Israel's Tri-Dimensional Strategy

by Dr. Emmanuel Navon
www.navon.com

Benjamin Netanyahu did a good job confusing his audience last night by talking almost exclusively about archeology and tourism during his "Herzliya Speech." Not that anyone was expecting to be told the exact date and time of Israel's speculated military operation against Iran. But the trick was well done, and I can picture Uzi Arad enjoying the frustration of his successor.

My conclusion from this year's Herzliya Conference is that Israel must adopt a tri-dimensional strategy with regard to the Arab-Israeli conflict.

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is still a matter of ideological debate. The debate is no longer about territorial integrity versus peace (both sides to that debate have long been defeated by reality), but about 1967 versus 1948. In other words, can the Arabs in general and the Palestinians in particular be trusted that they will leave Israel alone if and when the results of the 1967 war are settled, or will they always insist on settling the results of the 1948 war?

Dan Meridor hasn't made up his mind on that. At the Herzliya Conference, he told the story (which I've heard from him before) of a meeting he had with Mahmoud Abbas before the 2000 Camp David Summit. Abbas told Meridor he took his son to Nazareth, showed him the house where he was born and said: "We are not coming back to this house." This gave Meridor the impression that the Palestinians had given up on the "right of return."

But then at Camp David Abbas was the one, of all people, who insisted on not budging on the "right of return." Meridor says he's still not sure whether the Palestinians are after us for 1967 or 1948. "If it's 1967, the conflict can be settled" he says. "If it's 1948, it can't." He also says the status-quo is untenable, implying that the conflict must be settled. He did not say what he would recommend doing if and when it becomes clear to him that the conflict is not about 1967 but about 1948.

Dan Schueftan (from Haifa University), for his part, has no doubt that the conflict is about 1948 and therefore that there is no solution to it. Because the conflict with the Palestinians has no solution, Israel must free itself from the Palestinians by getting out of most of the West Bank, "not because the Palestinians deserve it, but because Israel does not deserve to be stuck with them" he says.

Eliot Abrams (from the Council on Foreign Relations) did not clearly state his opinion on the 1948 vs. 1967 debate, though he did say that there would have been no Israeli offer that could have satisfied Arafat, and that Abbas is playing for time because he knows he's a lame duck and doesn't want to be remembered as the first Palestinian leader who gave up on the "right of return." If this doesn't mean that the conflict is about 1948, what does it mean?

The debate at the conference was basically between Dan Schueftan and Eliot Abrams on the one hand, and Danny Rothschild (the Conference's new Chairman) and Daniel Kurtzer (a former US ambassador to Israel) on the other. Rothschild and Kurtzer are of the opinion that the conflict is about 1967 and therefore can it be settled (why, in that case, was the Arab world at war with Israel before 1967 and established the PLO in 1964 is a question for them to answer).

This is why they recommend responding positively to the "Arab Peace Initiative." Kurtzer basically told his audience not to believe any of his co-panelists on that (except for Rothschild) but to only trust him (this reminded my of an op-ed Evelyn Gordon wrote in The Jerusalem Post when Kurtzer was still ambassador to Israel. The title was: "Dan Kurtzer Behaves like an Israeli." Indeed).

Olmert's offer to Abbas in September 2008 basically endorsed the "Arab Peace Initiative." Yet Abbas rejected it. Kurtzer tried to exonerate Abbas by saying that Olmert was a lame duck at the time. But, as Eliot Abrams revealed, the Bush Administration encouraged Abbas to take the offer. As Abrams argued, if Abbas was serious and sincere about ending the conflict with a pre-1967 Israel, he would have pocketed the offer and then could have blamed the new Israeli government for not honoring it (especially since, in September 2008, the prospect was that Tzipi Livni would replace Ehud Olmert, not that new elections in Israel would be held).

There is a major weakness and contradiction in Danny Rothschild's argument. Because the status quo is demographically suicidal, he says, Israel must extricate itself from it. He rejects the idea of doing so unilaterally because he claims the security challenges of a unilateral withdrawal from the West Bank would be as suicidal as the demographic ticking bomb.

So we simply must have a deal with the Palestinians. What he is saying is that Israel should expect the Palestinians to save Israel from the Palestinians.

That doesn't make sense, however, because Israel's nightmare (i.e. letting time and demography make the two-state solution irrelevant) is the Palestinians' dream. In fact, Saeb Erekat just published a paper recommending the replacement of the two-state solution by the one-state solution. It is precisely because the Palestinians know that Israel is petrified by the idea of becoming a bi-national state that they are playing for time.

If Israel wishes to separate itself from the Palestinians, it should not expect the Palestinians' cooperation in doing so. This is why I've been convinced since 2000 that only Dan Schueftan's idea makes sense.

Shueftan's strategy can only be implemented, however, if Israel completes the (expensive) technology to protect itself from short-range missiles, effectively deters Iran and its proxies, and takes the "soft war" to the enemy's court.
Operation Cast Lead proved that Israel has the military capability of deterring rocket attacks from unilaterally evacuated areas, but also that the Palestinians completely outmaneuver Israel in the diplomatic and media arenas.
It took the Goldstone Report for Israel to finally realize (with a 40 year delay) that the Arab world has been waging a "soft war" against Israel through the media, the UN and NGOs since the 1973 war.

When she was Foreign Minister, Tzipi Livni endorsed her Ministry's idiotic stance that the "soft war" is about "branding" and convincing the world that Israel is cool.
The British judge that issued an arrest warrant against her two months ago was obviously not impressed by the fact that Israel has nice beaches and impressive high-tech companies. It is about time that Israel's leadership realizes that the Goldstone Report (which Prime Minister Netanyahu described as a strategic threat to Israel) is the result of the "soft war" and that this war must be fought with a clear and consistent strategy. It is an embarrassment to Israel that the "soft war" has been mostly fought so far by private organizations (such as Palestinian Media Watch, UN Watch, NGO Monitor, and BICOM, to name a few), while our Foreign Ministry only knows how to whine about its puny PR budget.

As for Iran, deterrence is and will continue to be a tricky issue. At the conference yesterday, Switzerland's former ambassador to Iran, Tim Guldiman, basically said that we should continue to negotiate with Ahmanadinejad while not even thinking of toppling his regime. This statement, of course, tells a lot about Switzerland's interests in Iran. In April 2009, Swiss President Hans-Rudolf Merz warmly hosted Ahmadinejad.

Meanwhile, the Swiss energy company EGL signed in 2008 a deal with Iran to import 5.5 billion cubic meters of natural gas annually between 2011 and 2035 (a move that undermines US efforts to put economic pressure on Iran). No wonder Guldiman was very vocal about leaving Ahmadinejad alone.

François Heisbourg, Chairman of the International Institute for Strategic Studies and of the Geneva Centre for Security Studies, argued that talks with Iran have become pointless, that even a complete embargo on refined oil would not threaten the mullahs' regime (because it would only affect about 50% of the country's oil consumption), and that if a military strike was able to delay the Iranian nuclear program for as long as the 1981 Israeli strike in Osiraq managed to delay the Iraqi nuclear program, it would definitely be worthwhile considering.

Israel's week points are not only Palestinian demographics, Arab propaganda, and Iran's nuclear program, however. Another weak point is the world's dependence on oil.
Two panels at the Conference were devoted to this topic. James Woosley (a former CIA Director who is a strong advocate of US energy independence) was very vocal about his claim that the West is funding its enemies and digging its own grave by not weaning itself from oil.

Yossi Hollander (an Israeli entrepreneur who now invests most of his time and money in the anti-oil lobby) convincingly showed that oil is a curse to the world economy and a major reason for US "tolerance" vis-à-vis Saudi Arabia.
Gal Luft (an Israeli energy expert based in Washington) argued that it takes political leadership to turn scientific knowledge into energy revolutions.
He took the example of Napoléon Bonaparte who decided he had enough with France's dependency on salt and offered a prize for the discovery of an alternative to food preservation.

This is how vacuum cans were born and made France "salt free." Hence the title of Luft's book Turning Oil into Salt.

The knowledge to dethrone oil is there; we just need leadership, and Israel should lead the way not least because it is the main geopolitical victim of oil supremacy. It is encouraging that Netanyahu has adopted the idea and set-up a team (headed by Prof. Eugene Kandel from the Hebrew University) to make Israel a world leader in alternative energies. It is, after all, thanks to Shimon Peres' personal involvement that Shai Agassi started Better Place.

So Israel's strategy must be threefold: 1. Prepare the ground for a de facto separation from the Palestinians; 2. Proactively and professionally wage the "soft war" it has been loosing for nearly four decades; 3. Lead the way in the energy revolution. If Israel manages to extricate itself from the Palestinians, to neutralize Arab propaganda, and to help the world wean itself from oil, its geopolitical situation would improve dramatically.

As for Iran, don't count on Switzerland. But if a nuclear winter eventually embraces our region, at least we Israelis will be able to enjoy, in the meantime, the new archeological and tourist sites promised last night by Netanyahu.

Dr. Emmanuel Navon (formerly: Mréjen) is a consultant, an academic and a public speaker specialized in International Relations. He was born in 1971 in Paris, where he went to an English-speaking school and graduated from Sciences-Po (MA in Public Administration), one of Europe's most distinguished universities. While at Sciences-Po he interned at the French Foreign Ministry, specializing in International Organizations, and at the French Finance Ministry, specializing in International Political Economy.
In 1993, he moved to Israel, pursuing graduate studies at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, where he earned a Ph.D. in International Relations. During his graduate studies he consulted to the Israeli Foreign Ministry on UN Reform and was selected to join the Shalem Center as a research fellow.
He was awarded the Yehoshafat Harkabi Prize for his MA Thesis and the Yaacov Herzog Prize for his Doctoral Dissertation.

Upon the completion of his academic studies, he worked as a consultant for Arttic, the leading group in Europe and Israel specialized in the preparation and management of technology-related partnerships.

There, he built European-Israeli consortia and consulted to large Israeli companies such as the Israel Aircraft Industries, Israel Electric, and Teva. After Arttic, he served as Vice-President of GoldNames, an investment company focusing on serving the Internet domain name asset class. He was instrumental in building the company's presence in the French-speaking market, and became well acquainted with Israel's high-tech industry.

With the sudden deterioration of Israel's international image and economic activity at the turn of the new millennium, Dr. Navon engaged in writing and public speaking, making the case for Israel in the foreign media and on university campuses. He was appointed CEO of the Business Network for International Cooperation (BNIC), an organization founded by Israeli high-tech legends Yehuda Zisapel and Eli Ayalon, to train Israeli business leaders for pro-Israel advocacy overseas.

In 2005, Emmanuel Navon left BNIC and founded his own company, The Navon Group Ltd. (which became The Navon-Levy Group in 2007), an international business consultancy dedicated to the strengthening of Israel's economic and strategic ties with emerging markets, especially in Africa.

In addition, he teaches at Tel-Aviv University 's Abba Eban Graduate Program for Diplomacy Studies, where he organized and chaired, between 2004 and 2008, the "Ambassadors' Forum," a regular encounter where foreign diplomats and leading Israel public figures jointly discussed current international affairs.

Dr. Navon is the author of A Plight among the Nations -Israel's Foreign Policy Between Nationalism and Realism (VDM Verlag, 2009) and of numerous articles. His blog is read by thousands of people around the world.

He is a proud reservist in the IDF, and a no less proud member of Likud (Israel's largest conservative party), and of the Movement for Quality of Government in Israel (an Israeli NGO committed to clean politics).

He sits on the boards of TrackBull Mutual Funds, an Israeli investment firm specialized in EFTs, and of EMET (Endowment for Middle East Truth), a brave and politically incorrect Washington think tank.

Dr. Navon is a regular political commentator for television channels, radio stations and newspapers in Israel, in the United States, in Europe, and in Canada. He is fluent in English, Hebrew and French, and is conversant in German.

He lives in Efrat, Israel, with his wife and their four children.

CANADA CAN JUMP START THE PEACE PROCESS: CAN ASSERT ITS LEADERSHIP IN THE REFUGEE WORKING GROUP

CANADA CAN JUMP START THE PEACE PROCESS: CAN ASSERT ITS LEADERSHIP IN THE REFUGEE WORKING GROUP

by David Bedein

http://tinyurl.com/yz55vqc

Most recently, Israeli President Shimon Peres remarked to the European Union’s Middle East Envoy Miguel Moratinos, that the time has come to revive the dormant Refugee Working Group, comprised of 38 nations, chaired by Canada since the Madrid Middle East peace talks that were held in October, 1991. Indeed, despite the fact that Palestinian refugees and their descendents who dwell in or near United Nations refugee camps represent more than half of the Palestinian population, their fate has been overlooked by Middle East peace negotiations

Adopting the UNHCR model

The United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestinian Refugees in the Near East, UNRWA, which has serviced the Palestinian refugees for more than for half a century, has countenanced a situation in which the agency operates as an anomaly: UNRWA, founded in 1949 to provide relief to the Arabs who fled from Israel in the course of the war of 1948-49, to keep them in refugee camps under the in principle promise of the “right of return” to the villages which no longer exist.

Less than one year later the UN High Commission for Refugees, UNCHR, was founded with the express purpose of protecting the rights of refugees to be rehabilitated in a permanent state of resettlement.

In real terms, this meant that UNRWA was permitted to continue to operate under its own terms with its own definition and not bound by the UNHCR Convention. UNRWA was, and remains, the only international agency devoted to keeping one specific group of refugees in a permanent state of refugee status. Why? The answer can be found on the UNHCR website, “The State of the World’s Refugees, Part 1, The Early Years puts the matter baldly: “Arab States... feared that the non-political character of the work envisioned for the nascent UNHCR was not compatible with the highly politicized nature of the Palestinian question.”

In other words, UNHCR operates on the principle that they help the refugees under their jurisdiction to find solutions so that they might get on with their lives with permanency, while UNWRA operates under the premise that the Palestinian Arab refugees are still refugees even if they acquire a new citizenship,[as many have in Jordan] until such time as they will return to their homes in Israel, from which they or their grandparents and great-great parents fled.

Canada, in the leadership role that it plays in the RWG, could ask the 38 nations that contribute to UNRWA to ask that UNRWA operate according to the principles of UNHCR - to protect the right of refugees to be resettled instead of implementing a policy that perpetuates their suffering, while fostering the illusion of the “right of return”

For a generation, any attempts to provide the refugees with permanent residence elsewhere are blocked by the UN

Indeed, in December 1985, when Israel attempted to move refugees into 1,300 permanent houses built for them near Nablus, a UN resolution was passed demanding that Israel not move refugees, because this would violate their “right of return”.

The time has come for Canada to apply UNHCR principles into the operation of UNRWA, to protect the right of Palestinian refugees to be resettled in permanent conditions, instead of dooming Palestinian refugees to yet another generation of squalor and indignity of life in 59 teeming refugee camps spread in areas ruled by Israel, the Palestinian Authority, Lebanon, Syria and Jordan.

View the Original Link at the Winnipeg Jewish Report: CANADA CAN JUMP START THE PEACE PROCESS: CAN ASSERT ITS LEADERSHIP IN THE REFUGEE WORKING GROUP

The Philadelphia Bulletin: Lieberman, Berman Fail To Press Fayyad

Lieberman, Berman Fail To Press Fayyad

Monday, December 07, 2009

Jerusalem - At a recent press conference in Ramallah, Jerusalem Post Editor David Horovitz described how “two staunch Jewish supporters of Israel,” Senator Joe Lieberman, I-Conn., former Democratic vice presidential candidate, and current Representative Howard Berman, D-Ca., chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, “nodded their encouragement” when Palestinian Authority (PA) Prime Minister Salam Fayyad explained how he was preparing Palestinians for statehood. Mr. Fayyad outlined a Palestinian state in formation regarding security forces, the economy, and civic institutions, with an optimistic sense of what the PA is achieving.

Regrettably, Senator Lieberman and Representative Berman did not use the press conference to raise some troublesome questions, conveying the notion that all is well with Palestinian statehood plans.

Questions that Senator Lieberman, Rep. Berman or Mr. Horovitz could have asked might have centered around these issues:

Renunciation Of PLO State Of War With Israel

The charter of Fatah, the predominant element in the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) and the PA, to this day, continues to call for the destruction of Israel. Written in 1964, before Israel controlled the West Bank and Gaza, it uses the term “Palestine” to refer exclusively to Israel within the Green Line. The charter declares that “Liberating Palestine is a national obligation,” and that “Armed public revolution is the inevitable method” for doing so. This cannot be dismissed as an irrelevant anachronism. Last August, Fatah held its first General Congress in 20 years. Hope was held out for a charter revision, with violence officially renounced, but it never happened. Instead, Fatah continued to unambiguously embrace “armed resistance” to liberate Palestine.

Cessation Of Incitement From PA Textbooks

The Institute for Monitoring Peace and Tolerance in School Education has issued six reports on new PA textbooks issued over the last eight years. Journalist and scholar Dr. Arnon Groiss, who translated these PA textbooks, has just completed an update. He writes that the new PA texts:

• Deny the historical and religious presence of Jews in Palestine.

• Fail to recognize the State of Israel.

• Demonize Jews and Israel.

• Assign blame for the conflict exclusively on Israel, totally absolving Palestinians.

• Stress the idea of a violent struggle of liberation rather than a peaceful settlement.

It is disingenuous for Mr. Fayyad to profess dedication to peace, while the PA curriculum infuses these ideas within its youngsters. Peace is impossible until the message changes. Why do visiting elected officials and journalists not hold Mr. Fayyad and the PA accountable for the new PA textbooks?

Cessation Of PA Pursuit Of Hamas As A Partner

The PA inclination to participate in a government that includes Hamas remains an “elephant in the room” that the international community, somewhat inexplicably, has chosen to ignore: Hamas is recognized by the U.S. and the European Union as a terrorist entity. Yet, in March 2007, Fatah and Hamas briefly formed a “unity government,” negotiated by Saudi Arabia via the Mecca Accord, which saw Fatah acceding to Hamas demands. It fell apart with the Hamas coup in Gaza, but, in recent months the news is awash with reports of negotiations via Egypt for a Fatah-Hamas reconciliation. Pursuing negotiations with Israel and Hamas at one and the same time is not acceptable. Why not ask the PA to make a choice?

Renunciation Of The “Right Of Return”

The “right of return,” promoted for 60 years by the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) and embraced by the PA as a non-negotiable right, remains a recipe for the destruction of Israel from within. If Mr. Fayyad and the PA are serious about peace, why not ask them to accept the principle of permanent resettlement of the refugees? The United Nations High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR), which oversees all refugees except Palestinians, operates according to this principle. Only Palestinian refugees are not resettled, but, instead, for purely political reasons, are forced to linger in a rage-inducing state of limbo. Mr. Fayyad, in his master plan for a Palestinian state, openly states that he supports the “right of return.” Isn’t it time to ask for Senator Lieberman and Representative Berman to ask Mr. Fayyad and the PA to openly embrace the UNHCR policy and pave the way for UNRWA to adjust its mandate?

David Bedein can be reached at bedein@thebulletin.us

Special Report: UNRWA - Overview and Policy Critique (The Center for Near East Policy Research)

UNRWA - Overview and Policy Critique

by Arlene Kushner

ABSTRACT

UNRWA – the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestinian Refugees – was
founded as a humanitarian agency but has subordinated its role as a service provider to a political agenda.

It is the only UN agency in the world dedicated exclusively to one group of refugees and establishes its own unique and expansive standards. It defines as refugees hundreds of thousands, if not millions, who would be discounted by the UNHCR Refugee
Convention’s international definition.

As the UNRWA mandate is predicated upon the notion of the “right of return”– a right
that in fact does not exist within international law – it maintains a policy of keeping the refugees in a temporary situation until they can return to homes and villages in Israel left more than half a century ago (the vast majority of which no longer exist).

UNRWA will not work to find realistic solutions to the plight of the refugees and will not consider resettlement as an option. Instead, it reinforces the goal of return.

See the full report here: UNRWA - Overview and Policy Critique

Special Report: May 2008 - Fatah as “Moderate” A Hard Look Post-Annapolis UPDATE (The Center for Near East Policy Research)

Fatah as “Moderate” A Hard Look Post-Annapolis

Executive Summary
This comes four months after the release of the primary report: “Fatah as ‘Moderate’” – seen at http://israelbehindthenews.com/pdf/ModerateFatah.pdf.

The fully documented update that follows this summary examines a marked pattern of
incidents – statements and actions by key members of Fatah or by the organs of Fatah – that work against genuine moderation. This situation has enormous import in light of the peace negotiations between Israel and the Fatah-dominated Palestinian Authority that are based on the premise of Fatah moderation.

OVERVIEW: Increased Radicalism & Deterioration
Political discourse within Fatah (which controls the Palestinian Authority) has been
radicalized: more openly embracing terrorism and rejecting negotiation, and moving
towards an Islamic stance.

Fatah is now much closer to Hamas than was the case previously, as nationalism is now
entwined with Islam: nationalist rhetoric is succumbing to the notion of a religious war with a “Zionist-Crusader West.”

Internal Fatah politics are also increasingly unstable: Obstructionist elements are in ascendancy.

Influential members of the Fatah Central Committee who are hard line make it impossible for Abbas to advance a reasonable proposal for peace.

THE EVIDENCE
Praise of and Support for Terrorism
Considerable evidence exists for PA glorification of terrorism – often couched as
“armed struggle.”

Abbas Interview
Mahmoud Abbas, President of the Palestinian Authority, has given an interview that
connects him directly with terrorism.

Praise of Terrorists and Their Actions
The PA officially praises terrorists who are responsible for horrendous terrorist acts: We see this with the infamous terrorist Imad Mughniyeh, referred to as “extraordinary hero... a beacon of light.” With the terrorist who massacred eight students at the Mercaz Harav Yeshiva in Jerusalem, referred to as a Shahid - holy Islamic martyr, and approved by a Fatah leader who says Fatah conducts itself similarly. And others.

Incitement
Evidence of incitement exists at the highest levels of the PA.

Multiple charges by Abbas
On at least three occasions during March 2008, Mahmoud Abbas, PA president, made
inciteful statements, either to the press or in talks within Arabic conferences. He spoke of “an ethnic cleansing” in Jerusalem, and of a ‘barbaric holocaust” in Gaza.

“Right of Return” Plan
Also in March 2008, a PA Deputy Minister advanced an initiative for all Palestinians
living abroad to converge upon Israel for Israeli Independence Day.
Blanket Criticism of Israeli Military Operations
When wanted terrorists responsible for murder of Israelis were killed by Israeli forces, the PA referred to this as a “barbaric crime…executions against our people.”
With regard to violence between Palestinians (no matter their affiliation or terrorist deeds) and Israel, the PA defends the Palestinians, who are brothers, and not Israel.

Terrorist Acts
Repeatedly, Al Aksa Martyrs Brigades, a military arm of Fatah, claims full or partial
credit for terrorist acts or attempted acts: These include a planned terror by poison in a restaurant; an attempted knifing; a number of rocket launchings; and two shootings each of which killed two Israelis.

Adherence to the “Phased Program”

The PLO’s “Phased Program” has the final goal of acquisition all the land, but achieved one “liberation step” at a time. It calls for giving an impression of moderation, with diplomatic processes. Each step is expected to weaken Israel. “Armed resistance” – terrorism – is to be utilized when it can be useful.

In an April 2008 TV interview, the Fatah-affiliated PA representative in Lebanon made it clear that the PLO still adheres to this policy.

Connection to Iran
Israeli Intelligence has information that Iran provides money to several Fatah groups.

Ongoing Hamas Connection
The Western world is providing an enormous amount of assistance to Fatah, broadly
based on the premise that it is a moderate entity serving as a foil to the radical Hamas, and not significantly associated with it.
But in actuality Abbas does a dance between two poles. He cannot totally avoid contact with Hamas – for he is struggling with the power and influence of Hamas, the ethos of Palestinian brotherhood, and the weakness of Fatah.
In March there were preliminary negotiations between Hamas and Fatah towards a
renewed unity government, but this fell apart immediately.
When Fatah and Hamas join forces, Fatah does not moderate Hamas, Hamas radicalizes Fatah.

Abbas has indicated he has stipulations for dealing with Hamas. But at no time has he
insisted that – because he is now negotiating peace with Israel – he can only form a
government with a party that recognizes Israel’s right to exist and is prepared to
negotiate a two-state solution.
Abbas's bottom line is simply the return of Gaza, which was wrested from Fatah in a
coup almost a year ago.

See the Full Report: Fatah as “Moderate” A Hard Look Post-Annapolis