How to Communicate Concern Over US Middle East Policy to Members of the US Congress who oversee US State Dep't Middle East Policies

The time has come for those who advocate for Israel to communicate directly with members of two major US Congressional committees which oversee US middle east policy:



The Middle East Subcommittee of the US House Foreign Affairs Committee

http://www.internationalrelations.house.gov/subcommittees.asp?committee=7



The Neat East Subcommittee of the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee

http://tinyurl.com/2wkcqco




It also behooves those who advocate for Israel to send carefully written letters to the staffers of these committees.



Letters to members of the US Congress should ask the US Congress to

carefully reconsider support for the Fatah dominated PA and for UNRWA, because:.



1. The Fatah dominated Palestinian Authority is anything but peace partner, especially since Fatah declared its commitment to continued war against Israel at the Fatah summit which occurred last August.



http://israelbehindthenews.com/bin/content.cgi?ID=3780&q=1




2. The Fatah dominated Palestinian Authority conveys a consistent message of continued virulent incitement against the state and people of Israel.

Palestine Authority Incitement Reports:



http://tinyurl.com/36c4lvj



http://tinyurl.com/276xcne



http://tinyurl.com/2dsgmrk




3.The Fatah dominated Palestinian Authority education system inculcates the next generation of Palestinian children to liberate all of Palestine.

http://israelbehindthenews.com/bin/content.cgi?ID=2028&q=1



http://israelbehindthenews.com/bin/content.cgi?ID=1309&q=1



http://israelbehindthenews.com/bin/content.cgi?ID=987&q=1




http://israelbehindthenews.com/bin/content.cgi?ID=3779&q=1



http://israelbehindthenews.com/bin/content.cgi?ID=3086&q=1



http://israelbehindthenews.com/bin/content.cgi?ID=3063&q=1



http://israelbehindthenews.com/bin/content.cgi?ID=2984&q=1




http://israelbehindthenews.com/bin/content.cgi?ID=2035&q=1





4. UNWRA, funded to the tune of 30% of its budget by the US government, continues to confine descendants of Palestinian Arab refugees to the squalor of "temporary" refugee camps,under the specious premise and promise of the right to return to Arab villages from 1948,while fueling the camp residents with a zeal to recover "their lands" within Israel.

http://www.israelbehindthenews.com/bin/search.cgi?match=AND&keywords=unrwa

http://israelbehindthenews.com/library/pdfs/MY_UNRWA_Report_2009_US_.pdf

“UNRWA in Gaza & Terror Groups:The Connection” at http://israelbehindthenews.com/reports.html

http://israelbehindthenews.com/UNRWA.html

5. The Fatah-dominated Palestinian armed forces are now armed and trained by the American military with the idea that the Palestinian armed forces will quash Palestinian terrorist organizations. The PA armed forces have made it clear that they have no intention of quashing any Palestinian terrorist groups.

http://israelbehindthenews.com/library/pdfs/Assessment_of_US_Military_Aid_to_Fatah_US.pdf

The Philadelphia Bulletin: We Will Oppose an Imposed Solution

by David Bedein

fficials in Jerusalem rejected the possibility that the Obama administration might present an American peace plan and try to impose it on the parties, The Washington Post reported. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said last night that he would oppose any attempt to impose a solution on Israel. “It won’t work,” Mr. Netanyahu said to his aides. “Thus far, the administration’s approach has been that he assists, and doesn’t impose, and that indeed is the correct approach.” The Washington Post quoted senior U.S. administration officials who said that President Obama was seriously considering announcing in the autumn a new American peace plan for the Middle East that would be based on the Clinton plan with certain changes. “Everyone knows the basic outlines of a peace deal,” one senior official was quoted as saying, while a second official said that “90 percent of the map would look the same.” “The salient characteristic of this past year has been the rise of radical Islam and its armament,” said Mr. Netanyahu yesterday in response to accusations as if his policies were responsible for the diplomatic deadlock in the region. Mr. Netanyahu refrained from casting blame either on Obama or on prominent European leaders, but that seemed to be his implied intention when he said: “The world has to decide whether it is fighting against the phenomenon of radical Islam or whether it is adapting to it. That has ramifications on the peace process.” Mr. Netanyahu made his statements at a press conference he held in Jerusalem to sum up the first year of his term in office. “This march by radical Islam hasn’t been stopped until now. There are some people who cast responsibility for that on Israel, but anyone who examines the matter in depth knows that that is not the case. The Palestinians, with the support of others, have refused to engage in the peace process.” Regarding construction in Jerusalem, Mr. Netanyahu said it was important to “keep perspective. This isn’t my policy but that of all Israeli governments.” He said that it wasn’t the policy that had changed but “the government in the United States has changed. I won’t say that there aren’t differences of opinion. There are some things that we agree about and some that we don’t.” The BBC has quoted a high-ranking U.S. official yesterday who said that if the issue of Israel construction in East Jerusalem should come before the U.N. Security Council for discussion, the U.S. would not cast a veto, but would consider abstaining in the vote. According to the British television network, a senior official in the Obama administration said this to the prime minister and foreign minister of Qatar during a meeting in Paris last week. In past decades the U.S. has regularly cast a veto on resolutions against Israel in the Security Council. However, such a resolution has not come before the council yet for discussion.

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

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

Foreign Policy: Obama's Settlements Ultimatum

by Steven J Rosen for Foreign Policy

U.S. President Barack Obama's decision to confront Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Israeli construction activity in East Jerusalem has been greeted by a hail of praise, especially from people impatient to proceed with peace negotiations with the Palestinians. The belief seems to be that meeting this issue head-on will accelerate progress toward an agreement ending a conflict that has festered for generations. The historical record suggests a different conclusion.

The assumption that a faceoff over construction in Jerusalem will advance negotiations has not been subjected to much scrutiny. But the last two decades show that progress has occurred not when this issue was put first, but when it was finessed and left for the final status negotiations on Jerusalem.

Consider this: If, 17 years ago, U.S. President Bill Clinton or Palestinian leader Yasir Arafat had insisted that Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin freeze all settlement construction, including in Jerusalem, before Arafat would sit down with Rabin, there would have been no Oslo agreements. By Rabin's own account, in comments before the Knesset, Israel's parliament, he had to fudge the issue.

"I explained to the president of the United States," he said,"that I wouldn't forbid Jews from building privately in the area of Judea and Samaria... I am sorry that within united Jerusalem construction is not more massive."

The same year as the famous handshake on the White House lawn, 1993, the Rabin government completed the construction of more than 6,000 units in the Pisgat Zeev neighborhood of East Jerusalem, out of a total of 13,000 units that were in various stages of completion in areas of the city that had been outside Israeli lines before 1967.

So Arafat did sit down with Rabin, even while Israel's construction in Jerusalem continued. And, on Sept. 13, 1993, the Oslo peace accord was signed -- by the same Mahmoud Abbas who refuses to sit down today. And on October 14, 1994, Rabin, who built homes for Jews in East Jerusalem, was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.

Altogether, Israel completed 30,000 dwelling units in the West Bank, Gaza, and Jerusalem in the four years of Rabin's government. Even the Jan. 9, 1995, announcement of a plan to build 15,000 additional apartments in East Jerusalem neighborhoods beyond the 1967 borders (especially Pisgat Zeev, Neve Yaacov, Gilo, and Har Homa) did not stop negotiations, which resulted in the Oslo II accord of September 28, 1995. Israeli construction continued while Abbas and Rabin signed an historic accord.

And what was the American policy toward Rabin's construction of Jewish homes in East Jerusalem? Mild annoyance.

On Jan. 3, 1995, the State Department spokesman said mildly, in response to the Rabin government's announcement of expanded construction, "The parties themselves... have to judge whether it presents any kind of a problem in their own dialogue. The important thing is to continue to meet." The spokesman added on Jan. 10, 1995, "We admit that settlements are a problem, but we... enjoin the parties to deal with these issues in their negotiations."

Clinton's Middle East peace advisor, Martin Indyk, told the U.S. Senate on Feb. 2, 1995, that Rabin's government had recently "given approval for something like 4,000 to 5,000 new housing units to go up in settlements around the Jerusalem area." But, he said, Clinton had decided to stay out of it. "To take action now that would in one way or another... would be very explosive in the negotiations, and frankly, would put us out of business as a facilitator of those negotiations." Had Clinton taken Obama's approach, it might well have exploded the negotiations and brought the Oslo process to a halt.

Nor was this example of construction in Jerusalem while diplomacy made progress an isolated exception. Two years after Oslo II, in January 1997, Abbas and Arafat sat down with another Israeli prime minister, Netanyahu, to sign the Hebron Protocol, which provided for the withdrawal of the Israeli armed forces from 80 percent of the very sensitive area of Hebron in the West Bank. Arafat and Abbas had no illusions that Netanyahu intended to freeze Israeli construction in East Jerusalem. In fact, Netanyahu had announced that he would proceed with the building of Har Homa, a controversial Israeli suburb conceived by Rabin. Nor, another 18 months later, did the Palestinians' fierce objections to Har Homa stop them from joining the Wye Plantation negotiations from October 15-23, 1998. These talks led to an agreement known as the Wye River Memorandum, in which Netanyahu, under considerable pressure from President Clinton, agreed to pull the Israel Defense Forces out of an additional 13 percent of the West Bank. This move was fiercely opposed by Netanyahu's right flank, and it led to his downfall in January 1999 when the hard-liners in his coalition defected.

Had Clinton demanded Netanyahu freeze construction in Jerusalem and Arafat made it a precondition for negotiations, neither the Hebron nor Wye agreements would have been signed.

The Labor government that was elected in the wake of Netanyahu's ouster continued the pattern of building in Jerusalem while moving forward in negotiations with the Palestinians. At the Camp David Summit (July 11-25, 2000), then Prime Minister Ehud Barak went past Israel's past "red lines" and the Palestinians most of the West Bank and a capital in Jerusalem, along with land swaps. But, at the same time that he was taking these unprecedented steps, Barak was accelerating the construction of Har Homa and other Jerusalem communities across the pre-1967 line. While the talks accelerated, Barak also moved ahead with the Ras al-Amud neighborhood on the Mount of Olives in Jerusalem. President Clinton said he " would have preferred that this decision was not taken." But Clinton added that the United States "cannot prevent Israel from building in Har-Homa." Haim Ramon, Rabin's minister for Jerusalem affairs, said "I would like to make it clear that the government has no intention of stopping the building at Har Homa."

Here again, had Clinton taken Obama's position and issued an ultimatum demanding that all construction in Jerusalem stop, and had Arafat made that American demand a precondition to begin negotiations, the Camp David Summit of 2000 and the Taba talks in January 2001 would not have occurred.

The next Israeli government, headed by retired general Ariel Sharon, did not seek any breakthroughs in negotiations with the Palestinians. But Sharon ordered the most dramatic territorial concession in Israel's history since 1967: the withdrawal of all Israeli soldiers from every square inch of Gaza along with the abandonment of 21 settlements in Gaza and four in the West Bank, in the "unilateral disengagement" of August-December 2005. Sharon pulled 8,000 Israeli settlers from their homes against fierce opposition from his right flank.

President George W. Bush played a key role in making Sharon's withdrawal from Gaza possible by softening U.S. policy on the settlement issue. To offset the concession that Sharon was making, and counter opposition to it from Israel's right, he wrote a letter to Sharon on April 14, 2004, acknowledging that, "In light of new realities on the ground, including already existing major Israeli populations centers, it is unrealistic to expect that the outcome of final status negotiations will be a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949.... It is realistic to expect that any final status agreement will only be achieved on the basis of mutually agreed changes that reflect these realities." One implication of the letter was that the United States would treat Israeli construction in communities that all parties knew will remain part of Israel in any future two-state agreement, like the Jewish neighborhoods of Jerusalem, differently from settlement activity on controversial areas in the interior of the West Bank.

Elliott Abrams, the White House advisor who negotiated the Bush administration's compromises on the natural growth of settlement, explained the significance of the step Bush took last June in the Wall Street Journal: "There were indeed agreements between Israel and the United States regarding the growth of Israeli settlements on the West Bank.... The prime minister of Israel relied on them in undertaking a wrenching political reorientation... the removal of every single Israeli citizen, settlement and military position in Gaza.... There was a bargained-for exchange. Mr. Sharon was determined to... confront his former allies on Israel's right by abandoning the 'Greater Israel' position.... He asked for our support and got it, including the agreement that we would not demand a total settlement freeze."

There were expressions of unhappiness by Palestinian leaders and European diplomats about the Bush policy of giving a green light to limited construction in Jerusalem and certain settlement blocs. But the Bush administration defended it as a realistic policy that moved the peace process forward.

Four months after the disengagement from Gaza, on Jan. 4, 2006, Sharon went into a coma. His deputy, Ehud Olmert, became prime minister. Olmert sought a resumption of negotiations with the Palestinians. Following the Annapolis Summit in November 2007, Abbas, who had taken over as president of the Palestinian Authority and head of the PLO after Arafat's death in November 2004, agreed to begin intensive negotiations with Olmert. While Abbas expressed his unhappiness with continued Israeli construction in East Jerusalem and the settlement blocs, he did not make cancelation of these projects a precondition for talks. In fact, Olmert said, "It was clear from day one to Abbas... that construction would continue in population concentrations -- the areas mentioned in Bush's 2004 letter.... Beitar Illit will be built, Gush Etzion will be built; there will be construction in Pisgat Zeev and in the Jewish neighborhoods in Jerusalem... areas [that] will remain under Israeli control in any future settlement."

These negotiations produced significant results: on Sept. 16, 2008, Olmert offered Abbas 93 percent of the West Bank, partition of Jerusalem, and a land swap. Abbas's deputy Saeb Erekat boasted to a Jordanian newspaper that he and Abbas had achieved considerable progress with the Olmert government between the November 2007 Annapolis talks and the end of 2008 in as many as 288 negotiation sessions by 12 committees -- all while Israeli construction continued.

The record is clear and consistent: The United States has never liked Israeli construction in East Jerusalem, and frequently stated that it complicated the peace process. But until Obama, no U.S. president had made its cancelation a precondition for negotiations, and until Obama, Palestinian leaders including Abbas did not make it a precondition either. For 19 years -- from the Madrid conference of October 1991 through the Olmert/Abbas negotiations that ended in 2008, negotiations moved forward while Jerusalem construction continued. Madrid, Oslo I, Oslo II, the Hebron Protocol, the Wye River Memorandum, Camp David, Taba, the disengagement from Gaza, and the Olmert offer to Abbas -- all these events over the course of two decades were made possible by a continuing agreement to disagree about Israeli construction of Jewish homes in Jewish neighborhoods outside the pre-1967 line in East Jerusalem.

Today, for the first time in 19 years, we have an aministration unable to produce Israeli-Palestinian negotiations. Abbas is following Obama's lead in demanding an unprecedented precondition that Israel cannot satisfy. This is the same Abbas who negotiated with seven previous Israeli prime ministers -- Shamir, Rabin, Peres, Netanyahu (in his first term), Barak, Sharon, and Olmert, without the precondition that he now demands of Netanyahu. We have a crisis. Netanyahu is doing something that every past Israeli prime minister of the left and right has done, but Obama is doing something that past American leaders considered unwise. It is the U.S. behavior that has changed.

At this moment, Obama's decision to confront Netanyahu about construction in Jerusalem wins wide praise. Whether Obama's policy will still look good in six months, when people realize he has mired the negotiations in quicksand, remains to be seen.

Obama would do better to take the advice of his own Mideast envoy, George Mitchell, who wisely told PBS host Charlie Rose, "For the Israelis, what they're building in is in part of Israel. Now, the others don't see it that way. So you have these widely divergent perspectives on the subject. Our view is, let's get into negotiations, let's deal with the issues and come up with a solution to all of them including Jerusalem.... The Israelis are not going to stop settlements in or construction in East Jerusalem.... There are disputed legal issues.... And we could spend the next 14 years arguing over disputed legal issues or we can try to get a negotiation to resolve them in a manner that meets the aspirations of both societies."

Steven J. Rosen served for 23 years as foreign-policy director of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) and was a defendant in the recently dismissed AIPAC case. He is now director of the Washington Project at the Middle East Forum.

See the original article in Foreign Policy
See this and more articles 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

Just Say "No": I Get Personally Invited to Help the Obama Administration Engage--and Thus Strengthen--Terrorists

by Professor Barry Rubin

Friedrich Nietzsche famously said, "That which does not kill me makes me
stronger." A good Middle East equivalent, at least among the anti-democratic
forces, would be: That which does not scare me makes me bolder.

Can things get worse with the Obama Administration's foreign-and especially
Middle East--policy? Yes, it's not inevitable but I have just seen
personally a dangerous example of what could be happening next. In fact, I
never expected that the administration would try to recruit me in this
campaign, as you'll see starting with paragraph seven.

First, a little background. One of the main concerns with the Obama
Administration is that it would go beyond just engaging Syria and Iran,
turning a blind eye to radical anti-American activities throughout the
region.

To cite some examples, it has not supported Iraq in its protests about
Syrian-backed terror, even though the group involved is al-Qaida, with which
the United States is supposedly at war. Nor has it launched serious efforts
to counter Iran's help to terrorists in Iraq and Afghanistan or even
Tehran's direct cooperation with al-Qaida. We know about many of these
points because of General David Petraeus's remarks, buried in his
congressional testimony but not trumpeted by the mass media.

Beyond this, though, there has been the possibility of the U.S. government
engaging Hizballah. It is inadequate to describe Hizballah as only a
terrorist movement. But it is accurate to describe it as: a Lebanese Shia
revolutionary Islamist movement that seeks to gain control over Lebanon, is
deeply anti-American, is a loyal client of Iran and Syria, uses large
amounts of terrorism, and is committed to Israel's destruction. Hizballah
engages in Lebanese politics, including elections, as one tactic in trying
to fulfill these goals.

We have seen steps by the current British government toward engaging
Hizballah. And the rationale for doing so is based partly on the fact that
Hizballah is now part of the Lebanese governing coalition. Of course, in
playing a role in that coalition, Hizballah tries to ensure Syria-Iranian
hegemony, threatens the lives of American personnel, and other activities
designed to destroy any U.S. influence in the region.

And let's remember that Hizballah may well have been involved in the murder
of courageous politicians and journalists in Lebanon who opposed
Syria-Iran-Hizballah control over their country. True, direct involvement
hasn't been proven but they are accessories since they have done everything
possible to kill the international investigation into the matter. And the
trail certainly leads back to their Syrian patrons.

Here's where I come in. I have received a letter asking me personally to
help with a research project. I have spoken to well-informed people who tell
me that the statements I am about to quote are accurate. It is highly
possible that the link with the Obama Administration is exaggerated, but
this indeed does come from the White House's favorite think tank.

While not mentioning the names of those involved they are known for
supporting the idea that Hizballah is really quite moderate. The letter says
that this is a project for the Center for American Progress and that the
results "will be presented to senior U.S. policymakers in the
administration."

I am asked to participate by giving my opinions on how the United States can
deal with Hizballah "short of engagement" and "would Israeli leaders see
benefit in the U.S. talking with Hizballah about issues which are of crucial
importance to Israel?"

Answer to first question: Oppose it in every way possible.

Answer to second question: What the [insert obscene words I don't use] do
you think they would say!

The letter continues:

"As you've noted, some like John Brennan [advisor to the president on
terrorism] is already thinking about a more flexible policy towards
Hizballah and it would be extremely useful to get your views on this to
ensure anything decided is done properly."

I read this letter-and that impression is confirmed by those knowledgeable
about this project and those involved-as saying that the Center for American
Progress is going to issue a report calling for U.S. engagement with
Hizballah, and that it has been encouraged to do so by important officials
in the Obama Administration.

The phrase "to ensure anything decided is done properly," I take as a
give-away to the fact that they are going to push for direct dealing with
Hizballah but want to be able to say that they had listened to alternative
views.

They merely, I am told by those who know about this project, intend to talk
to some who disagree for appearances' sake and throw in a sentence or two to
give the report the slightest tinge of balance.

The person heading this project has already endangered the lives of brave
Lebanese. For example, he claimed without foundation that Christians were
planning to launch a war on Hizballah, providing a splendid rationale for
Hizballah to murder opponents on the excuse of doing so in self-defense.
Accepting Hizballah rule is defined as the Christians recognizing they are a
minority and trying to get along with their Muslim neighbors.

In other words, those opposing Hizballah are presented as aggressors while
Hizballah is just the reasonable party that wants to get along. Moreover all
this leaves out the community, about the same size as the Christians and
Shia Muslims, that has been leading the resistance to Syria, Iran, and
Hizballah: the Sunni Muslims.

In short, the person directing the project talks like a virtual agent of
Hizballah and its allies, basically repeating what they tell him.

Aside from the fact that Hizballah is not and will not be moderate there are
two other problems that these silly people don't comprehend.

The first is the signal that such statements send to Arabs and especially
Lebanese. Concluding that the United States is selling them out and jumping
onto the side of the Islamist revolutionaries (an idea that sounds
implausible in Washington but very easily accepted as true in Riyadh,
Beirut, Amman, and Cairo), Arab moderates will be demoralized, rush to
become appeasers, and seek to cut their own deals with what they perceive as
the winning side.

The second is the signal that such statements send to the radicals
themselves. Concluding that the United States fears them and acknowledges
their moral superiority and strategic success, they will be more arrogant
and aggressive.

Friedrich Nietzsche famously said, "That which does not kill me makes me
stronger." A good Middle East equivalent would be: That which does not scare
me makes me bolder.

The last time I was in this situation, it involved a government-funded
report about Islamist movements. What I didn't know is that the word had
been passed to the project director from the government agency that he was
supposed to urge engagement with Islamists. The intention was to keep out
anything critical of the idea. At first, then, I was told to my surprise
that my paper would be responded to by another paper written by a supporter
of engaging Islamists.

When my paper was submitted, however, it was apparently too strong, it was
quickly rejected in an insulting way, and I wasn't paid for my work. The fix
was in and those involved were richly rewarded for saying what was wanted,
though the actual implementation of such a policy would be disastrous for
U.S. interests, as well as for millions of Arabs as well as Israelis.

Friends of mine have had similar experiences recently regarding papers
arguing, for example, that engaging Syria is a great idea and that Damascus
can be made moderate and split away from Iran. This is all nonsense, but
honors and money are to be gained by saying such things.

So I'm not going to help provide a fig leaf for something masquerading as a
serious study but set up to advocate a dreadful policy. It would be the
equivalent of participating in a mid-1930s' project designed to show that
Germany had no more ambitions in Europe, a mid-1940s' project that the USSR
wanted to be friends, or a late 1970s' project that Ayatollah Khomeini was a
moderate and that an Islamist Iran would pose no threats.

It's bad enough to live through an era of dangerous and terrible policy
decisions, it's much worse to be complicit in them.

Optional note: I didn't put in links but you can find extensive materials on
British moves toward engaging Hizballah; Brennan's views; Hizballah threats
against U.S. officials; close connections with Iran and Syria, Iranian and
Syrian involvement in anti-American terrorism; and other such matters in my
previous articles.

Professor Barry Rubin is the Director of Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal.

To read and subscribe to MERIA, GLORIA articles, or to order books, go to
http://www.gloria-center.org.
To see this and other related stroies, go to Israel Behind the News

Former Israel Deputy Defense Minister: Israel Will Attack Iran by November

by Ken Timmerman at NewsMax

Israel will be compelled to attack Iran’s nuclear weapons facilities by this November unless the U.S. and its allies enact “crippling sanctions that will undermine the regime in Tehran,” former deputy defense minister Brig. Gen. Ephraim Sneh said on Wednesday in Tel Aviv.

The sanctions currently being discussed with Russia, China, and other major powers at the United Nations are likely to be a slightly-enhanced version of the U.N. sanctions already in place, which have had no impact on the Iranian regime.

And despite unanimous passage of the Iran Petroleum Sanctions Act in January, the Obama administration continues to resist efforts by Congress to impose mandatory sanctions on companies selling refined petroleum products to Iran.

In an Op-Ed in the Israeli left-wing daily, Haaretz, Sneh argues that Iran will probably have “a nuclear bomb or two” by 2011.

“An Israeli military campaign against Iran’s nuclear installations is likely to cripple that country’s nuclear project for a number of years. The retaliation against Israel would be painful, but bearable.”

Sneh believes that the “acquisition of nuclear weapons by Iran during Obama’s term would do him a great deal of political damage,” but that the damage to Obama resulting from an Israeli strike on Iran “would be devastating.”

Nevertheless, he writes, “for practical reasons, in the absence of genuine sanctions, Israel will not be able to wait until the end of next winter, which means it would have to act around the congressional elections in November, thereby sealing Obama’s fate as president.”

Sneh does not foresee any U.S. military strikes on Iran, an analysis that is shared by most observers in Washington, who see the Obama administration moving toward containment as opposed to confrontation with Iran.

In a recent report for the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), military analyst Anthony Cordesman concluded that Israel will have to use low-yield earth-penetrating nuclear weapons if it wants to take out deeply-buried nuclear sites in Iran.

“Israel is reported to possess a 200 kilogram nuclear warhead containing 6 kilograms of weapons-grade plutonium that could be mounted on the sea launched cruise missiles and producing a Yield of 20 kilo tons,” Cordesman writes in the CSIS study he co-authored by Abdullah Toukan.

Israel would be most likely to launch these missiles from its Dolphin-class submarines, he added.

While Sneh is no longer in the Israeli government, his revelation of a drop-dead date for an Israeli military strike on Iran must be taken seriously, Israel-watchers in the U.S. tell Newsmax.

“Ephraim Sneh is a serious guy,” said Malcolm Hoenlein, executive vice chairman of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations. “He was deputy minister of defense and has long been focused on the issue of Iran.”

Shoshana Bryen, Senior Director for Security Policy at the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA), said that what struck her most about Sneh’s comments was the shift of emphasis from resolving the Palestinian problem to Iran.

“For 30 years, he’s been saying that solving the Palestinian problem is Israel’s biggest priority. Now he’s saying, forget about the Palestinians. Iran is the problem.”

Sneh “is extremely well regarded on the left and the right,” she added. “People respect him enormously.”

In his Op-Ed, Sneh argues that the government of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu needs to mend its bridges with the United States, and the only way to do so is by enacting an immediate and total ban on any settlement activity, including in Jewish neighborhoods in East Jerusalem.

“Without international legitimacy, and with its friend mad at it, Israel would find it very difficult to act on its own” against Iran, he argued.

See the original article at NewsMax
See this and more stories at Israel Behind the News

The Philadelphia Bulletin: Netanyahu Locked in Heated Debate with Obama

by David Bedein

U.S. Order to Wiretap Israeli Embassy Revealed

“Ambush” is the word that was widely used in the Israeli media to describe the reception that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was given at the White House on Tuesday.

The Israeli media cited a number of steps that were taken by the White House in order to “humiliate” the prime minister, who received “the treatment reserved for the president of Equatorial Guinea,” to use one pundit’s description, or that of “the last of the wazirs from Lower Senegal,” as another pundit put it.

President Obama abruptly left Mr. Netanyahu in the middle of their meeting to go eat dinner with his wife and daughters, reportedly urging the prime minister to meet and consult with his aides “so that if he changed his mind he could inform the president right away.”

“I’m still around. Let me know if there is anything new,” the Israeli media quoted the president as saying.

President Obama reportedly made a list of demands from Mr. Netanyahu, which include Israel’s consent to extend the settlement construction freeze beyond its Oct.1 expiration date and to expand the areas of Jerusalem that it annexed after the 1967 war.

The president also reportedly asked to secure Israeli consent to redeploy its military forces in a way that would restore the situation on the ground that existed prior to the Palestinian uprising in September of 2000.

After 25,000 Palestinian terror attacks between 2000 and 2005, which took the lives of 1,370 people, Israel redeployed its forces throughout Arab populated areas in Judea and Samaria, to reduce Arab terror infiltration.

Mr. Obama also reportedly demanded that Israel release of hundreds of Palestinians who have been convicted of murder and attempted murder.

Throughout the visit, Mr. Netanyahu held personal consultations at the Israeli embassy in Washington, and not on the phone, for fear of being wiretapped.

Most recently, an Israeli lawyer in the employ of the U.S. Justice Department, Mr. Shammai Leibovitz, revealed to reporters in Washington that his supervisors asked him to log translate transcripts of Hebrew language wiretapped phone conversations that emanated from the Israeli embassy in Washington.

Mr. Leibowitz refused to abide by this request and was fired from his position after he met with a reporter and has been indicted for sharing classified documents from the Justice Department with the media.

See this report in the Philadelphia Bulletin
See this report 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: US Weary over Turkey-Iran Deal

by David Bedein

JERUSALEM - The Middle East Newsline has confirmed that the United States has expressed increasing dissatisfaction with Turkey's alliance with neighboring Iran.

U.S. officials said the Turkish rapprochement with Iran would be a leading item on the agenda of talks during a summit in Washington in December and added that President Barack Obama would raise the Turkish alliance with Iran during his meeting with Turkish Prime Minister Recep Erdogan.

"It's not a good thing to make business, at the moment, with Iran," U.S. Assistant Secretary Philip Gordon said.

Mr. Gordon, responsible for European and Eurasian affairs, met Turkish officials in November to discuss the agenda for Mr. Erdogan's meeting with the Obama administration. During a wide-ranging briefing, the U.S. official stressed that Ankara and Washington would be required to resolve a range of issues.

"There were more points of disagreement than of agreement with Turkey," Mr. Gordon said.

In November, Iran and Turkey signed a multi-billion-dollar energy agreement that elicited strong opposition from Washington.

Officials said the Obama administration warned the Erdogan government that the accord sent the wrong signal to Iran amid the international drive to stop its uranium enrichment program.

"Iran needs to be assured that it has to cooperate with the international community," Mr. Gordon said.

"Otherwise, it will face consequences."

The Obama administration has also been alarmed by Mr. Erdogan's statements that Turkey would not support United Nations Security Council sanctions on Iran. Turkey, a leading member of NATO, has been a non-permanent member of the council.

Other disagreements between Ankara and Washington were said to include Turkey's warm relationship with Sudan. In November, Turkey invited Sudanese President Omar Bashir, accused of war crimes in the Darfur province, to an Islamic summit in Istanbul.

The American government has also been dismayed by Mr. Erdogan's efforts to reduce Turkish defense and strategic relations with Israel. Mr. Erdogan was warned by the U.S. that the prime minister's policy would hurt Turkish interests in the U.S. Congress.

"Americans watch closely Turkey’s relations with its neighbors," Mr. Gordon said.

View the original article in the Philadelphia Bulletin

The Philadelphia Bulletin: Republican Jewish Coalition Opposes Obama’s Appointment Of Hagel

by David Bedein

WASHINGTON - Republican Jewish Coalition Executive Director Matt Brooks has expressed opposition to President Obama’s appointment of former Republican Senator Chuck Hagel as co-chair of the President’s Intelligence Advisory Board.

In a strongly worded statement issued by the RJC, Mr. Brooks writes that “Chuck Hagel’s troubling record on critical foreign policy issues makes this appointment a matter for serious concern. There has been bipartisan criticism of his positions on Israel and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and his record on Iran has been very worrisome as well.”

Mr. Brooks view of Mr. Hagel’s record over the years is Mr. Hagel’s record reflects “a fundamental misunderstanding of the region and of the nature of the threats to U.S. interests in the region.”

Brooks says that “Hagel does not seem to understand that the U.S. and Israel are fighting a war against terrorists whose agenda is an existential threat to our free and democratic system.”

Mr. Hagel wrote in a 2002 op-ed in the Washington Post that then-President George W. Bush erred in refusing to meet with Yasser Arafat and that Arafat and his support for terrorism against Israel were not the real issue. He wrote: “We cannot hold the Middle East peace process hostage by making Yasser Arafat the issue... Palestinian reformers cannot promote a democratic agenda for change while both the Israeli military occupation and settlement activity continue.”

Mr. Hagel’s record also includes some indications that he sees those who support a strong and safe Israel as having dual loyalties. In an interview quoted in Aaron David Miller’s book on the peace process called The Much Too Promised Land, Mr. Hagel said: “The political reality is that... the Jewish lobby intimidates a lot of people up here.”

Mr. Hagel once described a meeting he had in New York with a group of supporters of Israel, one of whom suggested Mr. Hagel wasn’t supportive enough of Israel.

Mr. Hagel responded: “Let me clear something up here, if there’s any doubt in your mind. I’m a United States Senator. I’m not an Israeli senator. I’m a United States Senator. I support Israel. But my first interest is, I took an oath of office to the constitution of the United States, not to a president, not to a party, not to Israel.”

In terms of Mr. Hagel’s record on Iran, in October 2008, he prevented action on a Senate bill - sponsored by then-Senator Barack Obama - proposing economic sanctions against Iran. Mr. Hagel has argued that, “Whether we like it or not, there will be no peace or stability in the Middle East without Iran’s participation,” and opposed this kind of U.S. pressure on Iran.

View the original article in the Philadelphia Bulletin

The Philadelphia Bulletin: Israeli Reaction to North Korea - 'We Told You So'

by David Bedein

From Israel’s perspective, North Korea’s nuclear test, conducted Monday, was almost old news. Although the world was shocked when the news broke, Israeli security and Foreign Ministry officials could have said: “We told you so.”

Sources in the Israeli security establishment say they have been reporting on the connections between North Korea and Iran since the mid-1990s, when they started warning that North Korean technology was behind Iran’s Shahab missile. North Korean military, missile and nuclear experts have roamed the planet, mainly in the Middle East, seeking to sell their technologies to the highest bidder.

“And two years ago we reported - and backed it up with documentation - that North Korea was building Syria a nuclear reactor, and after we told them, we also attacked and destroyed it, to make sure that the threat was removed,” the sources said.

From Israel’s perspective, this is an existential issue: If the Americans blink, that will be sensed very clearly, and it will tell North Korea that it can continue to go about its nuclear weapons business. The North Korean developments likely will lead to Syria gaining improved missile technology and Iran accelerating its nuclear program.

Another senior Israeli official angrily chastised the United States for its lack of action after it learned North Korea was helping Syria build a nuclear reactor.

“What did the Americans do with all that? Not much,” the official said. “The Syrian reactor ought to have taught them that North Korea had lied throughout the entire affair, but Washington nevertheless preferred to persevere with its critical dialogue.

“The result of that is that the missiles were fired, the tests continued. Yesterday was a resounding slap on the cheek, which ostensibly is supposed to indicate to all of us that the time has come for the administration either to sober up, or for us to despair of it.”

Barak: ‘Talk And Sanctions Don’t Stop Rogue Regimes’

Israel Defense Minister Ehud Barak called on the United States and the international community to learn lessons from North Korea’s nuclear defiance.

“It is incumbent upon the United States and the international community to learn the lessons so as to convey a clear message to Iran,” Mr. Barak said. “Israel is concerned by the free world’s failure to stand up to North Korea.

“Talk, declarations and soft sanctions do not stop rogue regimes from endangering world peace. This test is a warning sign and a message to the world to wake up.”

Mr. Barak also expressed skepticism about the United States’ ability to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear power.

“The chance of the dialogue between the United States and Iran producing an end to the Iranian effort to advance towards the attainment of a military nuclear capability is very low,” said Mr. Barak. “The Americans understand that the chance is very low, just that they think that there is a logic to this dialogue and yet, if that doesn’t happen, they are going to have to cope with the significance of that further on.”

The Defense minister says he believes the dialogue between the United States and Iran needs to be time limited, but the Obama administration has refrained from setting a firm timetable so far.

Tzahi Hanegbi, chairman of the Israeli Knesset Parliament Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee, was more explicit, saying: “The North Koreans’ flaunted nuclear test was registered not only by the seismographs, but mainly by the Iranian regime of ayatollahs. If the United States surrenders unconditionally to the axis of evil, the entire world can expect to face difficult and demanding moments.”

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

The Philadelphia Bulletin: Obama Reveals Middle East Plan

by David Bedein

The purported outline of the Middle East peace plan President Barack Obama plans to propose during a speech in Cairo, Egypt, on June 4 was published yesterday morning in a British Arabic-language newspaper.

The widely circulated London-based Al-Quds Al-Arabi newspaper ran an in-depth report that lays out what it says will be found in Mr. Obama’s peace initiative.

According to this press report, the American president’s plan, which will be based on the Saudi-sponsored Arab League plan from March 2002 would create a demilitarized Palestinian state.

The details of the purported plan do not address how the president plans to disarm the 50,000 Palestinian troops now in uniform.

Mr. Obama reportedly plans to mandate the creation of a Palestinian state with “territorial contiguity” between the West Bank and Gaza, which would split Israel in two.

The president’s reported plan would envision having Jerusalem’s Arab neighborhoods serve as the capital of a Palestinian state, even though these neighborhoods intertwine with Jewish neighborhoods.

The report said Mr. Obama plans to propose ending Israeli sovereignty over Jerusalem’s Old City and turning it into an international territory. A similar proposal was part of the U.N.’s 1947 partition plan for the British Palestine mandate, which the Arabs rejected.

The Al-Quds Al-Arabi newspaper wrote Mr. Obama conceived the plan together with King Abdullah II of Jordan during their recent White House meeting.

This is first time that an American president had created a Middle East peace plan without advance coordination with Israel, which has many Israeli officials worried, none of whom would went on the record with their concerns.

The plan likely will face stiff Israeli resistance.

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

The Philadelphia Bulletin: Netanyahu Jockeys for Position with Obama

by David Bedein

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and President Barack Obama met privately yesterday for their first summit, going beyond their scheduled time, before being joined by their advisers.

After the meeting, both leaders said they would work together to meet the challenges of the Middle East, including Iran.

Mr. Obama said the dialogue with Iran should have no time limit put on it and said he would like to see progress by the end of the year. If he does not see any progress, he will consider “other options” such as sanctions.

With regard to the Palestinian issue, Mr. Obama said he wants to see two states living side by side in peace.

Mr. Netanyahu, however, said he would like to see some sort of Palestinian autonomy, but stopped short of calling for an independent state.

He called for economic development and other assistance for the Palestinian Authority (PA) and emphasized that education for peace would be a primary concern, since the PA curriculum calls for Israel’s conquest and destruction.

At the press conference after the meeting, Mr. Netanyahu said he had asked Mr. Obama to consider the possibility an independent Palestinian state would use Gaza as a model and mount rocket attacks on the rest of Israel, from its safe haven in the West Bank.

Mr. Netanyahu has a full day ahead of himself today, since he is scheduled to meet with the leading lights of the American foreign and defense establishment throughout the day.

Prior to meeting with Mr. Obama, Mr. Netanyahu and his wife, Sara, arrived at Blair House, where foreign heads of state and dignitaries stay while they are meeting with the president.

Much of the prime minister’s first day in the U.S., in advance of the meeting, was devoted to preparatory consultations with his advisers.

Mr. Netanyahu, unlike his predecessors, decided to hold his consultations at the Israeli Embassy rather than Blair House due to wiretapping concerns.

“Netanyahu has red lines that he will not agree to cross by any means, even if the US administration should try to pressure him,” a senior source in the prime minister’s entourage said.

Mr. Netanyahu intends to establish red lines with the Obama administration when it comes to the Iranian nuclear threat and establishing a Palestinian state.

“On both these issues, the U.S. is in the bleachers; whereas, Israel is on the playing field,” the source said.

Netanyahu’s national security adviser, Dr. Uzi Arad, also addressed the nuclear issue.

“The nuclear issue will be at the focus of the prime minister’s statements in the White House, which is an existential matter for Israel,” Dr. Arad said during a briefing for Israeli journalists at the entrance to Blair House.

The escalation in the Israeli statements could be felt clearly.

“America may be the surgeon, but Israel is lying on the operating table. A Palestinian state in the West Bank that could turn into Hamastan is absolutely unacceptable,” a senior Israeli source said.

However, the senior Israeli source emphasized, Mr. Netanyahu will make an effort to reach understandings with the administration.

“Israel understands that it must take into account the American interests in the region, including Obama’s firm decision to pull U.S. troops out of Iraq,” the senior source said.

On the Palestinian issue, Dr. Arad said differences of approach could arise on both sides, but he hoped it would be possible to reach a practical approach to promoting negotiations with the Palestinians.

Officials in Mr. Netanyahu’s entourage are angry with the Obama administration’s behavior in recent weeks.

“While we showed restraint, at the administration’s request, and did not wage a campaign, the administration conveyed aggressive messages towards the Israeli government on several occasions,” sources in the entourage said.

This peaked with a New York Times editorial that was published this week, which was inspired by administration sources. It warned Mr. Netanyahu not to entangle the U.S. in a war with Iran.

Mr. Netanyahu, however, does not intend to “entangle” the U.S. Rather, he wants to make a friend in the White House, so the continuation of the visit runs smoother, more pleasant and more favorable, just like Israel is accustomed to in the United States.

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

The Philadelphia Bulletin: Israeli Deputy Foreign Minister Questions Syria's Credibility

by David Bedein

A senior Israeli Foreign Ministry official responded yesterday to a press statement made by Syrian President Bashar al-Assad Saturday, saying “Israel is not a partner for peace,” by calling the Syrian dictator’s credibility into question.

“What interests Assad is not peace, but rather the peace process. Assad knows very well that he will have to pay for peace with normalization and open his country to the West, which could bring about the toppling of his regime,” said Israeli Deputy Foreign Minister Daniel Ayalon. “Assad is only interested in the peace process in order to get his country out of its international isolation and to remove the pressure of the international community.”

Peace between Israel and Syria can only be reached, he said, when the Syrians start negotiating without preconditions and stop supporting terrorist groups that seek Israel’s destruction.

“It’s impossible to desire peace and at the same time support and arm Hezbollah, Hamas and the Islamic Jihad,” Mr. Ayalon said.

Mr. Ayalon also addressed today’s meeting between Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and President Barack Obama in Washington. He called the bond between the U.S. and Israel “a natural one” because both nations share the common goal of stopping Iran’s and Pakistan’s nuclear programs.

The Israelis, he said, likely would not act against Iran without coordinating operations with the U.S., and he expressed hope that time hasn’t run out for a diplomatic solution to Iran’s nuclear ambitions.

“Iran is a very weak state in a shaky situation,” Mr. Ayalon said. “They cannot withstand real sanctions; their banks and shipping companies are vulnerable. If the world insists on imposing strict sanctions against them, military action may not be necessary.”

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

The Philadelphia Bulletin: Study - Iran Issue Will 'Make or Break' US President

by David Bedein

A report issued on the eve of today’s summit between Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and President Barack Obama says U.S. policy toward Iran’s nuclear program could determine the outcome of the president’s administration.

The report, published by The Institute for National Security Studies (INSS), warns the issue could be “the Cuban missile crisis all over again.”

“It will test the ability of the newly-elected U.S. president to confront the adversary and better him. In a way, this is a make-or-break situation for Obama,” analyst Ephraim Asculai wrote in the INSS report, titled “The Game with Iran.”

The INSS report said Tehran would test Mr. Obama’s resolve by continuing uranium enrichment and other activities required for nuclear weapons development.

It also says the United States will likely be forced to confront rising instability in the Middle East sparked by Iran’s nuclear program, as well as by Tehran’s support for insurgency groups. The report cited Egypt’s capture of an alleged Hezbollah network, which reportedly planned attacks throughout the Sinai Peninsula as an example.

“Egypt is confronting Iran and instability is in the air,” the report said. “Perhaps more than the recent U.S. elections, the timetable is now dictated by the closing deadline of Iran’s nuclear progress.”

Earlier this month, CIA director Leon Panetta held a meeting with the Israeli prime minister and reportedly demanded Israel not take any military action against Iran.

Officials said Mr. Obama ordered Mr. Panetta’s visit because he wanted to avoid a long discussion on Iran during today’s meeting in Washington.

Mr. Asculai, a former official in the Israel Atomic Energy Commission, said the Obama administration likely will pursue a diplomatic solution to Iran’s outlawed uranium enrichment program. But the report advises Mr. Obama to set a deadline for obtaining diplomatic results.

“In setting the time limit, the president must remember that any time gained by the Iranians during the negotiation process would be used to further advance their project,” the report warned.

The report said Iran could exploit the Obama administration’s diplomatic endeavors by insisting its nuclear project is nonnegotiable. Doing so, the report said, would harm U.S. influence throughout the Middle East, particularly among the Gulf Cooperation Council states, such as Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Oman, Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates and Qatar.

Mr. Asculai urged Israel to delay plans to attack Iran and instead recommended the Netanyahu government give Mr. Obama time to discover how receptive Iran is to diplomacy.

“Should engagement fail, Israel would be in a better position to convince the United States, if not to actively support, then at least not to interfere, with any military action,” the report said.

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

The Philadelphia Bulletin: Obama Follows JFK Example and Pressures Israel to Limit Nuclear Capacity

by David Bedein

For the first time since the Kennedy administration, a senior American official has commented explicitly and negatively about Israel’s nuclear capability.

According to GlobalSecurity.org, Israel is suspected to have between 100 and 200 nuclear weapons based on various intelligence estimates.

Assistant Secretary of State Rose Gottemoeller called on Israel to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) along with Pakistan, India and North Korea.

Ms. Gottemoeller said this on Tuesday, on the second day of a gathering of representatives of the 189 states that are signatories of the treaty.

“Universal adherence to the NPT itself, including by India, Israel, Pakistan and North Korea (countries that are not members of the treaty despite being considered to have nuclear capabilities) remains a fundamental objective of the United States,” Ms. Gottemoeller said.

She did not mention Iran even once in her address, thereby breaking the custom during the Bush administration, when officials used to specify and condemn Iran and North Korea in every meeting of NPT members.

Ms. Gottemoeller refused to address the question of whether Washington would initiate new measures in order to pressure Israel to join the NPT and give up the nuclear weapons that it allegedly holds, while speaking later to reporters.

She said the Obama administration encourages all countries that have not signed the treaty to join it.

A former senior Israel Foreign Ministry legal adviser Alan Baker, who is an expert on international law, said that this was a “surprising and worrying statement.”

“I don’t think the Americans have said such a thing in the past,” he said. “This sounds to me like the new administration is shooting from the hip, without having studied in depth the diplomatic situation and our positions. If they study the material properly, they will find that our approach is that we will not sign this treaty as long as we are threatened by our neighbors.

“The Americans know what our position is, and as long as we are under a threat from neighboring countries, both in the immediate circle and in the external circle, we cannot be expected to assume commitments that will place us at a disadvantage.”

The Obama administration’s newfound opposition to Israel’s formally undisclosed nuclear program reverses nearly 50 years of American silence on the subject.

President John F. Kennedy pressured then-Israeli Prime Minister David Ben Gurion to drop Israel’s plans for nuclear weapons in a May 1963 communiqué delivered by the U.S. ambassador.

Dr. Avner Cohen details the Kennedy administration’s efforts in his seminal 1998 book, Israel And The Bomb.

He wrote that Ben Gurion defended Israel’s need for nuclear weapons in the context of the mass murder of the Jews at the hands of the Nazis and the “scenario of a united Arab military coalition launching a war to lilberate Palestine and destroy the Jewish state.”

He documents in his book how Ben Gurion tried in vain to convince President Kennedy that the surrounding Arab states posed just such an existential threat to the Jewish state, conjuring up memories of the Nazi threat from World War II.

In a letter to President Kennedy, dated May 12 1963, Ben Gurion told the president: “I know that it is difficult for civilized people to visualize such a thing - even after they have witnessed what had happened to us during the Second World War... I cannot dismiss the possibility that this may occur again... if the Arab leaders continue to insist on and pursue their policy of belligerency towards Israel”

President Kennedy refused to budge and continued to push Israel to abandon its nuclear option until his death on Nov. 22, 1963. No American president has made an issue of Israel’s nuclear capability - until now.

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