemen?
Or Gaza?
.
Or Jordan?
.
Or Saudia Arabia?
.
Or Iraq?
.
Or Syria?
.
Shall we go on?
NYTimes:
"Israel is simultaneously running three systems of government. The first is full democracy toward its Jewish citizens — ethnocracy. The second is racial discrimination toward the Palestinian minority — creeping Jim Crowism. And the third is occupation of the Palestinian territories with one set of laws for Palestinians and another for Jewish settlers — apartheid."
Op-Ed Contributor
A Harsh Reality for Palestinians
By AHMAD TIBI
Published: April 6, 2009
JERUSALEM — The right-wing coalition of the new Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, does not bode well for Palestinians in Israel. With the appointment of Avigdor Lieberman as foreign minister, the extremists are going after the indigenous population and threatening us with loyalty tests and the possibility of “transfer” into an area nominally controlled by the Palestinian Authority.
Netanyahu’s intransigence vis-à-vis Palestinians in the occupied territories is certainly cause for concern. No less concerning is what the Netanyahu-Lieberman combination may mean to Palestinian citizens of Israel.
This government, particularly with Lieberman as foreign minister, should be boycotted by the international community, just as it once boycotted Jörg Haider, the late Austrian far-right politician who won global notoriety for his anti-immigrant views.
Lieberman, in one of many outrageous comments, declared in May 2004 that 90 percent of Israel’s Palestinian citizens “have no place here. They can take their bundles and get lost.”
But my family and I were on this land centuries before Lieberman arrived here in 1978 from Moldova. We are among the minority who managed to remain when some 700,000 Palestinians were forced out by Israel in 1948.
Today, Lieberman stokes anti-Palestinian sentiment with his threat of “transfer” — a euphemism for renewed ethnic cleansing. Henry Kissinger, too, has called for a territorial swap, and Lieberman cites Kissinger to give his noxious idea a more sophisticated sheen. Lieberman and Kissinger envision exchanging a portion of Israel for a portion of the occupied West Bank seized illegally by Jewish settlers.
But Israel has no legal right to any of the occupied Palestinian territories. And Lieberman has no right to offer the land my home is on in exchange for incorporating Jewish settlers into newly defined Israeli state borders. We are citizens of the state of Israel and do not want to exchange our second-class citizenship in our homeland — subject as we are to numerous laws that discriminate against us — for life in a Palestinian Bantustan.
We take our citizenship seriously and struggle daily to improve our lot and overcome discriminatory laws and practices.
We face discrimination in all fields of life. Arab citizens are 20 percent of the population, but only 6 percent of the employees in the public sector. Not one Arab employee is working in the central bank of Israel. Imagine if there was not one African-American citizen employed in the central bank of the United States.
Israel is simultaneously running three systems of government. The first is full democracy toward its Jewish citizens — ethnocracy. The second is racial discrimination toward the Palestinian minority — creeping Jim Crowism. And the third is occupation of the Palestinian territories with one set of laws for Palestinians and another for Jewish settlers — apartheid.
A few weeks ago, Lieberman’s Yisrael Beiteinu Party led the charge in the Israeli Knesset to ban my party — the Arab Movement for Renewal — from participating in the elections. Netanyahu’s Likud also supported the action. The Supreme Court overturned the maneuvers of the politicians. But their attempt to ban our participation should expose Israel’s democracy to the world as fraudulent.
Lieberman’s inveighing against Palestinian citizens of Israel is not new. Less than three years ago, he called for my death and the death of some of my Palestinian Knesset colleagues for daring to meet with democratically elected Palestinian leaders. Speaking before the Knesset plenum, Lieberman stated: “World War II ended with the Nuremberg trials. The heads of the Nazi regime, along with their collaborators, were executed. I hope this will be the fate of the collaborators in this house.” Lieberman now has the power to put his vile views into practice.
We call for more attention from the Obama administration toward the Palestinian minority in Israel. It is a repressed minority suffering from inadequately shared state resources. The enormous annual American aid package to Israel fails almost entirely to reach our community.
Between Netanyahu and Lieberman, the Obama administration will have its hands full. Make no mistake that Netanyahu and Lieberman will press the new administration hard to accept Israeli actions in the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem — as well as discriminatory anti-Palestinian actions in Israel itself. Settlements will grow and discrimination deepen. American backbone will be crucial in the months ahead.
Ahmad Tibi is a Palestinian citizen of Israel and a member of the Knesset, Israel’s Parliament.
Reading these comments one thought immediately comes to the forefront of my mind: Keep talking the voice of reason Buddah. You seem to be one of the few people here who actually cites evidence rather than ideology as their primary argumentative ammunition. As for Six Mixx A Lot, don't waste your time with such a kook. His nonsensical rantings won't ever hold any credence in this debate so quit wasting your time trying to win him over and focus on the others who have some semblance of critical thinking.
Anyways, it prides me to see your posts here, and all I can say is I admire your tenacity and hope you continue defending Israel in the face of such blatant half-truths.
Regards,
Gabriel
BUDDAH and LIBERALARTSKID belong to the Joseph Goebbels school o
Did you see the order today enabling the heroic IDF to "transfer" all the Palestinians. How about the news yesterday of the Israeli whistleblower who had 2200 pages of IDF documents instructing your heros to use Palestinian demonstrations as an OPPORTUNITY TO MURDER THEM. Is their anything Israeli that you find offensive? Soap? Lampshades? They're getting awfully close. Do they pay you guys or do you reallllllly believe this stuff?
Wait...but, but Israel is NOT a democracy!? Huh?
NYTimes:
"Israel is simultaneously running three systems of government. The first is full democracy toward its Jewish citizens — ethnocracy. The second is racial discrimination toward the Palestinian minority — creeping Jim Crowism. And the third is occupation of the Palestinian territories with one set of laws for Palestinians and another for Jewish settlers — apartheid."
Op-Ed Contributor
A Harsh Reality for Palestinians
By AHMAD TIBI
Published: April 6, 2009
JERUSALEM — The right-wing coalition of the new Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, does not bode well for Palestinians in Israel. With the appointment of Avigdor Lieberman as foreign minister, the extremists are going after the indigenous population and threatening us with loyalty tests and the possibility of “transfer” into an area nominally controlled by the Palestinian Authority.
Netanyahu’s intransigence vis-à-vis Palestinians in the occupied territories is certainly cause for concern. No less concerning is what the Netanyahu-Lieberman combination may mean to Palestinian citizens of Israel.
This government, particularly with Lieberman as foreign minister, should be boycotted by the international community, just as it once boycotted Jörg Haider, the late Austrian far-right politician who won global notoriety for his anti-immigrant views.
Lieberman, in one of many outrageous comments, declared in May 2004 that 90 percent of Israel’s Palestinian citizens “have no place here. They can take their bundles and get lost.”
But my family and I were on this land centuries before Lieberman arrived here in 1978 from Moldova. We are among the minority who managed to remain when some 700,000 Palestinians were forced out by Israel in 1948.
Today, Lieberman stokes anti-Palestinian sentiment with his threat of “transfer” — a euphemism for renewed ethnic cleansing. Henry Kissinger, too, has called for a territorial swap, and Lieberman cites Kissinger to give his noxious idea a more sophisticated sheen. Lieberman and Kissinger envision exchanging a portion of Israel for a portion of the occupied West Bank seized illegally by Jewish settlers.
But Israel has no legal right to any of the occupied Palestinian territories. And Lieberman has no right to offer the land my home is on in exchange for incorporating Jewish settlers into newly defined Israeli state borders. We are citizens of the state of Israel and do not want to exchange our second-class citizenship in our homeland — subject as we are to numerous laws that discriminate against us — for life in a Palestinian Bantustan.
We take our citizenship seriously and struggle daily to improve our lot and overcome discriminatory laws and practices.
We face discrimination in all fields of life. Arab citizens are 20 percent of the population, but only 6 percent of the employees in the public sector. Not one Arab employee is working in the central bank of Israel. Imagine if there was not one African-American citizen employed in the central bank of the United States.
Israel is simultaneously running three systems of government. The first is full democracy toward its Jewish citizens — ethnocracy. The second is racial discrimination toward the Palestinian minority — creeping Jim Crowism. And the third is occupation of the Palestinian territories with one set of laws for Palestinians and another for Jewish settlers — apartheid.
A few weeks ago, Lieberman’s Yisrael Beiteinu Party led the charge in the Israeli Knesset to ban my party — the Arab Movement for Renewal — from participating in the elections. Netanyahu’s Likud also supported the action. The Supreme Court overturned the maneuvers of the politicians. But their attempt to ban our participation should expose Israel’s democracy to the world as fraudulent.
Lieberman’s inveighing against Palestinian citizens of Israel is not new. Less than three years ago, he called for my death and the death of some of my Palestinian Knesset colleagues for daring to meet with democratically elected Palestinian leaders. Speaking before the Knesset plenum, Lieberman stated: “World War II ended with the Nuremberg trials. The heads of the Nazi regime, along with their collaborators, were executed. I hope this will be the fate of the collaborators in this house.” Lieberman now has the power to put his vile views into practice.
We call for more attention from the Obama administration toward the Palestinian minority in Israel. It is a repressed minority suffering from inadequately shared state resources. The enormous annual American aid package to Israel fails almost entirely to reach our community.
Between Netanyahu and Lieberman, the Obama administration will have its hands full. Make no mistake that Netanyahu and Lieberman will press the new administration hard to accept Israeli actions in the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem — as well as discriminatory anti-Palestinian actions in Israel itself. Settlements will grow and discrimination deepen. American backbone will be crucial in the months ahead.
Ahmad Tibi is a Palestinian citizen of Israel and a member of the Knesset, Israel’s Parliament.
He reposts things repeatedly in the same column.
.
His CBS clip, his commentary, his rants. Etc.
Jeeze give it a rest.
Agreeing that a true two-state solution is the goal of many of Israel's critics appearing on this page, my question is a this: Can any participants in this discussion identify a single leading Palestinian leader who has stated: I accept the existence of a majority Jewish state within secure borders and reject the Palestinian claim to the right of return. While Israelis have never heard such acceptance of a true two-state solution from the Palestinians, they also fear that due to his outreach campaign to Muslim lands, the President and his Secy. of State will be loathe to criticize Palestinians for refusing to relinquish the right of return -- the only means of accomplishing a true two-state solution. Stating, for example, that Abbas has accepted a two-state solution may fool the American and European media, but Israelis, most (though not all) do accept the existence of a Palestinian state, know better.
Unfortunately for the peace process, Israelis also know that using NATO troops to protect Israel's eastern border and residents is problematical -- would NATO troops really be expected to enter a Palestinian state to search for suicide bombers who had struck within Israel? Doubtful.
Similarly, Israelis have little faith that a U.S. nuclear umbrella would protect them from Iran. If Iran would attack Israel, how likely is it that the U.S. would respond militarily if the U.S. were unscathed. Doubtful as well.
Condemning Israel (more than Sudan, etc) increases the likelihood of war, but adding to the Israelis' fear that they stand alone. We may heap scorn upon Israelis who view current events as a rerun of the 1930s, but Israelis of the left (Sneh) and right (Netanyqahu) are united in their fear of what they perceive as an existential threat, a threat which the U.S. has long seem willing to accept.
Final word (I hope) from Prof Barry Rubin
Monday, April 12, 2010
Palestinian Leaders Do It Again! Throw Away Opportunity Obama is Giving Them and Poke Him in the Eye
By Barry Rubin
With their unerring skill at erring, Palestinian Authority (PA) leaders are throwing away still another opportunity President Barack Obama is giving them. If Obama is the most pro-Palestinian president in history, his counterparts don't seem to appreciate it very much. It is the Palestinian leadership, not Israel, that will ultimately make Obama look like and be a failure in all of his peace process efforts.
Brief history:
--Last spring, PA leader Mahmoud Abbas in his first visit to Washington made it clear he wasn't interested in a negotiated solution but just planned to wait for the West to force Israel to give him everything he wanted.
--In September, Abbas stood nearby as Obama said he wanted serious final negotiations within two months, then refused while Israel Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said he was ready to talk right away.
--Shortly thereafter, Obama asked Abbas not to push the Goldstone report as a sponsor in the UN. Abbas agreed, then broke his word within 48 hours under internal pressure.
--At the end of last October, Obama's Administration made a deal in which Israel would stop all construction on West Bank settlements though it could continue in east Jerusalem. While Obama hoped this would get talks going, Abbas demanded an end to construction in Jerusalem, too, which he knew Israel would not accept. Indeed, he demanded it precisely because he knew Israel wouldn't accept it.
--Finally, Abbas agreed to indirect talks but was "saved" when suddenly the U.S. government accepted the PA's position on Jerusalem construction. Yet even that has not been enough to make the PA support Obama's policy despite the fact that it was so slanted in their favor.
Of course, the U.S. criticism of Israel and the crisis following the announcement of some future Jerusalem construction have been the main news. But that's because the Obama Administration is ready (sometimes it seems, eager) to criticize Israel but did ot ever criticize the PA during its own fifteen months in office. This last point--which I have repeatedly pointed out--has become so embarassingly obvious that finally the State Department made a small peep. [See note at end of article.]
So it is easy to miss the fact that by their behavior the Palestinian leadership has lost any possible material gain from the administration's attitude.
Now, here we are in the biggest crisis of U.S.-Israel relations in more than a quarter-century, arguably the biggest crisis in a half-century, since the Eisenhower Administration pressured Israel to withdraw from Sinai in 1957. Not only is the administration really angry at Israel, but it is considering a plan--though this might never happen--to try to impose a solution.
So what's the PA stance? To denounce the idea of an imposed solution! Such a plan according to press reports would give them a lot of what they want--1967 borders, a quick state, minimal conditions, all of pre-1967 Jordanian-controlled Jerusalem. Not bad, eh? But the Palestinians would have to make some concessions, like settling refugees in the state of Palestine rather than flooding Israel with Palestinian Arabs in an effort to paralyze and destroy its society.
On the PA's radio, chief negotiator Saib Arikat (choose your transliteration) said--what a delicious Freudian slip this is--that the Palestinians "don't want new ideas." His proposal is that the United States just recognizes Palestine as a state immediately and urges the UN to accept it as such, followed no doubt by huge international pressure for an immediate unconditional Israeli withdrawal from everywhere in the West Bank and east Jerusalem.
This isn't going to happen, of course. But once again it signals U.S. officials, if they bothered to look, that they will get no cooperation, not even the tiniest concession, and the barest minimum of kind words from the PA. This also makes clear why a solution is impossible and why it would not solve all U.S. problems in the Middle East.
Because even if--this is just for the sake of explanation--the Obama Administration were to give the Palestinian leadership 99 percent of what it wants, it would still have to force it to concede 1 percent. Also it wojld forecolose--at least in theory--wiping Israel off the map. That would lead to the political settlement being denounced by all Islamists, all militant Arab nationalists, and many Arab governments.
I'm not even sure if the Egyptian and Jordanian media would applaud Obama. The latest Palestinian poll (Palestinian Public Opinion Poll no. 40, Center for Opinion Polls and Survey Studies at An-Najah National University, pril 8-10, 2010) asked:
"Do you accept the creation of a Palestinian state on the area of the 1967 borders as a final solution for the Palestinian problem?"
Of those polled, 44.7 percent (and this is after 17 years of supposed moderate policies by the PLO following the Oslo agreement) said "no." While 51.7 percent said "yes," remember that they were almost certainly assuming the Palestinians would get the precise pre-1967 borders plus the right to move to Israel for almost anyone who wanted to do so.
And so if Obama were to implement any conceivable negotiated solution--even an extremely pro-Palestinian one by Western standards--he'd be labelled as the man who sold out the Palestinians and go down in history as a betrayer and Zionist imperialist. I'd bet money on being able to collect a considerably large set of clippings denouncing him as worse--more "anti-Muslim" and "anti-Arab"--than George W. Bush! And if you think that isn't likely then, forgive me for saying so, you don't really understand how Middle East politics work.
The United States would not be portrayed as a hero because it created Palestine but a villain because it robbed the Arabs of getting everything some day. Terrorism against American targets would go up, as it would argued that the Americans had forever destroyed the chance of wiping Israel off the map. Of course, terrorism against any Palestinian leaders who agreed to such terms would also break out. Abbas's knowing this is one of the reasons he will say "no" to everything.
And don't ever forget that little detail: If Palestine is proclaimed a state, presumably Hamas is the legal government of about half of it, despite the fact that it is a terrorist, antisemitic, genocide-seeking client of Iran which won't even accept the agreement that makes Palestine a state. Here's one example of the ridiculous situation that would prevail: If the Hamas government wanted to import long-range missiles from Iran and Israel tried to stop it by intercepting them with its navy, would the UN then be able to accuse Israel of an act of aggression against a sovereign state?
Again, nothing is going to happen, not because of Israel but because the PA will torpedo any U.S. effort to solve the issue no matter how bad the terms seem for Israel. Meanwhile U.S. policymakers will pretend this isn't happening, that the United States isn't constantly being insulted by the PA.
Unless you understand the above, the whole story of the Arab-Israeli and Israel-Palestinian conflict makes no sense.
Question 1: During the four years of the Obama Administration's term in office, will his officials ever publicly criticize the PA for anything it does, including honoring terrorists who killed Americans? Prediction: No it won't.
Question 2: During the four years of the Obama Administration's term in office, will the Palestinians make any material gain due to his being so supportive of them? Prediction: No they won't because the extremist goals and intransigence of their leadership will prevent thus.
Note: At last the State Department issues a very mild criticism of the PA, after ignoring for almost two weeks the issue in question. On April 8, it made the following statement:
"Regarding the Middle East, we are disturbed by comments of Palestinian Authority officials regarding reconstruction and refurbishing of Jewish sites in the Jewish quarter of Jerusalem’s Old City. Remarks by the Palestinian ministry of information denying Jewish heritage in and links to Jerusalem undermine the trust and confidence needed for substantive and productive Israeli-Palestinian negotiations. We also strongly condemn the glorification of terrorists honoring terrorists who have murdered innocent civilians either by official statements or by the dedication of public places hurts peace efforts and must end. We will continue to hold Palestinian leaders accountable for incitement. "
But this isolated statement seems to have been made for form's sake and when compared to the administration's outrage at Israel looks quite limited. I predict we won't be hearing about any follow-up to these issues.
What makes this particularly ridiculous is that the PA named a square in honor of a terrorist who murdered both Israelis and Americans--for more on this issue see HERE--during Vice-President Joe Biden's visit yet there was no talk about the United States being insulted nor was there any major crisis with the PA declared by the U.S. government. Indeed, well after the affair happened, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was insisting that the deed had been done by Hamas, an absurd error which--to my knowledge--has never been formally corrected by her office.
(32)
HIDE COMMENTS LOGIN OR REGISTER REPORT ABUSE