Jogging Memories of 1947 and 1967 on Jerusalem Day

JERUSALEM POST BLOG
Tuesday May 31, 2011

I hate disappointing the worrywarts, but today, Jerusalem Day, 2011, 44-years after its reunification, Jerusalem is a remarkably functional city, a surprisingly peaceful city, a delightfully magical city. The city I experience daily is not the city described in the headlines. It does not feel like it is in eclipse, nor does it feel like a powder keg. I absorbed New York’s fear of crime in the 1970s, Boston’s racial tension in the 1980s, and Montreal’s linguistic complexity in the 1990s much more intensely. While jogging through the Old City daily, I feel lucky to live in such a livable city.

Jerusalem invites time-traveling in profound ways while doing mundane tasks. Every day, crossing the footbridge over the Cinemateque looking toward Mount Zion, I observe a panorama of peace reinforced by a symphony of silence, with the Tower of David crowned by its Israeli flag and Muslim crescent, church spires and minarets, the new city’s modern construction to my left and the older houses abutting the Old City to my right. The sweeping Old City walls dominate front and center.

These days, I confess, I think more about recent history than the walls’ ancient history, built by Suleiman the Magnificent 500 years ago but evoking Abraham binding Isaac, King David designating King Solomon, thousands of years earlier. Mahmoud Abbas’s rewriting of the history of 1947, which passed the New York Times’ editorial muster, Barack Obama’s obsession with the 1967 lines, have me wishing Jerusalem’s stones could talk, confirming what really happened when Zionists founded Israel in 1947-1948, when Israelis liberated Jerusalem in 1967, and during the difficult intervening years.

My daily plunge into this past begins with Jerusalem’s 19 years of rupture, as I traverse what was the barbed-wire-and-mine-strewn No-Man’s Land. To my right, the Cinemateque looms, a center of Israel’s edgy, often critical, vibrant democratic culture, contradicting false cries of McCarthyism. To my left, the red-roofed houses of Yemin Moshe unfold, beside Moses Montefiore’s 1857 windmill. I think about the poor people who lived in this, the first neighborhood outside Jerusalem’s walls, during the State’s first years. And I wince imagining their terror when, periodically, Jordanian snipers would shoot. The Jordanian army always reassured the UN that a soldier had gone crazy – again and again.

Scampering up Mount Zion, holy to us and our Christian brethren, I wonder what the fifty soldiers following Captain Eli Kedar thought while hustling along this alley on June 7, 1967. Did they remember the failure to free the besieged Jewish Quarter from this alley in 1948? Did they know the last Jew to leave the Jewish Quarter, headed to Jordanian prison for nine months, was a 15-year-old, Eli Kedar? Did they appreciate their commanders’ genius in mostly attacking from behind, via Lions Gate? Did they know Israel began the war two days earlier with only 71 troops in Jerusalem? Were they aware that, even while the Jordanians shelled Jerusalem, Israeli Prime Minster Levi Eshkol offered peace to Jordan’s King Hussein, making the war one of self-defense and any resulting territorial gains not an illegal occupation? Did they sense they were about to correct the historic mistake of the city’s division, returning the Holy Temple’s remnants to Jewish sovereignty after 2000 years? Did they appreciate their army’s sensitivity in deploying archaeologists to try preserving holy sites? Probably, most simply thought about going home – which 759 Israelis after six days never did.

Entering the Jewish quarter I again ponder the nineteen years preceding the Six Day War when Israel – living under Barack Obama’s 1967 borders – were banned from the Old City, although the UN never validated Jordanian control. Those, ahem, illegal occupiers trashed Jerusalem’s synagogues. Contrast that bitter past to the redemptive sights and sounds of kids playing and praying, the burger bars adjoining archaeological museums, the glorious dome of the Hurva synagogue, which means ruins: bombarded by Jordan in 1948; rebuilt and rededicated last year.

Crossing the Jewish Quarter, then the Arab market, seamlessly, safely, I exit through Jaffa Gate. Sixty-four years ago, on December 2, 1947, just days after the UN proposed partitioning Palestine on November 29, Arabs shouting “Death to the Jews!” looted the Jewish commercial center across the way, at the entrance to today’s David Village. This was the Palestinian response to the compromise the Jews accepted. Mahmoud Abbas’s recent New York Times column lied, claiming the Zionists rejected compromise, then “expelled Palestinian Arabs to ensure a decisive Jewish majority in the future state,” when the Arab rejectionists chose violence – and continue to reject a Jewish state.

I also recall the first British census of Jerusalem in 1931, which noted population growth since 1922 by 20,107 Jews and 21,282 Arabs. If only both sides acknowledged that history flows, populations move, borders shift, we could compromise.

As I finish by sprinting along the newly-restored century-old train tracks, I toast the city’s dynamism. The 800,000 residents now include 268,000 Arabs. During these 44 years, as their population has grown by 200,000, many Arabs have appreciated Israeli rights and services. The number of Arab Jerusalemites granted Israeli citizenship quadrupled from 2006 to 2010.

In Six Days of War, Michael Oren quotes Arik Akhmon one of the first Israelis in 1967 to enter the Western Wall plaza, as bullets whizzed by. Although not religious, Akhmon recalled, “I don’t think there was a man who wasn’t overwhelmed with emotion. Something special had happened.”

Jerusalem is a real city which cannot “overwhelm” residents daily – life intrudes. But every day I note something “special” about the place, its history or mystery, its sights or smells, its old memories or new achievements. Today, Yom Yerushalayim, let’s honor its secret ingredient, the people it attracts, connected to Jerusalem’s lush past, enlivening the city during its complex yet compelling present, and shaping a safe, spiritually-rich, yet charmingly commonplace future keeping the city magical and livable.

Gil Troy is Professor of History at McGill University and a Shalom Hartman Research Fellow in Jerusalem. The author of “Why I Am A Zionist: Israel, Jewish Identity and the Challenges of Today,” his latest book is “The Reagan Revolution: A Very Short Introduction.” giltroy@gmail.com

Jogging Memories of 1947 and 1967 on Jerusalem Day

JERUSALEM POST BLOG
Tuesday May 31, 2011

I hate disappointing the worrywarts, but today, Jerusalem Day, 2011, 44-years after its reunification, Jerusalem is a remarkably functional city, a surprisingly peaceful city, a delightfully magical city. The city I experience daily is not the city described in the headlines. It does not feel like it is in eclipse, nor does it feel like a powder keg. I absorbed New York’s fear of crime in the 1970s, Boston’s racial tension in the 1980s, and Montreal’s linguistic complexity in the 1990s much more intensely. While jogging through the Old City daily, I feel lucky to live in such a livable city.

Jerusalem invites time-traveling in profound ways while doing mundane tasks. Every day, crossing the footbridge over the Cinemateque looking toward Mount Zion, I observe a panorama of peace reinforced by a symphony of silence, with the Tower of David crowned by its Israeli flag and Muslim crescent, church spires and minarets, the new city’s modern construction to my left and the older houses abutting the Old City to my right. The sweeping Old City walls dominate front and center.

These days, I confess, I think more about recent history than the walls’ ancient history, built by Suleiman the Magnificent 500 years ago but evoking Abraham binding Isaac, King David designating King Solomon, thousands of years earlier. Mahmoud Abbas’s rewriting of the history of 1947, which passed the New York Times’ editorial muster, Barack Obama’s obsession with the 1967 lines, have me wishing Jerusalem’s stones could talk, confirming what really happened when Zionists founded Israel in 1947-1948, when Israelis liberated Jerusalem in 1967, and during the difficult intervening years.

My daily plunge into this past begins with Jerusalem’s 19 years of rupture, as I traverse what was the barbed-wire-and-mine-strewn No-Man’s Land. To my right, the Cinemateque looms, a center of Israel’s edgy, often critical, vibrant democratic culture, contradicting false cries of McCarthyism. To my left, the red-roofed houses of Yemin Moshe unfold, beside Moses Montefiore’s 1857 windmill. I think about the poor people who lived in this, the first neighborhood outside Jerusalem’s walls, during the State’s first years. And I wince imagining their terror when, periodically, Jordanian snipers would shoot. The Jordanian army always reassured the UN that a soldier had gone crazy – again and again.

Scampering up Mount Zion, holy to us and our Christian brethren, I wonder what the fifty soldiers following Captain Eli Kedar thought while hustling along this alley on June 7, 1967. Did they remember the failure to free the besieged Jewish Quarter from this alley in 1948? Did they know the last Jew to leave the Jewish Quarter, headed to Jordanian prison for nine months, was a 15-year-old, Eli Kedar? Did they appreciate their commanders’ genius in mostly attacking from behind, via Lions Gate? Did they know Israel began the war two days earlier with only 71 troops in Jerusalem? Were they aware that, even while the Jordanians shelled Jerusalem, Israeli Prime Minster Levi Eshkol offered peace to Jordan’s King Hussein, making the war one of self-defense and any resulting territorial gains not an illegal occupation? Did they sense they were about to correct the historic mistake of the city’s division, returning the Holy Temple’s remnants to Jewish sovereignty after 2000 years? Did they appreciate their army’s sensitivity in deploying archaeologists to try preserving holy sites? Probably, most simply thought about going home – which 759 Israelis after six days never did.

Entering the Jewish quarter I again ponder the nineteen years preceding the Six Day War when Israel – living under Barack Obama’s 1967 borders – were banned from the Old City, although the UN never validated Jordanian control. Those, ahem, illegal occupiers trashed Jerusalem’s synagogues. Contrast that bitter past to the redemptive sights and sounds of kids playing and praying, the burger bars adjoining archaeological museums, the glorious dome of the Hurva synagogue, which means ruins: bombarded by Jordan in 1948; rebuilt and rededicated last year.

Crossing the Jewish Quarter, then the Arab market, seamlessly, safely, I exit through Jaffa Gate. Sixty-four years ago, on December 2, 1947, just days after the UN proposed partitioning Palestine on November 29, Arabs shouting “Death to the Jews!” looted the Jewish commercial center across the way, at the entrance to today’s David Village. This was the Palestinian response to the compromise the Jews accepted. Mahmoud Abbas’s recent New York Times column lied, claiming the Zionists rejected compromise, then “expelled Palestinian Arabs to ensure a decisive Jewish majority in the future state,” when the Arab rejectionists chose violence – and continue to reject a Jewish state.

I also recall the first British census of Jerusalem in 1931, which noted population growth since 1922 by 20,107 Jews and 21,282 Arabs. If only both sides acknowledged that history flows, populations move, borders shift, we could compromise.

As I finish by sprinting along the newly-restored century-old train tracks, I toast the city’s dynamism. The 800,000 residents now include 268,000 Arabs. During these 44 years, as their population has grown by 200,000, many Arabs have appreciated Israeli rights and services. The number of Arab Jerusalemites granted Israeli citizenship quadrupled from 2006 to 2010.

In Six Days of War, Michael Oren quotes Arik Akhmon one of the first Israelis in 1967 to enter the Western Wall plaza, as bullets whizzed by. Although not religious, Akhmon recalled, “I don’t think there was a man who wasn’t overwhelmed with emotion. Something special had happened.”

Jerusalem is a real city which cannot “overwhelm” residents daily – life intrudes. But every day I note something “special” about the place, its history or mystery, its sights or smells, its old memories or new achievements. Today, Yom Yerushalayim, let’s honor its secret ingredient, the people it attracts, connected to Jerusalem’s lush past, enlivening the city during its complex yet compelling present, and shaping a safe, spiritually-rich, yet charmingly commonplace future keeping the city magical and livable.

Gil Troy is Professor of History at McGill University and a Shalom Hartman Research Fellow in Jerusalem. The author of “Why I Am A Zionist: Israel, Jewish Identity and the Challenges of Today,” his latest book is “The Reagan Revolution: A Very Short Introduction.” giltroy@gmail.com

Obama Walking a Fine Line on Borders Issue

By Robert Satloff
Jewish Journal, May 24, 2011

One week ago, on May 19, President Barack Obama delivered powerful remarks on democracy and reform in the Middle East. He not only raised these normally hortatory ideals to top-tier U.S. interests, but he put the dictator of America's most dangerous Arab antagonist -- Syria's Bashar Assad -- on personal notice that he may soon find himself joining the leaders of Egypt and Tunisia in forced retirement. All this was welcome news.

The last part of the president's remarks, however, took a different course. After critiquing Arab regimes that have used the Arab-Israeli conflict as a distraction from their own internal problems, he undermined the potency and effect of his own message by unveiling new -- and controversial -- principles guiding U.S. efforts to promote Israeli-Palestinian peace.

Specifically, the principles he articulated constitute a major departure from long-standing U.S. policy. To argue that they are just a repackaging of previous statements does not hold up under scrutiny. The very fact that they were the subject of such intense internal debate before delivery and prompted such consternation from Israeli leaders afterward underscores that there was, indeed, something new in what the president said.

In his speech, Obama became the first sitting president to say that the final borders should be "based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps." (The Clinton Parameters -- which former President Bill Clinton presented to the two sides in December 2000 and then officially withdrew a month later, when they were not accepted -- did not mention the 1967 borders but did mention "swaps and other territorial arrangements.")

The Obama formulation concretizes a move away from four decades of U.S. policy based on U.N. Security Council resolution 242 of November 1967, which has always interpreted calls for an Israeli withdrawal to a "secure and recognized" border as not synonymous with the pre-1967 boundaries. The idea of land swaps, which may very well be a solution that the parties themselves choose to pursue, sounds very different when endorsed by the president of the United States. In effect, it means the official U.S. view is that resolution of the territorial aspect of the conflict can only be achieved if Israel cedes territory it held even before the 1967 war.

The president also said that the new Palestinian state should have borders with Egypt, Jordan and Israel, and referred to the "full and phased" withdrawal of the Israel Defense Forces. This statement implies categorical American opposition to any open-ended Israeli presence inside the future "Palestine." This is also the first such statement by a U.S. president, and it differs significantly from the Clinton Parameters, which envisioned three Israeli "facilities" inside the West Bank, with no time limit on their presence.

The president's words also gave official endorsement to the idea that Israelis and Palestinians should first negotiate their territorial dispute and the security arrangements that would govern relations between the two states, leaving the subjects of refugees and Jerusalem for future negotiations. This is an odd reading of the relevance of those two latter issues. For Palestinians, the refugee issue may be powerfully emotive, going to the core of Palestinian identity; for Israelis, however, it is as much an issue of security as ideology. For the president not to repeat previous U.S. government statements -- e.g., that Palestinians will never see their right of return implemented through a return to Israel -- is to raise expectations and inject doubt into a settled topic.

Perhaps more than anything else, the most surprising aspect of the president's peace process statement was that it moved substantially toward the Palestinian position just days after the Palestinian Authority (PA) decided to seek unity with Hamas. Indeed, the president seemed nonplussed that Mahmoud Abbas, president of the PA, has opted to reconcile with Hamas, a group the United States views as a terrorist organization. Hamas-Fatah reconciliation "raises profound and legitimate questions for Israel," the president noted -- but evidently not questions so profound and troubling to the United States that they would impede a shift in U.S. policy that advantages the Palestinians.

Given the importance of these principles, it was odd that the president offered no implementation mechanism to translate these ideas into action. He named no high-level successor to Sen. George Mitchell, the just-resigned peace process envoy, nor announced any practical effort to get the parties back to the negotiating table. In essence, he launched his principles into the ether.

Despite this absence of an action mechanism, the likely next step is for Palestinians to take up the president's call, ask for renewal of negotiations on precisely the terms the president outlined -- borders that are "based on the 1967 lines with mutual swaps," with no reference to refugees or other issues on which the Palestinians would make major compromises -- and wait for Israel to say no.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu publicly objected to the president's emphasis on the 1967 borders -- an unusual way to begin what was a tense White House visit. The two leaders may find a way to blur their differences over the principles outlined in Obama's May 19 speech, given their partnership on strategic issues and mutual interest in political cooperation and amity. But the specific territorial principles on Israeli-Palestinian peace enunciated by Obama have within them the seeds of deepening tension and perhaps even rift between the United States and Israel -- the very distraction from the focus on democratic reform the president said he wanted to avoid.

Robert Satloff is The Washington Institute's executive director and Howard P. Berkowitz chair in U.S. Middle East policy.

Canada takes strong pro-Israel line at G8 summit

Fri May 27, 2011 7:06pm EDT

By Luke Baker and David Ljunggren

DEAUVILLE, France (Reuters) - Group of Eight leaders had to soften a statement urging Israel and the Palestinians to return to negotiations because Canada objected to a specific mention of 1967 borders, diplomats said Friday.

The government has adopted a staunchly pro-Israel position in international negotiations since coming to power in 2006, with Prime Minister Stephen Harper saying Canada will back Israel whatever the cost.

Diplomats involved in Middle East discussions at the G8 summit said Ottawa had insisted that no mention of Israel's pre-1967 borders be made in the leaders' final communique, even though most of the other leaders wanted such a reference.

The communique called for the immediate resumption of peace talks but did not mention 1967, the year Israel seized the West Bank and Gaza from Jordan and Egypt during the Six-Day War.

U.S. President Barack Obama last week laid out a vision for peace in the Middle East, saying pre-1967 borders should be a basis for talks to achieve a negotiated settlement. Israel quickly dismissed the idea as unworkable.

"The Canadians were really very adamant, even though Obama expressly referred to 1967 borders in his speech last week," one European diplomat said.

Harper, pressed repeatedly by reporters, declined to confirm he had objected to the language on borders but said he would oppose what he called unbalanced statements on finding peace in the Middle East.

"We are very much at ease with President Obama's speech but you cannot cherry pick elements of that speech," he said.

"If you're going to get into other elements then obviously I would have liked to see a reference to elements that were also in ... (the) speech, such as for instance the fact that one of the states must be a Jewish state, the fact that the Palestinian state must be demilitarized."

Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman thanked Canada for taking a "brave stand" at the conference, his spokesman said in a statement.

It added that Lieberman had thanked his counterpart, John Bird, for Canada's understanding that "the 67 lines do not fit in with Israel's security requirements and the current demographic situation," a reference to Jewish settlements Israel has built in the occupied West Bank.

The G8 communique said: "Negotiations are the only way toward a comprehensive and lasting resolution to the conflict."

It added: "The framework for these negotiations is well known ... We express our strong support for the vision of Israeli-Palestinian peace outlined by President Obama."

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu says Israel would be indefensible if it returned entirely to the borders that existed before 1967.

Canada's strong backing for Israel was cited by diplomats last year as one reason why Ottawa failed to win a rotating two-year seat on the United Nations Security Council.

In the wake of the vote, Harper said: "When Israel, the only country in the world whose very existence is under attack, is consistently and conspicuously singled out for condemnation, I believe we are morally obligated to take a stand."

(Reporting by Luke Baker, David Ljunggren and Yoko Kubota; Editing by Jon Boyle and Mark Trevelyan)

Gaza Border With Egypt Opens After Four Years Amid Israel Security Concern

By Saud Abu Ramadan and Calev Ben-David
BLOOMBERG - May 28, 2011

Hundreds of Palestinians from the Gaza Strip entered Egypt as the border crossing was opened permanently for the first time in four years amid Israeli concerns that the move strengthens Hamas’s rule of the area.

About 300 Palestinians crossed into Egypt this morning, and “it was smooth and easy,” said a Hamas police officer at the crossing who gave his name only as Abu Osama. “If the situation remains as smooth as it was today, I don’t see any future problems.”

Egypt’s decision to scale back crossing restrictions for the Gaza Strip has been welcomed by the Hamas Islamic movement, which controls the Palestinian enclave, while raising concern in Israel that the wider border access poses a security threat.

For rest of article, click here.

Gaza Border With Egypt Opens After Four Years Amid Israel Security Concern

By Saud Abu Ramadan and Calev Ben-David - May 28, 2011

Hundreds of Palestinians from the Gaza Strip entered Egypt as the border crossing was opened permanently for the first time in four years amid Israeli concerns that the move strengthens Hamas’s rule of the area.

About 300 Palestinians crossed into Egypt this morning, and “it was smooth and easy,” said a Hamas police officer at the crossing who gave his name only as Abu Osama. “If the situation remains as smooth as it was today, I don’t see any future problems.”

Egypt’s decision to scale back crossing restrictions for the Gaza Strip has been welcomed by the Hamas Islamic movement, which controls the Palestinian enclave, while raising concern in Israel that the wider border access poses a security threat.

NY Times' Ethan Bronner analyis of Netanyahu's trip

It is interesting to note that Ethan Bronner's analysis appeared in print on May 26, 2011, on page A6 of the New York edition with the headline: In Israel, Premier’s U.S. Trip Dims Hopes for Advancing Peace Talks.

Then, the headline got changed to "Israel's See Netanyahu's trip as diplomatic failure.

For the article, click here.

I prefer the analysis of Herb Keinon in the Jerusalem Post in which he wrote, "...He knew that the speech, and its reception, would fill many of his countrymen – and Jews around the world – with pride, and would boost his popularity at home."

Ha'aretz + NY Times Editorials on this week's speeches

May 25, 2011

Netanyahu wasted his chance to present a vision for peace

Netanyahu is leading Israel and the Palestinians into a new round of violence, along with Israel's isolation and deep disagreement with the American administration.

Haaretz Editorial

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had an outstanding opportunity yesterday to present a vision of a just and sustainable peace for Israel and the Palestinians. Millions watched his speech at the U.S. Congress with bated breath.

They anticipated a momentous address that would break the stalemate in the diplomatic discourse over a final peace agreement and lead to the end of the bloody conflict between the two peoples. Many hoped the new winds blowing in recent months in the Middle East would also sweep the prime minister along a new path.

In recent days, Netanyahu's associates have even given indications that the prime minister would present "new ideas and formulations." Instead, we were witness to the same old messages.

Netanyahu wasted the generous credit he got from his American hosts to cast accusations at the Palestinians and impose endless obstacles in connection with the core issues. Instead of accepting the principle that the border between Israel and the Palestinian state would be based on the 1967 lines, Netanyahu declared that the Jewish people are not foreign occupiers in Judea and Samaria.

He couched his readiness to make far-reaching concessions within endless conditions that have no relation to reality.

He demanded that Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas forgo reconciliation with Hamas in advance. Netanyahu contended that six Israeli prime ministers tried to come to a final peace agreement with the Palestinians, but failed, purportedly because of the Palestinian refusal to recognize Israel as the state of the Jewish people.

He ignored all the positions by two of his predecessors, Ehud Barak and Ehud Olmert, on a fair division of Jerusalem, an agreed upon solution to the refugee problem and particularly on agreement on exchanges of territory that would leave a decisive majority of West Bank territory in the hands of the Palestinians.

The prime minister will return home from the United States without major developments to show for himself. He is leading Israel and the Palestinians into a new round of violence, along with Israel's isolation and deep disagreement with the American administration. The time has come for the large numbers of those in Israel who seek peace to be heard. Israel deserves a different leader.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

May 26, 2011

The Mideast Peace Process: No Plan for Talks

NEW YORK TIMES EDITORIAL

This is the time for bold ideas to salvage Israeli-Palestinian peace efforts. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel did not seize it. In his address to Congress, he showed — once again — that he has no serious appetite for the kind of compromises that are the only way to forge a two-state solution and guarantee both Palestinians their long-denied state and Israel’s long-term security.

President Obama showed more rhetorical initiative when he spoke, but he doesn’t appear to have a strategy for reviving negotiations. Mahmoud Abbas, the president of the Palestinian Authority, is refusing to come back to the table and is apparently betting his people’s future on a misguided deal with Hamas and symbolic gestures.

This is more than just a wasted opportunity. Continued stalemate feeds extremism. And there is a deadline looming: Absent negotiations, Palestinians plan to ask the United Nations in September to recognize their state. The measure won’t get them what they want, and the United States will veto it when it gets to the Security Council. But the exercise will further isolate Israel and Washington.

President Obama vowed to revive the peace process but checked out when Mr. Netanyahu rejected his demand for a settlement freeze and Mr. Abbas refused to negotiate without it. Mr. Obama got back in the game last week. In a speech on the Arab Spring, he goaded allies, including Israel, to take political risks for peaceful change.

What drew the most attention was his call for negotiations on a Palestinian state based on Israel’s pre-1967 borders — with mutually agreed land swaps. The idea has been the basis of all negotiations for more than a decade, including those backed by President George W. Bush.

Mr. Netanyahu immediately insisted that Israel would never return to the “indefensible” pre-1967 boundaries. Playing to his conservative base at home, and on Capitol Hill, he ignored the second half of Mr. Obama’s statement about “mutually agreed swaps so that secure and recognized borders are established for both states.”

Pretty much everyone but the hardest liners — on both sides — assumes that in a peace deal Israel will retain many of its West Bank settlements and compensate Palestinians with other land. On Monday, Mr. Netanyahu acknowledged as much, saying that “in any peace agreement that ends the conflict, some settlements will end up beyond Israel’s borders.”

His aides had raised hopes that Mr. Netanyahu would offer new ideas to revive talks, but there was really nothing new there. He insisted that Jerusalem “will never again be divided” and Israel’s Army would remain along the Jordan River. And while he basked in Congress’s standing ovations, Ethan Bronner reported in The Times that in Israel the trip was judged a diplomatic failure. The Israeli newspaper Haaretz said Mr. Netanyahu’s “same old messages” proved the country “deserves a different leader.” Palestinians dismissed the visit and said they would focus on nonviolent protests leading to September.

So what happens now? More drift and recriminations, unless Mr. Obama comes up with a plan to get the parties into serious talks. We see no hint that he is working toward one. We are told that he has no immediate plans to appoint a new envoy to replace George Mitchell, who resigned, or to send Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton to the region. Negotiations will become even harder once the unity government with Hamas is formed and it gets closer to September. Time is running out.

Netanyahu, the King of Israel Public Relations

From the algemeiner
May 24, 2011 8:53 pm

No matter how anyone who supports the Israel feels, there’s no question that Prime Minister Netanyahu is an amazing spokesperson for the Jewish State. Watching his address today to the Joint Members of Congress was inspiring and chilling.

Whilst I, and many others may not agree with every word, he included many wise statements which should be heard and absorbed around the world:

1. “Of 300 million Arabs in the Arab world, the only ones who are truly free and live in a democratic country are the Arabs who live in Israel. Israel is not what is wrong about the Middle East, Israel is what is right about the Middle East.”

My 2 cents: Why doesn’t the world act for gay rights, feminism rights, and non torture amongst other things throughout the Arab world ? Where’s Obama’s outrage on these issues ?

2. “America must never permit Iran to develop nuclear weapons.” “Jerusalem must remain under Israel’s sovereignty to ensure all religions can continue to pray in Jerusalem.”

Classic Netanyahu – Tie America and Israel together. One wonders how many churches and other religions function freely in the Muslim world ? Why doesn’t Obama and other seekers of peace speak out about these vital issues ?

3. “In Judea and Samaria, the Jewish People are not foreign occupiers. There should be no distortion of history between the Jewish people and the Jewish land.”

He spoke of biblical messages. Inspiring (and beautiful to see pictures come out on facebook of a meal where he and his advisors wore yarmulkes. Proud Jews.)

As Netanyahu said, “when we say never again, we mean never again. We rose from the generation of the Holocaust.” Citizens of the world, and this grandson of Holocaust survivors, and son of a woman born in a DP camp must never forget to remember those words.

Prime Minister Netanyahu deserves the thanks of the Jewish people, for speaking so clearly in front of the joint members of congress. Let us all pray, and act to support him and the Jewish state. Benjamin Netanyahu – thank you for speaking truth to power.

Ronn Torossian is CEO of 5WPR, 1 of the 25 largest Public Relations Agencies in the US.

Obama's speech

President Obama delivered a speech on May 19 entitled "Remarks by the President on the Middle East and North Africa."

While he began by summarizing the Arab revolt of the past five months, he ended with remarks about the Israeli/Palestinian conflict.

Here's the excerpt. Notice (bold, red) that Israel must act boldly but not the Hamas and Fatah.

For the Palestinians, efforts to delegitimize Israel will end in failure. Symbolic actions to isolate Israel at the United Nations in September won’t create an independent state. Palestinian leaders will not achieve peace or prosperity if Hamas insists on a path of terror and rejection. And Palestinians will never realize their independence by denying the right of Israel to exist.

As for Israel, our friendship is rooted deeply in a shared history and shared values. Our commitment to Israel’s security is unshakeable. And we will stand against attempts to single it out for criticism in international forums. But precisely because of our friendship, it’s important that we tell the truth: The status quo is unsustainable, and Israel too must act boldly to advance a lasting peace.

The fact is, a growing number of Palestinians live west of the Jordan River. Technology will make it harder for Israel to defend itself. A region undergoing profound change will lead to populism in which millions of people -– not just one or two leaders -- must believe peace is possible. The international community is tired of an endless process that never produces an outcome. The dream of a Jewish and democratic state cannot be fulfilled with permanent occupation.

Now, ultimately, it is up to the Israelis and Palestinians to take action. No peace can be imposed upon them -- not by the United States; not by anybody else. But endless delay won’t make the problem go away. What America and the international community can do is to state frankly what everyone knows -- a lasting peace will involve two states for two peoples: Israel as a Jewish state and the homeland for the Jewish people, and the state of Palestine as the homeland for the Palestinian people, each state enjoying self-determination, mutual recognition, and peace.

So while the core issues of the conflict must be negotiated, the basis of those negotiations is clear: a viable Palestine, a secure Israel. The United States believes that negotiations should result in two states, with permanent Palestinian borders with Israel, Jordan, and Egypt, and permanent Israeli borders with Palestine. We believe the borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps, so that secure and recognized borders are established for both states. The Palestinian people must have the right to govern themselves, and reach their full potential, in a sovereign and contiguous state.

As for security, every state has the right to self-defense, and Israel must be able to defend itself -– by itself -– against any threat. Provisions must also be robust enough to prevent a resurgence of terrorism, to stop the infiltration of weapons, and to provide effective border security. The full and phased withdrawal of Israeli military forces should be coordinated with the assumption of Palestinian security responsibility in a sovereign, non-militarized state. And the duration of this transition period must be agreed, and the effectiveness of security arrangements must be demonstrated.

These principles provide a foundation for negotiations. Palestinians should know the territorial outlines of their state; Israelis should know that their basic security concerns will be met. I’m aware that these steps alone will not resolve the conflict, because two wrenching and emotional issues will remain: the future of Jerusalem, and the fate of Palestinian refugees. But moving forward now on the basis of territory and security provides a foundation to resolve those two issues in a way that is just and fair, and that respects the rights and aspirations of both Israelis and Palestinians.

Now, let me say this: Recognizing that negotiations need to begin with the issues of territory and security does not mean that it will be easy to come back to the table. In particular, the recent announcement of an agreement between Fatah and Hamas raises profound and legitimate questions for Israel: How can one negotiate with a party that has shown itself unwilling to recognize your right to exist? And in the weeks and months to come, Palestinian leaders will have to provide a credible answer to that question. Meanwhile, the United States, our Quartet partners, and the Arab states will need to continue every effort to get beyond the current impasse.

I recognize how hard this will be. Suspicion and hostility has been passed on for generations, and at times it has hardened. But I’m convinced that the majority of Israelis and Palestinians would rather look to the future than be trapped in the past. We see that spirit in the Israeli father whose son was killed by Hamas, who helped start an organization that brought together Israelis and Palestinians who had lost loved ones. That father said, “I gradually realized that the only hope for progress was to recognize the face of the conflict.” We see it in the actions of a Palestinian who lost three daughters to Israeli shells in Gaza. “I have the right to feel angry,” he said. “So many people were expecting me to hate. My answer to them is I shall not hate. Let us hope,” he said, “for tomorrow.”

That is the choice that must be made -– not simply in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, but across the entire region -– a choice between hate and hope; between the shackles of the past and the promise of the future. It’s a choice that must be made by leaders and by the people, and it’s a choice that will define the future of a region that served as the cradle of civilization and a crucible of strife.

For all the challenges that lie ahead, we see many reasons to be hopeful. In Egypt, we see it in the efforts of young people who led protests. In Syria, we see it in the courage of those who brave bullets while chanting, “peaceful, peaceful.” In Benghazi, a city threatened with destruction, we see it in the courthouse square where people gather to celebrate the freedoms that they had never known. Across the region, those rights that we take for granted are being claimed with joy by those who are prying loose the grip of an iron fist.

For the American people, the scenes of upheaval in the region may be unsettling, but the forces driving it are not unfamiliar. Our own nation was founded through a rebellion against an empire. Our people fought a painful Civil War that extended freedom and dignity to those who were enslaved. And I would not be standing here today unless past generations turned to the moral force of nonviolence as a way to perfect our union –- organizing, marching, protesting peacefully together to make real those words that declared our nation: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal.”

Those words must guide our response to the change that is transforming the Middle East and North Africa -– words which tell us that repression will fail, and that tyrants will fall, and that every man and woman is endowed with certain inalienable rights.

It will not be easy. There’s no straight line to progress, and hardship always accompanies a season of hope. But the United States of America was founded on the belief that people should govern themselves. And now we cannot hesitate to stand squarely on the side of those who are reaching for their rights, knowing that their success will bring about a world that is more peaceful, more stable, and more just.

Netanyahu's Speech

-----Original Message-----
From: Jack Cohen <jcohen2@bezeqint.net>
To: Jack Cohen <cohen.jack@yahoo.com>
Sent: Wed, May 18, 2011 12:11 am
Subject: Netanyahu's speech

PM Netanyahu is scheduled to visit Washington this week and give an important speech next Monday at a joint session of the Houses of Congress. Before he leaves he spoke yesterday to the Israeli people and gave an outline of his diplomatic policies in a speech in the Knesset. Perhaps another reason why he wanted to give this speech is also to set his guidelines before Pres. Obama gives his own speech on Thurs addressing issues in the Middle East. Although Obama's speech is supposed to focus on the current uprisings in the Arab world, he is also intending to address the Israel-Palestinian conflict. Perhaps Obama's speech is designed to preempt Netanyahu's address to Congress, so Netanyahu got in first.

Netanyahu presented six points that he said were critical to any future agreement with the Palestinians:

1. The Palestinians must recognise that Israel is the national homeland of the Jewish people
2. Any agreement must end the conflict and all claims against the State of Israel
3. The problem of the Palestinian "refugees" must be resolved outside Israel's borders
4. Any Palestinian State must be demilitarized and not endanger Israel's security
5. Israel will retain the major settlement blocs, but may be prepared to give up settlements not in blocs
6. Jerusalem will remain the united, sovereign capital of Israel

Some have criticized Israel for not having its own "plan." Well here it is. It builds on the prior commitment of Netanyahu to accept a two-state solution with peace and security for all.

Not surprisingly these proposals were immediately rejected by Pres. Abbas of the PA in Ramallah and by some of the more right-wing hawks in the Knesset, including some in Likud. But, even Kadima Head Tzipi Livni, leader of the opposition, criticized some aspects of Netanyahu's proposals, so he can't be all wrong. At least he has laid down the gauntlet before Obama gives his speech on Thurs. However, all this is hypothetical if the Palestinians are led by a unified government that includes the terrorist Hamas and if they choose to take a unilateral approach by asking the UN to recognise a Palestinian State. Even Pres. Obama agrees that only a negotiated settlement between Israel and the Palestinians can lead to a two-state solution that satisfies the needs of both sides.

While many may consider Netanyahu's proposals as a basis for negotiations with the Palestinians, everyone knows that once Hamas joins any Palestinian Government, all bets are off. Israel cannot and will not pretend to negotiate with any organization that rejects its right to exist. Fatah and the PLO have supposedly recognized Israel, but Hamas has not and will not. Abbas said that Israel is "not a partner for peace," which of course reverses the actual political reality, as the Palestinians often do. Netanyahu criticized Palestinian leadership, calling them short-sighted and unwilling to compromise.

Whether or not a Palestinian State will be voted on at the UN in September, and whether or not there are further civil disobedience demonstrations like those on Nakba Day, Netanyahu has set a course and hopefully will stick with it. He may be hoping and praying, like Ben Gurion did in 1948, that the Arabs will always reject any compromise offered to them. If they do and they take unilateral action, then it is likely that Netanyahu will follow up his speeches with the unilateral annexation of the large Jewish settlement blocs in Judah and Shomron. Then the situation of the Palestine problem will be changed forever.

There’s that double standard again

from JERUSALEM POST 04/05/2011 By A. DERSHOWITZ

The targeted killing of Osama bin Laden is being applauded all over the world, and rightly so.

The decision to target and kill Osama bin Laden is being applauded by all decent people. Approval to capture or kill this mass-murdering terrorist leader was given by presidents Obama and Bush. It was the right decision, morally and legally. Although bin Laden wore no military uniform and held no official military rank, he was an appropriate military target. As the titular and spiritual head of al-Qaida, he was the functional equivalent of a head of state or commander in chief of a terrorist army. From the beginning of recorded history, killing the king has been a legitimate goal of military action. The phrase “checkmate” means “the king is dead,” signifying the successful end of a battle. Yet there are those who claim that all targeted killings are immoral and illegal. These critics characterize such actions as “extrajudicial executions,” and demand that terrorist leaders and functionaries be treated as common criminals, who must be arrested and brought to trial. The operation that resulted in bin Laden’s death was a military action calculated to kill rather than “arrest” him. It is possible, though highly unlikely, that he could have been captured alive and brought to trial. The decision to employ military personnel with guns, rather than a drone firing rockets, was probably made by generals rather than lawyers. Had it been militarily preferable to fire a rocket, that option would almost certainly have been selected – as it was by the NATO forces that rocketed Gaddafi’s compound. A rocket attack would have been a pure targeted killing, with no possibility of live capture. The operation directed against Bin Laden may have been designed, in part, to have preserved the theoretical option of arrest, though a live capture was virtually impossible under the circumstances. Indeed, it is likely that bin Laden’s death was deemed preferential to his capture and trial, because the latter would have likely resulted in al-Qaida taking hostages and trying to exchange them for bin Laden. Indeed, a US national security official has confirmed to Reuters that “this was a kill operation,” and there was no desire to capture bin Laden alive. This was a targeted kill, appropriate for a military combatant, but not for an ordinary (or even an extraordinary) criminal. Nonetheless, the government felt it necessary to announce that bin Laden was shot after he resisted, thus suggesting he was not killed in cold blood. But it’s clear that he would have been killed whether or not he resisted, since this was a kill operation from the outset, and it is unlikely he was ever given the opportunity to surrender – an opportunity not required under the rules of war. ACCORDINGLY, THOSE who oppose the very concept of targeted killings should be railing against the killing of Osama bin Laden. Among others, these critics include officials in Britain, France, Italy, Russia, the EU, Jordan and the United Nations. A former British Foreign Secretary once said: “The British government has made it repeatedly clear that so-called targeted assassinations of this kind are unlawful, unjustified and counterproductive.” The French foreign ministry has declared that “extrajudicial executions contravene international law, and are unacceptable.” The Italian foreign minister has said: “Italy, like the whole of the European Union, has always condemned the practice of targeted assassinations.” The Russians have asserted that “Russia has repeatedly stressed the unacceptability of extrajudicial settling of scores and ‘targeted killings.’” Javier Solana has noted that the “European Union has consistently condemned extrajudicial killings.” The Jordanians have said that Jordan has always denounced this policy of assassination, and its position on this has always been clear. And Kofi Annan has declared that “extrajudicial killings are violations of international law.” Yet none of these nations, groups or individuals have criticized the targeted killing of Osama bin Laden by the US! The reason is obvious. All the condemnations against targeted killing were directed at one country. Israel, of course. Israel developed the concept of targeted killings, and used it effectively against the “Osama bin Ladens” of Hamas, who directed terrorist attacks against Israeli civilians, killing and wounding far more Israelis (as a percentage of Israel’s population) than the number of Americans killed by bin Laden. It was when Israel managed to kill the head of Hamas that the international community, with the striking exception of the United States, decided that targeted killing was illegal and immoral. But now that it has been used against an enemy of Britain, France, Italy and other European nations, suddenly targeted killing is not only legal and moral, it is praiseworthy (except, of course, to Hamas, which immediately condemned the US killing of bin Laden). Well, the truth is that when used properly, targeted killing has always been deserving of approval – even when employed by Israel, a nation against which a double standard always seems to be applied. Indeed the use of targeted killings by Israel has been closely regulated by its Supreme Court, and permitted only against terrorists who are actively engaged in ongoing acts of terrorism. In the United States, on the other hand, every decision to use this tactic is made by the president alone, without any form of judicial review. So let the world stop applying a double standard to Israel, and let it start judging the merits and demerits of military tactics such as targeted killing. On balance, targeted killing, when used prudently against proper military targets, can be an effective, lawful, and moral tool in the war against terrorism. The writer’s latest novel is The Trials of Zion. This article is also available on our website’s Premium Zone.