IZAIA Educational Program
“Today’s Israel”
In the current international political climate, as American Jews the challenge for all of us is to engage in the complicated process of thinking through how Israel might be meaningful to each us. There is no single answer that will appeal to each of us. Please join us and let’s explore the various possible relationships with Israel. You are invited to consider the history of the relationship, learn and understand what Israel is and how she got there. Think about the various views, challenge your thoughts and learn how to talk about Israel.
This seven-session curriculum to explore your relationship with Israel, will meet monthly at Portland Chapter of Hadassah office on Second Thursday of the month.
• Dual Identity and dual loyalty
• History of the Israel—U.S. relationship
• Israel’s other International Relationships
• Law of Return—what it really is
• Slogans & Reality—Jerusalem—Occupation—Settlements—Two-State
• Contemporary Issues—what’s going on in Israel today
• How to Talk about Israel
Session Starting:
Morning – September 10, 2009 at 10:00am to Noon
Evening – September 10, 2009 at 6:30pm to 9:30pm
Drinks and snack to be provided
RSVP as soon as possible, limited space and materials, contact Portland Chapter of Hadassah office by phone 503-244-6389 or email info@portlandhadassah.org Portland Oregon.
“To meet a people’s need through a people's own effort...this idea of self emancipation is Zionism” Henrietta Szold
Friday, September 4, 2009
Tuesday, July 28, 2009
BARACK OBAMA AND THE JEWS
Barack Obama and the Jews Part 1
It’s said that to maintain power one must be trusted by his friends and feared by his enemies. We are now in an exercise to determine if that is an absolute truth. The current stand-off between the Obama administration and the State of Israel may be a test of this adage. The long standing friendly relationship between Israel and the United States has not been an even one, but at this moment it is more than strained. The level of Israeli trust in the Obama administration is at its lowest point (6%) since the relationship with the U.S. began to develop after the Six Day War.
In the early years of the States’ reconstitution, we remember that President Harry Truman was strong and decisive in recognizing the State immediately after its Declaration of Independence. He followed immediately with an arms embargo fully aware that the tiny country would be attacked by seven Arab countries, since the Soviets were supplying the Arabs with whatever they wanted, it was in effect an embargo only on Israel. In desperate straits, Israel found a way; buying rifles from Czechoslovakia, with permission from Russia, not withstanding that Russia was solidly supporting the Arabs. France, in the nick of time, sold the nascent state mystere jets and the Zionists prevailed with no help from the U.S.
In October 1955, Egypt’s closure of the Straits of Tiran, an act of war in International law, was responded to with a few raised eyebrows, but the international community simply looked on even with the awareness that this move was a break in International law while crippling Israeli shipping. Only in July of 1956 when Nasser nationalized the Suez Canal, owned by the French and the British, was there an uproar, if only from the owners. The French and the British then came to Israel for help in correcting this illegal act. Israel agreed, as this was an additional blow to Israel’s security and shipping. Immediately after the success of the Israel-British-French success in capturing the Canal, the United States, in a fit of pique over not being informed of the operation put all its diplomatic efforts into demanding that all three countries withdraw and return to the status quo. The British withdrew quickly with virtually no consideration of its partners in this venture. Once they withdrew, the French followed, leaving Israel holding the bag. Israel at this point had no choice but to withdraw, no negotiation occurred. Lesson for Israel: even the most engaged ally cannot be trusted when the chips are down.
President Lyndon Johnson, probably the most supportive President Israel has worked with, was unable to help in the run up to the Six Day War in 1967. Congress and the American people were unwilling to get involved in any foreign entanglements in their drive to disengage from the Vietnam War. While Johnson was verbally supportive there was little he was able to do in supplying arms or other support. He was relieved to receive American intelligence estimates of the overall situation that indicated Israel would win handily.
While Johnson was emotional in his support of Israel, Richard Nixon was practical in looking at cold, hard facts. The immense losses to Israel in blood and resources in 1973 were of concern but the interest of the Nixon administration centered on the Soviet relationship with the Egyptians and the Syrians. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger made an equally unemotional evaluation in his recommendation to help Israel with arms supplies. At the time the Cold War was the most important issue to the Nixon administration, certainly not Israel. Not allowing a victory by Russia’s’ allies was strategically important. Nixon being distracted by the Watergate scandal allowed Kissinger to take the lead and eventually Israel turned the war around. The Arabs, however were unforgiving and cut off oil supplies to the U.S. This was an unexpected turn, creating the most serious gas shortage since WWII. Oil became among the most important issues for all American politicians after this politically unfortunate event. Israel without oil or any natural resources to fill the gap left by the boycott had few cards in her hands.
The U.S. has opposed Israel many times, even threatening arms embargoes and military sanctions. Think of President Kennedy’s fierce opposition to Israel building a nuclear reactor, and the denunciation from the U.S as well as many other countries for bombing Osirak (Iraq's nuclear reactor), the demand from the U.S. to not strike first in the days preceding the Yom Kippur War, a pressure that cost Israel nearly 3000 lives and over 7,000 wounded.In each case Israel’s leaders made the decision they thought best for Israel’s security and in each case the country survived and thrived. In any relationship the junior partner cannot be the servant of the senior partner, by bowing to the wishes of the U.S. we make ourselves the junior partner, but are we? How many Israeli and Arab lives could have been saved if Israel had acted without the permission of the U.S.?
Certainly the three billion dollars of U.S. military aid are important, but how would we manage without them? This is less than 1% of Israel’s total budget; we are required to spend 75% on American products. Leverage around this is used to keep Israel out of competitive bidding on sales of products to other countries, in which American companies are also bidding.* Israel benefits from a strong relationship with the U.S. but when administrations change so might the relationship and as we are not the 51st state, we must be prepared. We are an independent sovereign state which is obligated to meet the needs of our own people first, not the wishes of a foreign power no matter how powerful.
We can say much more about the U.S.—Israel relationship especially the contributions to the U.S. from Israel. That is for another blog. The point here is that allies for our little country have not had a record of dependability even so, we have continually found a way to not only survive but to thrive and build, continuing to integrate refugees and new immigrants even though in 61 years there has not been a moment in time to relax from Arab violence against us.
The decision of Barack Obama to flip the relationship with Israel from a solid if argumentative one is obvious. Starting with the ambush of Prime Minister Netanyahu in Washington and the very public demands on Israel without negotiation or warning was shocking to Israelis. Although Israel was accustomed to the European Union telling Israel what its policies should be on issues of defense, diplomacy and even what kind of government it should have, it was new coming from the U.S. Past pressures had been quiet and behind the scenes. After the Cairo speech President Obama left no doubt his goal was a warm and loving relationship with the Islamic world and if that didn’t work for Israel well Israel is expendable. We have kept our face towards Jerusalem for two thousand years and I don’t expect that to change, rarely have the Jewish people been able to feel safe and secure.
It seems this administration is moving in the direction of every European country in saying “Israel has a right to defend herself”, until she does, then the true feelings come out in accusations from “disproportion” to “war crimes”. It is obvious that the Arab world has many more people, wealth and most importantly large oil reserves. The continual question that comes up in discussing this turn of events is why is Obama so adamant about “settlements”? The only logical answer is that “settlements” are one of two non-negotiable issues, first, “Jews should be allowed to live where they choose” as Arabs are allowed to live wherever they choose in Israel, not allowing Jews to live among Arabs is the definition of racism, Jews have been subject to racism enough to recognize it, secondly, the division of Jerusalem is non-negotiable. No Israeli government can stand while agreeing to divide Jerusalem. Picking out non-negotiable issues, demanding from Israel what she cannot give, while asking nothing from her opponents sounds like the Obama administration throwing down the gauntlet. A Nationalist government was elected by the Israeli people because they are sick of war but can find no peace partner.
To stand up vigorously to the overthrow of the unconsitiutional Honduran government and at the same time tell Israel its democratically elected government is not satisfactory to the U.S. and should be changed is not a demand typical of allies. The weak response to Iran’s undemocratic process, while making public demands of Israel that are simply not possible to fulfill fits into the strategy of attempting to win the affection of the Muslim world, even at Israel’s expense. The U.S. must act in its own interest as all nations, including Israel, must. The road the President is taking is sure to fail as it did when a previous President, Jimmy Carter, tried that path.
Israel must do what it can, without damaging itself, to hold together a good relationship with the U.S. but also she must look for other partners. Many nations want to do business with Israel and she should pursue those allies. Israel today is under perhaps the greatest existential threat since 1948 and she must stand up for her own best interests. This is why the Israeli electorate voted for a decidedly nationalist government, having confidence in Prime Minister Netanyahu’s strong leadership, and with the backing of the cabinet he has chosen Israel will, as a country, exercise the creativity, industriousness and courage necessary to continue to build this miraculous work that is the State of Israel.
*. Pentagon Halts Israeli Fighter Jet Bid, US a Rival on Tender (Arutz Sheva, 2009–07–06) --- by Malkah Fleisher
A scandal has arisen out of the United States military establishment after Pentagon pressure on Israel Aerospace Industries (IAI) to withdraw from a massive aircraft tender for the Indian Air Force leaves competing American aerospace companies in prime position to win it.On the table: a $12 billion Indian Ministry of Defense tender for 126 multi-role combat aircraft (MRCA) for the Indian Air Force.In a bid to win the tender, IAI was offered a partnership with Sweden's Saab AB to jointly develop an advanced model of the JAS-39 Gripen jet fighter. Israel was to build the electronic systems for the craft, including communications, electronic warfare and radar systems.The Pentagon contacted Israel's Ministry of Defense, ordering them to force IAI out of contention, citing concerns that Israel would integrate American technology into the fighter jets.However, two of the remaining four bidders are American companies, leaving Israeli officials speculating that the actual reason for the demand was America's interest in winning the bid without having to compete by lowering prices, according to Israeli officials quoted in Israeli mediaLockheed Martin's F-16 and Boeing's F-18 Hornet are still in the running, as well as Russia's MiG-35 and the UK's BAE Eurofighter.The United States has a history of intervening to thwart Israeli military contracts, to America's benefit. Last summer, Israel's defense establishment backed down from a $500 million Turkish tank tender in order not to compete with the Americans.In 2006, the IAI lost a $2 billion South Korean Airborne Warning and Control System (AWACS) tender after the US imposed technological and commercial restrictions, which prevented Israel from meeting the terms of the tender.In 2003, the US opposed a $1 billion AWACS contract between Israel and India, citing India's stance against the US war in Iraq. The US offered Israel $1 billion in US military goods to back down from the agreement. However, Israeli officials speculated that the US may have opposed the deal for commercial reasonspART 1
It’s said that to maintain power one must be trusted by his friends and feared by his enemies. We are now in an exercise to determine if that is an absolute truth. The current stand-off between the Obama administration and the State of Israel may be a test of this adage. The long standing friendly relationship between Israel and the United States has not been an even one, but at this moment it is more than strained. The level of Israeli trust in the Obama administration is at its lowest point (6%) since the relationship with the U.S. began to develop after the Six Day War.
In the early years of the States’ reconstitution, we remember that President Harry Truman was strong and decisive in recognizing the State immediately after its Declaration of Independence. He followed immediately with an arms embargo fully aware that the tiny country would be attacked by seven Arab countries, since the Soviets were supplying the Arabs with whatever they wanted, it was in effect an embargo only on Israel. In desperate straits, Israel found a way; buying rifles from Czechoslovakia, with permission from Russia, not withstanding that Russia was solidly supporting the Arabs. France, in the nick of time, sold the nascent state mystere jets and the Zionists prevailed with no help from the U.S.
In October 1955, Egypt’s closure of the Straits of Tiran, an act of war in International law, was responded to with a few raised eyebrows, but the international community simply looked on even with the awareness that this move was a break in International law while crippling Israeli shipping. Only in July of 1956 when Nasser nationalized the Suez Canal, owned by the French and the British, was there an uproar, if only from the owners. The French and the British then came to Israel for help in correcting this illegal act. Israel agreed, as this was an additional blow to Israel’s security and shipping. Immediately after the success of the Israel-British-French success in capturing the Canal, the United States, in a fit of pique over not being informed of the operation put all its diplomatic efforts into demanding that all three countries withdraw and return to the status quo. The British withdrew quickly with virtually no consideration of its partners in this venture. Once they withdrew, the French followed, leaving Israel holding the bag. Israel at this point had no choice but to withdraw, no negotiation occurred. Lesson for Israel: even the most engaged ally cannot be trusted when the chips are down.
President Lyndon Johnson, probably the most supportive President Israel has worked with, was unable to help in the run up to the Six Day War in 1967. Congress and the American people were unwilling to get involved in any foreign entanglements in their drive to disengage from the Vietnam War. While Johnson was verbally supportive there was little he was able to do in supplying arms or other support. He was relieved to receive American intelligence estimates of the overall situation that indicated Israel would win handily.
While Johnson was emotional in his support of Israel, Richard Nixon was practical in looking at cold, hard facts. The immense losses to Israel in blood and resources in 1973 were of concern but the interest of the Nixon administration centered on the Soviet relationship with the Egyptians and the Syrians. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger made an equally unemotional evaluation in his recommendation to help Israel with arms supplies. At the time the Cold War was the most important issue to the Nixon administration, certainly not Israel. Not allowing a victory by Russia’s’ allies was strategically important. Nixon being distracted by the Watergate scandal allowed Kissinger to take the lead and eventually Israel turned the war around. The Arabs, however were unforgiving and cut off oil supplies to the U.S. This was an unexpected turn, creating the most serious gas shortage since WWII. Oil became among the most important issues for all American politicians after this politically unfortunate event. Israel without oil or any natural resources to fill the gap left by the boycott had few cards in her hands.
The U.S. has opposed Israel many times, even threatening arms embargoes and military sanctions. Think of President Kennedy’s fierce opposition to Israel building a nuclear reactor, and the denunciation from the U.S as well as many other countries for bombing Osirak (Iraq's nuclear reactor), the demand from the U.S. to not strike first in the days preceding the Yom Kippur War, a pressure that cost Israel nearly 3000 lives and over 7,000 wounded.In each case Israel’s leaders made the decision they thought best for Israel’s security and in each case the country survived and thrived. In any relationship the junior partner cannot be the servant of the senior partner, by bowing to the wishes of the U.S. we make ourselves the junior partner, but are we? How many Israeli and Arab lives could have been saved if Israel had acted without the permission of the U.S.?
Certainly the three billion dollars of U.S. military aid are important, but how would we manage without them? This is less than 1% of Israel’s total budget; we are required to spend 75% on American products. Leverage around this is used to keep Israel out of competitive bidding on sales of products to other countries, in which American companies are also bidding.* Israel benefits from a strong relationship with the U.S. but when administrations change so might the relationship and as we are not the 51st state, we must be prepared. We are an independent sovereign state which is obligated to meet the needs of our own people first, not the wishes of a foreign power no matter how powerful.
We can say much more about the U.S.—Israel relationship especially the contributions to the U.S. from Israel. That is for another blog. The point here is that allies for our little country have not had a record of dependability even so, we have continually found a way to not only survive but to thrive and build, continuing to integrate refugees and new immigrants even though in 61 years there has not been a moment in time to relax from Arab violence against us.
The decision of Barack Obama to flip the relationship with Israel from a solid if argumentative one is obvious. Starting with the ambush of Prime Minister Netanyahu in Washington and the very public demands on Israel without negotiation or warning was shocking to Israelis. Although Israel was accustomed to the European Union telling Israel what its policies should be on issues of defense, diplomacy and even what kind of government it should have, it was new coming from the U.S. Past pressures had been quiet and behind the scenes. After the Cairo speech President Obama left no doubt his goal was a warm and loving relationship with the Islamic world and if that didn’t work for Israel well Israel is expendable. We have kept our face towards Jerusalem for two thousand years and I don’t expect that to change, rarely have the Jewish people been able to feel safe and secure.
It seems this administration is moving in the direction of every European country in saying “Israel has a right to defend herself”, until she does, then the true feelings come out in accusations from “disproportion” to “war crimes”. It is obvious that the Arab world has many more people, wealth and most importantly large oil reserves. The continual question that comes up in discussing this turn of events is why is Obama so adamant about “settlements”? The only logical answer is that “settlements” are one of two non-negotiable issues, first, “Jews should be allowed to live where they choose” as Arabs are allowed to live wherever they choose in Israel, not allowing Jews to live among Arabs is the definition of racism, Jews have been subject to racism enough to recognize it, secondly, the division of Jerusalem is non-negotiable. No Israeli government can stand while agreeing to divide Jerusalem. Picking out non-negotiable issues, demanding from Israel what she cannot give, while asking nothing from her opponents sounds like the Obama administration throwing down the gauntlet. A Nationalist government was elected by the Israeli people because they are sick of war but can find no peace partner.
To stand up vigorously to the overthrow of the unconsitiutional Honduran government and at the same time tell Israel its democratically elected government is not satisfactory to the U.S. and should be changed is not a demand typical of allies. The weak response to Iran’s undemocratic process, while making public demands of Israel that are simply not possible to fulfill fits into the strategy of attempting to win the affection of the Muslim world, even at Israel’s expense. The U.S. must act in its own interest as all nations, including Israel, must. The road the President is taking is sure to fail as it did when a previous President, Jimmy Carter, tried that path.
Israel must do what it can, without damaging itself, to hold together a good relationship with the U.S. but also she must look for other partners. Many nations want to do business with Israel and she should pursue those allies. Israel today is under perhaps the greatest existential threat since 1948 and she must stand up for her own best interests. This is why the Israeli electorate voted for a decidedly nationalist government, having confidence in Prime Minister Netanyahu’s strong leadership, and with the backing of the cabinet he has chosen Israel will, as a country, exercise the creativity, industriousness and courage necessary to continue to build this miraculous work that is the State of Israel.
*. Pentagon Halts Israeli Fighter Jet Bid, US a Rival on Tender (Arutz Sheva, 2009–07–06) --- by Malkah Fleisher
A scandal has arisen out of the United States military establishment after Pentagon pressure on Israel Aerospace Industries (IAI) to withdraw from a massive aircraft tender for the Indian Air Force leaves competing American aerospace companies in prime position to win it.On the table: a $12 billion Indian Ministry of Defense tender for 126 multi-role combat aircraft (MRCA) for the Indian Air Force.In a bid to win the tender, IAI was offered a partnership with Sweden's Saab AB to jointly develop an advanced model of the JAS-39 Gripen jet fighter. Israel was to build the electronic systems for the craft, including communications, electronic warfare and radar systems.The Pentagon contacted Israel's Ministry of Defense, ordering them to force IAI out of contention, citing concerns that Israel would integrate American technology into the fighter jets.However, two of the remaining four bidders are American companies, leaving Israeli officials speculating that the actual reason for the demand was America's interest in winning the bid without having to compete by lowering prices, according to Israeli officials quoted in Israeli mediaLockheed Martin's F-16 and Boeing's F-18 Hornet are still in the running, as well as Russia's MiG-35 and the UK's BAE Eurofighter.The United States has a history of intervening to thwart Israeli military contracts, to America's benefit. Last summer, Israel's defense establishment backed down from a $500 million Turkish tank tender in order not to compete with the Americans.In 2006, the IAI lost a $2 billion South Korean Airborne Warning and Control System (AWACS) tender after the US imposed technological and commercial restrictions, which prevented Israel from meeting the terms of the tender.In 2003, the US opposed a $1 billion AWACS contract between Israel and India, citing India's stance against the US war in Iraq. The US offered Israel $1 billion in US military goods to back down from the agreement. However, Israeli officials speculated that the US may have opposed the deal for commercial reasonspART 1
Tuesday, June 23, 2009
Thank you Mr Prime Minister
To Israel, with Love
An Open thank you Letter to Prime Minister Netanyahu:
On February 10, 2009 many of us voted for you and other center right parties such as Yisrael Beitanu entrusting you to be strong and wise in protecting our country, our heritage and our families. Your speech on June 14th assured us that we were right in our judgement and that you would not let outside pressures from the United States, the European Union or anyone else cause you to backdown. Thank you for that.
That you chose the Begin-Sadat Center was not only propitious in and of itself but a tribute to these two past adversaries to whom bringing peace and demonstrating that the past can be overcome, meant more than reveling in real or imagined slights. These two men showed true leadership by caring more for the good of their citizenry than their own ideologies or egos.
The three issues you spoke of—the Iranian threat, the economic crisis, and the advancement of peace were most important to all of us as we entered the voting booths, but most important our belief that you would stand strong when outside pressures attempted to steer our nations policies. Whether it is threatening remarks from the European Union against Israel’s policies or the United States demanding the our country “must” act on her wishes we know you will not succumb to policy changes not in Israel’s best interest. Thank you for that.
Although the entire world has agreed that Iran cannot have nuclear weapons, this idea is in grave danger of weakening in the face of Iran’s determination. What Israel must do is clear, how to do it is another question and we all know failure could bring disaster, failure from doing nothing or failure to act unsuccessfully. We know that in your previous military experience as a Sayeret Matkal Commander you have faced situations like this although not as International in consequence and trust you will not blink in this extremely difficult task that must be faced.
How do we make peace with those neighbors still at war with us? Your proposal to work towards a regional peace seems reasonable on paper, the effort it would take is immense and we respect your willingness to take it on. The past attempts at negotiations have failed, for sixteen years we have given away land, uprooted Jews from their homes, released terrorists from jails, provided financial aid and social services and today our security is more precarious than it was in 1970 when I first made Aliyah from the United States. Every previous agreement has failed as not one item of one agreement has been kept by our adversaries who signed off on them. Yet we are constantly urged to make more “painful concessions” to express “goodwill”, without a single “painful concession” being required of the other side. Please, Mr. Netanyahu, no more “painful concessions” without reciprocity. Your conditions for a Palestinian State tell us you agree. We will not give our birthright away without real guarantees.
Regardless of how each of us stands on the issue of a Palestinian state your conditions are unassailable. Please hold them as immovable and all of us will eventually support you even though some may be half hearted.
That you stood up in front of the world and told a truth that has not been told in such a straightforward and forceful manner by any Prime Minister before you is a cause for hopeful joy in our hearts. The world must know and accept the root cause of the lack of peace is not connected to Israel, the Jewish people or our long and tragic history in exile but to the refusal to recognize the right of the Jewish people to a state of their own, in their historic homeland. Your clear statement that Israel is and will remain the sovereign state of the Jewish people was received with a heartfelt thank you from all of us who support you and even many of those who may have voted otherwise.
Israel has been most admired and respected when it has stood up for itself with confidence and assurance. We have spent the last 16 years negotiating away our sovereignty. Offering much, receiving nothing, this may be why so much of the world feels it can command us to behave as they wish, not in our best interests. While few of us want to stand alone and hopefully we will not ever be in that situation, but the Jewish people, within the State of Israel and in exile, have had to do so in the past and we mustn’t give away our birthright for fear of losing the good opinion of others.
The history lesson you gave the world and reminded those who may have forgotten, was most welcome. The cause of violence and adversity against us, of course is unrelated to Settlements, lack of official statehood for the Palestinians, occupation or the other slogans that have been sold to the world by our adversaries, often accepted by Jews as well. Thank you for that.
Your unequivocal commitment to a United Jerusalem was more than welcome. Past history has shown that only under Jewish control does Jerusalem meet its destiny – an open and free city to all religions and all people. King David did not choose it as a Capitol without reason, then it had strategic importance, now it also is the historic home in which we came together as a united people and shall remain that way as long as we have the will to maintain it. Thank you for that.
You expressed so well the truth that Israel is a country whose development has been all but miraculous, if the Arab countries want to work with us in creating a regional peace, there is no reason the Palestinian people cannot grow and prosper with our help. The three commitments have to be made and honored for their situation to change. They must accept Israel and the Jewish State that it is, solve their refugee problem themselves as we did, demilitarize any Palestinian territories, and understand that Jerusalem, while important to other faiths, IS the Capitol of the Jewish people. The question of the settlements is why can Arabs live among Jews, but Jews cannot live among Arabs.
The return of GILAD SHALIT is of highest importance, thank you for remembering and not slighting this most important issue.
Thank you for all you have said. I stand with you in any way that can be useful to the ends your government espouses. Continue to stand strong for us and we will stand by you.
An Open thank you Letter to Prime Minister Netanyahu:
On February 10, 2009 many of us voted for you and other center right parties such as Yisrael Beitanu entrusting you to be strong and wise in protecting our country, our heritage and our families. Your speech on June 14th assured us that we were right in our judgement and that you would not let outside pressures from the United States, the European Union or anyone else cause you to backdown. Thank you for that.
That you chose the Begin-Sadat Center was not only propitious in and of itself but a tribute to these two past adversaries to whom bringing peace and demonstrating that the past can be overcome, meant more than reveling in real or imagined slights. These two men showed true leadership by caring more for the good of their citizenry than their own ideologies or egos.
The three issues you spoke of—the Iranian threat, the economic crisis, and the advancement of peace were most important to all of us as we entered the voting booths, but most important our belief that you would stand strong when outside pressures attempted to steer our nations policies. Whether it is threatening remarks from the European Union against Israel’s policies or the United States demanding the our country “must” act on her wishes we know you will not succumb to policy changes not in Israel’s best interest. Thank you for that.
Although the entire world has agreed that Iran cannot have nuclear weapons, this idea is in grave danger of weakening in the face of Iran’s determination. What Israel must do is clear, how to do it is another question and we all know failure could bring disaster, failure from doing nothing or failure to act unsuccessfully. We know that in your previous military experience as a Sayeret Matkal Commander you have faced situations like this although not as International in consequence and trust you will not blink in this extremely difficult task that must be faced.
How do we make peace with those neighbors still at war with us? Your proposal to work towards a regional peace seems reasonable on paper, the effort it would take is immense and we respect your willingness to take it on. The past attempts at negotiations have failed, for sixteen years we have given away land, uprooted Jews from their homes, released terrorists from jails, provided financial aid and social services and today our security is more precarious than it was in 1970 when I first made Aliyah from the United States. Every previous agreement has failed as not one item of one agreement has been kept by our adversaries who signed off on them. Yet we are constantly urged to make more “painful concessions” to express “goodwill”, without a single “painful concession” being required of the other side. Please, Mr. Netanyahu, no more “painful concessions” without reciprocity. Your conditions for a Palestinian State tell us you agree. We will not give our birthright away without real guarantees.
Regardless of how each of us stands on the issue of a Palestinian state your conditions are unassailable. Please hold them as immovable and all of us will eventually support you even though some may be half hearted.
That you stood up in front of the world and told a truth that has not been told in such a straightforward and forceful manner by any Prime Minister before you is a cause for hopeful joy in our hearts. The world must know and accept the root cause of the lack of peace is not connected to Israel, the Jewish people or our long and tragic history in exile but to the refusal to recognize the right of the Jewish people to a state of their own, in their historic homeland. Your clear statement that Israel is and will remain the sovereign state of the Jewish people was received with a heartfelt thank you from all of us who support you and even many of those who may have voted otherwise.
Israel has been most admired and respected when it has stood up for itself with confidence and assurance. We have spent the last 16 years negotiating away our sovereignty. Offering much, receiving nothing, this may be why so much of the world feels it can command us to behave as they wish, not in our best interests. While few of us want to stand alone and hopefully we will not ever be in that situation, but the Jewish people, within the State of Israel and in exile, have had to do so in the past and we mustn’t give away our birthright for fear of losing the good opinion of others.
The history lesson you gave the world and reminded those who may have forgotten, was most welcome. The cause of violence and adversity against us, of course is unrelated to Settlements, lack of official statehood for the Palestinians, occupation or the other slogans that have been sold to the world by our adversaries, often accepted by Jews as well. Thank you for that.
Your unequivocal commitment to a United Jerusalem was more than welcome. Past history has shown that only under Jewish control does Jerusalem meet its destiny – an open and free city to all religions and all people. King David did not choose it as a Capitol without reason, then it had strategic importance, now it also is the historic home in which we came together as a united people and shall remain that way as long as we have the will to maintain it. Thank you for that.
You expressed so well the truth that Israel is a country whose development has been all but miraculous, if the Arab countries want to work with us in creating a regional peace, there is no reason the Palestinian people cannot grow and prosper with our help. The three commitments have to be made and honored for their situation to change. They must accept Israel and the Jewish State that it is, solve their refugee problem themselves as we did, demilitarize any Palestinian territories, and understand that Jerusalem, while important to other faiths, IS the Capitol of the Jewish people. The question of the settlements is why can Arabs live among Jews, but Jews cannot live among Arabs.
The return of GILAD SHALIT is of highest importance, thank you for remembering and not slighting this most important issue.
Thank you for all you have said. I stand with you in any way that can be useful to the ends your government espouses. Continue to stand strong for us and we will stand by you.
Friday, June 12, 2009
Sloganeering For Peace
SLOGANEERING FOR PEACE; The meeting between President Obama and Prime Minister Netanyahu has occurred and the President’s much vaunted speech in Cairo has been praised and condemned endlessly, but what have we learned? I have learned that politics and slogans are most compatible bedfellows. Supporting slogans allows one to take a firm stand without dealing with what is behind the slogan. Sell a slogan and one can easily place blame, hold oneself unaccountable for results and not worry about taking the effort necessary to understand what it means. No details necessary. The slogans Israel’s adversaries have succeeded in positioning as magic—the abracadabra that will bring “peace” are: Two State Solution, Settlements, Occupation, Land For Peace and Jerusalem, capitol of Israel and Palestine.
Let’s illuminate the two most commonly argued today, Two State Solution and Settlements. Later we can investigate the others.
TWO STATE SOLUTION
What is the meaning of the word STATE in this context? According to the Encarta College Dictionary a state is “a country or nation with its own sovereign independent government.” In 1993 the European Union set the Copenhagen Political Criteria for new members, “membership criteria require that the candidate country must have achieved stability of institutions guaranteeing democracy, rule of law, human rights and respect for and protection of minorities.” Couple these definitions with the fact that each time a state has been offered the Palestinians they have responded with increased violence.
Why don’t the Palestinians have a state? The primary reason is they do not really want one. Having a “sovereign state” requires certain institutions and behaviours. Who in the disputed territories will establish a judicial system within which a citizen can receive an independent hearing with equal justice meted to all participants? Will Hamas adjudicate fair justice to a member of Fatah? Will the Palestinian Authority provide unbiased justice to a member of Hamas. This may happen but at present both sides are busy torturing and murdering, not only each other but this form of “justice” also extends to the opponents family members. Declaring a state will do nothing to bring about an independent and fair justice system. Who will build physical infrastructure? Although more aid dollars have poured into these territories, per capita, than any other place on earth does anyone know where this money has gone? Who has built schools, hospitals, a police department to maintain law and order, banks and financial infrastructure that serves the ordinary citizen and not only those with “protekzia” from the political overlords? Elections that are free and fair, a Presidential election to be held in January 2009 has not been held, because the current President knows he will not be re-elected. How legitimate is a state run education system whose textbooks are filled with hate and the pursuit of violence toward its neighbor? How long will it take to build a health care system adequate for its citizens so they don’t have to run to its hated neighbor for this care? What does it mean to have a state? Currently Judea and Samaria have independence in administration of all of its day to day affairs. Anything in the above menu is entirely up to the “Palestinian” population. Why are these responsibilities not being met when there is no interference from Israel?
The only involvement that Israel has in this territory are issues surrounding its own security. When Israel declared its Independence in 1948 most of the infrastructure was in place, informal, unofficial but in place. At that time it would have been perfectly natural for the Arabs (they were not yet Palestinians) to declare an independent state. There is an old expression TANSTAFL, “there ain’t no such thing as a free lunch”, if you want an independent sovereign state start building it. If you attack your neighbor to take over his territory and you lose, you pay a price for your aggression (this means everyone except the Jews who pay a price for defending themselves). If President Obama really wants to bring about peace and a Palestinian state he must start with a commitment to honesty with the Arab people. Even though Israel does not have oil or other natural resources, a massive land mass or an enormous population to trade with, Israel has held up its end of the alliance with the U.S. and the U.S. must do the same (more on that soon).
Prime Minister Netanyahu, Foreign Minister Avigdor Leiberman and nearly all of the people of Israel are not opposed to a Palestinian State living side by side in peace with Israel, nearly all are opposed to NOT living in peace. When the Arabs in Judea and Samaria are ready to live in peace with Israel there will be no argument from the Israeli side, no fences, no checkpoints (at least no more than every other country in the world has) and no IDF keeping the area secure. Right now we have a terrorist organization Hamas, running Gaza, (which is officially Judenrein) and Fatah running the Palestinian Authority in Judea and Samaria while fighting with each other daily, until this is solved how can one develop a sovereign state in the midst of civil war? The current government of Israel is committed to helping the Palestinians achieve prosperity and stability, first they must redevelop their educational, economic, political and police structures then we can proceed to a viable future for both peoples. Textbooks teaching hatred from the earliest grades will not help build the trust necessary for any meaningful relationship. Once the Palestinian Authority recognizes Israel as a Jewish state we are on solid ground to move to a bright and hopeful future living side by side in peace.
A model that may be considered might be Cyprus. As the Greeks and the Turks were not able to live together in peace, they separated with the Greeks on one end of the Island and the Turks on the other end, 100%. Cyprus has not declared statehood but is treated like a state and functions as a viable state including a place in the United Nations. Another example is India and Pakistan, partitioned one year before the UN partition of Palestine, even though they have fought 3 wars over the years, no one questions their legitimacy as sovereign states.
As long as the Arab goal is one state from river to sea, Israel will defend itself in whatever way necessary to protect the State of Israel and its people. A state for the Palestinians under the present conditions is impossible. The Palestinians must begin to build a functioning state that is not a threat to Israel. Until then the slogan “two-state solution” is just that, a slogan. President Obama’s push for statehood within two years will be unsuccessful in that it encourages the Palestinian fantasy of erasing the State of Israel from the Middle East. This won’t happen no matter what the European Union or the United States desires. Israel is overly concerned with world opinion, but I have confidence it will not commit suicide to win good opinion, it is in fact not a colony of the U.S. or the EU, but a sovereign state, appreciative of its alliance with America, but remembering that the existential threat is to Israel not to the United States. Your Questions and thoughts appreciated.
SETTLEMENTS
What is a settlement? Settlements are communities of people living together in every country in the world. Jewish communities, for some mysterious reason, may not exist side by side with Arab communities. Arab communities may live side by side in Jewish territory. If you have an answer to that other than Arab racism against Jews please let me know. The argument for freezing settlements voiced by Barack Obama, Hilary Clinton and others in this administration show a lack of understanding of the mindset of the Israeli population. How often do we hear that we must understand the Arab/Palestinian/Muslim mindset, but never must we understand the Jews of Israel? Natanyahu’s mindset has been clearly set out in his speeches and writings. Stopping the growth of Jewish communities means their destruction. If a family grows by having more children, or its children grow up and have children of their own, where will they live? The freeze they are describing would mean no new kindergartens or schools or even additions to existing structures. If they all have to move away, you destroy families, an extremely important part of the culture of Israeli society. Eventually as all of the young leave the community disappears. In what way are the Arabs in Judea and Samaria damaged by having Jews live among them? This is the question not being asked.
Jewish communities (settlements) have been uprooted in the Sinai, in Gaza, and several in the West Bank. Only in the Sinai has peace prevailed with the Egyptian Peace Accord, a proof of Israel’s commitment to peace, none of the other destroyed Jewish Communities has moved the neighboring Arab communities even an inch towards peace, but instead has increased the level of violence and incitement towards Israel massively.
Settlements make up 1.7% of the territory of Judea and Samaria, an area which has a great deal of vacant land that could be developed if the desire was there. Let’s stop talking in slogans. Land for Peace has never worked, the answer is Peace for Peace, when Arabs make visibly real steps toward peace we can begin to build the trust necessary to live together, as many Arab and Jewish communities inside Israel do already.
That “settlements” are somehow an impediment to peace is manufactured sloganeering to sell the notion that Jews, in spite of 3500 years of history, have no place and no sovereign claims in the middle east.
Let’s illuminate the two most commonly argued today, Two State Solution and Settlements. Later we can investigate the others.
TWO STATE SOLUTION
What is the meaning of the word STATE in this context? According to the Encarta College Dictionary a state is “a country or nation with its own sovereign independent government.” In 1993 the European Union set the Copenhagen Political Criteria for new members, “membership criteria require that the candidate country must have achieved stability of institutions guaranteeing democracy, rule of law, human rights and respect for and protection of minorities.” Couple these definitions with the fact that each time a state has been offered the Palestinians they have responded with increased violence.
Why don’t the Palestinians have a state? The primary reason is they do not really want one. Having a “sovereign state” requires certain institutions and behaviours. Who in the disputed territories will establish a judicial system within which a citizen can receive an independent hearing with equal justice meted to all participants? Will Hamas adjudicate fair justice to a member of Fatah? Will the Palestinian Authority provide unbiased justice to a member of Hamas. This may happen but at present both sides are busy torturing and murdering, not only each other but this form of “justice” also extends to the opponents family members. Declaring a state will do nothing to bring about an independent and fair justice system. Who will build physical infrastructure? Although more aid dollars have poured into these territories, per capita, than any other place on earth does anyone know where this money has gone? Who has built schools, hospitals, a police department to maintain law and order, banks and financial infrastructure that serves the ordinary citizen and not only those with “protekzia” from the political overlords? Elections that are free and fair, a Presidential election to be held in January 2009 has not been held, because the current President knows he will not be re-elected. How legitimate is a state run education system whose textbooks are filled with hate and the pursuit of violence toward its neighbor? How long will it take to build a health care system adequate for its citizens so they don’t have to run to its hated neighbor for this care? What does it mean to have a state? Currently Judea and Samaria have independence in administration of all of its day to day affairs. Anything in the above menu is entirely up to the “Palestinian” population. Why are these responsibilities not being met when there is no interference from Israel?
The only involvement that Israel has in this territory are issues surrounding its own security. When Israel declared its Independence in 1948 most of the infrastructure was in place, informal, unofficial but in place. At that time it would have been perfectly natural for the Arabs (they were not yet Palestinians) to declare an independent state. There is an old expression TANSTAFL, “there ain’t no such thing as a free lunch”, if you want an independent sovereign state start building it. If you attack your neighbor to take over his territory and you lose, you pay a price for your aggression (this means everyone except the Jews who pay a price for defending themselves). If President Obama really wants to bring about peace and a Palestinian state he must start with a commitment to honesty with the Arab people. Even though Israel does not have oil or other natural resources, a massive land mass or an enormous population to trade with, Israel has held up its end of the alliance with the U.S. and the U.S. must do the same (more on that soon).
Prime Minister Netanyahu, Foreign Minister Avigdor Leiberman and nearly all of the people of Israel are not opposed to a Palestinian State living side by side in peace with Israel, nearly all are opposed to NOT living in peace. When the Arabs in Judea and Samaria are ready to live in peace with Israel there will be no argument from the Israeli side, no fences, no checkpoints (at least no more than every other country in the world has) and no IDF keeping the area secure. Right now we have a terrorist organization Hamas, running Gaza, (which is officially Judenrein) and Fatah running the Palestinian Authority in Judea and Samaria while fighting with each other daily, until this is solved how can one develop a sovereign state in the midst of civil war? The current government of Israel is committed to helping the Palestinians achieve prosperity and stability, first they must redevelop their educational, economic, political and police structures then we can proceed to a viable future for both peoples. Textbooks teaching hatred from the earliest grades will not help build the trust necessary for any meaningful relationship. Once the Palestinian Authority recognizes Israel as a Jewish state we are on solid ground to move to a bright and hopeful future living side by side in peace.
A model that may be considered might be Cyprus. As the Greeks and the Turks were not able to live together in peace, they separated with the Greeks on one end of the Island and the Turks on the other end, 100%. Cyprus has not declared statehood but is treated like a state and functions as a viable state including a place in the United Nations. Another example is India and Pakistan, partitioned one year before the UN partition of Palestine, even though they have fought 3 wars over the years, no one questions their legitimacy as sovereign states.
As long as the Arab goal is one state from river to sea, Israel will defend itself in whatever way necessary to protect the State of Israel and its people. A state for the Palestinians under the present conditions is impossible. The Palestinians must begin to build a functioning state that is not a threat to Israel. Until then the slogan “two-state solution” is just that, a slogan. President Obama’s push for statehood within two years will be unsuccessful in that it encourages the Palestinian fantasy of erasing the State of Israel from the Middle East. This won’t happen no matter what the European Union or the United States desires. Israel is overly concerned with world opinion, but I have confidence it will not commit suicide to win good opinion, it is in fact not a colony of the U.S. or the EU, but a sovereign state, appreciative of its alliance with America, but remembering that the existential threat is to Israel not to the United States. Your Questions and thoughts appreciated.
SETTLEMENTS
What is a settlement? Settlements are communities of people living together in every country in the world. Jewish communities, for some mysterious reason, may not exist side by side with Arab communities. Arab communities may live side by side in Jewish territory. If you have an answer to that other than Arab racism against Jews please let me know. The argument for freezing settlements voiced by Barack Obama, Hilary Clinton and others in this administration show a lack of understanding of the mindset of the Israeli population. How often do we hear that we must understand the Arab/Palestinian/Muslim mindset, but never must we understand the Jews of Israel? Natanyahu’s mindset has been clearly set out in his speeches and writings. Stopping the growth of Jewish communities means their destruction. If a family grows by having more children, or its children grow up and have children of their own, where will they live? The freeze they are describing would mean no new kindergartens or schools or even additions to existing structures. If they all have to move away, you destroy families, an extremely important part of the culture of Israeli society. Eventually as all of the young leave the community disappears. In what way are the Arabs in Judea and Samaria damaged by having Jews live among them? This is the question not being asked.
Jewish communities (settlements) have been uprooted in the Sinai, in Gaza, and several in the West Bank. Only in the Sinai has peace prevailed with the Egyptian Peace Accord, a proof of Israel’s commitment to peace, none of the other destroyed Jewish Communities has moved the neighboring Arab communities even an inch towards peace, but instead has increased the level of violence and incitement towards Israel massively.
Settlements make up 1.7% of the territory of Judea and Samaria, an area which has a great deal of vacant land that could be developed if the desire was there. Let’s stop talking in slogans. Land for Peace has never worked, the answer is Peace for Peace, when Arabs make visibly real steps toward peace we can begin to build the trust necessary to live together, as many Arab and Jewish communities inside Israel do already.
That “settlements” are somehow an impediment to peace is manufactured sloganeering to sell the notion that Jews, in spite of 3500 years of history, have no place and no sovereign claims in the middle east.
Sunday, May 17, 2009
A SMART GOVERNMENT
The new governments of Israel and the U.S and their ability to work with each other has been discussed and written about endlessly with very little analysis and a great deal of sloganeering. The question of whether or not the new Israeli government’s ability to work with the new American government is raised as though this is the sole purpose of the government of Israel.
I will focus here on the Israeli government, this is a government that is unique in many ways, let’s focus on the three main criticisms: First, it’s size, second, it is too “right” wing to work with the American government, Third, “the abandonment of the “two state solution”.
TOO BIG TO FUNCTION; First understanding that both the electoral system and government structure in Israel is very different from that of the United States. (a previous post describes that difference) is crucial. The current Prime Minister, Binyamin Natanyahu had to put together a government, not only of the winners as in the U.S., but to build a coalition of many parties even some small ones requiring great diplomatic and political skill to work smoothly. As I look at the list of cabinet ministers, it is excessive in size, but is also one of the smartest governments we have had in the last two decades. With names like Omer Moav, Moshe Yaalon, Yuval Steinitz, Yaakov Neeman, Avigdor Leiberman, Daniel Herschkovitz, Dan Meridor, among others, plus the appointment of Michael Oren as Ambassador to the U.S. and Natan Sharansky heading the Jewish Agency, this is as talented a government as can be put together. The size of the government is due to Israel’s peculiar election system that allows for a surfeit of political parties that dilute the pool of Knesset seats thus requiring too many parties being involved in the final make up of the government. The Prime Minister did a masterful job of pulling together a large but workable government while paying careful attention to the wishes of the voters.
TOO RIGHT WING TO WORK WITH THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION; The election results clearly showed an Israeli public wanting a government that takes a stronger stand on security issues. Campaign issues that were discussed the most during the recent election called for a stronger stance against Israel’s enemies, less apologizing for our existence and much less concern with pleasing the international community at Israel’s expense.
This all requires a right leaning government, remembering again that the political right and the political left in Israel are very different than they are in the United States. Even though the International media insists on characterizing it as extremely right wing, it is in fact moderate for those who understand the situation within the neighborhood in which Israel lives. The American political commentator, John McLaughlin predicted on his television show on May 8th that by next Easter, Tzipi Livni will be prime minister, this illustrates how lacking in understanding of the Israeli mental state he is. If he’s taking bets I would certainly want some of that action.
Many of the Israelis I talked to at various campaign events in Israel wanted to vote for Avigdor Leiberman, but decided to vote for Likud instead because so many fears were raised from media coverage of Leiberman as an extremist, racist, hate-monger, none of which are accurate assessments. Current polls show a growing approval of Leiberman and Natanyahu, if the election were held today it appears that both Natanyahu and Leiberman would have many more votes, perhaps not needing as many small parties to form the government. Kadima has suffered the most. My prediction is that unless the current government does tremendous harm, Kadima will not be a factor in the next election. There appears to be some level of confidence that this government could actually last the 4 years and 9 months of its term. Given that this is the 32nd government in 61 years that would be a great accomplishment.
Although during the American campaign, generally Israelis polled felt Senator McCain would be more understanding and helpful of Israel’s security situation, President Obama is liked and concerns had as much to do with the last three administrations. Regarding the American administration, the most common comments I heard were the famous Menachem Begin quote to Ronald Reagan, when Reagan tried to hand down his decision on solving the Palestinian issue, “Israel is not a banana republic”, other similar expressions were, “we are not America’s 51st state” or “we are not an American colony”. These comments show the determination of Israelis to develop a non-apologetic, strong and prideful relationship with America. Israelis in general express a very high opinion of America (72% in a most recent poll although only 38% believed that President Obama has a positive attitude toward Israel) believing if they stand up for themselves America will not push policies, which could be suicidal for Israel. The same poll showed that 63% of Israelis felt Obama’s intent to reconciliate with the Muslim and Arab world to improve U.S. standing will come at Israel’s expense. A desperate desire for peace has been replaced after the disapproval of nearly every action of the Olmert government to an acceptance of Leiberman’s view “Let us have no illusion, what was has failed”. The biggest difference of opinion between Israel and the United States is also the biggest issue. The Israelis strongly hold that until the Iran situation is addressed nothing can be done on the Palestinian issue as Iran is using its surrogates, Hamas, Hizbullah and Syria to maintain and increase the level of violence against Israel. The Americans say that solving the Palestinian state issue is first in importance. This could be a tripping point in the relationship as the most clever of diplomats will not be able change Israel’s mind on this issue. Israel sees this as a survival issue and the major concern for every Israeli.
Whether or not the current government in Israel can work with the current American government will probably work out positively, I, at least, am optimistic. The new Israeli Ambassador has been an intelligent, reasonable, but strong voice for Israel in the past and understands that part of his job is educating the Obama administration. President Obama seems to be intelligent and a fast learner who doesn’t mind backing down and changing direction if necessary.
THE TWO STATE SOLUTION: The “two state solution” is still widely accepted by the general population (61%) but not at this time. The Palestinians are dysfunctional and not ready. Money alone won’t work. The two-state solution brings to mind the Einstein quote, “the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. There has been a general holding on to the same idea and the same negotiating strategies that haven’t worked for the past 16 years. The Palestinians are actually in worse shape since electing Hamas to their government while failing to make even the smallest compromise on their part towards Israel’s security. Every time Israel has given an inch it has been at the expense of their own security. Avigdor Lieberman has been castigated in the American press for saying “if you want peace prepare for war” this of course is not Mr. Lieberman’s idea, it was first voiced by Seneca and has been repeated consistently for centuries by leaders all over the world. The Jewish experience resonates with the truth of this idea.
The Israeli government sees that a two state solution may happen in time, there is little disagreement on that but it will not come until there is security for Israel, and an end to violence that could bring prosperity for the Palestinians. They must begin building something in the territories. Israel will help, according to government pronouncements, the Palestinians have to maintain law and order and educational reform that eliminates the teaching of hate and violence. These reforms must come from within and precede statehood.
The Natanyahu government is made up of some of the smartest and most experienced people in Israel and there isn’t much doubt that they will work things out with the Obama administration, unless the Obama government is intransigent in pursuit of an immediate (two years) Palestinian State. In general, Israelis remember that we did not have help and support from the U.S. government until after the Six Day War, if it is necessary they will do it again rather than give up its possibility of existence. While a helpful relationship is highly desirable, Israelis believe that the U.S. needs Israel as well as Israel needs the U.S. and they will work with us. The current Israeli government is not in a position to compromise much on security issues, regardless of what the Obama government wants. Security compromises will pull the government down very quickly. The understanding that the last two wars (with Hizbullah and Operation Cast Lead) were left unfinished has created a need to think of Israel’s best interests before the demands of the U.S. or the European Union. Olmert made the statement to the Israeli media after declaring the ceasefire in Gaza, that he called the ceasefire at that time to accommodate the Obama government, whether he was telling the truth or not, Israelis, in general and the army in particular were not pleased. (see the previous post, conversations with soldiers leaving Gaza after the ceasefire).The long and successful relationship between the U.S and Israel will continue as long as it is beneficial to both sides. The shared values and work in many fields, trade, military strategies and tools, health care research and development, technology research and development, agricultural technology and many other areas will keep the two countries working together
The new governments of Israel and the U.S and their ability to work with each other has been discussed and written about endlessly with very little analysis and a great deal of sloganeering. The question of whether or not the new Israeli government’s ability to work with the new American government is raised as though this is the sole purpose of the government of Israel.
I will focus here on the Israeli government, this is a government that is unique in many ways, let’s focus on the three main criticisms: First, it’s size, second, it is too “right” wing to work with the American government, Third, “the abandonment of the “two state solution”.
TOO BIG TO FUNCTION; First understanding that both the electoral system and government structure in Israel is very different from that of the United States. (a previous post describes that difference) is crucial. The current Prime Minister, Binyamin Natanyahu had to put together a government, not only of the winners as in the U.S., but to build a coalition of many parties even some small ones requiring great diplomatic and political skill to work smoothly. As I look at the list of cabinet ministers, it is excessive in size, but is also one of the smartest governments we have had in the last two decades. With names like Omer Moav, Moshe Yaalon, Yuval Steinitz, Yaakov Neeman, Avigdor Leiberman, Daniel Herschkovitz, Dan Meridor, among others, plus the appointment of Michael Oren as Ambassador to the U.S. and Natan Sharansky heading the Jewish Agency, this is as talented a government as can be put together. The size of the government is due to Israel’s peculiar election system that allows for a surfeit of political parties that dilute the pool of Knesset seats thus requiring too many parties being involved in the final make up of the government. The Prime Minister did a masterful job of pulling together a large but workable government while paying careful attention to the wishes of the voters.
TOO RIGHT WING TO WORK WITH THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION; The election results clearly showed an Israeli public wanting a government that takes a stronger stand on security issues. Campaign issues that were discussed the most during the recent election called for a stronger stance against Israel’s enemies, less apologizing for our existence and much less concern with pleasing the international community at Israel’s expense.
This all requires a right leaning government, remembering again that the political right and the political left in Israel are very different than they are in the United States. Even though the International media insists on characterizing it as extremely right wing, it is in fact moderate for those who understand the situation within the neighborhood in which Israel lives. The American political commentator, John McLaughlin predicted on his television show on May 8th that by next Easter, Tzipi Livni will be prime minister, this illustrates how lacking in understanding of the Israeli mental state he is. If he’s taking bets I would certainly want some of that action.
Many of the Israelis I talked to at various campaign events in Israel wanted to vote for Avigdor Leiberman, but decided to vote for Likud instead because so many fears were raised from media coverage of Leiberman as an extremist, racist, hate-monger, none of which are accurate assessments. Current polls show a growing approval of Leiberman and Natanyahu, if the election were held today it appears that both Natanyahu and Leiberman would have many more votes, perhaps not needing as many small parties to form the government. Kadima has suffered the most. My prediction is that unless the current government does tremendous harm, Kadima will not be a factor in the next election. There appears to be some level of confidence that this government could actually last the 4 years and 9 months of its term. Given that this is the 32nd government in 61 years that would be a great accomplishment.
Although during the American campaign, generally Israelis polled felt Senator McCain would be more understanding and helpful of Israel’s security situation, President Obama is liked and concerns had as much to do with the last three administrations. Regarding the American administration, the most common comments I heard were the famous Menachem Begin quote to Ronald Reagan, when Reagan tried to hand down his decision on solving the Palestinian issue, “Israel is not a banana republic”, other similar expressions were, “we are not America’s 51st state” or “we are not an American colony”. These comments show the determination of Israelis to develop a non-apologetic, strong and prideful relationship with America. Israelis in general express a very high opinion of America (72% in a most recent poll although only 38% believed that President Obama has a positive attitude toward Israel) believing if they stand up for themselves America will not push policies, which could be suicidal for Israel. The same poll showed that 63% of Israelis felt Obama’s intent to reconciliate with the Muslim and Arab world to improve U.S. standing will come at Israel’s expense. A desperate desire for peace has been replaced after the disapproval of nearly every action of the Olmert government to an acceptance of Leiberman’s view “Let us have no illusion, what was has failed”. The biggest difference of opinion between Israel and the United States is also the biggest issue. The Israelis strongly hold that until the Iran situation is addressed nothing can be done on the Palestinian issue as Iran is using its surrogates, Hamas, Hizbullah and Syria to maintain and increase the level of violence against Israel. The Americans say that solving the Palestinian state issue is first in importance. This could be a tripping point in the relationship as the most clever of diplomats will not be able change Israel’s mind on this issue. Israel sees this as a survival issue and the major concern for every Israeli.
Whether or not the current government in Israel can work with the current American government will probably work out positively, I, at least, am optimistic. The new Israeli Ambassador has been an intelligent, reasonable, but strong voice for Israel in the past and understands that part of his job is educating the Obama administration. President Obama seems to be intelligent and a fast learner who doesn’t mind backing down and changing direction if necessary.
THE TWO STATE SOLUTION: The “two state solution” is still widely accepted by the general population (61%) but not at this time. The Palestinians are dysfunctional and not ready. Money alone won’t work. The two-state solution brings to mind the Einstein quote, “the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. There has been a general holding on to the same idea and the same negotiating strategies that haven’t worked for the past 16 years. The Palestinians are actually in worse shape since electing Hamas to their government while failing to make even the smallest compromise on their part towards Israel’s security. Every time Israel has given an inch it has been at the expense of their own security. Avigdor Lieberman has been castigated in the American press for saying “if you want peace prepare for war” this of course is not Mr. Lieberman’s idea, it was first voiced by Seneca and has been repeated consistently for centuries by leaders all over the world. The Jewish experience resonates with the truth of this idea.
The Israeli government sees that a two state solution may happen in time, there is little disagreement on that but it will not come until there is security for Israel, and an end to violence that could bring prosperity for the Palestinians. They must begin building something in the territories. Israel will help, according to government pronouncements, the Palestinians have to maintain law and order and educational reform that eliminates the teaching of hate and violence. These reforms must come from within and precede statehood.
The Natanyahu government is made up of some of the smartest and most experienced people in Israel and there isn’t much doubt that they will work things out with the Obama administration, unless the Obama government is intransigent in pursuit of an immediate (two years) Palestinian State. In general, Israelis remember that we did not have help and support from the U.S. government until after the Six Day War, if it is necessary they will do it again rather than give up its possibility of existence. While a helpful relationship is highly desirable, Israelis believe that the U.S. needs Israel as well as Israel needs the U.S. and they will work with us. The current Israeli government is not in a position to compromise much on security issues, regardless of what the Obama government wants. Security compromises will pull the government down very quickly. The understanding that the last two wars (with Hizbullah and Operation Cast Lead) were left unfinished has created a need to think of Israel’s best interests before the demands of the U.S. or the European Union. Olmert made the statement to the Israeli media after declaring the ceasefire in Gaza, that he called the ceasefire at that time to accommodate the Obama government, whether he was telling the truth or not, Israelis, in general and the army in particular were not pleased. (see the previous post, conversations with soldiers leaving Gaza after the ceasefire).The long and successful relationship between the U.S and Israel will continue as long as it is beneficial to both sides. The shared values and work in many fields, trade, military strategies and tools, health care research and development, technology research and development, agricultural technology and many other areas will keep the two countries working together
Thursday, April 16, 2009
Mitchell meets Natanyahu and Lieberman
Summarizing reports in Israeli newspapers, the initial meetings were cordial but cool. Prime Minister Natanyahu held firm on Palestinian recognition of Israel as a Jewish State, with all that implies. Love or even friendship not necessary --Israel as a legitimate Jewish State is necessary. Both the Prime Minister and Foreign Minister Lieberman accept the Road Map, meaning every clause in it's own order, including the Tenant clause and the Zinni clause. FM Lieberman reviewed the history of the peace process with Mr Mitchell from 1993 to today. George Mitchell was asked to bring back to President Obama the message that the traditional approach not only, has not worked but has created serious negative consequences for Israel. There have been no results or solutions that move anyone closer to peace from this process. (Who said doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result is the definition of Insanity?)
Israel requires not only support for it's security concerns but also a committed affirmation to Israel as a Jewish State. The imposition of a peace deal by the International community will not be accepted. It appears that all this was accomplished with some degree of diplomacy, as all agreed to ongoing meetings and accepted the current meetings as "useful".
President Obama's position is unclear, his Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel is quoted in the Washington Post as saying that there will be a Palestinian state within four years no matter who the Prime Minister is. The comments from the administration regarding trading help with Iran for dismantling settlements (Bushahr for Yitzhar) hopefully is a rumour, if not it shows that the Obama administration does not understand the threat that Iran poses. If this is true, I feel confident it will be rejected out of hand. No one in the current Israeli government is suicidal.
It appears that both Israeli leaders were firm but polite and no feathers were rustled, however both the PM and FM were not cowed by the EU's threats against Israel if she doesn't accept their solution. I have repeated my comments on that issue below.
For the second time in the past month the EU has issued a warning/threat to Israel that the consequences will be grave if Israel vacates the "two state solution". Whether or not one supports that idea, the absolute arrogance of the EU to attempt to dictate to Israel what her foreign policy should be is outrageous. Did the Europeans not spend 1900 years (with a few peaceful breaks) participating in every form of persecution, degradation, torment and murder against us? Did these same people not confiscate our property while chasing us from country to country with the message "there is no room for you on this planet?" They dropped us into a black pit of hellish configuration and now protest any attempt to defend ourselves. Every European leader says we have the right to defend ourselves--until we do. We should all send a message of support to the new Israeli government letting them know we would like them to act in the best interest of the State of Israel, regardless of the opinions of the Europeans and/or Americans or anyone else who thinks they have the right to determine Israel's policies and thus her destiny. A note of encouragement canbe sent to email@natanyahu.org
After this visit from George Mitchell and the previous statements from both the PM and FM, I feel Israel is in good hands, we can only hope they stay firm. With the exception of the far left, there does not seem to be much disagreement in Israel. It is important to keep our elected representatives informed on the need for their support and appreciation for that support, when it is given. Act for America has just posted in detail, the number of Islamists close to the Obama administration. Congressman Brian Baird from Washington has announced his determination to limit Congress support for Israel. http://www.actforamerica.org/
Israel requires not only support for it's security concerns but also a committed affirmation to Israel as a Jewish State. The imposition of a peace deal by the International community will not be accepted. It appears that all this was accomplished with some degree of diplomacy, as all agreed to ongoing meetings and accepted the current meetings as "useful".
President Obama's position is unclear, his Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel is quoted in the Washington Post as saying that there will be a Palestinian state within four years no matter who the Prime Minister is. The comments from the administration regarding trading help with Iran for dismantling settlements (Bushahr for Yitzhar) hopefully is a rumour, if not it shows that the Obama administration does not understand the threat that Iran poses. If this is true, I feel confident it will be rejected out of hand. No one in the current Israeli government is suicidal.
It appears that both Israeli leaders were firm but polite and no feathers were rustled, however both the PM and FM were not cowed by the EU's threats against Israel if she doesn't accept their solution. I have repeated my comments on that issue below.
For the second time in the past month the EU has issued a warning/threat to Israel that the consequences will be grave if Israel vacates the "two state solution". Whether or not one supports that idea, the absolute arrogance of the EU to attempt to dictate to Israel what her foreign policy should be is outrageous. Did the Europeans not spend 1900 years (with a few peaceful breaks) participating in every form of persecution, degradation, torment and murder against us? Did these same people not confiscate our property while chasing us from country to country with the message "there is no room for you on this planet?" They dropped us into a black pit of hellish configuration and now protest any attempt to defend ourselves. Every European leader says we have the right to defend ourselves--until we do. We should all send a message of support to the new Israeli government letting them know we would like them to act in the best interest of the State of Israel, regardless of the opinions of the Europeans and/or Americans or anyone else who thinks they have the right to determine Israel's policies and thus her destiny. A note of encouragement canbe sent to email@natanyahu.org
After this visit from George Mitchell and the previous statements from both the PM and FM, I feel Israel is in good hands, we can only hope they stay firm. With the exception of the far left, there does not seem to be much disagreement in Israel. It is important to keep our elected representatives informed on the need for their support and appreciation for that support, when it is given. Act for America has just posted in detail, the number of Islamists close to the Obama administration. Congressman Brian Baird from Washington has announced his determination to limit Congress support for Israel. http://www.actforamerica.org/
Truth and Avigdor Leiberman
March 20, 2009 During the last two weeks of the Israeli election, I followed Avigdor Leiberman as he was obviously as important as the “top three” candidates that the Israeli and world media had determined should be followed and reported on. After listening to Leiberman in several different venues, then asking him a question regarding his purported “racism”, I carefully read the platform of Yisrael Beitanu to find where he has expressed “hate” or “racism”. I want to issue the following challenge. Where, in Mr. Leiberman’s writings, speeches or party platform there is “hate mongering”, extremism or “racism” of which he has been accused.
First of all, the party platform in brief:
1. No negotiations with terrorists
2. Overthrow Hamas
3. Citizenship should be linked to loyalty to the state and its principles. (Remember there are two Arab parties which the Knesset voted to not allow to run in this election because their platforms call for the destruction of the state of Israel and replacement with a Palestinian state. The Supreme Court ruled they must be allowed to run) Americans elected to public office must take an oath of allegiance as well as new citizens. Nowhere does Leiberman call for only Arabs or any other singled out group.to be loyal to the state.
4. Legal residents who have served in the IDF or have done National Service will get preferential treatment when applying to Universities, receiving public service benefits and allocation of state owned land grants. (This applies to all sections of the population, not only Jews)The U.S. GI bill of rights comes to mind)
5. A coalition should be formed to change the system of elections to a more workable system, perhaps modeled after the American system.
6. A bill will be presented to allow civil union as well as religious marriage.
7. A special cabinet level position to encourage aliyah and integration of new immigrants from Europe and the U.S. due to the sharp rise in anti-semitism.
8. Remove the restrictions on the importation and sale of pork products.
9. Loosen Sabbath restrictions on commerce.
Some of these planks may be disagreeable, but which ones are right wing extremist and which are racist and in what way?
My question to Mr Leiberman on the final borders was answered realistically and constructively. Borders are usually described as an issue in solving the disagreements between the parties in this part of the world. The idea of moving borders so most Arabs live together and will govern themselves autonomously and most heavily Jewish populated areas accrue to Israel, is the basic idea behind the borders set by the UN partition. This would insure that no one is moved out of their homes. Israel is not the U.S. and the Middle East is not the Americas. How people live here is different in that cultural, religious and ethnic differences cause people to prefer living together in their own communities, in order to maintain those differences. While Arabs can live freely in Israel, Jews cannot live in Arab territories—why is that?
In an interview with the Jerusalem Post, Leiberman stated he has two basic commitments, first the Security of Israel, second, prosperity for the Palestinians. He is a supporter of a two state solution and in fact believes this is the only way to solve the issue of security for Israel and prosperity for the Palestinians. Two states will only work under conditions that support Israel’s security needs.
American Jews may support the Zionist enterprise or not, but to attempt to pressure the government of a sovereign state to form a government, that is contrary to the wishes of the voters, in this case, by delegitimizing one of its leaders is not their province. To quote the embattled Dutch film maker Geert Wilders, “Thanks to Israeli parents who see their children go off to join the army and lie awake at night worrying, parents in Europe and America can sleep well and have pleasant dreams, unaware of the dangers looming.”
Demonizing those with whom we may disagree is not helpful, democratic or wise. While we can all read between the lines and determine that we know what another person thinks, but this is mind reading when there is no evidence to support it.
First of all, the party platform in brief:
1. No negotiations with terrorists
2. Overthrow Hamas
3. Citizenship should be linked to loyalty to the state and its principles. (Remember there are two Arab parties which the Knesset voted to not allow to run in this election because their platforms call for the destruction of the state of Israel and replacement with a Palestinian state. The Supreme Court ruled they must be allowed to run) Americans elected to public office must take an oath of allegiance as well as new citizens. Nowhere does Leiberman call for only Arabs or any other singled out group.to be loyal to the state.
4. Legal residents who have served in the IDF or have done National Service will get preferential treatment when applying to Universities, receiving public service benefits and allocation of state owned land grants. (This applies to all sections of the population, not only Jews)The U.S. GI bill of rights comes to mind)
5. A coalition should be formed to change the system of elections to a more workable system, perhaps modeled after the American system.
6. A bill will be presented to allow civil union as well as religious marriage.
7. A special cabinet level position to encourage aliyah and integration of new immigrants from Europe and the U.S. due to the sharp rise in anti-semitism.
8. Remove the restrictions on the importation and sale of pork products.
9. Loosen Sabbath restrictions on commerce.
Some of these planks may be disagreeable, but which ones are right wing extremist and which are racist and in what way?
My question to Mr Leiberman on the final borders was answered realistically and constructively. Borders are usually described as an issue in solving the disagreements between the parties in this part of the world. The idea of moving borders so most Arabs live together and will govern themselves autonomously and most heavily Jewish populated areas accrue to Israel, is the basic idea behind the borders set by the UN partition. This would insure that no one is moved out of their homes. Israel is not the U.S. and the Middle East is not the Americas. How people live here is different in that cultural, religious and ethnic differences cause people to prefer living together in their own communities, in order to maintain those differences. While Arabs can live freely in Israel, Jews cannot live in Arab territories—why is that?
In an interview with the Jerusalem Post, Leiberman stated he has two basic commitments, first the Security of Israel, second, prosperity for the Palestinians. He is a supporter of a two state solution and in fact believes this is the only way to solve the issue of security for Israel and prosperity for the Palestinians. Two states will only work under conditions that support Israel’s security needs.
American Jews may support the Zionist enterprise or not, but to attempt to pressure the government of a sovereign state to form a government, that is contrary to the wishes of the voters, in this case, by delegitimizing one of its leaders is not their province. To quote the embattled Dutch film maker Geert Wilders, “Thanks to Israeli parents who see their children go off to join the army and lie awake at night worrying, parents in Europe and America can sleep well and have pleasant dreams, unaware of the dangers looming.”
Demonizing those with whom we may disagree is not helpful, democratic or wise. While we can all read between the lines and determine that we know what another person thinks, but this is mind reading when there is no evidence to support it.
Jewish Morality in War
Wednesday, April 15, 2009
Jewish Morality in War
January 20, 2009
The Jewish experience over it's 3500 years has been a matter of making choices between compliant submission, leading to victimization or standing up for ourselves and fighting back. The modern state of Israel has chosen the latter requiring an investigation of how to meet this challenge within a moral position. Israel is consistently called upon to determine how best to protect her sovereignty, making war a continuous necessity in meeting that existential requirement. The question is how does she protect herself without violating her moral parameters.Summarizing Rabbi Dr Donniel Hartman on this subject will hopefully open debate on a difficult issue. Starting with the decision to go to war, by definition a moral war is always defensive, never offensive. Defending life is a moral imperative. Once the decision to go to war is made, a clear purpose must be set and a plan for how the war will be fought. The issue that Israel faces is determining how to protect noncombatents while efficiently targeting combatants.. In traditional wars this has been less a problem than it is with the nonconventional warfare that Israel faces today.How to fight a moral war when differentiation between combatants and noncombatants is blurred? The defensive army, under Jewish guidelines must protect noncombatants but not if to do so means losing the war. When the war is defensive and therefore just , the defenders may not lose the war, thus assigning it's own noncombatants a horrific fate. If, as in the current situation,(Operation Cast Lead) the aggressors are mixing combatants with non-combatants, while taking what precautions are possible, the defending army is obligated to win it. Jewish law requires that we choose life, the question is how do you choose life for others, if you don't choose life for yourself. Since the tactics used by the IDF (Israel Defense Forces) puts the lives of IDF soldiers in greater danger than any other army would allow, for the sole purpose of protecting the lives of reputed noncombatants, are they doing the right thing? This decision would infer that the lives of the enemy noncombatant's life is more valuable than the soldier's life. Remember that a defensive war is a just war, therefore the ultimate obligation is to win. Living a moral life often requires tough decisions that are not always clearly defined. What are your thoughts?
Sunday, April 5, 2009
Chief of the General Staff Discusses Preserving Morality
IDF Spokesperson April 5th, 2009
In a Passover Letter to IDF Soldiers and Commanders,The Chief of the General Staff Discusses Preserving MoralityWhile Fighting a Terrorist Threat
In honor of the upcoming holiday of Passover, the IDF Chief of the General Staff, Lt. Gen. Gabi Ashkenazi, addressed the soldiers and commanders of the IDF in a letter released this evening. The Chief of the General Staff discussed the value of freedom that is celebrated during the holiday. Lt. Gen. Ashkenazi related this value to the challenges faced by the IDF as it is required to protect the people of Israel and their freedom while fighting a terrorist threat that relentlessly uses civilians as human shields.
In the letter, the Chief of the General Staff wrote:
"The ethos of the IDF is based on combining our strength with our righteousness; on the one hand, our need to hold a deterring sword against those who threaten to destroy us, and on the other hand, our continuous effort to reach peace. We fulfill this task with determination, while preserving out morality as Jews, as Israelis, and as followers of the 'Spirit of the IDF' [the IDF's ethical code].
"This ethos has been put to test in all of Israel's wars, as well as recently, during Operation Cast Lead. Following a long period of restraint, we emerged in a battle against Hamas and other terrorist elements, determined to protect our homes and people, and to remove the terror that threatened the residents of Israel's south. Our enemy used their people as human shields and as hostages, choosing to launch their deadly attacks from schools, hospitals, mosques, and houses, forcing upon us a battle zone where an uninvolved civilian population was largely present.
"We focused our fighting against these terrorists and their infrastructure, determined to mark the entire terrorist network and deliver it a severe blow, while doing our utmost to preserve the lives of our soldiers and avoid any harm to civilian populations unassociated with terrorism.
"This is the ideological and normative basis of our culture and identity. Thus, I was disturbed like many others by the so called 'testimonies' published by soldiers, describing unacceptable actions and intentional harm supposedly done to civilians. The testimonies were investigated and looked into thoroughly by the Investigating Military Police, and were found to be groundless and lacking any factual basis.
"If a shade of a doubt is to be uncovered that any deviations from the IDF's norms took place, they will be investigated and thoroughly dealt with. The IDF is determined to rigidly maintain its values and morality. This is where our strength lies. We will never embrace the ideologies of our enemies and will forever be loyal to the tradition and values of our people."
Jewish Morality in War
January 20, 2009
The Jewish experience over it's 3500 years has been a matter of making choices between compliant submission, leading to victimization or standing up for ourselves and fighting back. The modern state of Israel has chosen the latter requiring an investigation of how to meet this challenge within a moral position. Israel is consistently called upon to determine how best to protect her sovereignty, making war a continuous necessity in meeting that existential requirement. The question is how does she protect herself without violating her moral parameters.Summarizing Rabbi Dr Donniel Hartman on this subject will hopefully open debate on a difficult issue. Starting with the decision to go to war, by definition a moral war is always defensive, never offensive. Defending life is a moral imperative. Once the decision to go to war is made, a clear purpose must be set and a plan for how the war will be fought. The issue that Israel faces is determining how to protect noncombatents while efficiently targeting combatants.. In traditional wars this has been less a problem than it is with the nonconventional warfare that Israel faces today.How to fight a moral war when differentiation between combatants and noncombatants is blurred? The defensive army, under Jewish guidelines must protect noncombatants but not if to do so means losing the war. When the war is defensive and therefore just , the defenders may not lose the war, thus assigning it's own noncombatants a horrific fate. If, as in the current situation,(Operation Cast Lead) the aggressors are mixing combatants with non-combatants, while taking what precautions are possible, the defending army is obligated to win it. Jewish law requires that we choose life, the question is how do you choose life for others, if you don't choose life for yourself. Since the tactics used by the IDF (Israel Defense Forces) puts the lives of IDF soldiers in greater danger than any other army would allow, for the sole purpose of protecting the lives of reputed noncombatants, are they doing the right thing? This decision would infer that the lives of the enemy noncombatant's life is more valuable than the soldier's life. Remember that a defensive war is a just war, therefore the ultimate obligation is to win. Living a moral life often requires tough decisions that are not always clearly defined. What are your thoughts?
Sunday, April 5, 2009
Chief of the General Staff Discusses Preserving Morality
IDF Spokesperson April 5th, 2009
In a Passover Letter to IDF Soldiers and Commanders,The Chief of the General Staff Discusses Preserving MoralityWhile Fighting a Terrorist Threat
In honor of the upcoming holiday of Passover, the IDF Chief of the General Staff, Lt. Gen. Gabi Ashkenazi, addressed the soldiers and commanders of the IDF in a letter released this evening. The Chief of the General Staff discussed the value of freedom that is celebrated during the holiday. Lt. Gen. Ashkenazi related this value to the challenges faced by the IDF as it is required to protect the people of Israel and their freedom while fighting a terrorist threat that relentlessly uses civilians as human shields.
In the letter, the Chief of the General Staff wrote:
"The ethos of the IDF is based on combining our strength with our righteousness; on the one hand, our need to hold a deterring sword against those who threaten to destroy us, and on the other hand, our continuous effort to reach peace. We fulfill this task with determination, while preserving out morality as Jews, as Israelis, and as followers of the 'Spirit of the IDF' [the IDF's ethical code].
"This ethos has been put to test in all of Israel's wars, as well as recently, during Operation Cast Lead. Following a long period of restraint, we emerged in a battle against Hamas and other terrorist elements, determined to protect our homes and people, and to remove the terror that threatened the residents of Israel's south. Our enemy used their people as human shields and as hostages, choosing to launch their deadly attacks from schools, hospitals, mosques, and houses, forcing upon us a battle zone where an uninvolved civilian population was largely present.
"We focused our fighting against these terrorists and their infrastructure, determined to mark the entire terrorist network and deliver it a severe blow, while doing our utmost to preserve the lives of our soldiers and avoid any harm to civilian populations unassociated with terrorism.
"This is the ideological and normative basis of our culture and identity. Thus, I was disturbed like many others by the so called 'testimonies' published by soldiers, describing unacceptable actions and intentional harm supposedly done to civilians. The testimonies were investigated and looked into thoroughly by the Investigating Military Police, and were found to be groundless and lacking any factual basis.
"If a shade of a doubt is to be uncovered that any deviations from the IDF's norms took place, they will be investigated and thoroughly dealt with. The IDF is determined to rigidly maintain its values and morality. This is where our strength lies. We will never embrace the ideologies of our enemies and will forever be loyal to the tradition and values of our people."
Israel's Election System
Understanding Israel’s Election System
February 8, 2009
In the United States, we just finished a very long and somewhat angry election cycle and people have begun to put their differences aside and continue life normally. One of the great positives of democracies is their ability to change governments without violence and usually without bitterness. Yet different democratic countries have very different systems and all work fairly well. Israel on Tuesday, January 27th began its official election cycle. This date is two weeks from election day and the first day that paid television advertising is allowed. The system in Israel is different from ours and since so many people have asked me, over the past years, “how does the Israeli system work” this seemed an appropriate time to talk about it. Imagine two weeks of political ads, vs the nearly 2 years of campaigning we have just finished.
Israel’s Knesset(Parliament) is unicameral and holds elections every 4 years. Voters choose their political party and vote in internal party elections to choose who will lead the party and a list of candidates, to hold Knesset seats, below the party leader. Voters pick a political party and pay a tax to the party to support it. The party decides who will be on the list and in what order, this becomes important when the general election occurs. The first name on the list will be the Prime Minister if that party gets the most votes and the names below the party leader are ordered according to the party’s judgement as to their importance to the party. For instance, if a party gets enough votes to earn 30 seats, the first 30 names become members of Knesset.
The President of Israel, currently Shimon Peres, then asks the leader of the party, who seems most likely to be able to form a government, to do so within 45 days. This is usually the party receiving the most votes, but not necessarily. Forming a government requires negotiating with other parties to form a coalition. . The cabinet ministers are members of coalition parties as well as the majority party, which sometimes creates volatility in the government. Imagine if President Obama had to insert Republicans, Green Party representatives, Independents and so on into his cabinet. While in the American system the cabinet is the pick of the President and they all work together, that is not always possible if some of your most important cabinet members are from other parties. Currently Ehud Olmert and Tzipi Livni are from Kadima but the Minister of Defense is from Labor and different cabinet members could have competed for the Prime Minister’s job in the past election and plans to do so in future elections. In the current Knesset there are 12 different parties represented (27 parties competed in the last election) and in the current election 38 parties are vying for seats.
A party must have 2% of the total votes to earn a seat. For most of the political parties this very low threshold is too high due to the number of parties involved. In the current election,the parties that will make up the next government will most likely be, the current ruling party Kadima, Likud (the current front runner), Israel Our Home, Labor, and Shas (a Sephardic religious party). Around half of the voting Arab citizens vote for left wing Jewish lists instead of any of the 5-7 Arab parties that put up a list. Also many Arabs boycott elections, which makes it difficult for them to get many seats, totaling the Arab parties together they usually pass the threshold and hold between 3 and 7 seats.
Polls show the top issues for voters are, first security, second the economy, third education. Although the elections for Knesset are set every four years very few governments have lasted a full term. In the last 10 years, four governments have formed, with three falling before their term is finished, the one that lasted was Ariel Sharon’s government from 2002 to 2006. In the last 60 years there has been only one government that received enough mandates to form a government without coalescing with other parties and it lasted only one year.
This can be a confusing system, but generally the parties have very clear differences and Israelis tend to be very loyal to a particular party. Since Israel has been at war for 60 years, every voter has concerns about security, after that the parties represent different strengths. Although the Likud has always been strong on defense, the leader of Likud, Benjamin Natanyahu is considered strongest on the economy, concerns about social issues such as poverty and education are strengths of Labor, although the religious parties are also strong on those issues as well as on the issue of maintaining Israel as a Jewish state. Israel Our Home is strong with new immigrants Jewish identity and defense. Meandering through 38 political parties is not a likely activity for most voters who will lean toward parties they have voted for in the past.
Whichever party receives the most votes will lead the government but will, of necessity, have to form a coalition with several other parties. These coalitions can create broader consensus, but often create differences that make decision making difficult.
This is Israeli elections 101, if you would like to know more feel free to contact me tboussi@gmail.com
February 8, 2009
In the United States, we just finished a very long and somewhat angry election cycle and people have begun to put their differences aside and continue life normally. One of the great positives of democracies is their ability to change governments without violence and usually without bitterness. Yet different democratic countries have very different systems and all work fairly well. Israel on Tuesday, January 27th began its official election cycle. This date is two weeks from election day and the first day that paid television advertising is allowed. The system in Israel is different from ours and since so many people have asked me, over the past years, “how does the Israeli system work” this seemed an appropriate time to talk about it. Imagine two weeks of political ads, vs the nearly 2 years of campaigning we have just finished.
Israel’s Knesset(Parliament) is unicameral and holds elections every 4 years. Voters choose their political party and vote in internal party elections to choose who will lead the party and a list of candidates, to hold Knesset seats, below the party leader. Voters pick a political party and pay a tax to the party to support it. The party decides who will be on the list and in what order, this becomes important when the general election occurs. The first name on the list will be the Prime Minister if that party gets the most votes and the names below the party leader are ordered according to the party’s judgement as to their importance to the party. For instance, if a party gets enough votes to earn 30 seats, the first 30 names become members of Knesset.
The President of Israel, currently Shimon Peres, then asks the leader of the party, who seems most likely to be able to form a government, to do so within 45 days. This is usually the party receiving the most votes, but not necessarily. Forming a government requires negotiating with other parties to form a coalition. . The cabinet ministers are members of coalition parties as well as the majority party, which sometimes creates volatility in the government. Imagine if President Obama had to insert Republicans, Green Party representatives, Independents and so on into his cabinet. While in the American system the cabinet is the pick of the President and they all work together, that is not always possible if some of your most important cabinet members are from other parties. Currently Ehud Olmert and Tzipi Livni are from Kadima but the Minister of Defense is from Labor and different cabinet members could have competed for the Prime Minister’s job in the past election and plans to do so in future elections. In the current Knesset there are 12 different parties represented (27 parties competed in the last election) and in the current election 38 parties are vying for seats.
A party must have 2% of the total votes to earn a seat. For most of the political parties this very low threshold is too high due to the number of parties involved. In the current election,the parties that will make up the next government will most likely be, the current ruling party Kadima, Likud (the current front runner), Israel Our Home, Labor, and Shas (a Sephardic religious party). Around half of the voting Arab citizens vote for left wing Jewish lists instead of any of the 5-7 Arab parties that put up a list. Also many Arabs boycott elections, which makes it difficult for them to get many seats, totaling the Arab parties together they usually pass the threshold and hold between 3 and 7 seats.
Polls show the top issues for voters are, first security, second the economy, third education. Although the elections for Knesset are set every four years very few governments have lasted a full term. In the last 10 years, four governments have formed, with three falling before their term is finished, the one that lasted was Ariel Sharon’s government from 2002 to 2006. In the last 60 years there has been only one government that received enough mandates to form a government without coalescing with other parties and it lasted only one year.
This can be a confusing system, but generally the parties have very clear differences and Israelis tend to be very loyal to a particular party. Since Israel has been at war for 60 years, every voter has concerns about security, after that the parties represent different strengths. Although the Likud has always been strong on defense, the leader of Likud, Benjamin Natanyahu is considered strongest on the economy, concerns about social issues such as poverty and education are strengths of Labor, although the religious parties are also strong on those issues as well as on the issue of maintaining Israel as a Jewish state. Israel Our Home is strong with new immigrants Jewish identity and defense. Meandering through 38 political parties is not a likely activity for most voters who will lean toward parties they have voted for in the past.
Whichever party receives the most votes will lead the government but will, of necessity, have to form a coalition with several other parties. These coalitions can create broader consensus, but often create differences that make decision making difficult.
This is Israeli elections 101, if you would like to know more feel free to contact me tboussi@gmail.com
Soldiers Return from Gaza
SOLDIERS RETURNING FROM GAZA
January 13, 2009
After talking to five soldiers returning to Israel from action in Gaza, I convey in this piece their answers as though the five soldiers were one. This seems justified, as there was almost no difference in their replies. Three of the five were reservists married and with children, and two of those reservists were religious. The interviews were mostly in Hebrew, so exact quotes are difficult.
At their request, the soldiers were not photographed. Note: On January 27, 2009 The Israel Defense Forces announced that no soldiers, commanders, or officers who participated in Operation Cast Lead, may be photographed without their faces being blurred due to European anti-Israel groups threatening to bring war crimes charges against Israeli members of the Israel Defense Forces. A bill was passed in the Knesset (the Israel Parliament) to provide any Israeli charged in a foreign country with complete protection against such lawsuits should they take place. England is of particular concern as their laws make it particularly easy for any individual to bring about such lawsuits.
How did you feel going into Gaza?
When we knew we were going in, it was initially difficult. Knowing we must do this helped. But what put us most at ease were the army Rabbis who came and talked to us—they really made you feel “the hand of G-d,” and that feeling put us very much into ruach krav (spirit of battle).
Did the soldiers with you share this feeling?
Nearly everyone felt that the Rabbis made this easier. It is said 'there are no atheists in a foxhole,' and I can tell you that is the truth. Guys who never prayed before learn to pray on the battlefield. I saw it in Lebanon in 2006 and I saw it here. Nobody enjoys fighting; we all miss our families. Ronnie here has a 2 week old baby - he should be home with his family. There is for all of us a sense of safety in Israel. I know that sounds strange, but when you step over the border into Gaza, the feeling is immediately different, even though Gaza was quiet until we reached the more inhabited areas.
How supportive are your families?
One Hundred percent. When you write to tell others about this conversation, make them understand no one of us wants to fight; but it is the only way for us to live. As much as we do not want to fight, there is a sense of relief that we are finally doing something. If we had done this two years ago, it would have been much easier. (Note: none of the soldiers lives in Sderot; two live in Ashkelon, Portland's sister city in Israel. Sderot and Ashkelon are cities in Southern Israel nearest to Gaza and under attack since Gaza was ceded to the Palestinian Authority).
How do you feel now after the ceasefire?
We aren’t supposed to talk to the media and I understand keeping the media out; but I will answer this if you do not use my real name. I am loyal to the army, my country and the job I have to do for it, and more than willing to do it. I just don’t understand the ceasefire now. No one wants it now. We want the politicians to let us finish the job. We don’t want to stop now and in a year from now have to do it all over again.
What will it take to finish the job? We don’t know exactly; but a serious push is necessary. As long as Hamas is in control it won’t end. We killed 900 terrorists out of at least 20,000: this is nothing to them. They have to know it is not worthwhile to “mess” with us.
We don’t want to be here and the Arabs in Gaza don’t want tanks and shells raining down on them. It shouldn’t be us [trying to control Hamas]. It is an Arab problem and they should solve it themselves.
Why do you think the media was kept out? I heard a reporter on Fox News channel say that it was because the Israeli government didn’t want the Israeli side of the story told.
(Laughter from all the soldiers standing there.) Of course we want our story told, but we learned from Lebanon [2006]: The press was everywhere - they were constantly getting in the way and we had to be always aware of them theyto be sure they didn’t get killed. Sometimes we couldn’t take an action we wanted to for fear of hurting them. They think war is a card game (no offense to you), but it is life and death. We can’t be out there thinking, “How will the media see this?”. Gaza is one of the most crowded places on earth. Yet we have to avoid hitting civilians and the reporters, who seem to feel they should be able do anything and be anywhere they want to be. In Lebanon, I saw a soldier in another unit who couldn’t take a shot at the guy pointing a gun at him, because a reporter was in the way. Restricting the press was one of the things that made this action much easier.
What other things made Gaza easier than Lebanon?
I don’t know if “easier” is the right word, but certainly we could be more focused on our job with the distraction created by reporters eliminated. Other things that made Gaza easier than Lebanon were:
we were well prepared and had a definite plan
our officers were in the field beside us, which is what the IDF is about
In Lebanon we fell in love with technology and thought we could do too many things from a distance.
Do you think that Gabi Ashkenazi (Chief of General Staff) is the reason?
Well, [Lieutenant General Askenazi is] probably a good part of the reason; but we all learned a lot from Lebanon. Another thing about reporters: in Lebanon, some reporters were giving away ground information, site information . . . not necessarily intentionally, but they did and it cost us lives. Security was very tight this time around; we were not even allowed to keep our cell phones with us.
Every soldier I have talked to has used the word “scared” usually more then once, what were the most frightening things for you?
First every house or building is wired. They wire their own houses, the schools that their own children attend, hospitals . . . the mindset [of putting your own people at risk] is so alien to us that we have to keep reminding ourselves of the danger in every step we take. They would rather have a family of eight blown up in their own house than eight different Arabs blown up in different places; and if it is a school full of kids that is blown up, all the better, as they understand that the publicity is good for them. They think that if they kill Israelis that’s good and if a lot of Arabs die that is even better, as it is blamed on the Israelis and that is the publicity they want. Dead women and children are the publicity they look for..
The second most frightening thing -or maybe even the first- is the tunnels. Gaza is a mass of tunnels everywhere. Some of these tunnels are big enough to walk in standing up, and with electricity and other necessities. They use them for everything; not just to smuggle other terrorists, money, weapons and whatever else they want. The tunnels run from house to house as well. The top leaders are in comfortable tunnels under the hospital: they know we won’t bomb the hospital so they [ the leaders] are safe. Another use of tunnels is for a major goal Hamas has: Kidnapping Israeli soldiers, THAT is very scary. If you are walking anywhere near any kind of brush or debris, a hand might reach out and grab a leg and try to drag you into the bush or a camouflaged tunnel. We sleep on the floor of vacant houses which we have searched. While we sleep, a floor tile will move and a hand reach out to grab an arm, a leg, or whatever, and drag you under the house into a tunnel. Thank G-d they did not succeed- only because we learned from past incidents.
Getting into the heads [of our enemy] is hard and frightening. They don’t mind how many of them die, while for us one soldier is too many. Every life is precious, even theirs—what can anyone do?
What do you feel has been accomplished?
We will have failed if we leave without Gilad Shalit: no way we can do that! We don’t want to go home until we are finished. This ceasefire was political, not practical. My hope is when Hamas' leaders stick their heads out of the tunnels they are hiding in, they will be so shocked by the devastation they see they will not want to attack Israel again. Everywhere in Gaza we left destroyed grey concrete buildings surrounded by rubble covered with a grey-black smoke.
What do you think the people of Gaza feel now that there is quiet?
'Quiet' is the right word because it is not over –the people really do hate us. They don’t know anything good about us; only that they are suffering. Some of them know Hamas is the problem; but most don’t think that way. I would say ninety-nine percent say they hate us. Hamas will get billions from the international community, and they will use most of it to re-arm themselves and to continue to educate their children [with anti-Israeli propaganda]: not to make a life for themselves, but to hate us. Their cynical use of their children is the long-range problem.
January 13, 2009
After talking to five soldiers returning to Israel from action in Gaza, I convey in this piece their answers as though the five soldiers were one. This seems justified, as there was almost no difference in their replies. Three of the five were reservists married and with children, and two of those reservists were religious. The interviews were mostly in Hebrew, so exact quotes are difficult.
At their request, the soldiers were not photographed. Note: On January 27, 2009 The Israel Defense Forces announced that no soldiers, commanders, or officers who participated in Operation Cast Lead, may be photographed without their faces being blurred due to European anti-Israel groups threatening to bring war crimes charges against Israeli members of the Israel Defense Forces. A bill was passed in the Knesset (the Israel Parliament) to provide any Israeli charged in a foreign country with complete protection against such lawsuits should they take place. England is of particular concern as their laws make it particularly easy for any individual to bring about such lawsuits.
How did you feel going into Gaza?
When we knew we were going in, it was initially difficult. Knowing we must do this helped. But what put us most at ease were the army Rabbis who came and talked to us—they really made you feel “the hand of G-d,” and that feeling put us very much into ruach krav (spirit of battle).
Did the soldiers with you share this feeling?
Nearly everyone felt that the Rabbis made this easier. It is said 'there are no atheists in a foxhole,' and I can tell you that is the truth. Guys who never prayed before learn to pray on the battlefield. I saw it in Lebanon in 2006 and I saw it here. Nobody enjoys fighting; we all miss our families. Ronnie here has a 2 week old baby - he should be home with his family. There is for all of us a sense of safety in Israel. I know that sounds strange, but when you step over the border into Gaza, the feeling is immediately different, even though Gaza was quiet until we reached the more inhabited areas.
How supportive are your families?
One Hundred percent. When you write to tell others about this conversation, make them understand no one of us wants to fight; but it is the only way for us to live. As much as we do not want to fight, there is a sense of relief that we are finally doing something. If we had done this two years ago, it would have been much easier. (Note: none of the soldiers lives in Sderot; two live in Ashkelon, Portland's sister city in Israel. Sderot and Ashkelon are cities in Southern Israel nearest to Gaza and under attack since Gaza was ceded to the Palestinian Authority).
How do you feel now after the ceasefire?
We aren’t supposed to talk to the media and I understand keeping the media out; but I will answer this if you do not use my real name. I am loyal to the army, my country and the job I have to do for it, and more than willing to do it. I just don’t understand the ceasefire now. No one wants it now. We want the politicians to let us finish the job. We don’t want to stop now and in a year from now have to do it all over again.
What will it take to finish the job? We don’t know exactly; but a serious push is necessary. As long as Hamas is in control it won’t end. We killed 900 terrorists out of at least 20,000: this is nothing to them. They have to know it is not worthwhile to “mess” with us.
We don’t want to be here and the Arabs in Gaza don’t want tanks and shells raining down on them. It shouldn’t be us [trying to control Hamas]. It is an Arab problem and they should solve it themselves.
Why do you think the media was kept out? I heard a reporter on Fox News channel say that it was because the Israeli government didn’t want the Israeli side of the story told.
(Laughter from all the soldiers standing there.) Of course we want our story told, but we learned from Lebanon [2006]: The press was everywhere - they were constantly getting in the way and we had to be always aware of them theyto be sure they didn’t get killed. Sometimes we couldn’t take an action we wanted to for fear of hurting them. They think war is a card game (no offense to you), but it is life and death. We can’t be out there thinking, “How will the media see this?”. Gaza is one of the most crowded places on earth. Yet we have to avoid hitting civilians and the reporters, who seem to feel they should be able do anything and be anywhere they want to be. In Lebanon, I saw a soldier in another unit who couldn’t take a shot at the guy pointing a gun at him, because a reporter was in the way. Restricting the press was one of the things that made this action much easier.
What other things made Gaza easier than Lebanon?
I don’t know if “easier” is the right word, but certainly we could be more focused on our job with the distraction created by reporters eliminated. Other things that made Gaza easier than Lebanon were:
we were well prepared and had a definite plan
our officers were in the field beside us, which is what the IDF is about
In Lebanon we fell in love with technology and thought we could do too many things from a distance.
Do you think that Gabi Ashkenazi (Chief of General Staff) is the reason?
Well, [Lieutenant General Askenazi is] probably a good part of the reason; but we all learned a lot from Lebanon. Another thing about reporters: in Lebanon, some reporters were giving away ground information, site information . . . not necessarily intentionally, but they did and it cost us lives. Security was very tight this time around; we were not even allowed to keep our cell phones with us.
Every soldier I have talked to has used the word “scared” usually more then once, what were the most frightening things for you?
First every house or building is wired. They wire their own houses, the schools that their own children attend, hospitals . . . the mindset [of putting your own people at risk] is so alien to us that we have to keep reminding ourselves of the danger in every step we take. They would rather have a family of eight blown up in their own house than eight different Arabs blown up in different places; and if it is a school full of kids that is blown up, all the better, as they understand that the publicity is good for them. They think that if they kill Israelis that’s good and if a lot of Arabs die that is even better, as it is blamed on the Israelis and that is the publicity they want. Dead women and children are the publicity they look for..
The second most frightening thing -or maybe even the first- is the tunnels. Gaza is a mass of tunnels everywhere. Some of these tunnels are big enough to walk in standing up, and with electricity and other necessities. They use them for everything; not just to smuggle other terrorists, money, weapons and whatever else they want. The tunnels run from house to house as well. The top leaders are in comfortable tunnels under the hospital: they know we won’t bomb the hospital so they [ the leaders] are safe. Another use of tunnels is for a major goal Hamas has: Kidnapping Israeli soldiers, THAT is very scary. If you are walking anywhere near any kind of brush or debris, a hand might reach out and grab a leg and try to drag you into the bush or a camouflaged tunnel. We sleep on the floor of vacant houses which we have searched. While we sleep, a floor tile will move and a hand reach out to grab an arm, a leg, or whatever, and drag you under the house into a tunnel. Thank G-d they did not succeed- only because we learned from past incidents.
Getting into the heads [of our enemy] is hard and frightening. They don’t mind how many of them die, while for us one soldier is too many. Every life is precious, even theirs—what can anyone do?
What do you feel has been accomplished?
We will have failed if we leave without Gilad Shalit: no way we can do that! We don’t want to go home until we are finished. This ceasefire was political, not practical. My hope is when Hamas' leaders stick their heads out of the tunnels they are hiding in, they will be so shocked by the devastation they see they will not want to attack Israel again. Everywhere in Gaza we left destroyed grey concrete buildings surrounded by rubble covered with a grey-black smoke.
What do you think the people of Gaza feel now that there is quiet?
'Quiet' is the right word because it is not over –the people really do hate us. They don’t know anything good about us; only that they are suffering. Some of them know Hamas is the problem; but most don’t think that way. I would say ninety-nine percent say they hate us. Hamas will get billions from the international community, and they will use most of it to re-arm themselves and to continue to educate their children [with anti-Israeli propaganda]: not to make a life for themselves, but to hate us. Their cynical use of their children is the long-range problem.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
