Syrian official newspaper takes credit for Iraq bombings

Rather interesting that Syria more or less admits responsibility for bombings in Iraq.

MEMRI September 4, 2009No. 2519

Following August 19 Baghdad Bombings, Syrian Daily Teshreen Warns Obama: The Syria-Iran Alliance, Which Is Cultivating the Resistance, Has Won a Great Victory– And Will Not Wait Until Hesitant Obama Reaches a Decision

In an August 22, 2009 article in the Syrian government daily Teshreen, Nasser Qandil, a former Lebanese MP who is close to Syria, wrote that some in Washington were acting to worsen the security situation in Iraq. Their aim, he said, is to extend the U.S. military presence in the country, which will harm U.S. President Barack Obama in his next election campaign; to promote the Biden Plan to partition Iraq into three regions; and to sabotage the relations among Iraq, Syria, Turkey and Iran.

Qandil warned that although Syria and Iran had shown openness to the possibility of dialogue with the U.S., this was in now at risk due to the hesitancy that characterizes the Obama administration.

Following are excerpts from his article:

The Violence in Iraq Is Meant to Prevent U.S. Withdrawal, Harm President Obama

"The escalation of violence and bloodshed in Iraq in recent days came as the Americans were beginning to prepare for their 2011 troop withdrawal, and as the commanders of the U.S. forces tried to draw up understandings with the countries neighboring [Iraq], particularly Syria, to increase coordination at the border...

"Anyone who is following conditions in Iraq knows that the bloody operations against Iraqi civilians are designed to [reinforce] the call for U.S. forces to remain [in Iraq], and perhaps even redeploy in the cities that they have already left. The excuse given is that if the forces withdraw according to the timetable, the security situation could explode...

"These attacks took place just as many articles and studies were being published by the American and Israeli press, and by several institutes researching the Middle East, about the need to extend the U.S. forces' presence for another four years - or at least until after the next U.S. presidential election in 2012 - so that Obama will not be able to use the withdrawal as a card in his election campaign, and will not be able to claim that he kept his promises from his [first] campaign.

"Other studies link the demand to keep [U.S.] forces [in Iraq] to what they call 'the requirements for negotiating with Iran and guaranteeing Israel's security' prior to the U.S. military pullout. Still other studies hint at the possibility of a war on Iran or of an Israeli war on Lebanon - which, according to this approach, requires U.S. willingness to give Israel this opportunity prior to the [U.S.] troop withdrawal [from Iraq]...

"American research institutes are saying that the safest option for Iraq is a return to the three regions theory, presented by U.S. Vice President Joe Biden when he headed the [U.S. Senate] Committee on Foreign Relations. According to this model, encouragement of this track will help provide the safety net required for a troop withdrawal, [by keeping] Iraq stable."

"This Reveals Two Opposing Lines Among the Influential Circles in Washington"

"It was against the backdrop of this American political and media atmosphere that the recent attacks in Iraq took place. This reveals two opposing lines among the influential circles in Washington. While the president's team is acting slowly and hesitatingly on the negotiations track, and opening a window to cooperation with the countries neighboring Iraq - as he started to do with Syria and is about to start with Iran - there are those who are acting to worsen the Iraq security situation, so as to reopen the door to an extension of the [U.S.] troop presence in Iraq, and also to encourage the option of partitioning the country."

The August 19 Attacks Were Aimed at Sabotaging Assad's Syrian-Turkish-Iraqi-Iranian Cooperation Plan

"...It seems that the [August 19] attacks were aimed at [sabotaging] Syria-U.S. contacts by fomenting suspicion between the allies Syria and Iran; at stopping the progress that had been made in Syria-Iraq relations on the security and economic level when the Iraqi prime minister visited Damascus; and at complicating the Syrian-Turkish-Iraqi-Iranian cooperation plan, proposed by Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad as a future strategic plan, to which he is devoting much attention, time, and effort...

"Those engaged in escalating regional conflicts - those who lose by, and are harmed by, the American openness to the new reality - are racking up achievements against the Obama administration - because it is hesitant, slow, and irresolute in translating this openness into making the required bold decisions, and because it continues to give the Israeli leadership the right of veto in security and political resolutions regarding the region.

"Further hesitation by the Obama administration would mean another blow to the hopes for change that were pinned on it following the U.S. presidential election... Indeed, there could be Israeli war adventurism, or increased bloodletting in Iraq. But the biggest loser of an escalation in the destruction and blood[shed] would first and foremost be President Obama - they [i.e. those who act against him] want him to end his first term exhausted, without the confidence of the voters or of any of those with whom he promised to turn over a new leaf."

"The Syrian-Iranian Alliance... Will Not Wait Until Those Who Hesitate Reach a Decision"

"The region can tolerate no more experiments with the blood of its sons. Thus, the Syrian-Iranian message was clear and resolute, when President Assad visited Iran - that many, from near and far, must read well the meaning of what is happening in the region. The meaning is that the Syrian-Iranian alliance, which is cultivating the resistance movements, has won an historic, significant victory. Despite its openness to the dialogue option, this alliance will not wait until those who hesitate reach a decision."

Continued (Permanent Link)

Will Tel-Aviv become an "illegal settlement"?

They are after Tel Aviv now. It was inevitable.

First they went after Jerusalem. UN resolutions "internationalized" Jerusalem. The "international" status of the city was ignored as long as Jordan illegally occupied the old city and east Jerusalem, but vigorous protests were issued when Israel conquered Jerusalem in the Six day war. Even the United States does not recognize any Jewish claims to Jerusalem, does not recognize any part of Jerusalem as part of Israel in violation of United States law, the 1995 Jerusalem Embassy Act. The US Consulate in Jerusalem insists that it is a mission to the Palestinian Authority. The Palestinians have long insisted that Jews had no historical connection with Jerusalem. The most recent statement to that effect was issued by the Muslim Chief Justice, Taysir Tamimi, denying Jewish historical rights in Jerusalem. He claimed it was never inhabited by Jews. The first temple is erased from history as well as the second temple, as well as the long habitation of Jews in Jerusalem prior to 1948, when Jerusalem was ethnically cleansed by the Jordan Legion.

The Arab and Muslim "narrative," given academic credentials by such people as Nadia Abu el-Hajj of Barnard University, is that Jerusalem was always an Arab city. Never mind the Menorah in the Arch of Titus. Never mind the description of the siege of Jerusalem by Josephus Flavius. Never mind the inscription from the time of Hezekiah, which describes the tunnel built to divert water from Shiloach during the siege - precisely as recorded in the Old Testament. The Palestinians have a different "narrative." The Beit al Maqdes (temple) was built by Suleiman the Muslim. Muhammad secured Jerusalem for the Muslims by flying to Jerusalem in one night on his horse (pretty good horse!) al-buraq, and tying it up at the Wailing wall, which ensures that the wailing wall is Muslim too. So much for "Zionist Myths. Jerusalem is Arab and "Arab East Jerusalem" now belongs to the Muslims.

But now they are going after Tel Aviv as well. According to the old "Zionist narrative," apparently incorrect, Tel Aviv was founded in 1909, originally to be called "Achuzt Bayit." It was built on empty land purchased from Arabs. But a film festival in Toronto celebrating Tel-Aviv's Centennial is being boycotted, on the grounds that Tel-Aviv was stolen from the Arabs! No doubt, soon it will be discovered that Muhammad visited Tel Aviv too, and tied his horse up in Dizengoff Center. Such luminaries as Jane Fonda are boycotting the film festival:

Jane Fonda, Danny Glover and Eve Ensler have joined the growing list of artists who are boycotting the Toronto film festival over a program honoring Tel Aviv's 100th anniversary, gossip blogger Perez Hilton reported on Friday.

The three have added their names to a letter aimed at festival officials claiming that Tel Aviv was built on violence, ignoring the "suffering of thousands of former residents and descendants," Hilton reported.

Well yes, there was a war here. We didn't start it. Remember? There were also a few wars between Germany and France. Alsace is also "built on violence, ignoring the 'suffering of thousands of former residents and descendants.'" What about "former residents" of Washington DC or for that matter Toronto? Or former Jewish residents of Cairo and Baghdad? Is that a reason to boycott these cities? Will Jane Fonda and her friends leave any corner of Israel that may be claimed by Jews as our birthright?

If Tel Aviv does not belong to the Jewish people by right, then surely Beersheba, an Arab town from 640 C.E. until 1948 is Arab by right, and Neve Gordon, the boycott advocate, should not be living and teaching there. Even the most obtuse boycotters can now understand that the boycott movement is not aimed at ending the occupation, but at ending Israel.

Ami Isseroff

.

Continued (Permanent Link)

About Jerusalem: Poor misunderstood George Mitchell and Uncle Sam

US Mideast envoy George Mitchell believes people are misinterpreting the Obama administration's pressure on Israel as well as the Arab response to Washington's regional peace push.

"One of the public misimpressions is that it's all been about settlements," Mitchell told the New York Times in an interview published Sunday. "It is completely inaccurate to portray this as, 'We're only asking the Israelis to do things.' We are asking everybody to do things."

,,,

"These are discussions among friends, not disputes among adversaries."

Like the song says, "I'm just a soul whose intentions are good; please don't let me be misunderstood."

There are two types of quarrels: Those based on misunderstanding, and those based on understanding only too well.

What George Mitchell is asking Israel to do is to give up its capital city. What are friends for after all, if not to oblige other friends with little favors like that? This is an even handed policy. The Saudis are asked to allow Israeli overflights (and refuse) and Israel is asked to renounce sovereignty over its capital city. Everybody is asked to do something for the cause, and to please smile while doing it.

The heart of the disagreement is that the US insists that Jerusalem is just another "settlement," that the US does not recognize Israeli sovereignty in any part of Jerusalem, and that they can and should dictate to Israel what policies to adopt in Jerusalem and when and where to build. The most recent "misunderstanding" was a public and ugly US protest against removal of illegal Palestinian occupants squatting in propery owned by Jews. It may not be wise for Israel to build in areas that might be subject to future negotiations, but it certainly understandable that Israel will enforce Israeli law, backed by a supreme court decision, in an area that is declared by Israel to be under its sovereignty. There is no misunderstanding. The problem is not that the United States wants Israel to negotiate, but rather that the US is telling Israel and the world that there is nothing to negotiate about in Jerusalem, since the city does not belong to Israel according to them, but to a hypothetical international administration or Palestinian state. This is not a disagreement among friends. It is a hostile diplomatic act. In the 19 years of illegal Jordanian occupation of East Jerusalem, the United States did not once protest any Jordanian action, including the building of King Hussein's summer house, or the wrecking of the last remnants of the Jewish quarter and the Jewish cemetery in the Mount of Olives.

There is no misunderstanding of US policy in this regard whatever and the policy is unmistakable. The United States does not recognize any part of Jerusalem, East or West, as part of Israel, and certainly not as Israel's capital city. UN Security Council Resolution 250 condemned Israel for holding a military parade (the Independence Day parade) in Jerusalem in 1968. The parade was held in West Jerusalem only. The United States did not veto the resolution. The Web site of the United States Conuslate in Jerusalem is all about Palestinian Arabs - in the West Bank and in Gaza. Not a word about Jews, though Jerusalem has a Jewish majority. The consulate refuses to recognize that there are Jews living in any part of Jerusalem it seems. Are they trying to tell us something?

Perhaps some of the misunderstanding is caused by the reticence of the Israeli government, which has never openly protested against the hostile policy of the United States. On the one hand, Israeli governments grandiosely proclaim that "United Jerusalem is the Eternal Capital of Israel." On the other hand, no Israeli government has seriously tried to get the United States to recognize even Kiriat Hayovel and Rehavia as part of Israel.

West Jerusalem, of course, has been part of Israel since 1948, but the US, to placate Arab opinion, continues to pretend that the internationalization of Jerusalem mandated by the UN in 1947 is a reality. The policy of the United States government regarding Jerusalem is contrary to its own laws, since the 1995: Jerusalem Embassy Act mandated that the United States recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and mandated that the embassy must be moved there and that US citizens born in Jerusalem be registered as having been born in Israel. Using a hypocritical loophole, the law has been ignored by successive presidents. If you think this policy is bizarre, you can write to the consulate at JerusalemACS@state.gov and to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton: http://contact-us.state.gov/cgi-bin/state.cfg/php/enduser/ask.php, U.S. Department of State
2201 C Street NW, Washington, DC 20520, 202-647-4000

Ami Isseroff

Continued (Permanent Link)

The truth about the settlement freeze

It seems that the US has broken yet another agreement or understanding with Israel. It is not the first time.

Hillary Is Wrong About the Settlements
The U.S. and Israel reached a clear understanding about natural growth.

By ELLIOTT ABRAMS

 

Despite fervent denials by Obama administration officials, there were indeed agreements between Israel and the United States regarding the growth of Israeli settlements on the West Bank. As the Obama administration has made the settlements issue a major bone of contention between Israel and the U.S., it is necessary that we review the recent history.

 

In the spring of 2003, U.S. officials (including me) held wide-ranging discussions with then Prime Minister Ariel Sharon in Jerusalem. The "Roadmap for Peace" between Israel and the Palestinians had been written. President George W. Bush had endorsed Palestinian statehood, but only if the Palestinians eliminated terror. He had broken with Yasser Arafat, but Arafat still ruled in the Palestinian territories. Israel had defeated the intifada, so what was next?
[Commentary] Getty Images

 

Palestinian Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas, President George W. Bush, Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and Jordan's King Abdullah, June 4, 2003.

 

We asked Mr. Sharon about freezing the West Bank settlements. I recall him asking, by way of reply, what did that mean for the settlers? They live there, he said, they serve in elite army units, and they marry. Should he tell them to have no more children, or move?

 

We discussed some approaches: Could he agree there would be no additional settlements? New construction only inside settlements, without expanding them physically? Could he agree there would be no additional land taken for settlements?

 

As we talked several principles emerged. The father of the settlements now agreed that limits must be placed on the settlements; more fundamentally, the old foe of the Palestinians could -- under certain conditions -- now agree to Palestinian statehood.

 

In June 2003, Mr. Sharon stood alongside Mr. Bush, King Abdullah II of Jordan, and Palestinian Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas at Aqaba, Jordan, and endorsed Palestinian statehood publicly: "It is in Israel's interest not to govern the Palestinians but for the Palestinians to govern themselves in their own state. A democratic Palestinian state fully at peace with Israel will promote the long-term security and well-being of Israel as a Jewish state." At the end of that year he announced his intention to pull out of the Gaza Strip.

 

The U.S. government supported all this, but asked Mr. Sharon for two more things. First, that he remove some West Bank settlements; we wanted Israel to show that removing them was not impossible. Second, we wanted him to pull out of Gaza totally -- including every single settlement and the "Philadelphi Strip" separating Gaza from Egypt, even though holding on to this strip would have prevented the smuggling of weapons to Hamas that was feared and has now come to pass. Mr. Sharon agreed on both counts.

 

These decisions were political dynamite, as Mr. Sharon had long predicted to us. In May 2004, his Likud Party rejected his plan in a referendum, handing him a resounding political defeat. In June, the Cabinet approved the withdrawal from Gaza, but only after Mr. Sharon fired two ministers and allowed two others to resign. His majority in the Knesset was now shaky.

 

After completing the Gaza withdrawal in August 2005, he called in November for a dissolution of the Knesset and for early elections. He also said he would leave Likud to form a new centrist party. The political and personal strain was very great. Four weeks later he suffered the first of two strokes that have left him in a coma.

 

Throughout, the Bush administration gave Mr. Sharon full support for his actions against terror and on final status issues. On April 14, 2004, Mr. Bush handed Mr. Sharon a letter saying that there would be no "right of return" for Palestinian refugees. Instead, the president said, "a solution to the Palestinian refugee issue as part of any final status agreement will need to be found through the establishment of a Palestinian state, and the settling of Palestinian refugees there, rather than in Israel."

 

On the major settlement blocs, Mr. Bush said, "In light of new realities on the ground, including already existing major Israeli populations centers, it is unrealistic to expect that the outcome of final status negotiations will be a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949." Several previous administrations had declared all Israeli settlements beyond the "1967 borders" to be illegal. Here Mr. Bush dropped such language, referring to the 1967 borders -- correctly -- as merely the lines where the fighting stopped in 1949, and saying that in any realistic peace agreement Israel would be able to negotiate keeping those major settlements.

 

On settlements we also agreed on principles that would permit some continuing growth. Mr. Sharon stated these clearly in a major policy speech in December 2003: "Israel will meet all its obligations with regard to construction in the settlements. There will be no construction beyond the existing construction line, no expropriation of land for construction, no special economic incentives and no construction of new settlements."

 

Ariel Sharon did not invent those four principles. They emerged from discussions with American officials and were discussed by Messrs. Sharon and Bush at their Aqaba meeting in June 2003.

 

They were not secret, either. Four days after the president's letter, Mr. Sharon's Chief of Staff Dov Weissglas wrote to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice that "I wish to reconfirm the following understanding, which had been reached between us: 1. Restrictions on settlement growth: within the agreed principles of settlement activities, an effort will be made in the next few days to have a better definition of the construction line of settlements in Judea & Samaria."

 

Stories in the press also made it clear that there were indeed "agreed principles." On Aug. 21, 2004 the New York Times reported that "the Bush administration . . . now supports construction of new apartments in areas already built up in some settlements, as long as the expansion does not extend outward."

 

In recent weeks, American officials have denied that any agreement on settlements existed. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton stated on June 17 that "in looking at the history of the Bush administration, there were no informal or oral enforceable agreements. That has been verified by the official record of the administration and by the personnel in the positions of responsibility."

 

These statements are incorrect. Not only were there agreements, but the prime minister of Israel relied on them in undertaking a wrenching political reorientation -- the dissolution of his government, the removal of every single Israeli citizen, settlement and military position in Gaza, and the removal of four small settlements in the West Bank. This was the first time Israel had ever removed settlements outside the context of a peace treaty, and it was a major step.

 

It is true that there was no U.S.-Israel "memorandum of understanding," which is presumably what Mrs. Clinton means when she suggests that the "official record of the administration" contains none. But she would do well to consult documents like the Weissglas letter, or the notes of the Aqaba meeting, before suggesting that there was no meeting of the minds.

 

Mrs. Clinton also said there were no "enforceable" agreements. This is a strange phrase. How exactly would Israel enforce any agreement against an American decision to renege on it? Take it to the International Court in The Hague?

 

Regardless of what Mrs. Clinton has said, there was a bargained-for exchange. Mr. Sharon was determined to break the deadlock, withdraw from Gaza, remove settlements -- and confront his former allies on Israel's right by abandoning the "Greater Israel" position to endorse Palestinian statehood and limits on settlement growth. He asked for our support and got it, including the agreement that we would not demand a total settlement freeze.

 

For reasons that remain unclear, the Obama administration has decided to abandon the understandings about settlements reached by the previous administration with the Israeli government. We may be abandoning the deal now, but we cannot rewrite history and make believe it did not exist.

 

Mr. Abrams, a senior fellow for Middle Eastern Studies at the Council on Foreign Relations, handled Middle East affairs at the National Security Council from 2001 to 2009

Continued (Permanent Link)

Obama in Cairo - We've got plenty of nothing

The full text of US President Obama's speech in Cairo is here among other places. Below are the highlights. This is the first time that a U.S. President has used the word "legitimacy" about Israeli settlements, but regarding both the Israeli-Palestinian issue, as with the Iranian and other problems, Obama offered no plan - just finely balanced rhetoric that will either please everyone or make them angry. Each media outlet will choose to highlight whatever seems important to them: Here is the Israeli-Palestinian nugget:

Palestinians must abandon violence. Resistance through violence and killing is wrong and does not succeed. For centuries, black people in America suffered the lash of the whip as slaves and the humiliation of segregation. But it was not violence that won full and equal rights... That is not how moral authority is claimed; that is how it is surrendered.

Now is the time for Palestinians to focus on what they can build. The Palestinian Authority must develop its capacity to govern, with institutions that serve the needs of its people. Hamas does have support among some Palestinians, but they also have responsibilities. To play a role in fulfilling Palestinian aspirations, and to unify the Palestinian people, Hamas must put an end to violence, recognize past agreements, and recognize Israel's right to exist.

At the same time, Israelis must acknowledge that just as Israel's right to exist cannot be denied, neither can Palestine's. The United States does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements. This construction violates previous agreements and undermines efforts to achieve peace. It is time for these settlements to stop.

Israel must also live up to its obligations to ensure that Palestinians can live, and work, and develop their society. And just as it devastates Palestinian families, the continuing humanitarian crisis in Gaza does not serve Israel's security; neither does the continuing lack of opportunity in the West Bank. Progress in the daily lives of the Palestinian people must be part of a road to peace, and Israel must take concrete steps to enable such progress.

Finally, the Arab States must recognize that the Arab Peace Initiative was an important beginning, but not the end of their responsibilities. The Arab-Israeli conflict should no longer be used to distract the people of Arab nations from other problems. Instead, it must be a cause for action to help the Palestinian people develop the institutions that will sustain their state; to recognize Israel's legitimacy; and to choose progress over a self-defeating focus on the past.

America will align our policies with those who pursue peace, and say in public what we say in private to Israelis and Palestinians and Arabs. We cannot impose peace. But privately, many Muslims recognize that Israel will not go away. Likewise, many Israelis recognize the need for a Palestinian state. It is time for us to act on what everyone knows to be true

What does "continued Israeli settlements" mean? Is it a deliberate imprecision? Does he mean continued settlement, or the continued existence of settlements? Is Jerusalem a "settlement?" If he is referring to existing settlements, then Obama's speech directly contradicts the letter of Predident Bush given in 2004. It did take some courage to say, in Cairo, addressing the Arab world, that the bond between israel and the United States will never be broken. This was not a AIPAC meeting after all.

Ami Isseroff

Obama: I'll personally pursue two-state solution
By Haaretz Service

In his long-anticipated Cairo address to the Muslim world, U.S. President Barack Obama reaffirmed Washington's strong backing for a Palestinian state, highlighting his administration's commitment to follow through on a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

While reaffirming Washington's "unbreakable bond" with Israel, Obama said that there can be no denying of the right of Palestine to exist, and that he would "personally pursue" the realization of a Palestinian state "with all the patience that the task requires."

"Israelis must acknowledge that just as Israel's right to exist cannot be denied, neither can Palestine's," Obama said.

The president also issued a blunt repudiation of Israel's settlement enterprise in the West Bank, an issue that has strained Washington's ties with Jerusalem.

"The United States does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements," Obama said. "This construction violates previous agreements and undermines efforts to achieve peace. It is time for these settlements to stop."

"The obligations that the parties have agreed to under the Road Map are clear," Obama said, referring to the multi-stage peace plan agreed to by Israel and the Palestinians during the Bush presidency. "For peace to come, it is time for them - and all of us - to live up to our responsibilities."

"If we see this conflict only from one side or the other, then we will be blind to the truth," Obama said. "The only resolution is for the aspirations of both sides to be met through two states, where Israelis and Palestinians each live in peace and security."

"That is in Israel's interest, Palestine's interest, America's interest, and the world's interest," the president said.

In addressing the Iranian nuclear program, Obama acknowledged longstanding Muslim accusations of Washington's double standard in objecting to Tehran's drive for nuclear weapons while tolerating Israel's alleged possession of atomic bombs.

The president reiterated his desire to see a world free of nuclear weapons.

"I understand those who protest that some countries have [nuclear] weapons that others do not," Obama said. "No single nation should pick and choose which nations hold nuclear weapons. That is why I strongly reaffirmed America's commitment to seek a world in which no nations hold nuclear weapons."

Obama conceded that Iran has rights to nuclear energy "if it complies with its responsibilities under the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty."

Obama said his government will close the gap between public pronouncements and difficult truths that are often acknowledged behind closed doors in the halls of power throughout the Middle East.

"America will align our policies with those who pursue peace, and say in public what we say in private to Israelis and Palestinians and Arabs," Obama said.

Obama urged Muslims around the world to acknowledge Jewish suffering and to repudiate Holocaust denial. The Arab and Muslim world ought to reconcile with the existence of Israel, the president said.

"Threatening Israel with destruction - or repeating vile stereotypes about Jews - is deeply wrong, and only serves to evoke in the minds of Israelis this most painful of memories while preventing the peace that the people of this region deserve," Obama said.

The president also noted the plight of the Palestinians, who "have suffered in pursuit of a homeland" and who "endure daily humiliations ... that come with occupation."

"Many wait in refugee camps in the West Bank, Gaza, and neighboring lands for a life of peace and security that they have never been able to lead," Obama said. "So let there be no doubt: the situation for the Palestinian people is intolerable. America will not turn our backs on the legitimate Palestinian aspiration for dignity, opportunity, and a state of their own."

The president urged the Palestinians to draw upon the example of African slaves in the United States, arguing that a "peaceful and determined insistence upon the ideals at the center of America's founding" had led to their gaining civil rights.

"Resistance through violence and killing is wrong and does not succeed," Obama said. "For centuries, black people in America suffered the lash of the whip as slaves and the humiliation of segregation. But it was not violence that won full and equal rights."

Obama said the Palestinians "must focus on what they can build." He urged Hamas to accept the Quartet's preconditions for international recognition - recognition of past signed agreements with Israel, recognition of Israel's right to exist, and a renunciation of violence.

"I have come here to seek a new beginning between the United States and Muslims around the world, one based upon mutual interest and mutual respect," Obama said.

Obama offered the Arabic greeting of assalaamu alaykum, or "peace be unto you", in the early part of his speech. He also quoted a passage from the Koran and cited his father's Muslim background in a bid to highlight his sensitivity to Islamic grievances against the West.

"America is not and never will be at war with Islam," Obama said. "We will, however, relentlessly confront violent extremists who pose a grave threat to our security."

"The relationship between Islam and the West includes centuries of co-existence and cooperation, but also conflict and religious wars," Obama said. "Violent extremists have exploited these tensions in a small but potent minority of Muslims."

"Much has been made of the fact that an African-American with the name Barack Hussein Obama could be elected President," Obama said. "But my personal story is not so unique."

Obama is delivering his long-anticipated speech seeking to turn a new page in Washington's relations with the Arab and Muslim world.

Obama arrived in Egypt hours before giving long-promised speech in Cairo, the ancient seat of Islamic learning and culture.

The U.S. president is hoping to usher in a new era in the United States'
relationship with the world's 1.5 billion Muslims. Aides say Obama will blend hopeful words about mutual understanding with blunt talk about the need for Muslims to embrace democracy, women's rights and economic opportunity.

Obama met with Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, a key American ally, at his palace in the capital.

"We discussed how to move forward in a constructive way to bring peace and prosperity to people in the region," Obama told reporters after talks with Mubarak, who has ruled Egypt since 1981 and kept a tight lid on opposition.

"I emphasized to him that the U.S. is committed to working in partnership with countries in the region so all people can meet their aspirations," he said before heading to a mosque in a quarter of Cairo that is full of Islamic architectural gems.

The mosque is a 600-year-old center of Islamic worship and study called the Sultan Hassan mosque. Obama will then tour the Great Pyramids of Giza on the capital's outskirts.

Obama arrived in Egypt from Saudi Arabia, where he stayed overnight at King Abdullah's horse farm in the desert outside Riyadh.

In his Cairo address Thursday, Obama called on Israel and the Arab states to change their approach to the Middle East peace process.

Continued (Permanent Link)

Obama: Honesty with Israel is the best policy - Go for it!

President Obama has said that the 'U.S. Must Be More 'Honest' With Israel. He said there should be no equivocation. That's a really good idea. Let's start with an unequivocal statement that says the United States will honor its written commitments and past agreements, because without that, there isn't going to be any basis for going forward. It doesn't seem to be forthcoming.

Here's part of an interchange with State Department Spokesperson Robert Wood:

QUESTION: The United States, in the form of a letter that President Bush sent to then-Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon in 2004, made certain commitments to the Israeli state. I have tried to ask whether or not the Obama Administration feels bound by the commitments that President Bush expressed in that letter, which the Israelis would certainly feel comprise obligations on the part of the United States that we have made. Does the United States regard itself as - right now, as being bound by those commitments that President Bush made?

MR. WOOD: Look, what we are trying to do, James, is to get both parties to implement their obligations, written obligations in the Roadmap. We're trying to get those implemented. Our vision for a two-state solution cannot happen if these obligations are not, you know, held to. And so what Senator Mitchell has been trying to do is to work with the two sides. Both sides have an interest in meeting these obligations. They both want peace. We have said we will be a partner in trying to help them implement them - implement their obligations.

QUESTION: What about the letter?

MR. WOOD: Well, I - look, I speak for this Administration. I've told you exactly what we are doing with regard to trying to get both parties to live up to their written obligations.

QUESTION: What about our written obligations? Do we live up to the ones that we set?

MR. WOOD: Look, we - the United States lives up to its obligations. Right now, we are focused on, as I said, trying to get both sides to adhere to the Roadmap so that we can move forward toward that two-state solution. And it's not going to be easy, as you know. We've spoken to that many times. And we're going to continue to try to do that.

QUESTION: Is the letter binding or not on this Administration?

MR. WOOD: Look, what I'm saying to you, James, is we have - there are a series of obligations that Israel and the Palestinians have undertaken.

QUESTION: I haven't asked about their obligations and what they've undertaken. I've asked about a letter that this country sent to Israel. I'd like you to address that letter.

MR. WOOD: Well --

QUESTION: Is it binding on this Administration?

MR. WOOD: Well, this Administration is - as I said, has laid out its proposals, its strategy for moving forward. And that's about the best I can help you with on that, James.

QUESTION: Does it entail that letter?

MR. WOOD: I've said what I can say on this right now.

QUESTION: Robert, do you realize that by not saying yes, indeed the U.S. Government continues to be bound by the letter that former President George W. Bush sent, you are leaving open in the air the possibility that it does not see itself as bound?

MR. WOOD: I don't believe I'm doing that at all. What I'm saying to you is we have had a series of discussions with our Israeli and Palestinian partners. We've had discussions about their obligations and what both sides need to do. Both sides are well aware of what they need to do, and they know that we are trying to help them meet their obligations. And we'll continue to do that.

And I'm just not going to get into the substance of what a previous administration may have agreed to. I'm focused on what this Administration is trying to do right now. And that's where we are.

Do you understand what U.S. policy is from the above? I don't. Is it unequivocal? If the Bush letter is to be honored, how can the U.S. ask for a complete settlement freeze? What happened to honesty and not equivocating?

Ami Isseroff

Continued (Permanent Link)

Portrait of an anti-Zionist presentation

"Israel is an abomination", say 'activists'

This afternoon I attended the "Free Gaza" presentation at the Unitarian Universalist Church in Fresno, the presentation that I wrote about last week ("Pro-Hamas activists to speak in Fresno"). About 50 people, mostly church members, attended.

I stood at the door before the event and handed out flyers, which read in part:

The speakers today will tell you that they are fighting for the Palestinian people. But their actual goal is to assist the genocidal Hamas organization.

The Gaza Strip is currently ruled by Hamas (The Islamic Resistance Movement) which took control of the area from the Palestinian Authority in a violent coup in 2007.

Hamas' reason for being is to destroy Israel and replace it with an Islamic state. Its methods are the most violent possible. Since 2000, Hamas has murdered hundreds of Israeli civilians by bombings, shootings and rocket and mortar attacks.

The 'occupation' they talk about is the 'occupation' that began with Israel's creation in 1948, not the 1967 war.

The so-called Free Gaza Movement is part of a propaganda apparatus which tries to portray the Iranian-financed proxy war being fought against Israel by Hamas and other extremist groups as a human rights issue. It is not – it is an asymmetric war in which the concept of human rights is cynically used by some of the world's most intolerant, hateful extremists to try to prevent Israel from defending herself.

What you will hear and see today will be a combination of exaggerations, lies, and – most importantly – partial facts presented without context.

I followed this with some excerpts from the Hamas Covenant, so everyone would know who Hamas is.

The presentation was strange, sort of a throwback to a 1950s anti-communist B-movie. The room was festooned with Palestinian flags, the lectern draped with a keffiya. Donna and Darlene were, if anything, more robotic and humorless than their picture suggests.

It began with two music videos, one sort of lyrical, praising the courage of the Palestinian people and predicting their ultimate triumph (in nonspecific terms), the other a hip-hop rant:

Israel is a terrorist state!

Free Palestine!

Free Palestine!

More: "Israel is an abomination", say 'activists'

Continued (Permanent Link)

Obama: No options off the table on Iran, not my place to determine Israeli security needs

US President Obama gave a carefully timed interview to Newsweek ahead of the visit of Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu. The interview ranged over a wide variety of subjects. President Obama had some very important messages on Iran and Israel and Middle East peace, that do not look or sound anything like what has appeared in the media or has been published about this interview. He said that no options are off the table, and repeated that he is not naive. He also said that he can understand why Israel considers Iran to be an existential threat and emphasized that the United States cannot determine Israeli security needs. He did not explain, and was not asked, why American officials have been going around warning Israel not to attack Iran, nor did he say that he himself believes Iran to be an existential threat to Israel. He did say, when asked, that "NO" the United states will not stop Israel from attacking Iran. In fact, he said:

They're right there in range and I don't think it's my place to determine for the Israelis what their security needs are.

His words were chosen skilfully, even if the delivery seemed off hand. They should not be distorted, as some have already begun to do.

Notably absent from this interview as published on the Web: Any mention of Palestinians, peace intitiatives, settlements and two-state solutions. Literally, those words are not there, and neither is the word "Arab."

Here is the part of the interview that relates to Israel and Iran:

Prime Minister Netanyahu is coming [to Washington this week]. How do you expect to talk to him about the possibility of Israeli military action against Iran? And some people have argued that we should not take [American military action] off the table.
I've been very clear that I don't take any options off the table with respect to Iran. I don't take options off the table when it comes to U.S. security, period. What I have said is that we want to offer Iran an opportunity to align itself with international norms and international rules. I think, ultimately, that will be better for the Iranian people. I think that there is the ability of an Islamic Republic of Iran to maintain its Islamic character while, at the same time, being a member in good standing of the international community and not a threat to its neighbors. And we are going to reach out to them and try to shift off of a pattern over the last 30 years that hasn't produced results in the region.

Now, will it work? We don't know. And I assure you, I'm not naive about the difficulties of a process like this. If it doesn't work, the fact that we have tried will strengthen our position in mobilizing the international community, and Iran will have isolated itself, as opposed to a perception that it seeks to advance that somehow it's being victimized by a U.S. government that doesn't respect Iran's sovereignty.

And you would expect the Israelis, as an ally, to follow along with that and not take unilateral [military] action?

No, look, I understand very clearly that Israel considers Iran an existential threat, and given some of the statements that have been made by President Ahmadinejad, you can understand why. So their calculation of costs and benefits are going to be more acute. They're right there in range and I don't think it's my place to determine for the Israelis what their security needs are.

I can make an argument to Israel as an ally that the approach we are taking is one that has to be given a chance and offers the prospect of security, not just for the United States but also for Israel, that is superior to some of the other alternatives.

Make of it what you will, in the context of all other buzz, spin and rumors.

Cross posted:

Cross posted: Israel News Middle East Analysis

Ami Isseroff

Continued (Permanent Link)

Israel's aid to USA??

This is worth keeping in mind when you read about the burden that Israel places on US taxpayers. There are obviously other things happening now and happening all the time, that we will learn about only in ten years, if ever. An interesting survey by David Elazar.

Israel Aid to the USA

...

David Elazar

Israel receives, in addition to political and moral support, $3 billion annually in foreign aid from the United States. Besides having a strong, democratic ally, what does the USA receive in return? The following bibliography is an attempt to put into perspective how Israel aids the USA and its citizens.

* Understanding the U.S.-Israel Alliance: An Israeli Response to the Walt-Mearsheimer Claim by Dore Gold General George F. Keegan, a retired U.S. Air Force intelligence chief, disclosed in 1986 that he could not have obtained the same intelligence that he received from Israel if he had "five CIAs." During his interview, at which time the Cold War was still raging, he added: "The ability of the U.S. Air Force in particular, and the Army in general, to defend whatever position it has in NATO owes more to the Israeli intelligence input than it does to any single source of intelligence. Sept 2007"

* Two-way independence: In many ways, Israel is the giver and the U.S. is the receiver By Yoram Ettinger "...Israel is the largest American aircraft carrier...saved the U.S. billions of dollars...F-16-responsible for 600 improvements...upgraded Hawkeye spy plane and the MD-500 chopper...bombed the Iraqi nuclear reactor...innovative Israeli technologies effect on civilian and agricultural industries... 05 Dec 2005

* MIGs to Nevada "Area 51 was used to train Navy and Air Force fighter pilots to fight USSR MiGs. Israel captured many MiGs in 1967, and they gave us a bunch of them. led directly to the F-4 'Phantom' turning around it's losses in Vietnam to a 14 to 1 kill ratio. They found the MiG's weaknesses and exploited them.

* Strategic Alliance "The U.S. and Israel share an unparalleled strategic relationship. Since a landmark 1985 agreement established the two allies as strategic partners, military cooperation has expanded to include the development of cutting-edge weapons systems, sharing of real-time intelligence and joint training exercises." (2005)

* "Army Says Israeli Armor Has Saved "Many" U.S. Lives in Iraq. The U.S. Army has thanked Israel for supplying it with armor for armored personnel carriers (APCs) in Iraq, the Israel21c website reported. The Israeli armor has saved "many lives," according to a letter sent by the Army to Rafael, the Israel Armament Development Authority. Israel expedited delivery of the armor to the United States to help protect American APCs from roadside bombs, which have killed more than 150 U.S. servicemen in Iraq.(March 2005)

* Technology Helps Prevent Mid-Air Mishaps "Mid-air helicopter crashes may become a thing of the past. The Lahav division of Israel Aircraft Industries has developed a system that predicts collisions during tactical missions and formation flights." (Oct 2004)

* Ben Gurion University develops anti-missile laser "used to develop a new airborne missile interception system in the US." (12 Jan 2004)

* USAF to equip with IAI conformal fuel tanks "F-16s...increase fuel carrying capacity by 50%." (28 Nov 2002)

* Passenger aircraft - anti-missile interception and detection system. Israeli company to complete development of operational system, the Passive Approach Warning System (PAWS), for detecting and disabling missiles fired against passenger aircraft.

* Light concrete-piercing bomb two US companies to jointly produce a revolutionary light-weight bomb capable of penetrating several meters of concrete. The bomb was developed in Israel. (14 Nov 2002)

* Super-chip system is global hit Motorola (NYSE:MOT) recently presented its third generation processors of this type, the PowerQUICC III series,developed in Israel. (12 Nov 2002)

* Instant messaging program ICQ developed in Israel, brought about a breakthrough in US military communications, and made US forces inAfghanistan many times more efficient, (03 Nov 2002)

* Aridic Soils of the United States and Israel This website is the result of a demonstration project funded by the International Arid Lands Consortium to design and create a WWW site for information on soils of arid regions of the U.S. and Israel. It was designed to provide information to assist those who would manage their impact on the soils of arid regions for sustainability.

* Bekaa Valley War June 1982, Israeli ground forces pushed into Lebanon in an effort to putan end to cross-border terror attacks. [Israeli developed] RPVs went in first to get the Syrian SAMs to turn on their radars. Then the F-4s destroyed them with high-speed anti-radiation missiles critical turning point in the deadly duel of fighters and SAMs operation threw military men (in Moscow) into a kind of shock" made the Soviets understand that Western technology was superior to theirs, and in this Czech general's view,the blow to the Bekaa Valley SAMs was part of the cascade of events leading to the collapse of the Soviet Union. (June 2002)

* Litening II-pluspods United States has deployed an Israeli-manufactured airborne targeting pod in the war in Afghanistan installed on the F-16 multi-role fighters laser spot capability that an American rival does not possess. (January 2002)

* ARROW ANTI-MISSILE MISSILE. IT IS A JOINT PROJECT -- WHERE THE UNITED STATES PROVIDES MOST OF THE MONEY, THE ISRAELIS -- MOST OF THE HIGH-TECH EXPERTISE.

ISRAEL IS SHARING RESEARCH LESSONS WITH THE UNITED STATES

See also a December 2002 article in the Christian Science Monitor

Continued (Permanent Link)

Peace initiative - Good for Israel?

Israel and the peace initiative

07.05. 2009
http://www.zionism-israel.com/log/archives/00000688.html
Original content copyright by the author
Zionism & Israel Center http://zionism-israel.com

The American sponsored peace initiative seems to have little rational thinking behind it and little chance of success. But while the President of the United States may not be right, he is certainly the President of the United States. Israel cannot afford to forget that. Nonetheless, Israel's first responsibility must be to ensure that it has a viable defense.

A great peace initiative is being undertaken by the United States. The general idea seems to bundle a remodeled Arab Peace Initiative for regional peace, Palestinian-Israeli peace based on a two state solution and a solution to the problem of Iranian nuclear weapons development. Lately, a fourth element was apparently added - general nuclear disarmament and arms control, including hints that the U.S. expects Israel to become a signatory of the Nuclear Non-proliferation treaty. All this will somehow, so the theory goes, make it easier for the United States to secure its withdrawal from Iraq, and prevent a disaster in Pakistan and Afghanistan. Continued here: Israel and the peace initiative

Continued (Permanent Link)

Netanyahu: Israel prepared to resume negotiations without preconditions - Iran is the common danger

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's Speech at AIPAC

It's very good to be with all of you, and I want to thank all of you. I want to thank first the members of Congress who are assembled there, the leaders of , you David, Howard Friedman, Lee Rosenberg and Howard Kohr, all the delegates of AIPAC and the hundreds of students that are in the room, all the friends of Israel. I want to thank all of you for your unwavering support for Israel and for strengthening the great friendship between Israel and the United States.

As you said, I have met President Obama, I respect him and I look forward to seeing him in Washington in a couple of weeks. We plan to continue our common quest for security, for prosperity and for peace.

Friends, there is something significant that is happening today in the Middle East, and I can say that for the first time in my lifetime, I believe for the first time in a century, that Arabs and Jews see a common danger. This wasn't always the case. In the '30's and '40's, many in the Arab world supported another country believing that that was their hope. In the '60's, '70' and '80's, they supported another country that was at odds with the Jewish state. But this is no longer the case.

There is a great challenge afoot. But that challenge also presents great opportunities. The common danger is echoed by Arab leaders throughout the Middle East; it is echoed by Israel repeatedly; it is echoed by Europeans, by many responsible governments around the world. And if I had to sum it up in one sentence, it is this: Iran must not be allowed to develop nuclear weapons. If I had to sum up the opportunity in one word, it would be cooperation – cooperation between Israel and the Arab world and cooperation between Israel and the Palestinians.

Next week I'll be visiting Egypt with President Mubarak, and I plan to discuss both matters with him. We seek expanded relations with the Arab world. We want normalization of economic ties and diplomatic ties. We want peace with the Arab world. But we also want peace with the Palestinians. That peace has eluded us for more than 13 years. Six successive prime ministers of Israel and two American presidents have not succeeded in achieving this final peace settlement. I believe it is possible to achieve it, but I think it requires a fresh approach, and the fresh approach that I suggest is pursuing a triple track towards peace between Israel and the Palestinians – a political track, a security track, an economic track.

The political track means that we are prepared to resume peace negotiations without any delay and without any preconditions – the sooner the better. The security track means that we want to continue the cooperation with the program led by General Dayton, in cooperation with the Jordanians and with the Palestinian Authority to strengthen the security apparatus of the Palestinians. This is something we believe in and something that I think we can advance in a joint effort. The economic track means that we are prepared to work together to remove as many obstacles as we can to the advancement of the Palestinian economy. We want to work with the Palestinian Authority on this track, not as a substitute for political negotiations, but as a boost to them. I want to see Palestinian youngsters knowing that they have a future. I want them not to be hostage to a cult of death and despair and hate. I want them to have jobs. I want them to have career paths. I want them to know that they can provide for their families. This means that we can give them a future of hope, a future that means that there is prosperity for all. And this has proved to be successful in advancing a political peace in many parts of the world.

I believe that this triple track towards peace is the realistic path to peace, and I believe that with the cooperation of President Obama and President Abbas, we can defy the skeptics. We can surprise the world. But there are two provisos that I think have to be said at this point. First, peace will not come without security. If we abandon security, we'll have neither security nor peace. So I want to be very clear – we shall never compromise on Israel's security. Second, for a final peace settlement to be achieved, the Palestinians must recognize Israel as the Jewish state. They must recognize Israel as the nation-state of the Jewish people.

A few hours ago, I spoke at the Knesset. We marked the birthday of Theodore Herzl, the founding father of Zionism. Herzl revolutionized the history of the Jewish people, a people that was scattered and defenseless throughout the nations. He revolutionized Jewish history when he published a slim pamphlet called, "The Jewish State". This was our salvation and this is our foundation – the foundation of our future and the foundation of peace.

Good night from Jerusalem. God bless America. God bless Israel. Thank you all

Continued (Permanent Link)

Historian and author Michael Oren to be Israel's US Ambassador

Michael Oren is possibly the best man for the job of Israel ambassador to the United States, though he has no diplomatic experience. Media reports variously portray Oren variously as a "neocon" or a peacenik. Obviously, both assessments could not be correct, and either one is an oversimplification of a complex three-dimensional personality. Oren is a good speaker as well as being an accomplished historian. He has written "Six Days of War" about the Yom Kippur war and  "Power, Faith and Fantasy: America in the Middle East." The first book demonstrated a familiarity with how Israel "works" as well as an understanding of how to present it to a foreign audience. The second demonstrated an understanding of how American diplomacy "works" and of evolving American understanding of the Middle East. In other words, Oren speaks both Israeli and American. In the possibly difficult days ahead with the Obama administration, Oren might be best qualified to win American public support for Israeli positions and to put them in langauge that American officials can understand and identify with, as well as being able to read and translate the United States for the Netanyahu government.

 

However, promise is one thing and fullfilment is another. It would no doubt have been better if Oren had served in some lesser diplomatic post before being tapped for the most critical diplomatic posting for Israel, at a most critical time.

 

Last update - 19:37 02/05/2009       
Netanyahu candidate Michael Oren tapped as U.S. envoy
By Barak Ravid, Haaretz Correspondent

 

Dr. Michael Oren is set to be appointed Israeli ambassador to Washington after Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman added his endorsement over the weekend.

 

Oren, who was Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's candidate for the position, received the endorsement following separate meetings with Netanyahu and Lieberman on Thursday.

 

The cabinet must now approve the appointment at its weekly meeting Sunday to set the decision in stone. Oren would then take up the position before Netanyahu's expected meeting with U.S. President Barack Obama in Washington on May 18 or 19.
 
Oren, a visiting Georgetown University professor, said in a lecture there last month, "The only alternative for Israel to save itself as a Jewish state is by unilaterally withdrawing from the West Bank and evacuating most of the settlements."

 

He beat several high-profile candidates for the position, including ex-Likud MK Zalman Shoval, who served twice before as ambassador to the United States, Dr. Dore Gold, who served as Israel's ambassador to the United Nations from 1997 to 1999, and Alon Pinkas, who served as Consul General in New York from 2000 to 2004

Continued (Permanent Link)

Proactive foreign policy: Israel meeting the Obama challenge

..."Moderate" Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas has refused to recognize Israel as a Jewish state. From the beginning, that should have been the cornerstone of Israeli policy - Arabs, Palestinians included, must recognize the validity of the League of Nations British Mandate for Palestine and of UN General Assembly Resolution 181, both of which explicitly recognize the right of the Jewish people to self determination. After all, that is what the whole conflict is about. Once the Palestinians are will willing to accept international law, we can quibble about borders, refugees and other issues. President Obama's off-the-cuff remarks must be converted into a commitment by the United States to support the existence of Israel and its recognition by its Arab neighbors as the homeland of the Jewish people. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has already made a statement demanding that Palestinians recognize Israel as a Jewish state. Too bad that demand was not part of Avigdor Lieberman's speech. It will be remembered, also, that Ehud Olmert made a similar effort and then mysteriously dropped it. This issue has to be a centerpiece of Israeli policy, raised at every opportunity. not just a sound bite to be used when the occasion seems to call for it.

Similarly, though it is not a prior condition for negotiations, everyone should be made to understand that Israel will assert the historic rights of the Jewish people in "East Jerusalem." The Palestinians have been allowed to establish a historical "fact on the ground" by dint of repetition: They have convinced at least themselves, and perhaps much of the world, that they have a "right" to a capital in East Jerusalem, even though Jerusalem was never the capital of any Arab state, and was not even included in the Palestinian area in the 1947 partition plan. Jerusalem was always known as the ancient capital of Jewish people, and the old city had a large Jewish community until it was ethnically cleansed in pogroms beginning in 1920 and culminating in the expulsion of the remaining Jews by force by the Jordanian Legion in 1948. Absurdly, a sizeable part of world opinion now believes that somehow "East Jerusalem" ought to be the capital of an Arab state and that Israel and the Jews have no rights there.

On these bases, when it is clear what is is being negotiated and what the end of the process will be for Israel, and it is clear that the agreements will be kept at least by the Fatah lead Palestinian Authority, it makes sense to continue negotiations. If they have any intellectual honesty, even the most enthusiastic proponents of "Annapolis" in the USA and in the EU would have a hard time explaining why Israel has to negotiate and what is to be negotiated with a partner that declares that its constituent groups - containing the same personnel who do the negotiating - are not bound by any agreements, and that the end goal of the negotiations is to destroy Israel as a Jewish state. But we can hardly expect others to agree with this point of view if the Israel Foreign Ministry itself has not advanced it at every opportunity.

Read the whole article here:

Proactive foreign policy: Israel meeting the Obama challenge

Continued (Permanent Link)

Freeman versus "hardline Jews"

11.03. 2009
http://www.zionism-israel.com/log/archives/00000667.html
Original content copyright by the author
Zionism & Israel Center http://zionism-israel.com

The nomination of Charles Freeman as head of the United States National Intelligence Council and the issues surrounding it clearly go beyond the statements or opinions of one man.

There is no doubt that Charles Freeman is a capable man with a great deal of experience and many contacts, who could be valuable in government service. After all, the King of Saudi Arabia is not a fool, and he would not have given a million dollars to someone who was an incapable nonentity. Rich and powerful people get rich and powerful and stay that way by knowing where to put their money.

Continued:

Freeman versus "hardline Jews"

Continued (Permanent Link)

Iran: Obama is going full speed in neutral

The New US Administration: Confusion and Indecision on Iran

INSS Insight No. 95, February 18, 2009
Landau, Emily B.

During his presidential campaign, Barack Obama indicated his willingness to engage with Iran over the nuclear issue without preconditions; in other statements he maintained that he would not allow Iran to obtain nuclear weapons. The urgency of the Iranian nuclear challenge – emphasized by Iran's steady progress not only on uranium enrichment but on missile development as well – means that the Obama administration will have to move beyond general guidelines and make a concentrated effort to consolidate its policy on Iran as quickly as possible. And yet, one month into his presidency, Obama's advisors are saying that this is likely to take weeks if not months to achieve. Not only does the administration seem in no hurry to address this pressing foreign policy challenge, but statements that are emerging in the meantime are underscoring a message of confusion and indecision.

In discussing his approach to Iran in an interview one week into his presidency, President Obama repeated the image that he had offered in his inaugural speech of an outstretched US hand of diplomacy to countries like Iran, if they agree to "unclench their fist." In other words, this is an offer of engagement on condition that Iran soften its policies. But is Obama referring to the nuclear issue?

Taken together with later statements, there is a growing sense that Obama is actually attaching more importance to initiating dialogue with Iran than to resolving the nuclear crisis. The idea that the US must engage Iran directly was originally promoted in the immediate context of the need to confront Iran's nuclear ambitions, but for Obama this original objective appears less and less at the forefront. In fact, repairing relations with Iran is sounding more like the primary aim, whereas discussing the US's displeasure with Iran's nuclear activities is relegated to one of the points on the agenda of prospective talks. In his first White House press conference on February 9 Obama said that his national security team is reviewing Iran policy and looking for areas where he can have constructive dialogue with Iran so that they can begin to engage. The New York Times pointed out that while Obama noted that support for terrorist organizations is unacceptable and that nuclear development would spark further destabilizing proliferation in the Middle East, he did not repeat campaign statements that he would never allow Iran to obtain a nuclear weapon or the capability to build one.

Obama gives the impression that he wants to be both soft and tough on Iran at the same time, but this is not likely to work. Moreover, the most urgent order of business with regard to Iran is the nuclear crisis and finding the most effective way to ensure that Iran does not become a nuclear state. In this sense, beyond the image of an extended hand, what does Obama have in mind in for Iran? More importantly, what is the nature of the (un)clenched fist, and at what point will this accompanying condition to the extended hand come into play in the overall process of trying to stop Iran from becoming a nuclear state?

Vice President Biden and Secretary of State Clinton have in recent weeks been a little clearer on this issue. From statements issued by these officials, the unclenched fist seems to refer at least to Iran halting its uranium enrichment activities. Clinton clarified this point when she attempted to reassure European allies that the US did not intend to abandon previous multilateral efforts with regard to Iran. She noted that "President Obama has signaled his intention to support tough and direct diplomacy with Iran, but if Tehran does not comply with UN Security Council and IAEA mandates, there must be consequences." In his address to the Munich Security Conference, Biden made a statement in the same vein, adding that Iran must abandon not only its nuclear ambitions, but its support for terrorism as well.

But even if there is some measure of clarity regarding what Iran must do to unclench its fist, there is still the thorny issue of timing. In this regard, neither Clinton nor Biden provides any direction: they both mention that the US will be tough if Iran doesn't comply with certain conditions, but say nothing about the more precise mechanics of implementing the conditionality. Will the US enter negotiations and then assess Iran's degree of cooperation, or will it insist on indications of a changed Iranian attitude before entering negotiations? When will the US get tough? These crucial questions remain unanswered.

Because Obama insists on an approach that is different from the Bush administration, anything sounding like a "precondition" to dialogue will probably not be embraced, even though Clinton's promise to uphold previous multilateral efforts seems to imply continued adherence to the precondition that Iran cease uranium enrichment activities. After all, the Europeans have been as clear on this point as the US since the summer of 2006. If the new administration is in fact tending toward the "wait and see" approach, this could have dire consequences for any negotiation with Iran: while it may sound reasonable to first demonstrate accommodation – the outstretched hand – and then move to harsh measures only if Iran leaves no choice, in practice this will be very difficult to pull off. Once the sides become engaged in dialogue, making the call that "Iran is not serious" is not as easy as it might sound. Iran is very adept at going through the motions of dialogue, including sporadic indications of a more cooperative attitude, in order to buy time for its nuclear program but with no intention of actually moving toward a deal. In this way, "wait and see" negotiations can actually help Iran achieve its goal.

In dealing with Iran's nuclear ambitions, attention must also be directed to Iran's calculations, and in particular to the sobering reality that Iran has no rational reason for being any more willing to negotiate seriously with the US today than it was when negotiating with the EU-3 in the past. The only factor that might change Iran's calculation is if it begins to feel very uncomfortable with the status quo, and this is where pressure comes into the equation. The toughness that the US needs to demonstrate should not be understood as an alternative to dialogue, rather as a step toward more effective engagement with Iran on the nuclear issue. The logical sequence for those facing Iran is first to create tremendous pressure – through strong sanctions and other financial measures as well as credible threats and indications of a willingness to apply military measures – and then begin negotiations. A much less confident Iran is likely to be much more amenable to actually reaching a deal.

Continued (Permanent Link)

Obama is a what?

President Barack Obama has been billed as all sorts of evil things. Here's the latest.

Barack Obama is a  Communist    Muslim   Zionist.

Last update - 13:29 04/02/2009       
Top Iranian official: Zionists brought Obama to power
By Reuters

A representative of Iran's supreme leader said Barack Obama taking office as U.S. president did not mean Tehran's ties with Washington would change, a news agency reported on Wednesday.

 

"The Zionists brought Obama to power to help America pass through its current challenges," said the representative to the Revolutionary Guards in northwestern Zanjan province, cleric Hojjatoleslam Ali Maboudi.

 

"Any government has 'red lines' and our 'red lines' are rejecting the arrogant policies of America and the Zionist regime," he said.
 
Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who has ultimate authority over policy in the Islamic Republic, has yet to comment on Obama's presidency or his offer to extend a hand of peace if Iran "unclenched its fist."

 

The leader has representatives to many institutions and regions. Though not a perfect guide, their comments can give an indication of views prevalent among Iran's leadership.

 

"Opposing the Zionist regime and defending oppressed people are among the pillars of the Islamic revolution and Iran and America's relationship will not change because of Obama taking office," Maboudi said, Fars News Agency reported.

 

Iran does not recognize Israel's right to exist and officials often refer to the country as the "Zionist regime". Officials reflect the view that U.S. ties with Israel as so close that their policies are indistinguishable.

 

Other Iranian officials have set tough conditions for opening dialogue with Washington after 30 years of hostility. But analysts say such terms could be more of a gambit to buy time for the leadership to determine how to proceed.

 

The United States has long accused Iran of undermining peace in the Middle East by backing what Washington calls "terrorist" groups like Palestinian Hamas and Lebanon's Hezbollah. Tehran says the groups aim to free Palestinians from Israeli occupation.

 

Khamenei may have the final say in policy, but analysts say he tends to reach decisions by seeking a consensus among influential politicians, clerics and powerful state bodies.

 

The president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, is only one among those voices. He has said the United States must withdraw its troops from bases around the world and must also apologize for decades of "crimes" against Iran. Neither is likely to [be] met soon if at all.

 

Obama's administration has offered direct talks but warned of more pressure if Iran does not halt work the West says is to build nuclear bombs. Tehran denies any such ambitions.

 

The Guards are an ideologically driven force set up after the 1979 Islamic revolution to defend the system of clerical rule, with a separate command structure to the regular military.

 

While fiercely loyal to the system, analysts say political views in force are not always homogenous but mostly reflect hardliners passionately opposed to Washington and the U.S. influence ejected in 1979 when the U.S.-backed shah was ousted.

Continued (Permanent Link)

US Prosecutors: Holy Land Foundation was Hamas in USA

The case against the USA Holy Land Foundation "charity" seems pretty clear. This group worked on behalf of Hamas. But they got off once before and shall probably do so again.

Last update - 11:05 12/11/2008

Prosecutor: U.S. Muslim charity glorified Jihad and killing Jews By The Associated Press

Defense attorneys and prosecutors battled over allegations that a U.S. Muslim charity broke the law by funneling money to Hamas institutions, speaking in closing arguments at the Holy Land Foundation's second trial for allegedly financing terrorism.

"Look at all those videos. It seems like every song was about support of Hamas, about martyrdom, about jihad, about killing Jews," said prosecutor Jim Jacks.

He was reminding jurors of videos from the 1980s and early 1990s of Palestinian festivals where speakers and musicians openly praised Hamas and Holy Land raised money. Jacks made the comments in the government rebuttal Tuesday - the final word before deliberations begin.

"Can there be any doubt that these men were the leaders of Hamas in the United States, and that they were the fundraising mechanism?"

Last year's trial of the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development ended in no convictions and a mistrial on most charges in the government's biggest terror-financing trial since Sept. 11, 2001.

Prosecutors say Holy Land funneled more than $12 million to Palestinian schools and charities controlled by the militant group Hamas after the U.S. government declared Hamas a terrorist group in 1995, which made supporting it illegal.

Holy Land was the largest Muslim charity in the U.S. before it was shut down in December 2001.

Defense attorneys, for their part, argued that the charity did not break the law by casting politics aside and aiding Palestinians under brutal Israeli occupation.

Elashi and former Holy Land chief executive Shukri Abu Baker are each charged with conspiracy, supporting a foreign terrorist organization, money laundering and filing false tax returns.

Tightening their case from the initial trial, prosecutors dropped most of nearly 30 counts against Mufid Abdulqader and Abdulrahman Odeh. The men still face three conspiracy counts.

Mohammed El-Mezain, a former Holy Land chairman acquitted on most charges in the first trial, is charged with one conspiracy count.

Linda Moreno, attorney for former Holy Land co-founder Ghassan Elashi, stressed the former Richardson, Texas-based charity's humanitarian work Tuesday and lambasted government evidence as old and irrelevant.

"For those who have been impoverished by politics and history and failed leadership, for all those generations of refugees that he helped feed and clothe and educate, Ghassan Elashi does not apologize for serving them, she told jurors," The Dallas Morning News reported online. "He knew the work of the Holy Land Foundation attracted enemies."

Continued (Permanent Link)

Obama: Silly Season continues

Optimist that I am, I thought that with the end of the USA election campaign, the flood of silly season emails would dry up. (See Get with it: Obama hopes and fears. It has not dried up. It has in fact, gotten sillier if anything.

Mr. Obama is not yet president. He has done nothing at all about the Middle East. There is no real evidence on which to base any opinion of his Middle East policies, and yet these "Zionists" are going full speed ahead, pillorying Obama and his administration as allies of the Hamas.

Over the past few days I am sorry to say that the level of accusations made against Barack Obama has deteriorated. I have gotten mail claiming that Obama uses hypnosis to convince people, and there is a "story" out there in "Zionist" publications claiming that Obama is the son of Malcolm X.

Barack Obama has announced one appointment. It was not Louis Farakhan or Robert Malley or Rashid Khalidi or Jesse Jackson. It was a Palestinian though, just as the doomsayers have been predicting. A Jewish Palestinian, though. He appointed Rahm Emanuel to be the White House Chief of Staff. This is not a policy position, but as the presidential gatekeeper Emanuel will have a certain amount of power. In some administrations, this post is more important than others. Emanuel's family has an interesting history. Their uncle, Emanuel Auerbach, was killed by Arabs in Jerusalem in 1933, and the family took the name "Emanuel" in his honor. Emanuel's father was a messenger for the Irgun. As can be expected, this was not pleasing to Electronic Intifada editor and supposed Obama friend Ali Abunimah.
Continued here:

Obama and Israel - first signs

Continued (Permanent Link)

U.S. to sell 25 F-35 fighter aircraft to Israel

U.S. approves sale of 25 F-35 fighter planes to Israel

By Haaretz Correspondents and Agencies , By Amos Harel, Yuval Azoulay and Natasha Mozgovaya

 

The United States government said Tuesday it had approved the sale to Israel of 25 F-35 Joint Strike Fighter aircraft and an option for 50 more in coming years, for a deal valued at up to $15.2 billion.

 

The Pentagon's Defense Security Cooperation Agency (DSCA) said the deal is vital to U.S. national security interests to assist Israel as it develops and to maintain "a strong and ready self-defense capability."
 

Israel needs the aircraft built by the Lockheed Martin Corp to enhance its air-to-air and air-to-ground defense, the agency said.

 

The DSCA notified Congress about the proposed sale before lawmakers head back to their districts for the November election. Lawmakers now have 30 days to block the sales, but such action is rare, since the agreements are usually carefully vetted beforehand.

 

The Israeli embassy in Washington made a concerted effort to have the deal approved by the current Congress, and a critical development in the legislation was achieved this weekend.

 

The next stage would be Israeli and American defense officials signing the agreement, enabling the provision of the aircraft by 2014.

 

The Pentagon agency said Israel wants to buy an initial 25 F-35s in the Conventional Take-Off and Landing (CTOL) configuration, with an option to buy an additional 50 F-35 CTOL or Short Take-Off and Vertical Landing (STOVL) aircraft.

 

All aircraft would be equipped with either the F-135 engine built by Pratt and Whitney, a unit of United Technologies, or the F-136 engine being developed by General Electric Co. and Britain's Rolls-Royce.

 

Lockheed Martin said it welcomes the decision. "As the first potential foreign military sale of the F-35, this would be an important first step in expanding interest in the Joint Strike Fighter beyond the U.S. government and eight international F-35 partner nations," said Lockheed spokesman Tom Jurkowsky.

 

Earlier in September the Pentagon approved up to $330 million in three separate arms deals for Israel.

 

Top Israeli and U.S. officials met in Washington last month for the most senior bilateral high-tech talks between the two allies. Discussions focused in part on ensuring that sensitive technologies were not passed to third parties.

 

An Israeli embassy spokesman called the latest deal further proof of the countries' special relationship, as Israel is the first country outside NATO to receive the aircraft, each of which cost about $50 million.

 

The Israel Air Force is expected to send pilots to the U.S. to train on the planes once the sale is complete. Israel's military industry will also be involved in the aircraft's operation, providing various electronic support systems.

 

Acquisition of the plane represents a significant boost to Israel's security capabilities, as it can be used both for bombing missions and in aerial combat, possessing advanced stealth capabilities.

 

Senior security officials and the Israel Defense Forces General Staff expressed broad support for the sale, but some senior IDF officers expressed dissatisfaction with its timing. They said the sale should have been postponed by a year and the funds used to buy tank defense systems and armored personnel carriers, two elements they said are currently lacking among ground forces.

 

The F-35 can flying large distances without refueling and can cover the distance between Israel and Iran. It is designed to carry a variety of advanced weapons and radar devices.

 

The F-35 is considered the "last manned aircraft," as aviation experts believe aerial combat will be conducted largely by unmanned aircraft in the coming years. Its maiden flight was in December 2006.

 

Israel had expressed interest in acquiring the F-22, considered the only "fifth-generation" combat aircraft in the world, but was prevented from doing so by a U.S. Congress bill prohibiting its sale to any other countries in order to preserve the combat superiority of the U.S. Air Force.

 

While the F-22 uses a twin engine, the F-35 runs on a high-powered single engine designed by Pratt & Whitney.

 

Meanwhile, Lockheed Martin is expected to complete its sale of 102 F-16 aircraft to Israel by the end of the year.

Continued (Permanent Link)

Arafat killed US diplomats, but US continued to negotiate with PLO

A story in Ha'aretz reveals that the CIA knew that Yasser Arafat had ordered the murder of the Ambassador and his deputy in Khartoum, Sudan, but Henry Kissinger  instructed the CIA to continue diplomatic contacts with Yasser Arafat's PLO before the Yom Kippur war. At the time, the US insisted it would not negotiate with the PLO. Later it claimed the negotiations concerned only security. In fact, there were secret diplomatic negotiations.

 

Diplomatic negotiations were held between Robert Ames of the CIA and the head of the Fatah's security apparatus, Ali Hassan Salameh, who was also the commander of the Fatah's Black September organization. Salameh was killed in Beirut in 1979 in an operation conducted by the Mossad and naval commandos.

Ames,  head of the CIA's Middle Eastern department, was killed in an Iranian-ordered attack on the U.S. Embassy in Beirut in 1983. 

Helms' documents reveal that Arafat sent Salameh to the talks without hiding his responsibility for killing American diplomats in Khartoum in March 1973. Ames also agreed to Salameh's requests and asked Washington about various diplomatic issues, such as the Nixon administration's intentions relating to Palestinian interests.

Salameh told Ames that the PLO was working to topple King Hussein and establish a Palestinian state in Jordan. Unperturbed, Washington responded that if the Palestinians want to negotiate a settlement, the U.S. would be happy to hear their proposals, but the toppling of existing governments through the use of force did not seem to be the most promising way.

Arafat threatened, via Ames, that he would burn Beirut if the Lebanese government acted against the PLO.

 

The newly-released material also describes the Egyptian initiative in the spring of 1973 to plead with the U.S., through Iranian channels, to reach an arrangement with Israel "on the basis of the Rogers plan," a withdrawal from the occupied territories captured in 1967 and placing them under international supervision. The Rogers plan did not promise, nor did Egypt offer, peace with Israel, though the Ha'aretz article mentions a "peace agreement."  

The documents also reveal that the US and others knew quite a bit about the planned Yom Kippur war well in advance. The Shah of Iran evidently knew of Egyptian attack plans, and recommended to Egyptian foreign minister Muhammad Hassan al-Zayyat that Egypt content itself with an artillery barrage against Israeli positions on the Suez Canal instead of an attack crossing the canal.

In a telegram Helms sent Kissinger - then Richard Nixon's National Security Advisor - on July 5, 1973, Helms reported that King Hussein of Jordan told him that Jordanian intelligence had learned of a Syrian attack to recapture the Golan Heights originally planned for June, that had been delayed but could take place at any time. One of the Jordanian intelligence sources was the commander of a Syrian armored brigade, and the Jordanians had obtained a copy of the battle plans, which had been coordinated with Egypt and Iraq.

 

Continued (Permanent Link)

US rebuffs Hamas "truce" offer to Carter.

Carter got the same old same old - "We agree to take a state and give you nothing except 10 years of quiet - during which time we gather the means to destroy you."

 

What is strange about this report is this:

 

"Mashaal said he made the offer to Carter during talks between the two men on Friday and Saturday in the Syrian capital."

 

But reports on Saturday said that on Sunday Meshal was to have responded to Carter's offer! So who offered what?

 

Ami Isseroff

 

 

US: Mashaal's truce offer to Carter is meaningless
TOVAH LAZAROFF and HERB KEINON , THE JERUSALEM POST  Apr. 21, 2008

 

Former US president Jimmy Carter ended his nine-day trip to the region with a promise from Hamas to offer Israel tacit recognition and a 10-year truce if Israel in turn withdrew to the pre-1967 borders.

 

Khaled Mashaal, whose group has sworn to destroy Israel, told reporters in Damascus on Monday that Hamas would accept a Palestinian state in the West Bank with Israel as its neighbor, but stressed that his group would not formally recognize it, a move immediately dismissed by the USas meaningless.

 

"We agree to a (Palestinian) state on pre-67 borders, with Jerusalem as its capital with genuine sovereignty without settlements, but without recognizing

 

Israel," Mashaal said."We have offered a truce if Israel withdraws to the 1967 borders, a truce of 10 years as a proof of recognition."

 

Mashaal said he made the offer to Carter during talks between the two men on Friday and Saturday in the Syrian capital.

 

Mashaal used the Arabic word "hudna," meaning truce, which is more concrete than "tahadiyeh" - a period of calm - which Hamas often uses to describe a simple cease-fire. Hudna implies a recognition of the other party's existence.

 

In Washington, deputy State Department spokesman Tom Casey brushed aside Hamas's offer, saying the group's past rhetoric contained "all this language about truces and other kinds of issues. But the bottom line is, Hamas still believes in the destruction of the state of Israel; they don't believe Israel has a right to exist," adding it was clear "that nothing has changed" in Hamas's attitude - including that the group still refuses to explicitly recognize Israel and denounce terrorism.

 

The statements by Hamas followed Carter's visit to the region, during which he spent time in Israel, Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and Syria.

 

Carter angered both Israel and his own government by meeting with Hamas, which is considered by both countries to be a terrorist organization. It has carried out terror attacks in Israel, and has launched rockets against the country's southern border. It has also held Cpl. Gilad Schalit captive since June 2006.

 

Top Israeli leaders, including Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, refused to meet with Carter during his stay. But Carter, who ended his visit to the region on Monday, said that it was critical to talk to Hamas.

 

The former president, who brokered a peace deal between Egypt and Israel in 1979, said repeatedly that in those meetings, as well as in others he held, he was simply on a fact-finding mission for the Carter Center, which he runs in the United States.

 

But he did more then just receive information. He tried and failed to broker deals regarding a cease-fire with Hamas and the release of Schalit.

 

He did, however, wrangle a promise from Hamas that it would send a letter from the young man to his parents.

 

The gesture was acknowledged by Mashaal on Monday, who told reporters in Damascus that he had agreed to this "humanitarian" gesture out of respect for Carter.

 

Schalit's father, Noam, who, along with his wife, spoke with Carter both before and after his strip to Damascus, said he would wait until receiving the letter before commenting on the gesture.

 

Speaking to the Israel Council on Foreign Relations, Carter said that Hamas had rejected his proposal for a rapid prisoner exchange that would allow Schalit to be moved to Egypt in exchange for the release of people held by Israel not guilty of violent crimes, including politicians, women and children.

 

"Hamas considered its negotiations through Egypt to be well advanced," and it had already made promises to the families of prisoners who are on the prisoner list that is already under discussion with Israel, Carter said.

 

But, he added, Hamas would be willing to move Schalit to Egypt after the first part of that deal brokered with Egypt had been concluded.

 

Israel has agreed to release 1,000 prisoners in exchange for Schalit, but the hold-up has been the identity of the prisoners on the list.

 

Ofer Dekel, the official charged by Olmert with dealing with the kidnapped soldiers issue, was reported as saying Monday that he had not received a briefing about Carter's activities in Damascus and his talks with Mashaal, government sources said.

 

They added it was clear that Industry and Trade Minister Eli Yishai would brief the government - and Dekel - on what he heard from Carter regarding Schalit.

 

The two men met both before and after Carter's talks with Mashaal.

 

Far from knocking Carter's efforts, Yishai had asked Carter to help arrange a meeting between him and Hamas to work on releasing Schalit.

 

Carter told Yishai that Hamas was interested in such a meeting, but did not want to talk to him at this time, out of fear it would complicate already existing negotiations.

 

But Carter said he would help Yishai arrange a meeting in Egypt with intelligence chief Omar Sullieman. Yishai also spoke with Carter about his involvement in a conference of Islamic and Jewish religious leaders.

 

But, while Yishai wanted to work with Carter, one government official said the former US president had done more harm than good, even with the promise of a new letter. The Schalit family had previously received a letter from their son last June.

 

According to this official, Hamas is dissatisfied that, despite holding Schalit for almost two years, they have not gotten what they want from the Israeli government - the release of high-profile terrorists - for his return.

 

In an attempt to pressure the Israeli public to pressure the government, Hamas is interested in opening up another negotiating track which bypasses Dekel and the government, and goes directly to the public.

 

Carter, the official said, serves this purpose, because the impression that things could move much faster if only another channel of communications were tapped is exactly the message Hamas wanted the Israeli public to hear.

 

The official said it was clear that Hamas was using Carter for its purposes, and that Mashaal, who knew far in advance that Carter was coming to Damascus to meet him, could very well have had a letter to give the former president from Schalit. It's all about shaping Israeli public opinion, the official said.

 

The official said that Hamas also used Carter to give it legitimization.

 

The US and European Union position is that Hamas should not be engaged until it accepts three preconditions: recognizing Israel, disavowing terrorism and accepting previous Israeli-Palestinian agreements.

 

In comes Carter, the official said, and he meets Hamas without its having to pay any price, which is exactly what the organization wants to have happen with the rest of the world.

 

But, during his Jerusalem speech, Carter defended his actions.

 

"It was a small step forward to reassure Cpl. Schalit's parents that he is alive and well and will be writing them a letter soon," said Carter.

 

He also reported that Hamas would accept any deal negotiated by Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, even one they disagreed with, as long as it was approved by the Palestinian people through a referendum.

 

"Let me underscore the significance of the statement. It means that Hamas will not undermine Abbas's efforts to negotiate the agreement," said Carter.

 

More to the point, if the Palestinian people, through a referendum, agreed to recognize Israel, then Hamas, in effect, would do so as well, he said.

 

But Hamas spokesman Sami Abu Zuhri in Gaza said Hamas's readiness to put a peace deal to a referendum "does not mean that Hamas is going to accept the result of the referendum."

 

Such a referendum, he said, would have to be voted on by Palestinians living all over the world. They number about 9.3 million, including some 4 million living in the West Bank, Gaza and east Jerusalem.

 

A spokesman for Carter said the former president had already left the country and had no response to the comment.

 

But during his speech, Carter acknowledged that he had failed in some respects during his talks with Hamas.

 

The group had rejected his suggestion for a 30-day unilateral cease-fire, he said.

 

"They met all day yesterday to consider this proposal. They finally decided that they were dependent on Egypt as an intermediary, and that progress which had been made already with Egypt should prevail. They couldn't terminate unilaterally, because they didn't trust Israel to follow up by lessening their attacks on Gaza and the West Bank," said Carter.

 

Separately, Carter said that Hamas wants to negotiate an agreement with Abbas to create a government of national consensus with a unified professional security force for the West Bank and Gaza. The cabinet would be composed of technocrats, until another election was held.

 

Hamas has also proposed that the Rafah crossing between Egypt and Gaza be reopened with the help of EU monitors, as it was in the past, except that this time, Egypt, not Israel, would control it.

 

With respect to Syria, where Carter met with President Bashar al-Assad and senior officials, Carter said that Syria wants to conclude a peace agreement with Israel as soon as possible.

 

"I was impressed with their eagerness to complete an agreement on the Golan Heights. He [Assad] said that the only major difference in starting good faith talks was that Israel insisted that there be no public acknowledgement that the talks are going on, whereas Syria insisted that the talks being conducted would not be a secret."

 

Carter said that 85 percent of the differences had been resolved, including borders, water rights, security zones and the presence of international forces. He chastised the US for opposing talks between Syria and Israel.

 

Syria wants the US to play strong role, and "I hope that it will be done," said Carter.

 

He said that he asked the Syrians about the fate of Israeli soldier Guy Hever, who went missing in 1997, while in the area of the Golan Heights. There are those who believe he is being held by Syria.

 

Carter said the Syrians had no evidence of his whereabouts. They also said they knew nothing about the fate of kidnapped soldiers Ehud Goldwasser and Eldad Regev, both of whom were abducted by Hizbullah in July 2006.

 

AP contributed to this report.

 

This article can also be read at

Continued (Permanent Link)

Rice: "Hamas is the main impediment to peace"

Good Ole Jimmy Carter is going to visit with Hamas, to learn more about the evil Zionists for his next book. U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice notes:

"I find it hard to understand what is going to be gained by having discussions with Hamas about peace when Hamas is, in fact, the impediment to peace," Rice said at a press event with German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier.

The same question, "What is to be gained by having discussions with Hamas?" should be directed at those Israelis who favor talking to Hamas.

Ami Isseroff

---

Last update - 13:09 12/04/2008
Rice criticizes Carter over planned meeting with Meshal
By Haaretz Service and News Agencies

U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice criticized former President Jimmy Carter on Friday for his reported plans to meet Hamas' political leader Khaled Meshal during a visit to Syria.

Carter has not confirmed the plans to meet Meshal but the Palestinian militant group has said the former Democratic president sent an envoy to Damascus, where the Hamas leader resides, requesting a meeting with the militant group's officials.

"I find it hard to understand what is going to be gained by having discussions with Hamas about peace when Hamas is, in fact, the impediment to peace," Rice said at a press event with German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier.

Rice was responding to a question about Carter's plans but did not mention him by name.

"Hamas is a terrorist organization," she said, repeating the Bush administration's explanation for why it will not meet with members of the group.

The State Department says it twice advised Carter against meeting any representative of Hamas. A Carter-Mashal meeting would be the first public contact in two years between a prominent American figure and Hamas officials.

A press release from the Carter Center said the former president was to lead a study mission to Israel, the West Bank, Egypt, Syria, Saudi Arabia and Jordan as part of his ongoing effort to support peace, democracy and human rights in the region.

Carter was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 2002 for his decades of work in mediating conflicts and his humanitarian travels for the Carter Center since he was in office. One of his mediations was the 1978 Camp David Accords between Egypt and Israel, for which Egypt's Anwar Sadat and Israel's Menachem Begin were awarded the 1978 Nobel Peace Prize.

Earlier Friday, Rice said the U.S. will consider fresh incentives and sanctions to persuade Iran to rein in its nuclear program but major changes in either are unlikely now.

"We will always continue to consider refreshing both tracks but this is not the time, I think, to expect major changes,"

Rice told reporters. "We have just passed a (UN) Security Council resolution (imposing additional sanctions) and we will see how Iran responds."

Report: Secret Iranian missile site revealed in new spy photos
A series of recently released spy photos have uncovered the secret location where Iran has allegedly been developing long-range ballistic missiles capable of striking Europe, The Times reported on Friday.

The satellite pictures pinpoint the facility where Iran launched its Kavoshgar 1 "research" rocket in February, according to the report. Iran has claimed that rocket was tested as part of its space program.

Analysis of the Digital Globe QuickBird satellite taken just days after the launch show details indicating that the site of the research rocket is the same location where Iran is preparing a ballistic missile with a range of 6,000 kilometers, the report said.

The site is located about 230 kilometers southeast of Tehran. The connection between the research rocket and Iran's long-range program was exposed by Jane's Intelligence Review following an analysis of the photos by a former Iraqi weapons inspector, said The Times.

Analysis of the photos suggest that Iran is pursuing a space program similar to that being developed in North Korea, with a focus on long-range missile technology, according to the report.

An analyst at the Institute of Technology, Geoffrey Forden, said that a structure on the Iranian site - roughly 40 meters in length - closely resembled a Taepodong long-range missile assembly facility in North Korea, The Times reported.

The editor of Janes's Proliferation has said that based on examination of the Iranian site, Tehran may be just five years away from developing the long-range missile, according to the report.

Source

Continued (Permanent Link)

Israel should prepare for change in US Relations

This observation is undoubtedly astute and valid:

 

The preference for a prolonged strategic relationship with the U.S. should not extend to an exclusive reliance on that relationship or preclude placing some eggs in other baskets - in Europe, in Asia, and yes, also in the Arab and Muslim worlds.

 

The problem neglected by Daniel Levy, is that it is not easy for Israel to develop a strategic defensive alliance with say, Libya or Saudi Arabia, and therefore Israel is not likely to develop deep ties with those countries. Likewise, Libya and Saudi Arabia, or even China, do not manufacture anything equivalent to the F-16. These are minor problems that do not interest great minds, I suppose.

 

However, India is a promissing partner for business and security ties, but even there, there is domestic opposition. There is also a good opportunity to pursue deeper ties with Russia. Playing hard to get never hurt. A really novel idea is independence, which has not really been tried in a while.

 

Ami Isseroff

 

 

 Hope for the best, prepare for the worst
By Daniel Levy
 

 

Here's something else to add to an Israeli's menu of worries: The United States presidential elections may produce change in 2009. Or so fear people like Malcolm Hoenlein, the professional head of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, who said on a recent visit to Israel that all the talk of "change" is an "opening for mischief," and not good for Israel.

Apparently the status quo is so idyllic for Israel that one should wish for nothing more than that it be perpetuated eternally.

Of course not all change is good, but the Israeli-American relationship could benefit greatly from a dose of new thinking - in terms of both the nature and the exclusivity of that alliance.

There are already two storm clouds looming over the blissful American-Israeli landscape, but they are the product of current, not possible future, policies. The first is that reality is forcing more Americans to take a closer look at the Middle East. They see the scorched earth left behind by their government's recent policies, and the investment of U.S. lives and lucre. As they begin to ask questions, the role of the bilateral partnership is inevitably placed under increasing scrutiny. Sometimes the scrutiny is unfair: Israel, for example, did not get the U.S. into Iraq. And sometimes it's more justified: Complicity in Israeli settlements and occupation carry a heavy toll for America's standing in the region and beyond.

The candidacy of Ron Paul, on the Republican side, has been a lightning rod for that sentiment. His campaign broke party records, raising $4.2 million in contributions in one day, mainly in online donations. Paul will not be the Republican candidate for president, but the tendency for people to ask, "What is going on with the U.S. in the Middle East, and why does our ally Israel make things more difficult?" should give cause to reflect. The business-as-usual approach of many of Israel's supporters is not sustainable over time.

Four or eight more years of aggressive, divisive, costly and failed American policies in the region - especially if supported by the so-called pro-Israel camp - will exacerbate this tension, perhaps exponentially.

The second cloud is that Israel is today hitched to an America that is weakened economically, stretched militarily, deeply divided at home and decidedly unpopular abroad. To the extent that the next president continues the policies that have contributed to those trends, Israel too will pay a price. When Israel is so dependent on the U.S., and the U.S. is wounded, we feel it.

The warm rhetoric continues to emanate from Washington, and that feels comforting. The problem is that its utility is diminished, and nice words are no substitute for the smart plans that would actually make the U.S. and Israel more, not less, secure. Israel should hope for and encourage a change that lifts America out of its current morass, while at the same time diversifying its ally portfolio.

Haaretz's "Israel Factor" notwithstanding (and most members of that panel look like the Israeli equivalent of the aging WASPs one tends to find on a platform alongside John McCain), it is Barack Obama who has best positioned himself to reverse these trends and thereby guarantee the U.S.-Israel relationship. An Obama presidency is more likely to be the antidote to further tensions than their source.

The response so far in Israel to the Obama candidacy has split between gevald and hatikva. The former has more to do with email slur campaigns and our own prejudices than with hard policy positions espoused by the Illinois senator. The latter is easily understood when set against the prospect in 2009 of a 1999 election redux, of Bibi (Netanyahu) vs. Barak (Ehud), yawn. Perhaps Obama's ability to mobilize young people and to transcend political indifference, and his audacity to hope, will be infectious here in the 51st state of the U.S.A.

But Israel should be looking beyond the election. Yes, an Obama presidency is more likely to reverse America's decline - internally and externally - and to correct the hubris, incompetence and adventurism of the Bush years. The same might also be true of Clinton and McCain, though it seems less likely. It is what Obama could do to reenergize America that is first and foremost the good news for Israel. And when he talks of "changing the mindset" that got America into the Iraq war, Obama implies a policy of realism and engagement that stands to stabilize the region and even advance genuine peace. Israel could well be a main beneficiary of such a change.

But what if the next president is all about more of the same or something very similar? Israel must plan for the possibility of an America that continues in its decline, that can deliver less, and remains militarily bogged down in Iraq and perhaps elsewhere in the region. Under this scenario, the special relationship with Israel will become an ever-more contentious issue. America itself might increasingly turn its gaze toward Asia.

So while following American developments closely, and hoping for change, Israel should also be more active out there on the dating circuit. Though efforts have been made to strengthen other alliances, results have been mixed so far, and our options will remain limited so long as the Palestinian issue remains unresolved.

The preference for a prolonged strategic relationship with the U.S. should not extend to an exclusive reliance on that relationship or preclude placing some eggs in other baskets - in Europe, in Asia, and yes, also in the Arab and Muslim worlds.

Daniel Levy, a senior fellow at the New America and Century Foundations, is a former adviser in the Israeli Prime Minister's Office and was lead Israeli drafter of the Geneva Initiative

Source

Continued (Permanent Link)

Bush radio address: A Jewish state and an Arab Palestinian state

The higlight of President Bush's radio address from the Middle East:

In plain language, the result must be the establishment of a free and democratic homeland for the Palestinian people, just as Israel is a free and democratic homeland for the Jewish people. For this to happen, the Israelis must have secure, recognized, and defensible borders. And the Palestinians must have a state that is viable, contiguous, sovereign, and independent. Achieving this vision will require tough decisions and painful concessions from both sides.

The entire address is below.

Ami Isseroff

---

THE PRESIDENT: Good morning. I'm speaking to you from the Middle East, where I have been meeting with friends and allies. We're discussing how we can work together to confront the extremists who threaten our future. And I have encouraged them to take advantage of the historic opportunity we have before us to advance peace, freedom, and security in this vital part of the world.

My first stop was Israel and the Palestinian Territories. I had good meetings with Israeli Prime Minister Olmert and Palestinian President Abbas. Both these men are committed to peace in the Holy Land. Both these men have been elected by their people. And both share a vision of two democratic states -- Israel and Palestine -- living side by side in peace and security.

I came away encouraged by my meetings with Israeli and Palestinian leaders. Each side understands that the key to achieving its own goals is helping the other side achieve its goals. For the Israelis, their main goal is ensuring the safety of their people and the security of their nation. For the Palestinians, the goal is a state of their own, where they can enjoy the dignity that comes with sovereignty and self-government.

In plain language, the result must be the establishment of a free and democratic homeland for the Palestinian people, just as Israel is a free and democratic homeland for the Jewish people. For this to happen, the Israelis must have secure, recognized, and defensible borders. And the Palestinians must have a state that is viable, contiguous, sovereign, and independent. Achieving this vision will require tough decisions and painful concessions from both sides.

I believe that a peace agreement between Israelis and Palestinians that defines a Palestinian state is possible this year. Prime Minister Olmert made clear to me that he understands a democratic Palestinian state is in the long-term security interests of Israel. President Abbas is committed to achieving this Palestinian state through negotiation. The United States cannot impose an agreement on the Israelis and Palestinians -- that is something they must work out themselves. But with hard work and good will on both sides, they can make it happen. And both men are getting down to the serious work of negotiation to make sure it does happen.

The United States will do all we can to encourage these negotiations and promote reconciliation between Israelis and Palestinians. But the international community has a responsibility to help as well. In particular, the Arab nations of the Gulf have a responsibility both to support President Abbas, Prime Minister Fayyad, and other Palestinian leaders as they work for peace, and to work for a larger reconciliation between Israel and the Arab world. And in my meetings with Arab leaders over the next few days, I will urge them to do their part.

A democratic Palestinian state is in the interests of the Palestinians. It is in the long-term security interests of Israel. And it is in the interests of a world at war with terrorists and extremists trying to impose their brutal vision on the Middle East. By helping the Israeli and Palestinian people lay the foundation for lasting peace, we will help build a more hopeful future for the Holy Land -- and a safer world for the American people.

Thank you for listening.

Continued (Permanent Link)

Columbia professors will apologize to Ahmadinejad

Columbia professors plan to visit Iran to apologize to Ahmadinejad

NEW YORK (MNA)

--- An academic delegation of Columbia University professors and deans of faculties plans to visit Tehran to officially apologize to Iranian President Mahmud Ahmadinejad.

The delegation plans to express regret for the insulting remarks Columbia University President Lee Bollinger directed at Ahmadinejad on September 24 in his introductory speech, the Mehr News Agency correspondent in New York reported.

Since the incident, the deans and professors from the faculties of history, anthropology, Middle Eastern studies, philosophy, and Islamic studies have criticized Bollinger's behavior toward Ahmadinejad.

A member of the delegation, who requested anonymity, said the main goal of the visit is to meet the Iranian president and officially apologize to him.

"The delegation has also prepared its itinerary," he noted.

He went on to say that the delegation also plans to visit Iranian universities in various cities and to hold talks with professors and students, and may even sign memoranda of understanding with some universities. He also said the delegation is interested in visiting seminaries and the shrine city of Qom.

However, Bollinger has warned the delegation that their trip to Iran should be a private visit and should not be undertaken as an official visit endorsed by the university.

Bollinger has so far refused to meet the Mehr News Agency correspondent to explain his disrespectful behavior toward Ahmadinejad when introducing him to the students and professors at Columbia.

Source

Continued (Permanent Link)

Mr. Bush: You are not in Kansas anymore

  Mr. Bush: You are not in Kansas anymore

07.01. 2008
http://www.zionism-israel.com/log/archives/00000476.html
Original content copyright by the author
Zionism & Israel Center
http://zionism-israel.com

Not much peace is likely to come out of President Bush's upcoming visit to the Middle East. As Hillel Halkin notes, nobody in the Middle East probably really wants peace anyhow.

Unlike Hillel Halkin, I do not think this is a Good Thing. But it certainly seems to be a fact. As I note elsewhere, if US diplomats ever grasp this truth, it may set US policy in the Middle East on a much firmer footing. Since sometime after the Six Day War, the U.S. has held to the same policy in the Middle East. It is based on these principles:

• Arab-Israeli peace will stabilize the region and open the way to further progress.

• The various actors in the Middle East really want peace, though they each want it on their terms.

• Peace can be obtained by using US leverage on Israel to extract territorial concessions from Israel. LI>

  By achieving peace and return of territories, the US can leverage Israeli return of territories into US influence with Arab states.

• The US can maintain its leverage over Israel by making Israel dependent on US aid and weapons, and likewise, it can use the same mechanism to maintain leverage over other states in the region.

The model that is supposed to have validated the thesis is Egypt. Egypt made peace with Israel and got its territories back, and Egypt and Israel remain firm allies of the US, in part because of hefty foreign aid subsidies. But what if all the above assumptions are false? What if peace between the Arabs and Israelis would violate cultural taboos that have been in place in the Arab world for the last 100 years? What if it would destabilize all the regimes that signed peace treaties with Israel, by labeling them as "Jew lovers" and an easy target for extremists? What if the Israelis, once anxious for peace even in 1967 borders have in the interim gotten used to the "new" situation that has prevailed for 40 years, and are not anxious to trade real estate for flimsy peace agreements like the one with Egypt? What if instability in the Middle East, backward conditions and volatility are the cause of the Israel-Arab conflict rather than the effect?

Continued: Mr. Bush: You are not in Kansas anymore

Cross posted: Israel News  Middle East Analysis

Continued (Permanent Link)

Speeches of Ehud Olmert and Mahmoud Abbas at the Annapolis summit

See also: Joint Israeli-Palestinian Declaration, and its meaning

 

The full text of Olmert, Abbas' speeches at the Annapolis summit 

 

By Assaf Uni, Haaretz Correspondent and Haaretz Service  

 

PRIME MINISTER EHUD OLMERT 

 

The honorable president of the United States, George Bush, my colleague, president of the Palestinian Authority, Mahmoud Abbas, heads of delegations, and distinguished guests, I came here today from Jerusalem, Mr. President, at your invitation, to extend, on behalf of the people of Israel and the state of Israel, to the Palestinian people and to our neighboring Arab states, to extend a hand in peace, a hand which marks the beginning of historic reconciliation between us and you, the Palestinians, and all of the Arab nations.

 

I had many good reasons not to come here to this meeting. Memory of failures in the near and distant past weighed heavy upon us. The dreadful terrorism perpetrated by Palestinian terrorist organizations has affected thousands of Israeli citizens, has destroyed families and has tried to disrupt the lives of the citizens of Israel.

 

I witnessed this when I served as mayor of Jerusalem in days of bombings at cafes, on buses, and in recreational centers in Jerusalem, as well as in other cities in the state of Israel.

 

The ongoing shooting of Qassam rockets against tens of thousands of residents in the south of Israel, particularly in the city of Sderot, serves as a warning sign, one which we cannot overlook.

 

The absence of governmental institutions and effective law enforcement mechanisms, the role of Hamas in the Gaza Strip, the ongoing activity of murderous organizations throughout all the territories of the Palestinian Authority, the absence of a legal system that meets the basic criteria of democratic government, all of these are factors which deter us from moving forward too hastily.

 

I am not overlooking any of these obstacles which are liable to emerge along the way. I see them.

 

But I came here, despite the concerns and the doubts and the hesitations to say to you, President Mahmoud Abbas, and through you to your people, and to the entire Arab world, the time has come.

 

We no longer and you no longer have the privilege of adhering to dreams which are disconnected from the sufferings of our peoples, the hardships that they experience daily, and the burden of living under ongoing uncertainty, which offers no hope of change or of a better future.

 

We want peace. We demand an end to terror, an end to incitement and to hatred.

 

We are prepared to make a painful compromise, rife with risks, in order to realize these aspirations.

 

I came here today not in order to settle historical accounts between us and you about what caused the confrontations and the hatred, and what for many years has prevented a compromise, a settlement of peace.

 

I want to tell you from the bottom of my heart that I acknowledge the fact I know that alongside the constant suffering that many in Israel have experienced, because of our history, because of the wars, the terrorism and the hatred toward us, a suffering that has always been part of our lives in our land, your people, too, have suffered for many years; and there are some who still suffer.

 

Many Palestinians have been living for decades in camps, disconnected from the environment in which they grew up, wallowing in poverty, in neglect, alienation, bitterness, and a deep, unrelenting sense of humiliation.

 

I know that this pain and this humiliation are the deepest foundations which fomented the ethos of hatred toward us. We are not indifferent to this suffering. We are not oblivious to the tragedies that you have experienced.

 

I believe that, in the course of negotiations between us, we will find the right way, as part of an international effort, in which we will participate, to assist these Palestinians in finding a proper framework for their future, in the Palestinian state that will be established in the territories agreed upon between us.

 

Israel will be part of an international mechanism that will assist in finding a solution to this problem.

 

The negotiations between us will not take place here in Annapolis but rather in our home and in your home. These negotiations will be bilateral, direct, ongoing, and continuous, in an effort to complete the process in the course of 2008.

 

The negotiations will address all of the issues which we have thus far avoided dealing with.

 

We will do this directly, openly and courageously. We will not avoid any subject. We will deal with all the core issues.

 

I am convinced that the reality that emerged in our region in 1967 will change significantly.

 

This will be an extremely difficult process for many of us, but it is nevertheless inevitable. I know this. Many of my people know this. We are prepared for it.

 

In the course of the negotiations, we will use previous agreements as a point of departure. U.N. Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338, the road map, and the letter of President Bush to the prime minister of Israel dated April 14, 2004.

 

When the negotiations are concluded, I believe that we shall be able to arrive at an agreement that will fulfill the vision expressed by President Bush: two states for two peoples, a peace-seeking Palestinian state, a viable, strong, democratic and terror-free state for the Palestinian people; and the state of Israel, Jewish and democratic, living in security and free from the threat of terrorism, the national home of the Jewish people.

 

Clearly the implementation of the agreement will be subject to the implementation of all obligations in the road map with all of its phases and according to its complete sequence, as concluded between us from the very beginning.

 

We will abide by all of our obligations, and so will you.

 

The agreement with you and its gradual implementation, cautiously and responsibly, is part of a much wider whole which will lead us, I believe and hope, to peace, to a peace agreement with all of the Arab states.

 

There isn't a single Arab state in the north, in the east or in the south with which we do not seek peace. There isn't a single Muslim state with which we do not want to establish diplomatic relations.

 

Anyone who wants to make peace with us, we say to them, from the bottom of our hearts (SPEAKING IN ARABIC) welcome.

 

I am pleased to see here in this hall representatives of Arab countries. Most of them do not have diplomatic relations with Israel. The time has come for you as well.

 

We cannot continue to stand by indefinitely and to watch the -- watch you standing and watching from the sidelines, watching the peace train, as it were, going by. The time has come to end the boycott, the alienation and the obliviousness toward the state of Israel. It does not help you and it hurts us.

 

I am familiar with the Arab peace initiative, which was born in Riyadh, affirmed in Beirut and recently reaffirmed by you in Riyadh.

 

I value this initiative, I acknowledge its importance, and I highly appreciate its contribution. I have no doubt that we will continue to refer to it in the course of the negotiations between us and the Palestinian leadership.

 

The Arab world represented here by many countries is a vital component in creating a new reality in the Middle East. The peace signed between Israel and Egypt, and subsequently between Israel and the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan is a solid foundation of stability and hope in our region.

 

This peace is an example and a model of the relations that we can build with Arab states. My close relations with Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak and with His Majesty King Abdullah II of Jordan are extremely significant for the process of building trust and understanding with the Arab states.

 

However, these relations, important though they may be, are not enough. We aspire for normalization with those Arab states which eschew as much as we do radical and fanatical fundamentalism and which seek to grant their citizens a more moderate, tolerant and prosperous world.

 

This is an interest that all of us share.

 

There is quite a lot that separates us. There are memories, there is a heritage, that do not emanate from the same historical roots. We have different ways of living, different customs. And the spontaneous emotional identification that you feel with our neighboring Arab countries, which have been trapped for a long time in this age-old, bloody conflict between us.

 

Nevertheless, there is also a great deal that we share. Like us, you know that religious fanaticism and national extremism are a perfect recipe for domestic instability, for violence, for bitterness and, ultimately, for the disintegration of the very foundations of coexistence based on tolerance and mutual acceptance.

 

We are a small country with a small population, but rich in good will and with a significant ability to create a partnership that will lead to prosperity, to growth, to economic development, and to stability for the entire region.

 

From here, from Annapolis, we can come forth with a message of a new political horizon, renewed hope, not only for the Palestinians and the Israelis but also, together with you, for the entire region.

 

Mr. President of the United States, my colleague Mahmoud Abbas, distinguished guests, almost two years ago, under very sad circumstances, the prime minister of Israel, Ariel Sharon, was no longer able to carry the heavy responsibility of leading the state of Israel and this responsibility was passed on to me, first as a result of formal procedures and subsequently on the basis of an election in Israel's democratic system of government.

 

Prior to my election, I stated that my heart's desire and the desire of my people was to achieve a peace agreement, first and foremost with the Palestinian people. This is what I believed then, and this is what I continue to believe in now, with all my heart.

 

The past two years have been difficult for all of us.

 

The hardships have not been alleviated. The terrorist organizations have not been weakened. The enemies of peace have not disappeared. And we are still anxiously awaiting the return of our missing and captive sons who are being held by terrorist organizations.

 

I long for the day when I can see Gilad, Eldad and Udi back with their families. And I will continue relentlessly in my efforts to achieve their release.

 

I believe that there is no path other than the path of peace. I believe that there is no just solution other than the solution of two national states for two peoples. I believe that there is no path that does not involve painful compromise for you, the Palestinians, and for us, the Israelis.

 

I would like to thank you, President of United States George Bush, an ally in the path of peace, for your willingness, for the preparedness of your government, your administration, and for the assistance of the secretary of state, Ms. Rice, to assist us in the historical process of peace and reconciliation between us and our neighbors. I believe that the time has come. We are ready.

 

I invite you, my friend, Mahmoud Abbas, and your people to join us in this long and tormenting and complex path for which there is no substitute.

 

Together, we shall start. Together, we shall arrive.

 

Thank you very much.

 

PA CHAIRMAN MAHMOUD ABBAS

 

 

 

In the name of God, the compassionate, with great hope, but it is accompanied with great worry that this new opportunity might be lost.

 

But the meanings of your message are well known and they carry your personal bridge and commitment by your great country and its determination to embrace the Palestinian and Israeli peace and the Arab-Israeli peace to be converted in the arena of negotiations to be the first and foremost arena for making peace.

 

And that this initiative would culminate your term of office is an outstanding achievement which would add a new shining star in the skies of the world, the world of the future free of violence, oppression and bigotry.

 

And also we would like to applaud you, Mr. President, for choosing this charming city, Annapolis, as a venue for convening this international conference.

 

In addition to its beauty and distinctive location, it bears the symbol of freedom; the most sublime value in our life.

 

"Freedom" is the single word that stands for the future of the Palestinians and captures the meanings of all their generations. It is their sunshine and it is the life that inspires their future. It is the last word voiced by the martyrs and victims, and it is the lyric (ph) of their prisoners.

 

I must also pay tribute to the role played by Dr. Condoleezza Rice and her aides. For without here relentless resolve and determination and her vision vis-a-vis all aspects of conflict in our region, we would not have been convening here.

 

Dr. Rice took important strides with us in order to affirm that the path of peace is the only choice and it is irreversible. And that the path to negotiations for peace and to achieve peace is the right path.

 

It is important for me to indicate here that this distinguished participation and large participation from sister Arab and Islamic countries, the quartet, and the group of great industrial countries, and the permanent members of the Security Council of the United Nations, and many prominent European and Asian countries, as well as non-aligned countries and African states and from South America, in a unique conference in the history of the conflicts would provide impetus and protection, in addition to the fact that it carries the meanings of encouragement to pursue the path of Palestinian-Israeli peace negotiations and move that forward and the need to reach the solution of two states, based on ending occupation and the establishment of the state of Palestine side by side to the state of Israel, and the resolution of all issues relating to the Palestinian- Israeli conflict, Arab-Israeli conflict in all their aspects, as an indispensable qualitative step, so that comprehensive and normal peace relations would be established in our region.

 

I am proud that this Arab and Islamic contribution and this broad international that this Arab and Islamic contribution and this broad international participation in the work of this conference is a testimony to the fact that sister and friendly states are standing by us, the people of Palestine, as a leadership, and for our efforts to achieve peace.

 

It is a support of our approach that calls for a balanced historical settlement that would ensure peace and security for our independent state and for Israel, as well as for all countries in the region.

 

This Arab and Islamic participation in today's meeting is also an affirmation that the Arab peace initiative was not a step without well-defined targets, but indeed it was a bold strategic plan that aims changing the nature of relations in the region and to usher in a new era there.

 

But to achieve that does not depend on the Arab and Islamic position by itself, but requires meeting this position by a reciprocal strategic willingness that would basically lead to ending the occupation of all Palestinian occupied territories in 1967, including East Jerusalem, as well as the Syrian Golan and what remains of occupied from Lebanese territories, and to resolve all other issues relating to the conflict, especially the Palestinian refugees question in all its political, humanitarian, individual and common aspects, consistent with Resolution 194, as emphasized by the Arab peace initiative and the participation of sister states that host refugees and carry huge burdens in this regard.

 

I am not making an overstatement, Mr. President, if I say that our region stands at a crossroad that separates two historical phases, pre-Annapolis phase and post-Annapolis phase.

 

In other words, this extraordinary huge opportunity provided today by the Arab, Islamic and international position, and the overwhelming support from the public opinion in both the Palestinian and Israeli societies for the need to exploit the occasion of this conference that would launch the negotiating process and not to do away with the potential that it carries, I say that this opportunity might not be repeated. And if it were to be repeated, it might not enjoy the same unanimity and impetus.

 

Mr. President, what we are facing today is not just the challenge of peace, but we are facing a test of our credibility as a whole: the United States, members of the quartet, and all members of the international community, Israel, the Palestine Liberation Organization and the Palestinian Authority, the Arab and Islamic group, as well.

 

It is a test that would leave its indelible impact on the future of the region and on the relationship among its peoples and the international powers that are entrusted in the peace, stability of our region on the other hand.

 

We came with this perspective to Annapolis today. And, therefore, we do recognize the volume of this possibility that we are bearing and the gravity of the burden that we must shoulder.

 

We do recognize, and I presume that you share me this view, that the absence of hope and overwhelming despair would feed extremism. Therefore, we have a common duty to spread genuine hope in order to achieve full transformation toward complete peace (inaudible) and long term during your term of office, Mr. President, thanks to your support and understanding.

 

Tomorrow, we have to start comprehensive and deep negotiations on all issues of final status, including Jerusalem, refugees, borders, settlements, water and security and others.

 

We have to support this negotiating process in concrete and direct steps on the ground that would prove that we are moving in an irreversible path toward negotiated, comprehensive and full peace, and to ensure ending all settlement activities, including natural growth, and reopening closed Jerusalem institutions, removal of settlement outposts, removal of road blocks, and freedom of prisoners, and to facilitate our mission in the authority to enforce law and the rule of law.

 

Here, I must defend in all sincerity and candor, and without wavering, the right of our people to see a new dawn, without occupation, without settlement, without separation walls, without prisons where thousands of prisoners are detained, without assassinations, without siege, without barriers around villages and (inaudible).

 

I look forward, Mr. President, to see that our prisoners have been set free and returned to exercise their role in supporting peace and to stand by us in our mission to build our statehood and our homeland.

 

It is my duty to say that, to have peace, we need the fate of the city of Jerusalem to be a critical component in any peace accord that we might reach.

 

We need East Jerusalem to be our capital and to establish open relations with western Jerusalem, and to ensure for all the faithful from all religions their right to exercise their rituals and to access holy shrines without any discrimination and on the basis of international and humanitarian goals.

 

In this regard, I wish to emphasize that we shall pursue our obligations under the road map, in order to combat chaos, violence, terrorism, and to ensure security, order and the rule of law.

 

The government of the Palestinian National Authority works tirelessly and without any wavering under extremely conditions to achieve this noble goal that represents, first and foremost, a Palestinian national interest before it becomes a political requirement that is imposed by signed accords or the road map.

 

Our people distinguish completely between emphasis on the danger of terrorism and using it as a pretext to maintain the status quo and to pursue the current practices that we suffer from every day.

 

There must be a chance given to us to build our civilian security and economic institutions.

 

And the international community must sponsor this opportunity so that our authority and our government would fully fulfill their mandates.

 

I must emphasize that our determination to end occupation emanates from our vision that we would remove the most important reasons for terrorism in our region and worldwide without underestimating the need to fight terrorism under all circumstances and from any source. Because it is a comprehensive threat that threatens the future of every people and imperils human civilization, its gains and achievements, and brings dire consequences on all of us.

 

Here, I must applaud the tireless efforts undertaken by Mr. Tony Blair, who continues to work in order to build and enhance building Palestinian institutions and to complete great projects at the economic level in order to improve the living conditions and the terms of peace. And in that endeavor, he continues to submit very constructive ideas.

 

And I wish to pay tribute to the role of the European Union, Japan and our Arab brothers who made commitments to support these economic projects and building the future Palestinian state institutions.

 

Mr. President, I would like to take this opportunity to address the mind and conscience of every citizen in Israel from this rostrum.

 

I'm speaking on the basis for our recognition that, despite the importance of international and regional support for the success of the peace process, but the most determining factor for the making peace and stability and its sustainability at the end of the day is the public opinion in Palestine, Israel and their legitimate leaders.

 

I start by saying that, despite our disagreements on critical issues, but Prime Minister Ehud Olmert showed desire for peace that I have perceived during our bilateral discussions, and that genuinely contributed to reach this important step for which we are meeting today in order to launch.

 

Mr. Prime Minister, I wish that we, together, continue and closely work in order to achieve a historical mission that we have waited for too long.

 

Each one of us must pitch in our weight and experience and sense of resolve in order to overcome the obstacles that we will face and to close the gaps between our positions in a bid to achieve a solution that would end occupation and the long years of suffering of the refugees and ensure good neighbor relations, economic cooperation, humanitarian openness so that all of them would ensure guarantees for peace that are stronger than any documents, commitments or pledges, despite the importance of these all.

 

I say to the citizens of Israel, in this extraordinary day, you, our neighbors on this small land, neither us nor you are begging for peace from each other. It is a common interest for us and for you.

 

Peace and freedom is a right to us, in as much as peace and security is a right for you and for us.

 

Time has come for the cycle of blood, violence and occupation to come to an end. Time has come that both of us should look at the future with confidence and hope, and that this long-suffering land, which was called the land of love and peace, would not be worth of its own name.

 

Peace is not impossible to achieve if there was will and good faith and every party got its legitimate right.

 

Those who say that peace-making between us is impossible, actually does not need except to perpetuate this conflict toward the unknown, but it is, we all know, in other words, that continuation of bloodshed for many decades to come. After that, we would not reach the solution proposed today, all of which we know, all its components and elements. Or the ideal of peace would be killed in the hearts and minds.

 

Indeed, peace is possible but it requires our common efforts so that we could make it and preserve it.

 

And on this day we stretch our hands to you as equal partners in peace. The whole world is our witness and the world as a whole is supporting us.

 

Therefore, we should not lose this opportunity which might not be available once again. Let us make a peace with a brave (ph) and protect that peace in the interest of the future of our children and your children.

 

To our friends across the globe, members of the international quartet, and all participants in this conference, powers and states outside this conference who have been and continue to lend support for us, I say to all of you that our people will never, ever forget your support for it under all circumstances and under our most difficult times.

 

We look forward that your political presence will continue to be with us after this conference, in order to support Palestinian-Israeli negotiations with a view to reach the desired results.

 

We all hope that the work of this conference would be supported by the success of the Paris economic conference to be held after a few weeks.

 

The continuation and success of negotiations would be the real key to change the face of the entire region.

 

Allah, the Lord, said in the Koran, in the name of God, the compassionate, the merciful, all you who believe, enter into peace, all of you, don't follow the steps of Satan.

 

Satan is your obvious enemy."

 

The Lord also said, "If they move toward peace, then you should move to peace and have faith in the Lord, because God, the Lord, will listen and support that effort."

 

And on this occasion, may I record here, as we are here in the United States of America, the words of former United States President John F. Kennedy, who said, quote, "Let us never negotiate out of fear, but let us never fear to negotiate," end of quotation.

 

To our Palestinian people, to all Palestinians in Gaza, Jerusalem, the West Bank, and in refugee camps and the diaspora, may I address these words?

 

I do recognize that each one of you has his or her personal pain, personal tragedy as a result of this conflict and as a result of the years of tragedy and occupation. These are very bitter years.

 

Don't be depressed, Don't lose confidence and hope, For the whole world today now is stretching its hand toward us in order to help us put an end to our tragedy, to our holocaust that has been running for too long, and to lift the historical injustice that our people suffer.

 

And we shall be ready as individuals and as a people to overcome pain and the tragedy when we reach a settlement that would ensure our rights, that would make us equal with all other peoples in the whole world: the right to independence and self-determination.

 

To the Palestinian mothers who are awaiting the return of their children from prisons, to the Palestinian children who are dreaming of a new life, a better future - more prosperous, more safe future, to our brave prisoners - my sisters, brothers, children - wherever you are, have confidence in the future and tomorrow, because future Palestine is coming, because this is the promise of the whole world to you.

 

Be confident that the dawn is coming.

 

To my people and relatives in the Gaza Strip, you are at the core of my heart. The hours of darkness will end in the face of your resolve and determination. For your insistence on the unity of our people in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip as one geographical political unit without any divergence, your suffering will end. Right and peace will prevail.

 

May I close by recalling some words of Abraham Lincoln in one of the darkest moments of American history? Quote, "Let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations," end of quotation.

 

We started with peace and I end on a note of peace and we hope that peace would prevail. Peace be upon all of you

 

 

Source

Continued (Permanent Link)

Israel to replenish war stocks from US AID

A report in defense news explains that Israel will replenish stocks of war materials depleted in the Lebanon war from U.S. aid, rather than relying on the local defense industry. U.S. aid must be used to purchase equipment in the United States.

 

This raises many questions. What happened in the last year that prevented replenishment of war stocks? What would have happened had there been a war with Syria? What will happen to Israeli defense if the US decides NOT to supply arms to Israel at some point?

 

According to the report:

 

While Congress and the administration support MoD's acquisition efforts, Israeli industry executives are concerned about the huge amounts of money to be spent on American, rather than locally made, weaponry.

Hardest hit are Israel's state-owned Rafael Armament Development Authority, Israel Aerospace Industries and Israel Military Industries, all of which produce alternative weapons that executives here insist are often more capable than U.S. systems.

Executives here took particular exception to MoD's plans to fill Air Force warehouses with U.S. Sidewinder air-to-air and AMRAAM missiles, when the Python-5, Derby and follow-on indigenous systems were specifically designed to Israeli requirements. Industry sources here note that locally built air-to-air missiles for decades have come to symbolize Israeli industrial acumen on the world market.

If future Air Force stocks are filled with U.S. missiles, firms here not only are denied billions of shekels in new orders, but risk significant erosion in international sales, sources here say.

 

 

A particular case for local weaponry was made dramatically by the use of U.S. manufactured cluster bombs, which are made to a low standard and leave a lot of unexploded material that is hazardous to civilians.

 

The amount of aid cited in the article is not materially higher than aid in previous years, despite the supposed compensation for military sales to Arab countries.

 

Why doesn't anyone think of releasing a larger share of this aid for use in purchasing Israeli made equipment?

 

Ami Isseroff

Continued (Permanent Link)

Clueless Martin Indyk or clueless Israel government ??

A very interesting inteview with ex-ambassador to ISrael Martin Indyk, at CFR:

He is asked:

Why doesn't Israel send its troops into Gaza and clean them out?

His reply:

It may eventually lead to that; in fact, it probably will. But since the intifada broke out in October 2000, Israel has been very reluctant to send its army into the cities and refugee camps of Gaza. But in April 2002, [former Israeli Prime Minister Ariel] Sharon sent the army into the West Bank where it remains to this day, and basically destroyed the infrastructure of terror there quite effectively. It did not do this in Gaza, and hasn't yet; the reasoning as I understand it is that the suicide bombings were not coming from Gaza, they were coming from the West Bank. The cost in terms of Israeli soldiers' lives and the lives of Palestinian civilians would be very high in the kind of cleanup operation that you're talking about.

Increasingly, cabinet ministers in Israel are talking privately and even publicly about going in, cleaning it out, and withdrawing in favor of NATO [North Atlantic Treaty Organization] forces, or some other international forces, that are capable of coming in behind Israel's withdrawal and exercising control there. I personally find this fascinating because four years ago I thought that was the best solution in Gaza, and advocated a trusteeship for Gaza and the West Bank, in which international forces would intervene under a UN mandate, and basically create the conditions and oversee the building of the institutions of government for an independent Palestinian state in a transition arrangement. The Israelis at the time, except for those on the far left, thought this was a terrible idea. But the Israelis learned from the experience in Lebanon over last summer, where they did not exactly go in and clean out Hezbollah, but nevertheless when they withdrew, a more robust international force was put in place in southern Lebanon, which moved Hezbollah away from the border and made it more difficult for Hezbollah to operate against Israeli settlements in the northern part of Israel.

If Israeli Ministers are really considering that, they are nuts. In the first place, no international force will have the intelligence capability of the IDF and none are willing to do it anyhow. In general, all of his ideas sound like a utopian nightmare, unrelated to the reality of chaos in Gaza. A Nato or American or UN force in the West Bank and Gaza would look something like a coalition force in Iraq or a Nato force in Afghanistan. Who wants that?

Secondly, what Israel learned from Lebanon, or should have learned, is that we got a disaster because we started a war without thinking of how to finish it. Nobody with half a brain would repeat that fiasco. If the Israeli government does it, and you come to me complaining about my bad prophetic abilities, I will respectfully ask that you read the first part of that sentence again.

Ami Isseroff

Continued (Permanent Link)

Hagee at AIPAC: Is AIPAC veering to the right??

John Hagee will apear at AIPAC. Well OK, he is entitled to his opinion. Perhaps George Soros should be there too. What is more worrying than the appearance of Hagee, who is just one speaker, is the general background given here:

Pro-peace groups say they will not press AIPAC to soften its language about the Palestinians, as they have done in the past. Morton Klein, national president of the Zionist Organization of America (ZOA), will come to the executive committee meeting loaded with amendments aimed at toughening them....

Kahn said AIPAC has also strengthened itself by aggressively "pushing the Orthodox community to engage. You have more and more Orthodox rabbis who are touting AIPAC and touting joining AIPAC. AIPAC understands that if you get the rabbis on board, they in turn will press the community to get involved."

That "dramatic shift," he said, may make AIPAC "less representative, but it also strengthens the group as voices on Mideast policy become more diverse.

I can't see how the group becomes "more diverse" if it is going to be run by orthodox Jews and John Hagee.

---

http://www.thejewishweek.com/news/newscontent.php3?artid=13765

Hardline Pastor Gets Prime AIPAC Spot
Rev. John Hagee's appearance drawing criticism on eve of policy conference.
James D. Besser - Washington Correspondent

Growing ties between pro-Israel forces and a controversial, hardline "Christian Zionist" movement will move into the national spotlight at next week's policy conference of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), the pro-Israel lobby.

One keynoter at the event, which annually draws hundreds of lawmakers, administration officials, diplomats and political hopefuls, will be Pastor John Hagee, founder of Christians United for Israel (CUFI), author of several books about biblical prophecy and an opponent of new territorial concessions to the Palestinians on biblical grounds.

Rev. Hagee, who will speak at a Sunday plenary, was also a leading backer of a controversial Christian broadcast venture in Israel that critics charge sought to convert Jews.

And a time when pro-Israel forces are being accused of beating the drums for war with Iran, Rev. Hagee seems to believe such a conflict is both inevitable and necessary. In his apocalypse-oriented book "Jerusalem Countdown," he predicted a nuclear showdown with Iran and said, "The end of the world as we know it is rapidly approaching ... rejoice and be exceedingly glad, the best is yet to be," according to a Wall Street Journal report posted on the CUFI Web site.

Last year, Rev. Hagee told the Jerusalem Post that "I would hope the United States would join Israel in a military pre-emptive strike to take out the nuclear capability of Iran for the salvation of Western civilization."

Israeli historian Michael Oren will also speak at Sunday's plenary.

Giving Rev. Hagee such prominence at the premier pro-Israel gathering of the year — he attended last year's conference — troubles some AIPAC supporters.

Rabbi Barry Block of Temple Beth El in San Antonio—the home of the John Hagee Ministries and to his 18,000-member Cornerstone Church—said he hopes the minister's presence will be balanced by "Christians who support Israel but who do not share the 'end of days' theology and extremist anti-Palestinian positions and anti-Muslim prejudice so often spewed by Pastor Hagee."

Rabbi Block, who said he is an "AIPAC supporter" and participates in local activities of the lobby, added that "there are those I love and respect in my community who believe we should work with Pastor Hagee on the important concern we share—the welfare of the state of Israel. However, despite what may be good intentions, I don't think Pastor Hagee's activism is good for Israel."

Rabbi Haim Dov Beliak, cofounder of a We site that opposes Christian right church-state policies, said that Hagee's AIPAC appearance will mark a "decisive point when the costs of a relationship with Hagee couldn't be clearer. AIPAC has to know that Hagee's push for an attack on Iran is not based on a logically constructed policy but on cherry-picked biblical verses. And it is only the first step to the end-times scenario that Hagee enthusiastically predicts will engulf Israel in a devastating war."

A former AIPAC official said giving Rev. Hagee a key speaking slot represents one more step toward an AIPAC embrace of the Evangelicals that began more than two decades ago, and warned that it has political risks.

"This sends out a message of an endorsement by AIPAC at a time when these Christian groups seem to be losing power in Congress—and when the Democrats, who have long opposed this cozying up to the religious right, are now in power," this activist said.

But many pro-Israel leaders believe Rev. Hagee and other Christian Zionists, representing a growing political force, are a critical addition to the pro-Israel coalition — especially as "mainline" Protestant churches continue to castigate Israel for its West Bank policies.

But Abraham Foxman, the national director of the Anti-Defamation League and a strong critic of many Christian right groups, said he is not alarmed about Hagee's role in the policy conference.

"I think there is a role for him," Foxman aid. "He has earned a certain recognition with the community because of his support for Israel."

Foxman said he expects Hagee will get a good reception. "It's a friendly platform," he said. "I'm sure an overwhelming majority may be pleased with what he says."

That reflects an annual conference expected to strike a hawkish note on a number of issues, starting with the threat of a nuclear Iran.

Other keynote speakers will include Israeli opposition leader Benjamin Netanyahu and—health permitting—Vice President Dick Cheney. The current Israeli government will be represented by Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni, Defense Minister Amir Peretz and Ambassador Sallai Meridor.

Deputy Defense Minister Ephraim Sneh, several sources said, will tell delegates that increased aid to Palestinian moderates is in Israel's interests—a call that may conflict with a major AIPAC theme.

In a show of both political clout and bipartisanship that has become routine for AIPAC, the conference will feature speeches by all four top congressional leaders.

AIPAC says "more than 6,000 pro-Israel activists, including 1,200 students representing over 390 campuses" will attend. "Lead by Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and both House and Senate Republican leaders all speaking under the same tent, this year's AIPAC Policy Conference underscores the bipartisan nature of American support for Israel," according to AIPAC spokesman Josh Block. "The conference schedule also underscores the long history, breadth and diversity of America's centuries of support for the Jewish homeland in Israel."

Anxiety about Iran will dominate the conference, and it is a major element in the "action agenda" that, at least in theory, sets the group's goals for next year. Members of the executive committee will debate and vote on the statement on Sunday.

Proposed new language in the policy statement supports using "all means necessary for the United States, Israel and their allies to prevent Iran and other nations from developing nuclear, biological or chemical weapons and the vehicles for their delivery."

Lobbying for tougher sanctions legislation will also be a top priority for AIPAC delegates when they blanket Capitol Hill on Tuesday.

Protecting Israel's big chunk of foreign aid has traditionally been a top AIPAC priority, but this year the group will also emphasize "closely monitoring assistance to countries that are not supporting American objectives in the region."

At the top of that list: the Palestinian Authority. Congress has frozen an administration request for $86 million in emergency aid to boost Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas' forces.

Pro-peace groups say they will not press AIPAC to soften its language about the Palestinians, as they have done in the past. Morton Klein, national president of the Zionist Organization of America (ZOA), will come to the executive committee meeting loaded with amendments aimed at toughening them.

The AIPAC conference will be the usual display of political clout, but the group also faces some new challenges, including a new Democratic leadership that remains strongly pro-Israel but less in lockstep with AIPAC than their Republican predecessors.

Congressional observers say AIPAC remains a legislative powerhouse, "but more lawmakers will now feel free to ask questions, especially about routine and nonbinding resolutions praising Israel and criticizing the Palestinians," said a longtime pro-Israel lobbyist.

But AIPAC's influence on signature issues like Iran and foreign aid to Israel remains intact despite the partisan shift, said Kean University political scientist Gilbert Kahn.

"AIPAC has successfully maneuvered itself through Democratic and Republican administrations, Democratic and Republican Congresses, and there's no reason to think they won't do it again," he said.

Kahn said AIPAC has also strengthened itself by aggressively "pushing the Orthodox community to engage. You have more and more Orthodox rabbis who are touting AIPAC and touting joining AIPAC. AIPAC understands that if you get the rabbis on board, they in turn will press the community to get involved."

That "dramatic shift," he said, may make AIPAC "less representative, but it also strengthens the group as voices on Mideast policy become more diverse.

"It's a source of strength because this is a community that is comfortable with the direction AIPAC has taken in recent years," he said.

AIPAC also faces a rising challenge from Jewish groups on both the right and the left that take a different tack on Mideast policy, and that are increasingly active on Capitol Hill.

The Zionist Organization of America on the right and both Americans for Peace Now and the Israel Policy Forum on the left are expanding their lobbying, targeting areas where they feel AIPAC does not represent them.

None can come close to eclipsing AIPAC, although IPF, Washington sources say, is starting to build a network of campaign contributors who also support the group's perspective on Mideast affairs—a key element in AIPAC's strength.

Still, on the verge of the 2007 policy conference, they point to a changed lobbying environment for what remains the pre-eminent group on the pro-Israel scene.

Continued (Permanent Link)

Halutz stopped development of safe Israeli cluster bomb and other vital arms

Now they tell us.

Halutz stopped advance of vital arms
Yaakov Katz, THE JERUSALEM POST Feb. 14, 2007
www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1170359851851&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

Development of a weapons system that could have been used against Hizbullah during the second Lebanon war was halted in 2002 by Chief of General Staff Lt.-Gen. Dan Halutz, then commander of the air force. Development of the system has now resumed on the orders of the current IAF commander, Maj.-Gen. Elazar Shkedy, The Jerusalem Post has learned.

The system was being built by Israel Military Industries (IMI) until 2002, when the project's funding was cut by Halutz and his deputy at the time, Maj.-Gen. Ido Nehustan, today head of the IDF's Planning Division.

Development of the weapon was started in 2000 by then-OC Ground Forces Command Maj.-Gen. (res.) Yiftah Ron-Tal. Since the Ground Forces Command lacked the funds to develop the weapon, Ron-Tal joined forces with the IAF.

The system is not intended to harm civilians, and is being developed according the International Mine Action Standards.

"There is no doubt that this system would have assisted IDF forces during the Lebanon war," a former officer in the Ground Forces Command told the Post. "It could have stopped Hizbullah in their tracks and prevented the guerrillas from transferring weaponry and rockets from place to place."

According to another officer who was involved in the project, Halutz and Nehushtan decided to cut the funding due to a change "in their priorities." The Ground Forces Command, the officer said, then had no choice but to stop development.

But now, following the disappointing results of the second Lebanon war, IMI has once again been approached by the IAF, which has expressed what is being described as "extreme interest" in the weapon. The air force has yet to resume funding, but IMI sources told the Post they believed development would begin in the near future.

This is not the only time Halutz prevented the procurement of weapons that could have helped the IDF during the recent war. In August, Time magazine reported that as IAF commander, he rejected a US offer in 2002 to sell Israel "bunker buster" bombs capable of penetrating underground Hizbullah bunkers, saying that Israel had its own "superb weapons."

During the Lebanon war, however, Israel received an emergency shipment of bunker buster bombs from the US after its own weapons failed to destroy Hizbullah installations.

Following the war, IMI head Avi Felder appointed Dan Peretz, VP for research and development, to head a committee to study the IDF's future needs.

The panel concluded the technology existed to produce a variety of weapons that could have assisted the IDF, and possibly even changed the outcome of the war, but that for various reasons the military had decided not to purchase the weapons.

One example was the IMI system. Another weapon, development of which was stopped by the IDF before the war and has now been restarted.

The IDF has purchased several models for elite units and is now considering equipping all its ground forces with the advanced weaponry.

Another weapon the military declined to purchase from IMI before the war was a cluster bomb that self-destructs if it does not detonate upon impact, unlike the ones the IDF receives from the US.

"Had the IDF bought our cluster bomb it would have spared Israel a major diplomatic crisis," Dan Peretz said in reference to US intentions to impose sanctions on Israel for using American made cluster bombs against international regulations.

"The bottom line," Peretz concluded, "was that all of the technology was there. It was just that the IDF wasn't equipping itself with the necessary platforms and weapons."

Continued (Permanent Link)

Leave the U.S. embassy where it is

Leave the U.S. embassy where it is

By Bradley Burston

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/815940.html

 

My daughter's passport is part of the longest-running ruse in modern American politics.

 

Where other U.S. passports list place of birth as the name of a country, hers says, simply, Jerusalem.

 

No country. Certainly not Israel. Her passport, in a sense, is a non-paper.

 

Just as Washington's legation in West Jerusalem is a non-embassy. Despite explicit legislation to the contrary, the Bush White House and the Rice State Department have succeeded for years in ducking, evading, and stonewalling efforts to grant concrete form to recognition of Jerusalem as Israel's capital.

 

Taking the lead, George Bush has played fast and loose with Federal law - and with his own explicit campaign promises - in a six-year effort to resist moving the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem.

 

And, for once, George Bush has got something right.

 

He did it again last month. Hours before hosting American Jewish leaders for a lavishly photographed Hanukkah celebration, he signed an order deferring until mid-2007 the legally mandated transfer of the U.S. embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem.

 

From Bush's standpoint, the Jewish leaders took it well. Or, at least, quietly. With one exception. Morton Klein, national president of the Zionist Organization of America suggested that Bush's signing a six-month waiver to delay moving the embassy, as he has now done more than 10 times, would "give a victory to the forces of terror."

 

"We dare not be intimidated by and appease these terrorist bullies," Klein said in a statement, which directed much of its criticism against the silence of the other American Jewish dignitaries who attended the Hanukkah observance.

 

"We are also deeply disappointed that American Jewish organizations have been frozen into silence about this important issue. We also urge pro-Israel Christian groups like Reverend John Hagee's Christians United for Israel to speak out. Such failure may send another harmful message - that American Jewry does not care sufficiently about Jerusalem as Judaism's holiest place."

 

Moving the embassy, it should be noted, is one of Klein's signature issues. In July, 1999, as then-Texas governor Bush was raising funds in Newark, New Jersey for his run at the presidency, Klein approached Bush, citing Congress' overwhelming passage of the Jerusalem Embassy Act, which states:

 

"Jerusalem should be recognized as the capital of the State of Israel; and the United States Embassy in Israel should be established in Jerusalem no later than May 31, 1999."

 

Klein said to Bush "The Clinton administration has refused to honor pre-existing U.S. law and move the embassy to Jerusalem. Will you as president follow U.S. law and move the American Embassy to Jersualem immediately?"

 

"I'm afraid that might screw up the peace process," Bush replied, aware that the Israeli government had opposed the 1995 legislation. "I don't want to screw up the peace process."

 

His frat boy clumsiness notwithstanding, Bush was on to something. The embassy should stay where it is. When there is a solution to the conflict, moving the embassy will be a certain result. In the absence of a solution, moving the embassy move the peace process even further back.

 

In the cratered moonscape of diplomacy on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the White House has a special responsibility to act as a mediating and moderating influence. No other party can marshal the resources that the United States can, in acting as close as it can manage to the role of honest broker.

 

It's no longer a matter of policy. It's a matter of life and death.

 

The Palestinian movement for independence may now be in its worst state ever, its inability to provide for its needy at an all-time low, its international standing compromised as never before, its internal infighting spilling over into the targeting of Palestinian children.

 

Morton Klein's position, and that of the hardline ZOA, is that the Palestinians should be kicked when they are down.

 

The ZOA, which proudly opposes compromise, negotiation, and concession, believes that the only change in Israel's policy should be kicking the Palestinians harder, or finding a spot in which the Palestinians have yet to be kicked.

 

The real reason that the office of the U.S. ambassador continues to face the Mediterranean and not the Knesset, has everything to do with the difference between public service and lip service.

 

When the Embassy Act was first proposed, the Rabin government was against the legislation, which, as then-AIPAC executive director Neal Sher has noted, was also in direct contravention of AIPAC policy.

 

It wasn't meant to help Israel score points, it was meant to help the Republicans retake the Clinton White House. The new speaker of the house, Newt Gingrinch, saw the issue as a way to siphon pro-Israel support and campaign donations away from the Democrats. And the Republican front runner, Senator Robert Dole, who in the past had opposed legislation to relocate the embassy, was suddenly in the driver's seat of the moving van.

 

True, Israel needs recognition. But Israel and its western half of Jerusalem have survived, and thrived, without it for nearly 60 years. Recognition can wait.

 

What cannot wait is the possibility of diplomacy between Israel and the Palestinians. Every passing week, every Israeli and Palestinian casualty, every new settlement enterprise, makes a solution that much more pressing, and that much more remote.

 

Most Jewish leaders know that. Even AIPAC knows that.

 

Moving the embassy would not be a victory for Israel. Morton Klein wants Bush to move the embassy not as a victory for Israel, but as a victory for Morton Klein.

 

The United States knows very well that the capital of Israel is Jerusalem. Federal law has said so explicitly for more than a decade. But Washington also knows what Israel knows:

 

West Jerusalem will not be recognized as the capital of the Jewish state, until East Jerusalem becomes the capital of an independent Palestine.

 

There will not be a solution without a Palestinian state. There will be no Palestinian state without a share of Jerusalem as a recognized capital.

 

Washington has a unique and urgent responsibility to see to it that Israel follows through on commitments to ease the plight of Palestinian non-combatants, to truly remove checkpoints and allow freer movement of people and goods, rather than announcing counterfeit concessions the IDF has no intention of implementing.

 

Washington must press Israel to reduce to the lowest possible minimum, harm to Palestinian civilians in the context of fighting between the IDF and gunmen.

 

Washington must see to it that the route and the nature of the West Bank fence does not do harm to non-combatant Palestinians, that it does not keep them from their land and their livelihoods, that it does not divide between their children and an education, a future.

 

Just as Washington has a unique and urgent responsibility to see to it that Palestinian non-combatants stop suffering at the hands of their armed and irrational compatriots, whose actions are keeping international aid from reaching a growing number of the desperately needy in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.

 

These are the tasks that Washington should be addressing, and with every measure of vigor, creativity, and intelligence that this administration can muster. If only for the sake of the legacy that George Bush will leave.

 

What Washington does not need to do, is to stage a provocation. That, at this stage, is the only real significance of moving the embassy.

 

The White House must explore every opportunity to work for a peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinians. Time is running out. For Israel, for the Palestinians, and perhaps most crucially, for George Bush.

Continued (Permanent Link)

Alan Dershowitz: World obsessed with Israel

Alan Dershowitz: World obsessed with Israel

 

Harvard professor says six million additional people have died since WWII because of obsessive focus on Israel. Weekly Diaspora press roundup

 

Yaakov Lappin Published:  01.05.07, 19:06

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3348805,00.html

The international community's obsessive focus on the State of Israel caused it to miss out on genocides all around the world, Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz told a rally in a Toronto synagogue last week, according to a report in the Canadian Jewish News .

 

...More

"Six million additional people have died since the end of the Second World War because of this obsessive focus on Israel," Dershowitz was quoted as saying, citing global inaction over the genocides in Cambodia, Rwanda, the former Yugoslavia, and the slaughter currently taking place in Darfur.

 

 He added that Iran 's denial of the Holocaust was aimed at de-legitimizing Israel, demonizing Jews and, legitimatizing attacks on Israel and attacks on Jews.

 

The rally was organized by Canadian Jewish community organizations, and included Holocaust survivors, a Catholic priest, and the Canadian minister of intergovernmental affairs, who received an ovation after blasting anti-Israel bias among Canadian members of parliament.

 

 

US Jewish activism focuses on American social justice

 

Meanwhile, New York's The Jewish Week reported on a "new breed of savvy, grass-roots Jewish activism taking hold," working towards achieving social justice within the United States.

 

According to the article, major US Jewish organizations are "pulling back" from American issues to "focus increasingly on Israel and anti-Semitism." Taking their place are "innovative, community-oriented progressive groups… for whom social-justice issues resonate strongly."

 

One organizer described the new trend as "the future of Jewish activism" in the United States .

 

Examples cited in the report include Chicago Jewish group which created a day labor center for Hispanic workers.

 

 

 

Jewish teens attacked in Australia

 

The Australian Jewish News said Melbourne police were investigating whether a physical assault on two ultra-Orthodox teenagers, one of whom was on crutches at the time of the attack, was motivated by anti-Semitism.

 

The teenagers were reported to be waiting for a tram in Melbourne, "when a car pulled up and one of its passengers allegedly shouted, 'you killed our cousins in Lebanon .'"

One of the teenagers, who was suffering from a broken leg, then had one of his crutches taken from him and used against him as an assault weapon, while the other youth received minor facial injuries, the report added.

 

The AJN noted that this was not the first anti-Semitic assault of its kind in Australia. "Last October, another Orthodox man, Mencahem Vorchheimer, was assaulted by a group of footballers as we walked to synagogue on Simhat Torah," the report said, adding that police have not yet charged any suspects over the attack.

 

 

Continued (Permanent Link)

Iraq Study Group Report - Recommendations on Israel Peace (& link to entire text)

Iraq Study Group Report - Recommendations on Israel Peace Process

 

The mountain gave birth to a mouse

 

Below are the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group report regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. In many respects this is a positive document. We cannot but applaud any effort to achieve peace between Israel and its neighbors.

 

The following is a wonderful statement of US commitment:

 

• No American administration --Democratic or Republican -- will ever abandon Israel.

 

Considering that James Baker had a hand in preparing the report, it is a remarkable statement. However, it has no tangible worth. It cannot be the basis for any Israeli commitment to make any concessions. Will any American administration sign a defense pact with Israel? Will any American administration commit itself to nuclear retaliation against any nation that attacks Israel with nuclear weapons? For 58 years, US administrations have declared their love of Israel, but this love does not translate into a defense pact. It doesn't even go as far as establishing an embassy in our capital city.

 

In the first forty pages of this report, the study group ably and meticulously summarized why the US is unable to defend defend democracy in Iraq - its intelligence is incompetent, its planning is poor, and it doesn't have the national will or the ability to commit sufficient resources to win. Therefore, the report recommends a US withdrawal from Iraq. The US failed in Iraq because they don't understand the complexities of the Middle East, don't have enough trained personnel, don't have a coherent strategic vision and don't have the national will to deal with a conflict in the far off Middle East.  Having declared themselves incompetent and unable to defend Iraq, the report now implicitly undertakes to settle the affairs of Israel and its neighbors, based on an implicit and informal, and actually worhless, if grandiose sounding guarantee:

 No American administration --Democratic or Republican -- will ever abandon Israel.

What does this mean? Will the US send half a million soldiers to fight our next war in Israel? Will they risk nuclear attack when Iran has ICBMs? Or, when push comes to shove, will James Baker III say "F... the Jews, they didn't vote for us?" Anyone who thinks the Iraq war is unpopular in the US should understand that they ain't seen nuthin yet. No war will be more unpopular and politically unfeasible than a US war to defend Israel. The US would not even commit any soldiers to the worthless UNIFIL force in Lebanon.

The recommendations are not "good for Israel" or "bad for Israel." They are simply detached from all reality, beginning with the implied U.S. commitment to never abandon Israel, a commitment written on sand and continuing with the heart of the recommendations:

This effort should include --as soon as possible --the unconditional calling and holding of meetings, under the auspices of the United States or the Quartet (i.e., the United States, Russia, European Union, and the United Nations), between Israel and Lebanon and Syria on the one hand, and Israel and Palestinians (who acknowledge Israel's right to exist) on the other....

Lebanon refuses to meet with Israel. A small detail that the learned committee failed to assimilate. The Arab Palestinians who acknowledge Israel's right to exist (but not necessarily as a Jewish state) are not in power. They can't offer anything because they don't have anything. They cannot even keep the shaky truce in Gaza. And the recommendation continues, of course:  

 The purpose of these meetings would be to negotiate peace as was done at the Madrid Conference in 1991, and on two separate tracks -- one Syrian/Lebanese, and the other Palestinian.

This is clearly the work of James Baker III. If Baker had a parrot, it would say "International Peace Conference." This recommendation is indeed realistic. The groups will negotiate peace exactly as was done at the Madrid conference in 1991. That is, they won't do anything at all. Nothing at all came of the Madrid conference. Israel negotiated peace separately with Jordan, and the Oslo Accords, for what they are worth, were negotiated through a route that bypassed the Madrid conference. Nothing came of the Madrid conference and nothing would come of these negotiations.

The "elements" of the negotiated peace envisioned by this report are truly amazing:

 

RECOMMENDATION 15: Concerning Syria, some elements of that negotiated peace should be:

• Syria's full adherence to UN Security Council Resolution 1701 of August 2006, which provides the framework for Lebanon to regain sovereign control over its territory.

• Syria's full cooperation with all investigations into political assassinations in Lebanon, especially those of Rafik Hariri and Pierre Gemayel.

• A verifiable cessation of Syrian aid to Hezbollah and the use of Syrian territory for transshipment of Iranian weapons and aid to Hezbollah. (This step would do much to solve Israel's problem with Hezbollah.)

• Syria's use of its influence with Hamas and Hezbollah for the release of the captured Israeli Defense Force soldiers.

• A verifiable cessation of Syrian efforts to undermine the democratically elected government of Lebanon.

• A verifiable cessation of arms shipments from or transiting through Syria for Hamas and other radical Palestinian groups.

• A Syrian commitment to help obtain from Hamas an acknowledgment of Israel's right to exist.

• Greater Syrian efforts to seal its border with Iraq.

RECOMMENDATION 16: In exchange for these actions and in the context of a full and secure peace agreement, the Israelis should return the Golan Heights, with a U.S. security guarantee for Israel that could include an international force on the border, including U.S. troops if requested by both parties.

 

So, according to Mr. Baker and his friends, Israel would give up the Golan heights in return for a promise from Syria to stop shipping arms to Hamas and Hezbollah and similar fictions. No recognition of Israel, no commitment to stop harboring Khaled Meshal and other terrorists - just cessation of arms shipments. Syria would be committed to "help obtain from Hamas an acknowledgment of Israel's right to exist." And if they don't succeed?  Syria would not even have to stop publishing the Protocols of the Elders of Zion and Mein Kampf.   Israel would give up the Golan heights in return for Syrian efforts to seal its border with Iraq in Mr. Baker's plan, because Mr Baker and his friends wrote in their report that no American government will ever abandon Israel. And if both countries agree, the US will send some of those wonderful troops that succeeded so well in Iraq to guard our border! Of course, if the Syrians don't agree, the US won't send troops, and if the troops come, they will be good for business in the bawdy houses of Nahariya and Haifa and for nothing else, just like the UN troops. Mr Baker and his friends deal in large issues and can't be bothered with details. They forgot that the Israeli-Syrian peace negotiations failed last time because of a tiny details - 10 meters that separate the border offered by Israel from the Sea of Galilee. For Mr Baker and his friends, down in Texas, the Sea of Galilee is a tiny detail. It could be swallowed up and forgotten in a tiny corner of Texas after all. For us, it is very important.

The elements of peace with the Palestinians show the same level of realism and attention to detail. There is no mention of the road map there - a noticeable omission. That is realism of sorts, since the roadmap is really dead. The rest is fantasy. There is no explanation of how the Hamas will be convinced to recognize Israel, or how, if they are not persuaded, it will be possible to negotiate and maintain a peace settlement that is opposed in principle by an armed group that represents the majority of Palestinians and that shows no intention of disarming. There is no mention of the refugees. There is no requirement to disband the various armed militias, no mention of Jerusalem. It is as though the people who wrote this report are not even aware that this issues exist. Somehow, all will be solved by blowing trumpets and announcing international conferences. All is forgotten in the grand rush of meaningless sophomoric declaratory statements.

Read it and laugh - or weep.

Ami Isseroff

---

From the Iraq Study Group Report:  Pages 54-58

4. The Wider Regional Context

The United States will not be able to achieve its goals in the Middle East unless the United States deals directly with the Arab-Israeli conflict.

There must be a renewed and sustained commitment by the United States to a comprehensive Arab-Israeli peace on all fronts: Lebanon, Syria, and President Bush's June 2002 commitment to a two-state solution for Israel and Palestine. This commitment must include direct talks with, by, and between Israel, Lebanon, Palestinians (those who accept Israel's right to exist), and particularly Syria --which is the principal transit point for shipments of weapons to Hezbollah, and which supports radical Palestinian groups.

The United States does its ally Israel no favors in avoiding direct involvement to solve the Arab-Israeli conflict. For several reasons, we should act boldly:

• There is no military solution to this conflict.

• The vast majority of the Israeli body politic is tired of being a nation perpetually at war.

• No American administration --Democratic or Republican -- will ever abandon Israel.

• Political engagement and dialogue are essential in the Arab- Israeli dispute because it is an axiom that when the political process breaks down there will be violence on the ground.

• The only basis on which peace can be achieved is that set forth in UN Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338 and in the principle of "land for peace."

• The only lasting and secure peace will be a negotiated peace such as Israel has achieved with Egypt and Jordan.

This effort would strongly support moderate Arab governments in the region, especially the democratically elected government of Lebanon, and the Palestinian Authority under President Mahmoud Abbas.

RECOMMENDATION 13: There must be a renewed and sustained commitment by the United States to a comprehensive Arab-Israeli peace on all fronts: Lebanon and Syria, and President Bush's June 2002 commitment to a two-state solution for Israel and Palestine.

RECOMMENDATION 14: This effort should include --as soon as possible --the unconditional calling and holding of meetings, under the auspices of the United States or the Quartet (i.e., the United States, Russia, European Union, and the United Nations), between Israel and Lebanon and Syria on the one hand, and Israel and Palestinians (who acknowledge Israel's right to exist) on the other. The purpose of these meetings would be to negotiate peace as was done at the Madrid Conference in 1991, and on two separate tracks -- one Syrian/Lebanese, and the other Palestinian.

RECOMMENDATION 15: Concerning Syria, some elements of that negotiated peace should be:

• Syria's full adherence to UN Security Council Resolution 1701 of August 2006, which provides the framework for Lebanon to regain sovereign control over its territory.

• Syria's full cooperation with all investigations into political assassinations in Lebanon, especially those of Rafik Hariri and Pierre Gemayel.

• A verifiable cessation of Syrian aid to Hezbollah and the use of Syrian territory for transshipment of Iranian weapons and aid to Hezbollah. (This step would do much to solve Israel's problem with Hezbollah.)

• Syria's use of its influence with Hamas and Hezbollah for the release of the captured Israeli Defense Force soldiers.

• A verifiable cessation of Syrian efforts to undermine the democratically elected government of Lebanon.

• A verifiable cessation of arms shipments from or transiting through Syria for Hamas and other radical Palestinian groups.

• A Syrian commitment to help obtain from Hamas an acknowledgment of Israel's right to exist.

• Greater Syrian efforts to seal its border with Iraq.

RECOMMENDATION 16: In exchange for these actions and in the context of a full and secure peace agreement, the Israelis should return the Golan Heights, with a U.S. security guarantee for Israel that could include an international force on the border, including U.S. troops if requested by both parties.

RECOMMENDATION 17: Concerning the Palestinian issue, elements of that negotiated peace should include:

• Adherence to UN Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338 and to the principle of land for peace, which are the only bases for achieving peace.

• Strong support for Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas and the Palestinian Authority to take the lead in preparing the way for negotiations with Israel.

• A major effort to move from the current hostilities by consolidating the cease-fire reached between the Palestinians and the Israelis in November 2006.

• Support for a Palestinian national unity government.

• Sustainable negotiations leading to a final peace settlement along the lines of President Bush's two-state solution, which would address the key final status issues of borders, settlements, Jerusalem, the right of return, and the end of conflict.

 

 

---

The complete text of main body of the Iraq Study Group Teport is published in html form here:

Iraq Study Group Report

http://www.mideastweb.org/iraq_study_group_report.htm

 

Many of our readers will find this html format more convenient for copying snippets of text than the pdf document of the original publication.

 

 

Continued (Permanent Link)