Hoyer-Cantor Letter in Support of Israel: DOCUMENT

327 Representatives were signatories to the letter.

Dear Secretary Clinton:

We are writing to reaffirm our commitment to the unbreakable bond that exists between our country and the State of Israel and to express to you our deep concern over recent tension. In every important relationship, there will be occasional misunderstandings and conflicts. The announcement during Vice President Biden's visit was, as Israel's Prime Minister said in an apology to the United States, "a regrettable incident that was done in all innocence and was hurtful, and which certainly should not have occurred." We are reassured that Prime Minister Netanyahu's commitment to put in place new procedures will ensure that such surprises, however unintended, will not recur.

The United States and Israel are close allies whose people share a deep and abiding friendship based on a shared commitment to core values including democracy, human rights and freedom of the press and religion. Our two countries are partners in the fight against terrorism and share an important strategic relationship. A strong Israel is an asset to the national security of the United States and brings stability to the Middle East. We are concerned that the highly publicized tensions in the relationship will not advance the interests the U.S. and Israel share. Above all, we must remain focused on the threat posed by the Iranian nuclear weapons program to Middle East peace and stability.

From the moment of Israel's creation, successive U.S. administrations have appreciated the special bond between the U.S. and Israel. For decades, strong, bipartisan Congressional support for Israel, including security assistance and other important measures, have been eloquent testimony to our commitment to Israel's security, which remains unswerving. It is the very strength of this relationship that has, in fact, made Arab-Israeli peace agreements possible, both because it convinced those who sought Israel's destruction to abandon any such hope and because it gave successive Israeli governments the confidence to take calculated risks for peace.

In its declaration of independence 62 years ago, Israel declared: "We extend our hand to all neighboring states and their peoples in an offer of peace and good neighborliness, and appeal to them to establish bonds of cooperation and mutual help with the sovereign Jewish people settled in its own land." In the decades since, despite constantly having to defend itself from attack, Israel has repeatedly made good on that pledge by offering to undertake painful risks to reach peace with its neighbors.

Our valuable bilateral relationship with Israel needs and deserves constant reinforcement. As the Vice-President said during his recent visit to Israel: "Progress occurs in the Middle East when everyone knows there is simply no space between the U.S. and Israel when it comes to security, none. No space." Steadfast American backing has helped lead to Israeli peace treaties with Egypt and Jordan. And American involvement continues to be critical to the effort to achieve peace between Israel and the Palestinians.

We recognize that, despite the extraordinary closeness between our country and Israel, there will be differences over issues both large and small. Our view is that such differences are best resolved quietly, in trust and confidence, as befits longstanding strategic allies. We hope and expect that, with mutual effort and good faith, the United States and Israel will move beyond this disruption quickly, to the lasting benefit of both nations. We believe, as President Obama said, that "Israel's security is paramount" in our Middle East policy and that "it is in U.S. national security interests to assure that Israel's security as an independent Jewish state is maintained." In that spirit, we look forward to working with you to achieve the common objectives of the U.S. and Israel, especially regional security and peace.


Sincerely,

STENY HOYER
Majority Leader

ERIC CANTOR
Republican Whip

HOWARD L. BERMAN
Chairman, Committee on Foreign Affairs

ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN
Ranking Republican Member, Committee on Foreign Affairs

GARY ACKERMAN
Chairman, Subcommittee on the Middle East and South Asia

DAN BURTON
Ranking Republican Member, Subcommittee on the Middle East and South Asia

See this and related postings at Israel Behind the News

The Future of an Illusion: A piece of paper will not bring peace to the Middle East

by Elliott Abrams in the Weekly Standard

Those who cannot remember the past are condemned, it seems, to direct the Middle East policy of the Obama administration.

Since the Oslo Accords of 1993, 17 years of efforts under three American presidents and six Israeli prime ministers have taught five clear lessons. Each of them is being ignored by President Obama, which is why his own particular "peace process" has so greatly harmed real efforts at peace. Today the only factor uniting Palestinian, Israeli, and Arab leaders is distrust of the quality, sagacity, and reliability of American leadership in the region.

The patching-up efforts of the last two weeks were impressive, but perversely: They showed how much damage had been done and how little the administration cares about reversing it. Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu, against whom Obama was said to be "boiling with rage" after the Jerusalem housing announcement, got the complete slate of Washington meetings: Clinton, Gates, Biden, Obama. But the meetings were virtually secret: The White House did not permit a single photo to be taken of the Oval Office session, an unprecedented snub. Same at State: no ceremony, no press conference.

For her part, Secretary Clinton told the giant AIPAC meeting, "Our credibility in this process depends in part on our willingness to praise both sides when they are courageous, and when we don't agree, to say so, and say so unequivocally." Several recent Palestinian actions, she said, were "provocations" that are "wrong and must be condemned." That was nice, but saying it to a Jewish audience in a kiss-and-make-up session in Washington fools no one, not after her famous 43-minute telephone call to Netanyahu. These "provocations.   .  . that must be condemned" (note the passive voice) did not after all elicit a timely call to Palestinian Authority president Mahmoud Abbas condemning them, nor did she use the Quartet meeting in Moscow on March 19 for that purpose. And general administration protestations that the United States is committed to Israel's security and that relations are "rock solid" now carry little persuasive power; they sound like Obama's (and for that matter Clinton's) campaign rhetoric, and everyone knows how useful a guide to administration policy all of that proved to be.

What are the lessons the Obama team is ignoring?

1. Israel's flexibility is dependent on its sense of security.

Martin Indyk, Bill Clinton's ambassador to Israel, put it this way in his memoirs: "The record.  .  . suggests that American presidents can be more successful when they put their arms around Israeli prime ministers and encourage them to move forward, rather than attempt to browbeat them into submission." During the George W. Bush years, the leader of the Israeli right, Ariel Sharon, decided to abandon the idea of a "Greater Israel," impose constraints on settlement construction in the West Bank (no new settlements, no outward expansion of settlement territory), and remove every settlement in Gaza and four small ones in the West Bank. His closest advisers say all of this was possible for him only in the context of unwavering American support for Israel's security steps - including the targeting and killing of Hamas terrorists and the refusal to deal with a terrorist leader like Arafat. What was the turning point for Sharon? Bush's June 24, 2002, speech, where he abandoned Arafat, denounced Palestinian terrorism, and said thorough reforms were the only possible basis for Palestinian statehood. Reassured, Sharon began to act.

Contrast this with the Obama administration, where Israel has been "condemned" - the toughest word in the diplomatic dictionary - for a housing project. Instead of seeking practical and politically feasible limits to settlement activity, the Obama approach has been to say every brick cemented to another was "illegitimate."

Israelis know that these American denunciations of Israel liberate Europeans and others to crank up their own, and so it has been this past year: Israel has been increasingly isolated and criticized internationally. Once we used "condemn," it was impossible (even if we were trying, which we were not) to keep it out of Quartet and EU statements. Add a few other international assaults (the Goldstone Report on the Gaza war, for instance) and American acts of distancing (the president visits Cairo and Riyadh but skips Israel, for example), and Israelis are in no mood for additional risktaking. Who, after all, will have their back if things get rough? Hillary Clinton told AIPAC that "the status quo is unsustainable," as if just about anything we can get on paper would be better. Such phrases do not inspire Israeli confidence that their country's security is anywhere near the top of the administration's list. All this should be elementary, but it seems to have escaped the Obama White House.

2. The failure to set standards for Palestinian conduct hurts the cause of peace.

In the Bill Clinton years, the foreign leader who visited the White House most often was Yasser Arafat - 13 times. Who can blame Arafat for failing to take seriously criticism of his "alleged links" to terrorism when the invitations kept on coming? For years, American officials of both parties have said the "incitement must end," but they have imposed no penalty for its failure to end. When in March the Palestinian Authority (PA) named a square for a terrorist involved in an attack in 1978 that killed 38 Israelis, including 13 children, Obama, Biden, and Clinton were silent. Lower-ranking officials tut-tutted. In Palestinian society, the veneration of this terrorist, Dalal Mughrabi, is widespread; Fatah, not Hamas, is the one celebrating Mughrabi. PA radio and television incite hatred of Israel and Jews with regularity, as Palestinian Media Watch and MEMRI document every month.

In recent weeks the Obama administration has stated that both sides have responsibilities to meet, but it made no serious demands of the PA. Had there been early and regular insistence that incitement end, the Mughrabi incident would never have taken place. The price for such negligence is being paid in both Israeli and Palestinian society: Every such action and every vicious broadcast helps persuade Israelis that Palestinians do not truly seek peace and helps raise a new generation of Palestinians who see Jews as enemies to hate, not neighbors with whom to reach an accommodation. This infantilization of Palestinian society, moreover, moves it further from the responsibilities of statehood, for it holds harmless the most destructive elements of West Bank life and suggests that standards of decency are not necessarily part of progress toward "peace."

A tough demand that all the incitement end now - no more terrorist squares, a clean-up of Palestinian broadcasting, the replacement of offending school textbooks - would both help Palestinian moderates undertake these actions and reassure Israelis that President Obama shares at least some of their concerns about the ability of Palestinians to negotiate and sustain a peace deal. The silence thus far, the unconvincing and rote handling of this issue, leaves the impression that Obama simply wants a deal signed and doesn't much care about what happens after that. Like his distancing himself from Israel and his apparent lack of concern for Israeli security, this undermines any chance of successful peace talks.

3. Israeli withdrawals do not lead to peace unless law and order can be maintained by responsible security forces.

Israelis learned this the hard way in South Lebanon and Gaza, and it is unquestionably the greatest factor leading them to oppose a similar withdrawal from the West Bank. The Labor party leader Ehud Barak is not viewed in Israel as a hardliner; when he was prime minister he offered Arafat a dramatic peace proposal in 2000. But when, as defense minister, he met with President Bush in 2008 he handed over, and raised repeatedly in later meetings with Secretary Rice, a list of Israel's security needs in the West Bank. He and Netanyahu (and the vast majority of Israelis) are of one mind on this: Terrorism from Gaza is a security challenge for Israel, but terrorism from the West Bank threatens Israel's survival. There has been considerable progress in training Palestinian security forces, but no one believes they can yet maintain order without the presence of the IDF and Shin Bet. Those who say, as George Mitchell - Obama's special envoy to the Middle East - and the Quartet have, that there can be a peace deal in 24 months are saying that fundamental security issues can be finessed or forgotten. Of course they can if your goal is a piece of paper - or, perhaps better put, a paper peace. If you want a real and lasting peace, you must have the answer to the question: What will fill the vacuum when Israeli forces leave? Today the answer is chaos or Hamas, and any prediction that in 24 months these matters will be resolved shows a lack of seriousness. Palestinians who value law and order and seek to build a decent society, as well as Jordanians who worry what forces will be across the river from them, cannot be so cavalier. This brings us back to lesson one: If the United States is intent on a deal in 24 months no matter what, Israelis will understand that we are not going to protect their security and that we'll complain when they assert the need to do it themselves.

4. The Israeli-Palestinian dispute is not the center of world, Arab, or Muslim politics.

George Mitchell once acknowledged that when he talks to Arab leaders they raise Iran first, but no one in the administration wants to allow mere facts to interfere with their ideology. George W. Bush was as close as any American president ever has been to Israel, but had excellent relations with the Moroccan, Algerian, Emirati, Omani, Bahraini, Kuwaiti, Saudi, and Jordanian rulers - all except the Egyptians, who were annoyed that he thought they should have free elections. Paying attention to what Arab political leaders say publicly about Israel is foolish, for their real views consist of tough-minded assessments of the balance of power in the region. What they want most of all is calm; they do not want their streets riled up by Israeli-Palestinian violence. Palestinians are not at the center of their hearts or they would visit the West Bank and bring plenty of cash with them. What preoccupies them is survival and Iran. If they take any lesson from the current coldness between the United States and Israel, it is that the United States is not a reliable ally. If we can ditch Israel, they know we can far more easily ditch them.

The most perverse misunderstanding along these lines is the thought that supporting Israel is risking American lives in Iraq and Afghanistan and in the war on terror. Vice President Biden is reported to have told Netanyahu that "this is starting to get dangerous for us. What you're doing here undermines the security of our troops who are fighting in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan." White House denials suggest that the quotation is not exact, but there has also been no flat-out denial of the sentiment. David Axelrod, the political hack who appears to be a key foreign policy strategist and spokesman for the president, was asked on one of the Sunday shows if he agreed that settlement construction puts U.S. troops' lives at risk. He replied, "It is important for our own security that we move forward and resolve this very difficult issue." Not exactly a resounding "no." General David Petraeus, the CENTCOM commander, told the Senate that "clearly the tensions in these issues have an enormous effect on the strategic context in which we operate in the Central Command area of responsibility." Once again, not a "No way" or a "Get real." Petraeus had a chance to say the Pakistanis are not thinking hard about West Bank settlement construction when they watch the Taliban and developments in Waziristan, and he failed to do so then or in later explanations. How hard would it have been for him or some other official to remind everyone that Osama bin Laden became a terrorist to overthrow the government in Riyadh, not the one in Jerusalem? The struggles between modernizers and traditionalists, Sunni and Shia, secularists and Islamists are tearing the Islamic and the Arab world apart. They would continue to do so if Israel no longer existed.

Israelis listening to official American remarks hear an amateurish interpretation of Arab politics, which as Lee Smith reminded us in his recent book (quoting bin Laden himself) is basically about backing the strong horse. Arab leaders want to know what we will do to stop Iran; they want to know if their ally in Washington is going to be the top power in the region. Israelis wonder where the "uh oh, this will make Islamic extremists angry" argument stops. Does anyone think al Qaeda or the Taliban would be mollified by a settlement freeze? The Islamists are not interested in "1967 issues" related to Israel's size, but in "1948 issues" related to Israel's existence. If henceforth we mean to engage such people rather than to defeat them, Israel's existence - not its settlement policy - comes into play.

If this is not the Obama view of the world, the administration should say so quickly and very clearly. Otherwise his administration can fairly be said to be revisiting our own "1948 issues." The argument that Israel would be a great burden and ruin our place in the Arab world was proffered then by George Marshall - and rejected by Harry Truman. In his memoirs, Clark Clifford wrote at length about the State Department's efforts to stop Truman from recognizing the new State of Israel. Clifford quoted Marshall's deputy Robert Lovett as saying on May 14, 1948 - the day Israel declared its independence and Truman offered recognition - "There will be a tremendous reaction in the Arab world. We might lose the effects of many years of hard work with the Arabs. We will lose our position with Arab leaders. It will put our diplomatic missions and consular representatives in personal jeopardy." After 60 years of American leadership and military dominance in the Middle East, it should be as disturbing to Americans - not least to Democrats who venerate Truman - as it is to Israelis that traces of this approach are emerging again in Washington.

Netanyahu answered these poor arguments in his address to AIPAC:

"Our soldiers and your soldiers fight against fanatic enemies that loathe our common values. In the eyes of these fanatics, we are you and you are us. To them, the only difference is that you are big and we are small, you are the Great Satan and we are the Little Satan."

5. The 'peace process' retards peace.

A single-minded concentration on "the peace process" hurts the cause of peace and moderation throughout the region and does little to build the necessary institutions of Palestinian society. It's obvious that nearly two decades of negotiations have not produced peace. Instead this focus has had two deleterious effects.

First, it means we care more about getting Syria, Egypt, or others to endorse some negotiating plan than we do about their own internal situations. The people, the politics, the alliances of such countries become unimportant, as we focus on whether their rulers will deign to sit at some table we've laid. Human rights and democracy issues evaporate.

Second, we use all our chips for the negotiating sessions, instead of applying them to the hard work of nation building. We ask Arab states to reach out to Israel (which they will not do) when we should be demanding that they reach out to the Palestinians (which they might). We explode, and damage U.S.-Israeli relations, over a tiny construction announcement because it might slow "proximity talks" Mitchell has cooked up. We use American influence with Israel not to promote economic growth in the West Bank, but to try and impede Jewish (never Arab) construction in Israel's capital city. This set of priorities is perverse and will not lead to peace. Instead, a pragmatic approach that seeks to create in the West Bank a decent society and a state that will maintain law and order should be our goals.

The last week of March brought talk of "reconciliation" between the Obama administration and the government of Israel. Relations are so strained that we, too, appear to need our own set of "proximity talks" now. But reconciliation is not a simple matter, as the Catholic Church knows. In that faith, it is a sacrament consisting of three elements: conversion, confession, and celebration. Conversion is the internal realization of wrongdoing, confession is the external admission of it, and celebration follows when (and only when) the sinner has converted, repented, confessed, and returned. Given the Obama administration's view of Israel and the Middle East, celebration seems a long way off.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elliott_Abrams

Elliott Abrams (born January 24, 1948) is an American lawyer and politician who served in foreign policy positions for two Republican U.S. Presidents, Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush. He is currently a senior fellow for Middle Eastern studies at the Council on Foreign Relations.[6]

During the Reagan administration, Abrams gained notoriety for his involvement controversial foreign policy decisions regarding Nicaragua and El Salvador. During Bush's first term, he served as Special Assistant to the President and Senior Director on the National Security Council for Near East and North African Affairs. At the start of Bush's second term, Abrams was promoted to be his Deputy National Security Advisor for Global Democracy Strategy, in charge of promoting Bush's strategy of advancing democracy abroad. His appointment by Bush was controversial due to his conviction in 1991 on two misdemeanor counts of unlawfully withholding information fromCongress during the Iran-Contra Affair investigation.

See this article and more at Israel Behind the News

Israel's New Enemy: America?

"Enemy: "a person who feels hatred for, fosters harmful designs against, or
engages in antagonistic activities against another; an adversary or
opponent." - Dictionary.com

Despite Vice President Joe Biden's recent pledge of unswerving fidelity to
Israel during his recent visit there, the rhetoric and pressure directed by
the Obama administration against the only fully functioning democracy in the
Middle East more accurately resembles the behavior of an enemy. Increasingly
under this administration - but also present in Republican administrations -
America's policy toward Israel is full of "harmful designs" and
"antagonistic activities." The intentions may not be deliberate, but the
outcome would lead to the same injurious end.

The latest pretext for putting more pressure on Israel to do more in the
"pursuit of peace" comes from a decision by Israel's Interior Ministry to
construct 1,600 new housing units in the east Jerusalem neighborhood of
Ramat Shlomo, which is located in "disputed territory." To the Palestinians
and their Arab and Muslim neighbors, most especially Iran and Syria, all of
Israel is "disputed territory." It is difficult to understand why the U.S.
State Department thinks not building a few houses is going to dissuade
Israel's enemies from wanting less than they want now.

The failure of this formula has been evident for decades, but U.S. policy
continues to employ it, always with the same results. Whether Israel's
concessions have been unilateral - most recently with its abandonment of the
Gaza Strip, which predictably led to terrorist attacks from that territory -
or negotiated deals which the Palestinians have never lived up to, Israel
always ends up getting its pocket picked. Then, the United States, the U.N.,
Europe and Russia demand that it put more valuables in its pocket so the
thieves can continue their thievery.

Every weekday NewsAndOpinion.com publishes what many in the media and
Washington consider "must-reading". HUNDREDS of columnists and cartoonists
regularly appear. Sign up for the daily update. It's free. Just click here.

A Washington Post headline illustrates the deteriorating relationship
between the two nations, "U.S. Pushes Netanyahu to Accept 3 Demands." There
is no similar demand that the Palestinians and especially Hamas, which has
said it will agree to nothing less than the eradication of Israel, should
accept anything, not even the minimal acceptance of Israel's right to exist.
Meanwhile, Hamas has called on Palestinians to launch a third "intifada."

After apologizing to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton for the "offense" of
the housing announcement during Biden's visit, Netanyahu reminded the
Israeli parliament that Israel has been building in east Jerusalem for four
decades. He said, "The building of those Jewish neighborhoods in no way hurt
the Arabs of East Jerusalem and did not come at their expense."

That doesn't matter when the wrong formula is employed. In this twisted
thinking, whatever Israel does is unjustified so long as the
Palestinian-Arab-Muslim side is unhappy. What part of annihilation does the
State Department not understand? What State is blind to is that the
"Israeli-Palestinian conflict," as it is erroneously labeled, is part of a
worldwide religious war against all things Jewish, Christian, secular,
modern and Western.

Making demands of only one side before serious negotiations begin,
especially on matters of Jerusalem, so-called "refugees" and borders,
effectively pressures Israel into making concessions on all three, which
would severely damage its prospects for continued existence.

How about first making these demands of the Palestinian-Arab-Muslim side:
(1) A pledge of no more war with Israel, or terrorism; 2) a declaration by a
powerful Islamic cleric that their God no longer requires them to kill
people who don't believe as they do; and 3) no more teaching in Palestinian
textbooks and in their media that Jews created AIDS and descend from monkeys
and pigs?

After those three demands are met, the State Department can start making
demands of Israel. Not before. Anything less puts America on the wrong side,
along with Israel's (and America's) enemies. Or hasn't State noticed that we
share the same enemies?

See the original article in the Jewish World Review
See this and related postings at Israel Behind the News

The Philadelphia Bulletin: Persian Purim Summit in Damascus

by David Bedein

JERUSALEM - Purim festivities throughout Israel last week celebrated the defeat of a Persian politician who sought to rally the world to murder every Jew on earth and also to stifle the return of the Jews to Jerusalem 2400 years ago.

Middle East headlines of the past week seemed tailor-made for Purim, as the president of Iran - the modern day Persia - arrived in Damascus to meet with the president of Syria, and the secretary general of Hezbollah met on Thursday in Damascus with today’s Persian politician opening their summit with a declaration that he looked forward to “a Middle East with no more Jews.”

The meeting between Hezbollah Secretary General Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah and Iranian leader Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was one of the rare occasions that Mr. Nasrallah left one of the safe-houses he uses in Lebanon.

Mr. Nasrallah told the media that he began the meeting by outlining a number of scenarios in which Israel might begin an attack on Hezbollah.

He said he believed that the chances of that happening were slim, but noted, “We have to be ready and prepared for any possibility.”

Mr. Nasrallah and Mr. Ahmadinejad were joined by Syrian President Bashar Assad, who invited them to dinner in the palace.

The three leaders said that they discussed the level of Hezbollah’s readiness and military preparations, the ties with the Lebanese army and the level of training being given by the Iranians in Hezbollah training camps.

The Iranian president capitalized on his visit to the Syrian capital to meet with the leaders of the ten Palestinian factions that have offices in Damascus-the “rejectionist front”-first and foremost, Hamas Political Bureau Director Khaled Mashal.

A Hezbollah spokesman announced that Mr. Ahmadinejad gave everyone their own job in the event of a war with Israel: “Syria is ready for any attack by Israel, either large or small. It has a commitment for full Iranian backing and support.”

Abed Albari Atwan, the editor of the London-based Al-Quds Al-Arabi, described the summit meeting as a “war council.” “Not since the great wars against Israel,” he wrote, “has there been a meeting of this magnitude and of this power... This is Assad’s answer to Hillary Clinton’s demand of Syria, on the eve of Ahmadinejad’s visit, to weaken its ties with Iran.

Assad informed her, for all intents and purposes: I’ve given up on the American axis, which is a joke, in my opinion, and hasn’t given me anything. I have no intention of dismantling a 30-year-old strategic alliance with Iran. As far as I’m concerned, Syria can continue to live without an American ambassador in Damascus.”

See this story in the Philadelphia Bulletin
See this report at Israel Behind the News

The Philadelphia Bulletin: State Dept.: Obama’s Demands To Stop West Bank Expansion Includes Jerusalem

by David Bedein

Jerusalem - Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has issued an unprecedented statement clarifying President Barack Obama’s demands for Israel to stop expanding Jewish communities in areas it acquired following the 1967 Six-Day War, including Jerusalem.

The statement, issued Wednesday, applies to the area known in Israel by their Biblical names, Judea and Samaria, and as the West Bank by the international community.

There are now 128 Jewish communities in these areas, with a population of almost 300,000 Jews.

Mrs. Clinton explained President Obama demands that there should be no expansion in these communities for the purpose of “natural growth.”

That would include an American demand to stop construction of kindergartens, schools and housing for young couples.

“West Bank maps” issued by the United Nations also include 18 Jewish neighborhoods inside the municipal boundaries of Jerusalem, in areas inside the city that Israel formally annexed after the 1967 war.

One of the Jerusalem neighborhoods resettled by Jews after the 1967 war is the Old City of Jerusalem, which hosts the Temple Mount, the holiest place in the world to the Jewish people.

Ms. Clinton’s press spokesman was asked if President Obama’s demand to halt expansion of “West Bank Jewish communities” included a demand to stop expansion of Jewish neighborhoods in Jerusalem.

The answer was affirmative. The U.S. State Department demands that Israel limit Jewish growth in these areas of Jerusalem, “whose status remains to be determined” in negotiations.

Israeli Government Press Director Daniel Seamen reacted to this Obama administration statement by saying: “I have to admire the residents of Iroquois territory for assuming that they have a right to determine where Jews should live in Jerusalem.”

View this story at Israel Behind the News

The Philadelphia Bulletin: Obama to Peres: We Are Committed to Your Security

by David Bedein

Israeli President Shimon Peres held a private meeting on Monday with President Barack Obama.

On Tuesday, details of that meeting emerged.

An expanded meeting consisting representatives of the U.S. and Israeli governments preceded the private meeting between the two presidents.

Ron Dermer, adviser to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu; Israeli Ambassador to the U.S., Sallai Meridor; and Mr. Peres’ adviser, Avi Gil, participated.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, National Security Adviser James Jones and the director of the Middle East department at the National Security Council, Dan Shapiro, represented the American side during the prior meeting.

During the private meeting, Mr. Obama said the American commitment to the State of Israel’s security was unequivocal and would find expression throughout the president’s entire term. This commitment to Israel’s security is at the top of the United States’ priorities, Mr. Obama said.

Mr. Peres took the opportunity to talk about matters connected with Iran in order to explain one of Israel’s concerns to Mr. Obama.

He said: “We must not repeat the terrible mistake that brought about the atrocity of the Holocaust, he said. Iran is the world’s problem, not only Israel’s, but it disturbs us very much, mainly because of our history as Jews. You must understand: after what we as Jews have gone through, we must open our eyes to reality, and reality is extremely disturbing.”

President Obama mentioned his future meeting with the prime minister of Israel, saying: “I look forward to my meeting with Netanyahu and am sure that we will be able to work together in positive cooperation,” he said.

Mr. Peres said his earlier meeting with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton took place in an excellent atmosphere.

“She asked me many questions about the composition of the coalition,” he said. He commented that he and Clinton had spoken about Hamas, “which lives according to the religious dictates of eternity, as compared with a political organization like Fatah, which must hold negotiations.”

See this story in the Philadelphia Bulletin
See this story at Israel Behind the News

Clinton Visits Israel

Secretary Of State Talks About Gaza Aid, Envoys To Syria

Yesterday, Hillary Rodham Clinton spent a day in Israel for the first time in her role as the Secretary of State.

The first matter of business that Mrs. Clinton addressed upon her Jerusalem arrival was Gaza.

The report that she gave to Israel from Monday’s conference in Sharm el-Sheikh, Egypt - where 81 kings, presidents, prime ministers, foreign ministers and representatives of aid organizations pledged $5 billion to aid Gaza - topped her agenda. The Israeli government had requested an invitation to the conference; however, organizers were adamant in their response to Jerusalem: “You are not invited.”

Mrs. Clinton opened her remarks in Israel by saying the U.S. would transfer $900 million to the Palestinians: $300 million for rebuilding Gaza and $600 million to be deposited with Palestinian Authority (PA) Prime Minister Salam Fayyad for developing economic projects in the West Bank.

Throughout her one-day visit to Israel, Mrs. Clinton addressed the contentious issue of how the American government and the other 80 donor nations could transfer funds to Gaza without the funds going through Hamas, which maintains a tight totalitarian grip on Gaza.

However, Mrs. Clinton’s spokesman brushed off the query posed by The Bulletin as to how she could prevent American government funds from finding their way into Hamas’ hands in Gaza, because Mr. Fayyad acts in accordance with the Mecca Accord of March 2007. The Mecca Accord, agreed to in Saudi Arabia by the representatives of Hamas and the Palestinian Authority (PA), obligates the PA to pay Hamas salaries in Gaza, including for armed Hamas military units that continue to fire rockets into Israeli communities throughout the Western Negev region.

Hamas has fired 120 times into Israel from Gaza since the Israeli government declared a self-imposed cease-fire on Jan. 18, after 22 days of an Israeli military incursion into Gaza, which Israel launched with the aim of stopping Hamas from firing into Israel.

With $5 billion of pledges in hand, even while Hamas continues attacks on Israel, the Israeli intelligence community believes Hamas will be the main beneficiary of the Sharm el-Sheikh conference.

An Israeli intelligence officials said, “Only Hamas will benefit from Gaza’s rebuilding - and not the people of Gaza. Hamas can further consolidate and strengthen its rule and impose Islamic hegemony on Gaza.”

Mrs. Clinton also announced she plans to dispatch two emissaries to Syria: Mr. Jeffrey Feltman, a former U.S. ambassador to Lebanon and now acting assistant secretary of state for Near Eastern affairs, and Dan Shapiro, head of the Middle East desk of the White House’s National Security Council.

What no one reported, however, is Mr. Shapiro is far from popular in Syria because he was one of the key congressional staffers who authored the bipartisan-backed Syria Accountability Act, which was signed into law in May 2004.

The act’s purpose was to force the American government to act against Syrian support for terrorism, to end Syria’s presence in Lebanon, to top Syria’s development of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and to stem Syrian shipments of military items to anti-U.S. forces in Iraq. By dispatching one of the key players of the Syria Accountability Act to Damascus, Mrs. Clinton conveyed a double message from Jerusalem to Syria: The United States will launch a dialogue with Syria, yet only in the context of the Syria Accountability Act.

View the original article in the Philadelphia Bulletin