A Message To Netanyahu: Enough Is Enough

Alon Ben-Meir - February 25, 2015

The killing of a security guard at a synagogue in Copenhagen over two weeks ago has renewed Netanyahu’s call for mass immigration of European Jews to Israel. Although he has made such impetuous appeals before, he now makes a new brazen claim that as Prime Minister of Israel, he represents and can speak on behalf of world Jewry.

This delusionary claim is an insult to European governments and the nearly 1.5 million Jews who live, work, and flourish in Europe. The irony is that Netanyahu represents neither the Jews around the world nor even the majority of Israeli Jews, other than the fraction who voted for Likud in the previous election.

Nevertheless, he seized the opportunity to usurp the political debate in Israel leading up to the election, irrespective of how harmful it may be to the very people he presumably wants to shield, merely because he believes it serves his interests.

Although Israel represents a sanctuary where any Jew is welcome, not a single non-Israeli Jew living outside Israel has appointed Netanyahu to be their spokesperson or protector.

No honest observer can deny that the upsurge of violent attacks against Jews is connected to the rise of anti-Semitism, which has not occurred in a vacuum. It is a direct result of growing anti-Israeli sentiment due to Netanyahu’s misguided policies toward the Palestinians and the continuing occupation.

Netanyahu’s call for European Jews to immigrate to Israel, live in “safety,” and not be subjected to terrorism was met with indignation by many Jewish leaders, including the Chief Rabbi of ‪‎Denmark‬, who said “If the way we deal with terror is to run somewhere else, we should all run to a deserted island.” ‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬

Western European leaders have also taken great offense. Denmark’s Prime Minister Helle Thorning-Schmidt remarked that “[Jews] belong in Denmark. They’re part of the Danish community and we wouldn’t be the same without the Jewish community,” which echoed what the French Prime Minister said following January’s terror attacks in ‪‎Paris on a Jewish supermarket.‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬

Notwithstanding the Jewish Diaspora’s affinity for Israel, they are loyal citizens of their respective countries, and Netanyahu’s illusion that bringing Jews to Israel will guarantee their security is only surpassed by his craven arrogance.

His call for mass immigration alienates Diaspora Jews and may put them at even greater risk. Eighty times more Israelis were killed in Israel by violence with the Palestinians in the past 25 years than all the Jews killed in Europe by terrorists during the same period.

There is no doubt that Netanyahu’s call for Jews to immigrate to Israel is also driven by his strong desire to increase the Jewish population in Israel and sustain the Jewish national identity of the state. This also explains his demand that as a prerequisite to reaching a peace agreement, the Palestinians must recognize Israel as the state of the Jewish people.‬‬‬‬

Here is where Netanyahu’s hypocrisy is on full display. Indeed, if he wishes to shield the Jews from acts of terrorism and encourage them to immigrate to sustain a Jewish majority in Israel, he should first focus on addressing the causes behind the rise of violent attacks by vigorously attempting to solve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

I maintain that once a peace agreement with the Palestinians is reached, many Jews would immigrate to Israel without any prompting.

They would be willing to build a new life in Israel not because they will necessarily feel safer there, but because peace would rekindle the pioneering spirit which was behind the mass immigration to Israel in years past, regardless of the uncertainty and the prospect of violence.

Sadly, Israel is no longer arousing that spirit, especially in young European and American Jews, because of the continuing conflict which has sapped it, leaving a void that cannot be filled with empty political slogans.

Netanyahu should wake up to the gloomy reality that nearly one million Israelis emigrated from Israel in the past 25 years. Many of them have left not only because they have become weary of endless violent conflict, but also because they feel betrayed by self-indulgent political leaders.

With only a few exceptions, Israel has been plagued with leaders who are no longer true to the vision behind the creation of Israel. As a result, many Jews have little hope that the political environment will change any time soon, unless new leaders emerge who are committed to ending the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Not surprisingly, many Israelis who emigrated see no reason why they should return, only to see their children be inducted to a military that has become the oppressor rather than the proud guardian of a free, independent, and prosperous country at peace with itself and with the people that co-inhabit the land. ‬

This, of course, doesn’t trouble Netanyahu. For him, this is a do-or-die political campaign. He will do and say anything to remain the focus of public discourse, even by exploiting the sensitive issues of anti-Semitism, violent extremism against the Jews, and Iran’s nuclear threat.

He already crossed a major red line by accepting the invitation to address a joint session of Congress to the dismay of many Congressmen and Jewish leaders in and outside Israel, as well as a majority of the American public, while showing complete disrespect to President Obama, and more importantly to the Executive Office of the President.

He is determined to project an image of a courageous leader and the champion of Jewish causes, when in fact he has no courage but raw boldness befitting a politician who would sell his soul to the highest bidder.

Consequently, he brought Israel’s indispensable relations with the US to a state of crisis, infuriated European leaders, embarrassed Jews everywhere, and further isolated Israel.

The Israeli electorate, who will soon cast their vote, will do well to remember that they must now seek a new horizon and send a loud and clear message to Netanyahu: enough is enough.

A Momentous Opportunity To Embrace The Arab Peace Initiative

There are many sane voices that call and show the way, I do hope more and more Israelis and Jews heed this advice.

Mike Ghouse
www.IsraelPalestineDialogue.org  
# # #

Courtesy of Professor Alon Ben-Meir.com

Jan 22, 2015

The Arab Peace Initiative (API) presents an unprecedented and vital opportunity to change the course of events in the Middle East by realizing an Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement in the context of a comprehensive Arab-Israeli peace. At no time since the API was introduced in 2002 by Saudi Arabia has the development of events in the region converged to create a new environment, making the API more relevant than before; Israel must urgently adopt it as the basis for peace negotiations. 

Israel is approaching a historic crossroads, with a general election that may usher in new leadership and end the six years of deadlock in peace negotiations under Prime Minster Netanyahu, who deepened the conflict with the Palestinians while alienating Israel’s closest friend—the United States.

Unless there is new leadership in Israel and direct participation of the Arab states in the peace process, there is no hope that renewed Israeli-Palestinian peace talks will succeed.

There are many Israelis who contend that given the volatile conditions in the Middle East, Israel must focus on the threats it faces from Iran, Hezbollah, Hamas, ISIS, and other jihadist groups, not engage again in futile peace negotiations. 

Nothing is further from the truth—everything that has transpired in the past few years and the current upheaval sweeping the region point to the precise opposite. 

Unfortunately, successive Israeli prime ministers have been blind to the merits of the API and have brainwashed the public about the “inherent danger” in it, instead of emphasizing its importance and far-reaching implications. Now that the regional dynamics have changed in fundamental ways, Israel must seize the opportunity.

For the first time in decades, the Sunni Arab world, especially the Gulf states, Egypt, and Jordan, views Israel as a partner in dealing with the Iranian nuclear threat. They have been sharing intelligence and coordinating on various levels should Iran reach the nuclear threshold. 

Successful peace negotiations based on the API would dramatically weaken the Iran-Hezbollah axis, which threatens Israel from the north, and would put enormous pressure on Hamas to embrace the API, as it would be contrary to its interests to defy the collective Arab will. The longer the occupation persists, the more Hamas will be receptive to being armed by Hezbollah and Iran. 

It will improve Israel’s international reputation, reduce its isolation, and put the onus on the Palestinians to negotiate peace in earnest.

In addition, reviving the API will allow the Palestinians to make important concessions under the Arab states’ political cover and provide Israel a comprehensive peace with the vast majority of Arab and Muslim states.

Being that Israel is in the midst of general elections, there is probably no better time for the Arab League to restate publicly that the API is still on the table and urge the Israelis to support it. 

Labor party leader Isaac Herzog, who stands a good chance of forming the next Israeli government, should rise to the challenge and embrace the API.

Herzog needs to explain to the Israelis the significance of the API and why the time is right to use the API as the vehicle that will lead to comprehensive peace and security. 

Herzog needs to disabuse the public of the illusion, promoted by Netanyahu, that the settlements provide secure borders; in fact, the settlements enterprise is a security liability rather than an asset. Regardless, the Arab League agreed to modify the API to reflect Israel’s security concerns through land swaps that would allow Israel to keep its three major settlement blocs. 

In connection with the Palestinian right of return, which is another source of concern for the Israelis, the API calls for a “just solution” to the problem. In every set of negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians, it was understood by every Arab leader that only a token number of refugees can return. 

Furthermore, territorial compromise by both is central to reaching a peace agreement, and those Israelis who refuse to relinquish land for the sake of peace will jeopardize Israel as a democratic and Jewish state. As David Ben-Gurion, Israel’s founder, stated: “Better a Jewish state on part of the land than all of the land without a state.” 

Herzog must also expose Netanyahu’s unfounded claim that a Palestinian state will end up like Gaza. Under any circumstance, the withdrawal from the West Bank will be done under meticulous security arrangements over a period of 5-10 years in full coordination with the PA that leaves nothing to chance.

Herzog should categorically dispel the notion that the API was proposed on a “take it or leave it basis” and negotiate a peace agreement with the Palestinians based on its principles. 

Both sides have been living with illusions about these issues and are imbued with the zero sum approach as if any gain by one side must be at the expense of the other. Unfortunately, the leadership on both sides has done nothing but promulgate these beliefs. 

By illusion, I mean what Sigmund Freud refers to as beliefs which are held in the absence of any good grounds supporting them, because they satisfy deep-seated wishes irrespective of evidence (or the lack thereof). Since illusions answer to inner needs, having to give them up can be an extremely painful, even traumatic experience. As a result, one of the major obstacles to adopting the API has been that many Israelis are still not prepared psychologically to relinquish some of their most cherished illusions.

Israel’s political leadership clung to these illusions and never understood the mindset of the Palestinians and vice versa. To be sure, few efforts have been made to bridge the cultural gap by engaging one another a mutual conciliatory interaction. Instead, they used the public stage to malign the other, further deepening the hatred and distrust rather than building new bridges. 

During the election campaign, the leaders of the Labor party in particular must set their sights high and embrace the API to give Israelis the chance to live in peace, especially now when the entire region is engulfed in terrifying turmoil.

  
Click here to read this article and more on AlonBen-Meir.com. 

Curse of Occupation by Alon Ben-Meir

Alon Ben-Meir is one of the many Israelis who seek justice and balance in societies. Every one of his articles is a treasure. http://www.alonben-meir.com

 Jul 16, 2014

At a time when hundreds of rockets are fired by Hamas and Islamic Jihad from Gaza against Israel – threatening population centers, including Jerusalem and Tel Aviv – criticizing Israel’s occupation of the West Bank would seem inappropriate at best.

Many Israelis justify the continuing occupation in light of the intensifying violence. They argue that Israel cannot allow the West Bank to become under any circumstances like Gaza – a staging ground for rocket attacks that could cause unimaginable death and destruction.

The repeated acts of violence emanating from Gaza and the relative calm in the occupied West Bank are used to “validate” this claim. In reality, the occupation itself is the root cause behind the unending Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the current deadly flare-up between Israel and Hamas.

Although Israel has legitimate national security concerns and has every right to defend itself, the continuing occupation is largely used as a cover for those expansionists who believe in Greater Israel.

Prime Minister Netanyahu and many members of his cabinet make no secret of their belief that “the Jewish people are not foreign occupiers.” In his speech to Congress on May 24, 2011, Netanyahu emphatically stated:

“This is the land of our forefathers, the land of Israel, to which Abraham brought the idea of one god… no distortion of history could deny the 4,000-year-old bond between the Jewish people and the Jewish land.”

Naftali Bennett, the Economy Minister, reflected the sentiments of many Israelis when he stated in 2012: “Obviously all of Eretz Yisrael [the land of Israel] belongs to us.” And now he openly calls for the outright annexation of Area C, which represents 60% of the West Bank.

Given these deep ideological and religious convictions and the failure of the last set of US-sponsored peace negotiations, the little hope left for the Palestinians to establish a state of their own has been further diminished.

To deny that Israel is an occupying power, as many Israelis do, is the height of hypocrisy. The assumption that a historical and biblical right to the “land of Israel” which goes back four millennia supersedes the right of the indigenous Palestinians defies both logic and the reality on the ground.

Regardless of who is right or wrong, occupation by its very nature erodes the moral values of the occupier, which leads to violations of the occupied’s human rights with near-impunity. In this regard, the blockade of Gaza is as bad as, and perhaps even worse than, the occupation of the West Bank.

This in turn engenders hatred and resentment, as the occupied harbor enmity and often resort to violent resistance, revenge and retribution. The abduction and the murder of three Israeli teenagers, and the kidnapping of a Palestinian boy who was beaten and burned to death as an act of revenge, instigated, at least in part, the current cycle of violence.

As the Greek dramatist Euripides observed, “The strong should not abuse their strength, nor the fortunate think Chance will bless them forever." What he and other Greek playwrights understood was the theme of blood crimes, where one outrage begets another outrage, so that what ensues is a never-ending cycle of destruction. Or as Aeschylus puts it, “Old arrogance gives birth to new...”

The sad irony is that as long as Hamas openly seeks and promotes the destruction of Israel and violently resists the blockade, it provides Israel with the excuse and rationale it needs to maintain the blockade and, by extension, the occupation of the West Bank.

This explains why the Netanyahu government does not seek the destruction of Hamas and instead chooses to “manage” its militancy by degrading every few years its military capability and destroying much of its infrastructure to keep it at bay.

The question that Greek tragedy keeps coming back to is: can we learn from all this suffering? How much wanton destruction of life has to occur before we “suffer into truth” – that is, before we learn the truth of moderation, self-control, and respect for boundaries and ultimately reconciliation?

Conversely, even though Hamas knows that it will never be in a position to destroy Israel, and regardless of the acute suffering of the trapped and despondent Palestinians in Gaza, continued militancy provides it with its raison d’être, the staying power and the “legitimacy” as it seeks to portray itself as the champion of the Palestinian cause.

This incessant and obsessive repetition of acts of vengeance and retaliation ultimately spells the end of civic morality. But as Aeschylus also observed, there is a final day of reckoning: “sooner or later... the appointed day comes.” How long must we repeat this senseless cycle of bloodshed?

Israel and Hamas will sooner or later agree on another precarious ceasefire, which will last only so long as it continues to serve their interests. In the interim, both will be preparing for the next round of fighting at the expense of the majority of Israelis and Palestinians, who are fed up with their so-called leaders whose ideological compulsion and self-denial overshadows national interests.

Israel must remember that in the wake of World I, and especially following the defeat of Germany in World War II, a new global political order was established and subsequently enshrined in the United Nations Charter; no country has been able or permitted to maintain a belligerent occupation. In this sense today only Israel is considered to be an occupying power.

Hamas’ leadership knows that they cannot destroy Israel and will be unable to indefinitely rule Gaza, not because Israel can destroy them but because the vast majority of Palestinians in Gaza will rise and demand an end to their misery and servitude, for which Hamas is blamed.

They are prisoners in their own land, encircled by Israel from the land, air and sea, and policed by Hamas. The ghastly conditions under which they live are becoming ever more unbearable and hapless every time Hamas challenges Israel.

President Abbas will do well to stay the course and continue to pursue the path of peaceful negotiations, but he must insist that if Hamas wants to remain a part of the unity government, then Gaza must also fall under the overall authority of the PA.

Egypt is rightfully insisting that any ceasefire must involve the PA’s security forces guarding the border crossing with Egypt, and Israel should also be firm that the PA be a signatory to any new ceasefire agreement.

Insisting on these conditions now in exchange for some concessions to Hamas could change the dynamics between Hamas and Israel and may well provide a new opening for the resumption of peace negotiations.

To be sure, occupation is a curse that dehumanizes both the occupier and the occupied. It runs contrary to every tenet of humanity.

Israel must take the initiative because its extraordinary achievements and permanence cannot be sustained by its military prowess alone, but rather by its dedication to the moral values for the lack of which millions of Jews have suffered and perished.

Winning Peace Through Hearts And Minds by Alon Ben-Meir

Alon is right on! I have alluded to similar points in my piece I wrote on a week ago;

 

The leaders in both the states do not represent the common public, they are like Bush, who was opposed by 72% of Americans, yet he caused so much death and destruction of Americans as well as the Iraqis and Afghans based on blatant lies.  The Israeli and Palestinian leadership is in the same boat and I do hope Pew conducts a survey to determine if the leadership reflects the peace the public wants.  Given the history of people, neither the majority of Israelis nor the Palestinians are the problem, it is the leadership.

 

YOU MAY DISAGREE WITH THIS

 

The overriding need for security has pushed them (Israelis) in quick sand of injustice, they were a just people and we need to find a way out.  Obama can help it by recognizing the Palestinian statehood, which will benefit Jewish psyche, a sigh of relief – to have acceptance of undisputed home land, a genuine source of security.

 

AT: http://israel-palestine-dialogue.blogspot.com/2013/03/obamas-visit-to-israel-and-hope.html

 

Winning Peace Through Hearts And Minds
Apr 3, 2013

Much has been said about President Obama’s journey to the Middle East but little about the substance and the implications the visit might have. I believe that if the President was set to win the hearts and minds of the Israelis, he certainly made considerable strides toward that end.

Unfortunately, most Palestinian commentators misread the implications of the visit to Israel and to the Palestinians in particular. They failed to understand that even the President of the United States cannot exact the necessary concessions from the Israelis to advance the peace process unless he earns their trust and makes them feel confident that the US will always remain committed to their national security.

The many Palestinians who criticized President Obama for showering the Israelis with lavish praise and for his unfettered commitment to Israel’s security seem to miss the central point that he wanted to convey and expected to achieve.

To suggest the President “spent three days in Israel and almost as many hours in [the West Bank]” to presumably explain where the President stands and what are his priorities, as was observed by the Economist’s N.P. under the title “A fleeting visit,” is simplistic and completely out of touch. That Obama’s visit “was an insult to the Palestinian people on every count,” was another cynical assessment by Ghada Karmi of Al Jazeera.

The trip does not have a diminishing return, as Osama Al Sharif observed in his Arab News comments, or that “it did significant damage to America’s ability to play the role of honest broker between Israelis and Palestinians if negotiations ever begin,” as was proclaimed by MJ Rosenberg (not a Palestinian) in his Huffington Post column.

The truth of the matter is that even without the observation from Ismail Mahmoud Rabah that Obama’s visit had “crucial implications for the approaching end of the Israeli Occupation,” criticism of the trip was almost entirely misperceived, and here is why.

Regardless of the fact that the Obama administration has provided Israel with more financial and military aid and political support while extending unprecedented cooperation on countless levels than any of its predecessors, the Israelis generally distrusted President Obama.

They recalled his speech in Cairo in June 2009, which they interpreted as being one-sided in favor of the Palestinians, and they recollected with dismay that he traveled three times overseas during his first term, visiting two Arab and two Muslim states while skipping Israel.

In addition, they resented the fact that he placed undue pressure on Israel to freeze settlement construction without demanding specific counter-measures from the Palestinians.

His critics are dead wrong in their assessments of the President’s intentions and the approach he took toward the Israelis during his visit to Israel, Palestine and Jordan.

His expressed purpose was to win the hearts and minds of the Israelis because he knows that any concessions he can secure on behalf of the Palestinians depends on how much the Israelis trust him and how confident they feel that the US will watch Israel’s back in a moment of real need.

The President also knows only too well that he must engage the Israeli public in the search for peace and make them understand the hazards of continuing occupation – that time is dangerously running out and they can no longer remain complacent.

For this reason he went over the head of Prime Minister Netanyahu and appealed directly to the Israeli public, especially the young, to take the lead, emphasizing that “governments respond to the popular will” and they must now make their voice heard.

He implored the young Israelis to put themselves in the Palestinians’ shoes, who have been stripped of their dignity, and “look at the world through their eyes.” “It is not right to prevent Palestinian from farming their lands,” he emphatically stated, “or to displace Palestinian families from their home. Neither occupation nor expulsion is the answer.”

Those who criticized the President for his presumed lack of evenhandedness in addressing the Israelis and Palestinians do not seem to grasp that the President did not need to convince the Palestinians that continued occupation is unacceptable. He did not need to remind the Palestinians of their plight and suffering. These words were directed to the Israelis who can do something about it.

He passionately stated that “Israel must also live up to its obligations to ensure that Palestinians can live, and work, and develop their society. And just as it devastates Palestinian families, the continuing humanitarian crisis in Gaza does not serve Israel's security; neither does the continuing lack of opportunity in the West Bank.”

This is what the Israelis need to hear, provided it is said in the context of the United States’ uncontestable commitment to guard Israel from outside threats, especially from Iran, and their trust in him. The Palestinians must remember that the President could hardly wring one meaningful concession from the Israelis during his first term as long as he was perceived as an antagonist and unsympathetic to their concerns.

Just as Obama sought to change the Israelis’ perception of himself and successfully touched the hearts and minds of the Israeli multitude, his administration must now focus on its renewed peace efforts to which he committed.

Other than insisting on the resumption of negotiations between Israeli and Palestinian officials, he must exert equal pressure, though quietly, on both sides to begin changing their public narrative on the conflicting issues that separate them.

Two critical conflicting issues, the ‘right of return’ of the Palestinian refugees and the continuing expansion and building new settlements, should top the agenda to provide mutually acceptable solutions which require a drastic change in the Israelis’ and Palestinians’ respective public perception.

The PA President Mahmoud Abbas cannot possibly speak about a real prospect of a two-state solution while he continues to preach the gospel of the “Right of Return,” which is utterly unacceptable to the Israelis as it will wipe out Israel’s national Jewish identity overnight.

This issue cannot be resolved only at the negotiating table without first preparing the Palestinian public to accept that the right of return can be exercised only through resettlement of the refugees in their own homeland–the West Bank and Gaza, or compensate those who elect to remain in their current country of residence.

Prime Minister Netanyahu too cannot be serious about a two-state solution as long as he continues to insist on the expansion of old and the building of new settlements in the name of national security, which “violates previous agreements and undermines efforts to achieve peace.”

If President Obama believes, as I do, that governments listen to the will of the people, then Israeli and Palestinian public perceptions must first change on these fundamental conflicting issues and about each other.

This is a moment in time that neither the Israelis nor the Palestinians can afford to squander because the passage of time will acutely undermine their ultimate national interests and make the conflict ever more intractable and increasingly perilous.

No one, however, should expect current officials of either side to change voluntarily their narrative in order to induce a change in their respective public perceptions. On the contrary, Israeli and Palestinian governments alike have used the prospect of a two-state solution for public consumption only while continuing to pursue policies that torpedo any possibility of such an outcome.

Here is where the US’ role becomes crucial. As much as Obama needs to press Israeli and Palestinian officials to resume formal peace talks, he must simultaneously exert tremendous pressure to change their public narrative and stop misleading their publics about the requisites for peace based on a two state solution that he so ardently advocated.

If President Obama did not privately counsel Netanyahu and Abbas during his visit to do just that, he should do so now. Without public support, peace negotiations will go nowhere and an Israeli-Palestinian peace will remain a pathetically self-consuming illusion.

Click here to read this article and more on AlonBen-Meir.com.

Netanyahu’s Brazen And Perilious Defiance

Alon Ben-Meir and I have similar takes on the issues of Israel and Palestine - Mike Ghouse 
Dec 3, 2012
Alon Ben-Meir

One would think that Prime Minister Netanyahu and his cohorts would one day come to their senses and realize that there are limits to which they can defy the international community, including the United States, without serious, if not perilous, repercussions for the state of Israel. As long as he is in power, Netanyahu has no intention, now or ever, to allow for the establishment of a functioning and independent Palestinian state. His talk of a two-state solution is nothing but an empty slogan designed to mislead the international community, and tragically he is leading the Jews’ third commonwealth to a historic disaster akin to the destruction of the Second Temple. Those Israelis from the left and center of the political spectrum must wake up and stop him in his tracks before it’s too late. Otherwise, they will be judged as harshly and mercilessly as history will judge Netanyahu by not preventing the looming disaster from destroying the Jews’ last refuge.

I may sound overly dramatic, but anyone who witnessed last week’s events at the United Nations and condemned the General Assembly’s overwhelming support in granting the Palestinians a non-voting observer state is contributing to the demise of a two-state prospect, which offers the only solution that preserves and safeguards Israel’s very existence. Leading Israeli figures, including former Prime Minister Olmert, applauded the UN resolution not because they care about the Palestinians as much as they are concerned about the future of Israel itself. Israel’s isolation has already reached its zenith as was displayed at the UN vote, and further defiance of the international community will make Israel a pariah state living in darkness and uncertainty, with no friends left to watch its back.

Due to the converging political events and circumstances in Israel and in the region, I for one feel, like millions around the world and in Israel, that the Palestinian Authority’s (PA) successful UN bid offers a momentous opportunity to resume in earnest the Israeli-Palestinian peace process. Israel and the United States for that matter, who claim that the PA’s unilateral action only undermines the peace negotiations, have yet to produce a shred of evidence that supports their contention. In fact, Israel has been taking unilateral measures in the occupied territories, including expropriating Palestinian land with impunity, to which the whole world is opposed.

There are several central reasons why I feel that further delay in resuming the negotiations for tactical or strategic reasons by either side will erode the last vestiges of a mutually accepted agreement with dire consequences for both.

First, as the peace negotiations have been frozen for the past three years, I believe that the PA’s elevated status could change the dynamic of the conflict in an unprecedented manner, compelling the Israelis to face a new reality. For many years now, as long as there was no spike in violence or threat of imminent danger emanating from the West Bank, the Israelis became increasingly complacent, preferring the status of “no peace, no war.” This condition allowed Netanyahu to have it both ways, which is precisely what he wished to accomplish as he continued unabatedly with the expansion of settlements. President Abbas’ effort at the UN has now shaken that status quo. Mr. Olmert expressed his support, stating that the move is in “line with the strategy of a two state solution,” and any attempts to stifle this momentum will herald a return to the status quo ante, which will severely cripple the viability of the two-state solution and acutely harm Israel’s national interests.

Second, although the Obama administration voted against the UN resolution, the timing of the PA move is particularly important as President Obama prepares for his second term where he must now deal with the ever-changing conditions in the Middle East. Recent events in Gaza have added further urgency for direct U.S. involvement in solving the Israel-Palestine conflict. The Obama administration has largely neglected the conflict after attempts were made in 2010, but the latest flare-up of violence between Israel and Hamas provided a “rude awakening”- that the U.S. cannot ignore the Israeli-Palestinian conflict without consequences to America’s strategic interests. The fact that the U.S. has backed Israel at the UN does not suggest that President Obama supports Netanyahu’s ever obstructionist policy toward the Palestinians.

The Netanyahu government’s announcement, the day after the PA’s successful bid, that it was moving ahead with plans to build a new city in the contentious area known as E1 between Maale Adumim and Jerusalem making the contiguous Palestinian state virtually impossible, was nothing short of a slap in the face to President Obama. Defying Israel’s sole ally is not only short-sighted but extremely damaging to Israel as the US is becoming increasingly frustrated with a prime minister who has lost his bearings and his mind. Regardless of Netanyahu’s loathsome behavior, however, the PA move should prompt the US to interject itself directly, actively and consistently, as it must, to push for an accord while making it abundantly clear to the Netanyahu government that it can no longer take U.S. blanket support for granted.

Third, regardless of who wins the January 2013 elections in Israel, the next prime minister will have to face the Palestinian problem in one way or another. Playing for time, as Netanyahu has done over the past four years, will no longer work. The election in January can be fateful only if the center and left political parties come to grips with the danger that Israel will face should Netanyahu be given another chance to form a new government. These are no ordinary times; the splintered political groups in Israel must either rise to the occasion and literally save the country from sliding toward the abyss, or allow their personal interests and inflated egos to stand in the way of fighting for their country. I know this is a tall order, but if they do not match their criticism of Netanyahu with action, they will have sacrificed the future of the nation on the altar of their blind self-indulgence. Then again, should Netanyahu form a new government, he will have to face, or must be made to face by the US, the changing dynamics. The Palestinians now have other tools by which to constantly refocus the attention of the international community on their plight by going, for example, to the International Criminal Court (ICC) and exercising their newly gained leverage. Israel should look at the changing conditions constructively. Instead of opting to punish the Palestinians, the next government must respond to the majority’s demands that Israel exorcize the evil of occupation and restore dignity to both Israelis and Palestinians alike.

Fourth, the overwhelming support from the international community has sent a loud and clear message to the current and future Israeli governments that Israel has no friends left. The biggest blow to Netanyahu’s policy came from the European countries that either chose to support the resolution (like France) or abstain (like the United Kingdom and Germany). Denying Netanyahu even a minimal face-saving outlet represented nothing short of exposing his unseemly bankrupt policy. The disproportionate vote at the UN (138-9, with 41 abstentions) provided a glaring testimony to Israel’s near complete isolation, which necessitates that something must now be done to face the conflict squarely. No new Israeli government, even if led by Netanyahu, can afford to ignore the consensus of the international community, provided that the leading European nations, especially, Britain, Germany, and France under the leadership of the US, are determined to use whatever diplomatic tools and leverage they can muster to resolve the conflict. In that sense, what happened in the UN provided a new momentum because the stakes for all countries concerned are extremely high.

Finally, the Palestinians are not likely to remain idle in the wake of the Arab Spring when young men and women have and continue to die for their freedom and dignity in places such as Libya, Egypt, and Syria. It would be only a question of when, not if, they will rise against the humiliating occupation. The PA’s success is likely to forestall the potential uprising in the territories and give more time for negotiations. Moreover, the successful UN bid strengthens the PA’s position as well as that of other moderate voices over Hamas, whose political standing along with other extremist groups was boosted in the wake of the latest Israel-Hamas flare-up. This development offers the US in particular a new opportunity to re-engage Israel and the Palestinians in a productive dialogue.

To fully benefit from these developments, the Palestinians would be wise to use their elevated position in a constructive way. Instead of threatening to go to the ICC, they should focus intently on the resumption of negotiations unconditionally and leave it to the US to establish the rules of engagement. In so doing, they will deprive Netanyahu from playing for time particularly because it was he who insisted on resuming the negotiations unconditionally. Israel, for its part, would be wise to refrain from taking even symbolic punitive actions against the PA, which will not only worsen the situation but weaken Israel’s hand as it would be acting against its own interest while further alienating the entire international community. The recent decision by Netanyahu’s government to build 3000 units in East Jerusalem and West Bank settlements is exactly the wrong prescription for the immediate resumption of negotiations, but since this project is still at the planning stages, the US can play a direct role in diffusing this conflicting issue.

The Obama administration has an equally important task in pushing to resolve the conflict by demonstrating that it can be an honest and impartial mediator. The US should retract its own threat of taking action against the PA. President Obama can make a convincing argument to Congress that taking punitive action would further undermine US influence in the region and that withholding aid from the PA will only strengthen the extremists among the Palestinians.

It should be made clear, though, that none of the above exempts the Palestinians from responsibility. They have all along abstracted the peace process and resorted to violence, especially the second Intifada, which was a turning point for Israel providing justification for its concerns, suspicions, and complete lack of trust. In that regard, while the Palestinians “never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity,” Israel cannot afford to miss this opportunity and bring an end to seven decades-old debilitating conflict with dignity.

Fundamentally, the dwindling prospect of achieving a two-state solution demands a creative and principled approach by the United States and Israel. The latest move by the PA may well provide the impetus to seek a solution, however elusive it may seem.


Click here to read this article and more on AlonBen-Meir.com.

Israel’s National Security: Myths And Reality

 A serious heart to heart dialogue is warranted, all I see is myths manufactured on both sides. Real and genuine security comes when the people take time to know each other, then conflicts will fade and solutions will emerge. I continue to admire professor Ben-Meir's approach towards solutions.

Mike Ghouse
Israel Palestine Dialogue.com

Israel’s National Security: Myths And Reality

Professor Alon Ben-Meir
Oct 9, 2012

Israel’s national security has, and for good reason, continues to be of prime concerns not only to its citizens but to world Jewry and many of its friends and allies around the globe. Israel has every reason to be weary of its enemies, who have time and again demonstrated that they are not worthy of trust and remain committed to Israel’s destruction both in word and deeds. For this reason, many Israelis have become increasingly more pessimistic and skeptical about the prospect of peace and for that matter, its durability even when achieved. 

This argument, however cogent it may be, has lost much of its significance as time and circumstances have changed. To be sure, although Israel’s military power remains central to its national security, no territorial depth or continued military buildup provides Israel the ultimate security it needs. In the final analysis, Israel’s security rests on peace with the Arab states, and its formidable military prowess must now be used to secure that peace, however elusive it may seem.

There are those who suggest that Israel’s withdrawal from the West Bank will make Israel vulnerable to rocket attacks from the mountains overlooking Israel's population and industrial centers in the coastal strip below, rendering the country indefensible. As one critic wrote citing an American military expert, "’modern weapon systems, most of them with components which require line-of-sight emplacement, if deployed in the [Judean and Samarian] mountains…’ [Israel’s] present width in the central sector of the country would be reduced from 40-55 miles to 9-16 miles… [which] would render the country indefensible.” To support this argument there are those who simply take at face value the statements made by right-wing Israeli officials who link territorial depth to national security without examining the real relevance between the two, especially in the context of the West Bank and the territorial depth involved.

Against the one “American military expert” there are hundreds of Israeli military experts who disagree with this argument. No one is suggesting that a peace agreement, in and of itself, provides Israel instant security. Indeed, any peace accord will have to be implemented in stages that would entail quid-pro-quo requiring both sides to fully adhere to all provisions of the agreement, especially on the matter of national security concerns to Israel. Thus, security measures will have to be in place including, for example, the stationing of an international peace force, led by the United States, stationed along the borders with Jordan replete with enforcement capabilities. More important, however, is Israel’s deterrence and its own military that has and can prevent any violation of an agreement with the Palestinians.

With today’s military technology and the proliferation of short and medium range rockets (ranging from three miles to three hundred) in the hands of Hamas and Hezbollah, “modern weapon systems,” regardless of where they are placed, can hit every population center in Israel. Therefore, whether the distance from the mountains of the West Bank is ‘40 to 55 miles or reduced to 9 to 16 miles’ will hardly make any difference. What will make, in the final analysis, a real difference are Israel’s retaliatory capabilities and the potential unacceptable damage that Israel can inflict that would persuade the enemy from provoking Israel.

Ask yourself, why have the Palestinians in the West Bank, Hamas in Gaza and Hezbollah in Lebanon have refrained from provoking Israel in any serious manner since the Palestinians in the West Bank suffered from the Israeli onslaught in the wake of the Second Intifada in 2000, Hezbollah in 2006 and Hamas in 2009? Hamas and Hezbollah in particular have not as of yet recovered from the destruction they sustained, and for them to re-engage Israel militarily would be nothing short of suicide. This is the reason why the Palestinian Authority opted to forsake violence to achieve its political objectives by peaceful means and the reason behind the relative calm that has prevailed. If one adds to that the element of the peace agreement, the likelihood of a new conflagration will become increasingly less desirable.

The issue is not where the border is finally drawn. Successive Israeli governments have sold the myth to the Israeli public linking the borders to national security, when in fact building settlements, such as Ariel, deep into the West Bank is ideologically motivated and has little if anything to do with national security. Indeed, what makes the border between Israel and a future Palestinian state defensible is not as much where the final border is finally established, but continued Israeli deterrence and, in particular, on the establishment of a comprehensive peace and normal relations in which both sides develop, over time, a vested interest. Any claim to the contrary is baseless regardless of what the ultimate intentions of the Palestinians are, as many Israelis contend.

It is a common belief in Israel that the Arabs, especially the Palestinians, cannot be trusted. They further argue that even if an Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement is achieved today the Palestinians will annul it as soon as they feel that its dissolution will work to their advantage. Many Israelis insist that the Palestinians are inherently committed to Israel’s destruction and that for the Palestinians, forging a peace agreement will amount to nothing more than a tactical move while waiting for a better day to realize their ultimate goal to bring about the destruction of Israel. The question is, however, who would make peace on the basis of trust alone? Trust can be cultivated only through a constructive and ongoing relationship that only peace can foster.

Let us assume for a moment that the lack of trust is the main obstacle to making peace. The question is, when will the day come when both sides begin to trust each other? Will it come after developing trade, commercial, cultural, scientific and diplomatic ties, or will it come when the occupation continues, the settlements expand, multiple checkpoints remain in place and thousands of Palestinian prisoners languish in Israeli jails ? Defying Israel today does not come from religious beliefs, albeit Hamas and others find it convenient to create such a link to convey their convictions. Indeed, notwithstanding the religious component of the conflict, the people, including the Palestinians want to live. They know that there is no virtue in dying in vain, especially when the prospect of destroying Israel is virtually non-existent, and more than anything else, when they have something to hold onto, like an independent state of their own.

Israel is and remains, for as far as the eye can see, a military power that no individual Arab state or combination of states can overwhelm militarily, and if they try they will do so at their peril. At no time in its history has Israel been stronger militarily. This mighty military prowess can and will be used to deter, defend or go on the offensive should Israel’s security be threatened. For this reason Israel cannot mortgage its security to a third party, it must remain vigilant, powerful and ready at all times to take any legitimate military action deemed necessary to ensure its survival.

Such a military power however can and indeed must also be used to reach out to the Palestinians and the rest of the Arab states from a position of strength. Otherwise, what is the point of such a military prowess if it does not advance peace? Israel will become increasingly more isolated, gradually evolving into a garrison state with ever diminishing friends and allies. As it is, there is not a single country in the whole world, including the US, that supports the occupation and calls on Israel to end it for its own sake.

Meanwhile Israel is gradually losing its soul and its resonance as it was envisioned by its founders. It is time for the Netanyahu government to be honest with the public and stop covering for the expansion and the building of new settlements in the name of national security.

Click here to read this article and more on AlonBen-Meir.com.

Only The U.S. Can End The Israeli-Palestinian Conflict

I have been reading Professor Ben-Meir's take on Israel and Palestine conflict, we have identical take on the issues. I have explored the same idea for years; the Neocons unfortunately have become parasites of the Republican party, them and guys like Netayahu and his ilk,  talk about the security of Israel, but do the exact opposite of it.  They believe in bully power, the power that will keep Israel insecure for generations, justice to the Palestinians and security to Israel will be sustainable, if it happens through a genuine dialogue.  

Romney would be bad for Israel's security and Justice for the Palestinians. He just does not have what it takes to bring deeply rooted conflicts to heal, he is business man, either he will cut the losses in the middle or stick with the friend Netanyahu to Israel's detriment. We the people,  will end up paying the price in terms of anguish, and a sense of doing the wrong to both the people. He will be no different than our former president, operating from the seat of his pants, rather than brains. Obama had great chances, but blew it, but he will not screw it up to hurt Israelis, Palestinians, and us the Americans. He is the least worst choice now.

Mike Ghouse
www.MikeGhouse.net 

Only The U.S. Can End The Israeli-Palestinian Conflict
Oct 1, 2012

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict cannot be resolved without the direct and active involvement of the United States, using both inducements and coercive diplomacy to bring about a peaceful solution. If the conflict remains unresolved over the next couple of years it will most likely precipitate a massive violent conflagration to the detriment of the Israelis and Palestinians and will also severely damage the U.S.’ security, economic interests and its credibility in the region. For these reasons, what the next president of the U.S. does within a few months after his inauguration will determine the future prospect of a solution, and the extent to which the candidates adhere to their campaign rhetoric will have a clear and immediate effect on how the Israelis and Palestinians react to any new American initiative to resolve the conflict. 

Mitt Romney’s position toward the conflict raises serious questions not only about his timidity but also his shortsightedness in connection with a complex conflict that has been simmering for decades and will, without a doubt, explode if a resolution is not found soon. In a number of bewildering statements, Romney blamed Palestinian “culture” as the cause of their current predicaments and faulted them for having “no interest whatsoever in establishing peace.” With these comments, Romney is in fact sending the Israelis a clear message that they should maintain the occupation, further expand the settlements, and keep the blockade on Gaza, while inferring the U.S. will not bother to interfere. Conversely, Romney’s message to the Palestinians is that they have missed many opportunities in the past to achieve peace, their yearning for statehood is a pipe dream, and they should expect little, if any, assistance from a Romney administration. 

In the wake of the Arab Spring, however, as the Palestinians watch young men and women in several Arab states fighting and dying for their freedoms, their own relative passivity at the present will not last forever. Romney’s preference of “[kicking] the ball down the field,” (that is, letting events take their own course) is dangerously misguided and ultimately detrimental to the cause of peace. 

Indeed, should Romney become President and move to translate his campaign rhetoric into policy, he will seriously endanger Israel’s very existence, which he presumably wishes to protect, and will compromise its future as an independent democratic Jewish state while contributing to its isolation from the international community. At the same time, he will encourage the Palestinians to rise up out of desperation and hopelessness to end the occupation at whatever cost, akin to the rise of Arab youth against their own governments who are prepared to die for their freedom. 

President Obama himself has contributed to the current impasse in part by insisting early in 2009 that the peace negotiations should start by first freezing the settlements, which was a nonstarter for the Netanyahu government, and by failing to visit Israel when he travelled three times overseas visiting four Arab/Muslim states. The president went to Turkey in April of 2009, in June of the same year he visited Saudi Arabia and Egypt, and in November 2010 he traveled to Indonesia. For most Israelis, skipping Israel three times was nothing short of a slap in the face, especially in light of the fact that the President made a solution to the conflict a top priority by appointing former Senate Majority Leader George Mitchell as a Special Envoy to the region only 2 days after his inauguration. To demonstrate his seriousness about the urgent need for a solution, the next President must visit Israel and the Palestinian Authority and make it abundantly clear where the US stands. 

Nonetheless, President Obama, throughout his presidency and recently reiterated in his speech at the U.N. General Assembly, has insisted that the only solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict rests on creating two independent states, a Jewish and a Palestinian state living side-by-side in peace while growing and prospering together as neighbors. Any other message coming from the White House, regardless of party affiliation, will fundamentally be injurious to both the Israelis and the Palestinians. The notion from some American politicians who have said that the U.S. should not have a greater desire for peace than the parties to the conflict is shortsighted. The U.S. has serious stakes in the region and responsibility toward its allies. The lack of peace will continue to undermine the U.S.’ interest, erode its influence and jeopardize its role in shaping the outcome of the multiple upheavals sweeping the region in the wake of the Arab Spring. 

To advance the prospect for peace between Israel and Palestine, the next president must take a number of critical steps. First, within a few months after the election, the President should visit Israel and Palestine and directly address the Israeli people as well as the Palestinians, strongly suggesting that only peace will serve their greater interests. He must look into the eyes of the Israeli and Palestinian public and emphasize that the U.S. is committed to a two-state solution and will remain consistent and resilient until such a resolution is achieved. The president should also accentuate that the U.S. will use all means available at its disposal to advance the two-state solution and stress that further delay would only harden the many facts on the ground, especially the expansion of settlements, becoming irreversible and rendering any future peace agreement virtually impossible. 

Second, the President must carry with him a general framework for an Israeli-Palestinian peace based on prior agreements negotiated between the two sides, especially those achieved in 2000 (at Camp David between Yasser Arafat and Ehud Barak) and in 2007-2008 between Ehud Olmert and Mahmoud Abbas. In both sets of these comprehensive negotiations, the two sides have been able to resolve the vast majority of the conflicting issues. In the 2007-2008 talks, then-Israeli Prime Minister Olmert stated both sides had come “very close, more than ever in the past, to complete a principle agreement that would have led to the end of the conflict.” These prior agreements should be placed on the table anew and modified in order to create a clear basis for negotiating a peace agreement with the U.S.’ direct participation. 

Third, to increase the framework’s effectiveness, a new internationally recognized special envoy of the caliber of President Clinton should be appointed with a clear presidential mandate to work relentlessly to advance the negotiating process while keeping a top level American official in the region to press on with the negotiations during the occasional absence of the special envoy. To avoid deadlocks, the rules of engagement should be based on an incremental agreement on various conflicting issues, ideally starting with borders. The Palestinians should abandon their precondition to freeze the settlements before they enter the negotiating process. An agreement on borders will in and of itself resolve 70 to 80 percent of the final status of the settlements and define the parameters of the Palestinian state. Such an agreement will also facilitate the negotiations of other conflicting issues, including the status of Palestinian refugees, Jerusalem, and Israel’s national security. Finally, the negotiations should not be open-ended; a timeline must be established, albeit with some flexibility, to prevent either party from playing for time. 

Fourth, it is imperative that the U.S. reaches out to other leading Arab and Muslim states such as Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Turkey, to exert pressure on the Palestinian Authority to make necessary concessions. Egypt must also be approached about beginning the process of influencing Hamas to change its open enmity towards and hardline policy against Israel. In particular, the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood-led government should persuade Hamas to renounce violence as a tool by which to reach its political objective of establishing an independent Palestinian state and remove from its charter the clause that calls for Israel’s destruction. These Arab states, especially Egypt, have serious stakes in finding a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Indeed, any new conflagration between Israel and the Palestinians will impact directly and indirectly not only on their interests, but could also draw them into the conflict which they want to avoid at all costs given their own internal political combustion and uncertainty. 

Fifth, once the Israelis and Palestinians engage in negotiations, the U.S. should press both to immediately begin the process of changing their public narratives about each other by mutually ending acrimonious statements and expressions of hatred and distrust. To that end both governments should encourage universities, nonpartisan think tanks, and media outlets to deliberate publicly about the psychological dimensions of the conflicting issue and begin a process of changing mindsets about some of the inevitabilities of reaching an agreement. 

Even when the leaders reach an agreement behind closed doors, they cannot simply come out with pronouncements of concessions that were made by either side without first preparing the public. For example, an agreement on Palestinians refugees will of necessity entail the return of only a small fraction of refugees to Israel proper under family reunification, when in fact the vast majority of Palestinians still believe in the right of return. Additionally there can be no two-state solution without Jerusalem becoming the capital of Israel and Palestine, albeit the city will remain united, which will be difficult for the Israeli public to accept. For these reasons, changing public perception about each conflicting issue is central to ratifying any peace accord. 

Sixth, in reaching out to the Arab and Muslim world, the President should help reignite the Arab Peace Initiative (API) which still represents the most comprehensive solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict. The revival of the API remains critically important as even top Israeli officials, including the former head of the Israeli Mossad, Meir Dagan, have stated that the plan is central to resolving the Arab-Israeli conflict. As the whole region undergoes revolutionary change in the wake of the Arab Spring, restarting the API will have special importance in reaching a comprehensive peace and long-term stability. The creation of a “sovereign, independent Palestinian state,” which the API calls for, will greatly contribute to stabilizing the region. Indeed, various Arab and Muslim countries will begin to normalize relations with Israel and foster a lasting peace that will ultimately improve the lives of millions of ordinary citizens throughout the region. 

The Arab-Israeli conflict has been overshadowed in recent months by international concerns over Iran’s nuclear program, the bloody civil war which continues to rage in Syria and the unending insurgencies and terrorism that continues to plague many nations. Meanwhile, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is quietly simmering underneath the surface and is becoming ever more perilous. Israel continues to expand existing settlements and legalize others while the Palestinians remain hopelessly factionalized and aimless, unable to present a unified front to be taken seriously, and thus, leaving the festering conflict in the hands of radicals on both sides. 

For either President Obama or Mitt Romney, finding a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict should remain a top priority. The status quo is explosive and it can only lead to a new violent and death-defying confrontation that will leave no victors behind but will result in horrifying destruction and will irreparably deepen the already existing divide between the two sides.

The United States has both the interest and the responsibility to put an end to the Israeli-Palestinian self-consuming conflict in a region where the stakes for all concerned cannot be overestimated.