Wednesday, April 14, 2010




JTA coverage of AJC Poll leaves out that American Jews overwhelmingly think Arabs want to destroy Israel not get back territories

[Comment by Dr. Aaron Lerner - IMRA: In the recent poll conducted by the American Jewish Committee among American Jews - the answers were as follows:

10. Do you agree or disagree with the following statement? “The goal of the Arabs is not the return of occupied territories but rather the destruction of Israel.”

Agree 75%
Disagree 20%
Not Sure 5%

OK that may not be very PC of them. But isn't it newsworthy?]



2010 Annual Survey of American Jewish Opinion

http://www.ajc.org/site/c.ijITI2PHKoG/b.5915517/k.D620/2010_Annual_Survey_of_American_Jewish_Opinion.htm
Poll: Obama struggling with Jews, but not on Israel

By Ron Kampeas · Jewish Telegraphic Agency (JTA) · April 12, 2010

WASHINGTON (JTA) -- A new survey shows President Obama struggling with American Jews -- but not on Israel-related matters.

The American Jewish Committee poll of U.S. Jews found that Obama's approval rating is at 57 percent, with 38 percent disapproving. That's down from the stratospheric 79 percent approval rating among Jews that Obama enjoyed about a year ago, in May 2009. The AJC poll was conducted March 2-23 and surveyed 800 self-identifying Jewish respondents selected from a consumer mail panel.

Obama's advantage among Jews versus the rest of the population appears to be eroding. The latest Gallup polling shows Obama with a national approval rating of 48, nine points below Jewish polling. Last May, general polling earned him 63 percent approval, 16 points below Jewish polling.

Despite the drop -- and weeks of tensions with the Netanyahu government -- Obama still polls solidly on foreign policy, with a steady majority backing his handling of U.S.-Israel relations, according to the AJC poll.

It is on domestic issues that the president appears to be facing more unhappiness.

Jewish voters are statistically split on how Obama has handled health care reform, with 50 percent approving and 48 disapproving. On the economy he fares slightly better. Jewish voters who favor his policies stand at 55 percent, while 42 percent disapprove.

The last AJC poll on the views of American Jews, released last September, did not address domestic issues, so there's no measure to assess any change in support on the specific issues of health and the economy. Indeed, this is the first poll in at least 10 years in which the AJC has attempted to assess views on the economy and health care. However, Jewish voters in solid majorities describe themselves as Democrats and as liberal to moderate in their views, and traditionally list the economy and health care as their two top concerns in the voting booth.

Matt Brooks, who directs the Republican Jewish Coalition, said the relatively low score on domestic issues underscored what he said was a steady decline in Democratic support among Jewish voters.

"This indicates a serious erosion of support," he said. "It's a huge drop. There's no silver lining" for Democrats.

Ira Forman, the director of the National Jewish Democratic Council, countered that the poll did not account for Jewish voters who might be disappointed with Obama from a more liberal perspective -- for instance, over his dropping from the reform bill of the so-called public option, which would have allowed for government-run health care.

Additionally, much of the AJC polling took place before Obama's come-from-behind victory on March 21, when the U.S. House of Representatives passed health care reform, Forman said. Since then, Democrats have said they see a turnaround in the president's political fortunes. "The narrative was the president was in the tank," Forman said. "This was when it was thought his initiative was dead."

Obama fares strongly with Jews on homeland security, with 62 percent approving and 33 percent disapproving -- a sign that Republican attempts to cast Obama as weak on protecting the nation have had little impact in the Jewish community.

He also scores 55 percent approval on how he handles U.S.-Israel relations, which is virtually unchanged since last September, when his handling of the relationship scored 54 percent approval. At that juncture, the tensions between Washington and Jerusalem were kept at a low bubble and were confined to U.S. insistence on a total freeze of Israeli settlement, and the Netanyahu administration's reluctance to concede.

The latest questions, however, coincided almost exactly with the period when U.S. officials accused the Netanyahu government of "insulting" the United States by announcing a new building start in eastern Jerusalem while Vice President Joe Biden was visiting, and when the president refused to make public gestures of friendship during Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's subsequent visit to Washington.

A question on Obama's handling of Iran's nuclear capability showed a statistical dead heat on the approval side between last September -- 49 percent -- and now, at 47 percent. However, disapproval ratings rose moderately, apparently borrowing from the "uncertain" column: Back in September 35 percent disapproved; now 42 percent give a thumbs down.The marks compared favorably, however, with Bush administration figures.

Bush scored 33 percent approval ratings on Iran in 2006, the most recent year that AJC asked the question.

Support for U.S. and Israeli attacks on Iran to keep it from making a nuclear bomb appeared to drop slightly. Asked about a U.S. strike, 53 percent said they would support one, and 42 percent were opposed, as opposed to 56 percent and 36 percent last September. On an Israeli strike, 62 percent supported and 33 percent opposed, as opposed to 66 and 28 percent in September.

The only other question in the most recent survey directly addressing Obama's foreign policy also showed strong support for the president: 62 percent of respondents agreed with Obama's decision to deploy an additional 30,000 troops to Afghanistan. This contrasts with the consistently negative Jewish assessments of Bush's handling of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, except in the period immediately following the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks.

Approval of Obama's foreign policies contrasts with increasing uneasiness in the Jewish establishment with the administration’s approach. Several influential pro-Israel organizations have spent months, to little avail, pleading with the administration to confine its disagreements to back rooms.

A handful of prominent Jewish backers of candidate Obama also appear to have had second thoughts. Most pointedly, in a New York Daily News column Monday, Ed Koch, the former New York City mayor and a supporter of Obama during the 2008 general election, said he was "weeping" because the president had "abandoned" Israel.

And Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), perhaps the most influential member of the Senate's Jewish caucus, on Sunday pointedly avoided answering a question on ABC's "This Week" about whether he agreed with a Netanyahu confidante who said Obama was a "strategic disaster" for Israel.

Brooks predicted a tide of defections. "You'll have a number of candidates" in areas with a strong Jewish presence "asking him not to campaign for them," he said.

David Harris, AJC's executive director, cautioned that low approval ratings did not necessarily translate into electoral losses.

Brooks said that he would advise GOP candidates to hammer Democrats hard on foreign policy, particularly in tight races in Illinois, Pennsylvania and Florida, where Jewish voters trended less liberal than on the coasts. "If Republican candidates are smart, they will make Democratic candidates in these races answerable to whether they support Obama's policies of pressuring Israel," the head of the Republican Jewish Coalition said.

Jewish Democrats are already preparing a response strategy of arguing that the relationship remains close on defense cooperation and other matters, despite heightened rhetoric on settlement differences.

Harris suggested that the polling showed that the American Jewish public would prefer to imagine a closeness rather than deal with tensions. Obama and Netanyahu scored similar solid majorities -- 55 percent and 57 percent, respectively -- on how they handled the relationship.

American Jews "don't want to be forced to choose," Harris said. "They would rather say a blessing on both your houses than a pox on both your houses."

According to the survey, 64 percent of Jews think Israel should, as part of a peace deal with the Palestinians, be willing to remove at least some of the settlements in the West Bank. But 61 percent rejected the idea that Israel should be willing to "compromise on the status of Jerusalem as a united city under Israeli jurisdiction."

The poll had a margin of error of plus/minus 3 percentage points. Interviews were conducted by the firm Synovate, formerly Market Facts.

http://www.jta.org/news/article/2010/04/12/1011547/ajc-poll-obama-struggling-with-jews-but-not-on-israel




Great Britain: Western Wall Not in Israel!!





Israeli tourism ad banned for using photo of East Jerusalem Advertising Standards Authority rules poster showing Western Wall and Dome of the Rock 'likely to mislead'.

By Mark Sweney Wednesday, 14 April 2010

An Israeli tourist office press campaign has been banned by the UK advertising regulator for including pictures of East Jerusalem, part of the Palestinian occupied territories.

The Israeli Government Tourist Office (IGTO) press ad stated that a tourist can "travel the entire length of Israel in six hours" and featured a range of photos of destinations in Israel including a picture of Jerusalem.

A complaint was received by the Advertising Standards Authority that the image showed the Western Wall of the Temple Mount and the Dome of the Rock, both of which are in East Jerusalem and part of the occupied territories of the West Bank.

The ASA said that readers of the ad were likely to assume that all the places featured in the ad were within the state of Israel.

"The status of the occupied territory of the West Bank [is] the subject of much international dispute, and because we considered that the ad implied that the part of East Jerusalem featured in the image was part of the state of Israel, we concluded that the ad was likely to mislead," added the ASA.

The ASA banned the ad and told the IGTO not to imply that places in the occupied territories were part of the state of Israel.

Replying on behalf of the IGTO, the State of Israel Ministry of Tourism (SIMT) said the ad provided "basic, accurate information to a prospective UK traveller who wanted to know what to expect in Israel".

The SIMT said that the present legal status of Jerusalem was irrelevant unless there was an unnecessary attempt to "interpret the straightforward message of the ad in a manner that went beyond what consumers were likely to understand from the ad".

Last year an IGTO ad campaign was banned by the ASA after 442 complaints for showing a map of Israel that included the West Bank, Gaza Strip and Golan Heights.

• To contact the MediaGuardian news desk email editor@mediaguardian.co.uk or phone 020 3353 3857. For all other inquiries please call the main Guardian switchboard on 020 3353 2000.

• If you are writing a comment for publication, please mark clearly "for publication".

http://www.guardian.co.uk




IMRA Poll: Israelis Oppose Obama Plans





Maagar Mochot Poll: Israelis oppose Obama imposed deal, division of Jerusalem and relying on American guarantees in deal with Palestinians

Dr. Aaron Lerner Date: 14 April 2010

Israeli Jews overwhelmingly oppose (83%:8%) President Obama imposing a Palestinian-Israeli agreement and also oppose (70%:19%) freezing construction in Jerusalem according to a telephone poll of a representative sample of 503 adult Israeli Jews, by Maagar Mohot Survey Institute (headed by Professor Yitzchak Katz) carried out 11-12 April.

The poll, that was commissioned by Independent Media Review & Analysis (IMRA), also found that respondents believe (69%:13%) that the division of Jerusalem with international control of the Old City would lead to ongoing conflict rather than peace for generations.

Israeli Jews overwhelming (79%:9%) support Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu's position that Israel must control the Jordan Valley in any arrangements with the Palestinians.

The poll also found consistent rejection of relying on American guarantees in arrangements with the Palestinians. Respondent overwhelmingly (80%:12%) reject the proposal that the U.S. could deliver on a guaranty that a Palestinian state would remain demilitarized. Israeli Jews also reject (69%:22%) the suggestion that Israel could relinquish territories that are today considered critical for its security if the U.S. signed a defense pact with Israel.

Respondents also consider it improper (68%:16%) for Israelis who support plans opposed by Netanyahu to encourage President Obama to impose their plans.

Complete Results:

Telephone poll of a representative sample of 503 adult Israeli Jews, by Maagar Mohot Survey Institute (headed by Professor Yitzchak Katz) carried out 11-12 April 2010.

Poll commissioned by Independent Media Review & Analysis (IMRA).
Survey error of +/- 4.5 percentage points.


#1 In your opinion, should Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu agree to the demand of President Obama, according to which Israel should freeze construction in Jerusalem for an unlimited period of time?

Yes 19%
No 70%
Don’t know/other replies 11%

#2 How would you describe the physical situation existing today in Jerusalem?

31% There is separation between western Jerusalem that is composed of Jewish
neighborhoods and eastern Jerusalem that is composed of Arab neighborhoods.

52% Jerusalem is a mosaic of Jewish and Arab neighborhood that are located very close to each other.

17% Don’t know/other replies

#3 One of the proposals for a peace arrangement is the proposal to divide Jerusalem between Jewish neighborhood under Israeli sovereignty, Palestinian neighborhoods under the sovereignty of a Palestinian state and the Old City under international administration. Would this arrangement bring peace for generations or ongoing conflict?

Peace for generations 13%
Ongoing conflict 69%
Don’t know/other replies 18%

#4 Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu argues that Israeli must make sure that in any arrangement with the Palestinians Israel controls the Jordan Valley in order to prevent the transfer of rockets and missiles to the Palestinians in the West Bank.

The Palestinians also demand control of the Jordan Valley and part of the Dead Sea. Should Israel insist that Israel control this area in any arrangement with the Palestinians?

Yes 79%
No 9%
Don’t know/other replies 12%

#5 There are those who claim that if the United States guarantees that the Palestinian State will not be armed that Israel can be certain that the Palestinian State really won’t arm itself with weapons. Do you agree with this claim?

Yes 12%
No 80%
Don’t know/other replies 8%

#6 There are those who claim that Israel can forego territories that today are considered critical for its security if Israel signs a peace pact with the United States. Do you agree?

Yes 22%
No 69%
Don’t know/other replies 9%

#7 According to various reports, President Obama will try to impose an arrangement on the sides according to which, among other things, Israel does not control the Jordan Valley and Jerusalem is divided. Do you want President Obama to impose his plan on the parties?

Yes 8%
No 83%
Don’t know/other replies 9%

#8 Is it proper for Israelis who support arrangements with the Palestinians that do not agree with Binyamin Netanyahu’s position to encourage President Obama to impose their positions on the parties?

Proper 16%
Improper 68%
Don’t know/other replies 16%

Dr. Aaron Lerner, Director IMRA (Independent Media Review & Analysis)
(Mail POB 982 Kfar Sava)
Tel 972-9-7604719/Fax 972-3-7255730
INTERNET ADDRESS:
imra@netvision.net.il
Website:
http://www.imra.org.il



Tuesday, April 13, 2010

Travel&Leisure Magazine: Jerusalem among the top cities in the world






Travel & Leisure Magazine: Jerusalem among the top cities in the world

Tuesday, April 13, 2010

According to the prestigious Travel+Leisure Magazine, Jerusalem is ranked as one of the top destinations in the world by their discerning readers. In an annual poll of its online readers published earlier this week, the capital was ranked 17th in the ‘World’s Best Cities – Overall’ list, ahead of popular destinations such as London, Paris and Barcelona. Among the cities in the Middle East, Jerusalem was ranked third (behind Cape Town and Fez, Morocco). Tel Aviv did not make the top 20 list, though it did rank seventh among cities in the Middle East and Africa.

Jerusalem attracts over two million tourists a year, with about 80% of all tourists visiting the holy city. The city also contains within it the most visited sites in Israel, including the Western Wall, the Church of the Holy Sepulcher, Via Dolorosa, Yad Vashem and the Mount of Olives.

The first design-led luxury lifestyle hotel in Jerusalem and Israel

Mamilla Hotel, Jerusalem, enters Conde Nast Traveller UK edition’s Hot List 2010

Tuesday, April 13, 2010

The Mamilla Hotel in Jerusalem has entered UK Conde Nast Traveller’s 2010 Hot List - one of the international travel industry’s most prestigious selections of the best new hotels of the past twelve months. The Mamilla opened in June 2009 as the first design-led luxury lifestyle hotel in Jerusalem and Israel.

Hot List
The Hot List is the annual barometer of the premium hotel market, awarding properties based on critieria such as design, facilities, innovation and service. Published in the May issue of the UK edition of Conde Nast Traveller magazine - the leading luxury travel publication in the UK and an authoritative voice in the travel industry globally and online - the Hot List is based on anonymous hotel reviews from experts across the world, who heed the magazine’s ‘Truth in Travel’ policy by paying room rates and not accepting ‘freebies’. The result is a powerful snapshot of current trends, developments and key players in the increasingly competitive high-end hotel industry.

The Mamilla Hotel combines spectacular design (by Moshe Safdie and Piero Lissoni), a prime position just minutes from the historic wonders and profound beauty of the Old City of Jerusalem, luxury accommodations, a world-class Rooftop restaurant and – above all – a pioneering approach to service and hospitality that offers something distinct and new to the hotel market in Jerusalem and Israel. The hotel concentrates on providing a lifestyle experience for guests that immediately appeals to the emotional needs of a well-travelled, demanding and in-the-know clientele, be it through design, food & drink, physical and spiritual engagement in the Holistic Wellbeing retreat, or the powerful, uplifting effects of this magical city.

The hotel is delighted to be included in the 2010 Hot List, as Massimo Ianni, COO of Alrov Luxury Hotels, says: "From the outset our goal was to open in Jerusalem a truly modern, world-class hotel that will be adopted and enjoyed by a global, well-travelled audience. Our hotel should act as a story-teller - a window through which guests can see and experience the very best of Jerusalem - and this wonderful acknowledgement by Conde Nast Traveller will spur us to continue to work towards this, and to do it with pride.”

Opening-up Jerusalem
The Hot List accolade comes soon after February’s announcement that the Mamilla has become the first hotel in Israel to join leading international hotel marketing company Design Hotels. The inclusion in the 2010 Conde Nast Traveller Hot List is an exciting development in furthering the hotel’s commitment to opening up Jerusalem to a wider audience and to providing a new, pioneering hospitality experience in Israel and beyond.







Barry Rubin: Palestinian Poke Obama in the Eye!





Palestinian Leaders Do It Again!
Throw Away Opportunity Obama is Giving Them and Poke Him in the Eye

By Barry Rubin*
April 13, 2010

http://www.gloria-center.org/gloria/2010/04/palestinian-leaders

With their unerring skill at erring, Palestinian Authority (PA) leaders are throwing away still another opportunity President Barack Obama is giving them. If Obama is the most pro-Palestinian president in history, his counterparts don't seem to appreciate it very much. It is the Palestinian leadership, not Israel, that will ultimately make Obama look like and be a failure in all of his peace process efforts.

Brief history:

--Last spring, PA leader Mahmoud Abbas in his first visit to Washington made it clear he wasn't interested in a negotiated solution but just planned to wait for the West to force Israel to give him everything he wanted.

--In September, Abbas stood nearby as Obama said he wanted serious final negotiations within two months, then refused while Israel Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said he was ready to talk right away.

--Shortly thereafter, Obama asked Abbas not to push the Goldstone report as a sponsor in the UN. Abbas agreed, then broke his word within 48 hours under internal pressure.

--At the end of last October, Obama's Administration made a deal in which Israel would stop all construction on West Bank settlements though it could continue in east Jerusalem. While Obama hoped this would get talks going, Abbas demanded an end to construction in Jerusalem, too, which he knew Israel would
not accept. Indeed, he demanded it precisely because he knew Israel wouldn't accept it.

--Finally, Abbas agreed to indirect talks but was "saved" when suddenly the U.S. government accepted the PA's position on Jerusalem construction. Yet even that has not been enough to make the PA support Obama's policy despite the fact that it was so slanted in their favor.

Of course, the U.S. criticism of Israel and the crisis following the announcement of some future Jerusalem construction have been the main news. But that's because the Obama Administration is ready (sometimes it seems, eager) to criticize Israel but did ot ever criticize the PA during its own fifteen months in office. This last point--which I have repeatedly pointed out--has become so embarassingly obvious that finally the State Department made a small peep. [See note at end of article.]

So it is easy to miss the fact that by their behavior the Palestinian leadership has lost any possible material gain from the administration's attitude.

Now, here we are in the biggest crisis of U.S.-Israel relations in more than a quarter-century, arguably the biggest crisis in a half-century, since the Eisenhower Administration pressured Israel to withdraw from Sinai in 1957. Not only is the administration really angry at Israel, but it is considering a plan--though this might never happen--to try to impose a solution.

So what's the PA stance? To denounce the idea of an imposed solution! Such a plan according to press reports would give them a lot of what they want--1967 borders, a quick state, minimal conditions, all of pre-1967 Jordanian-controlled Jerusalem. Not bad, eh? But the Palestinians would have to make some concessions, like settling refugees in the state of Palestine rather than flooding Israel with Palestinian Arabs in an effort to paralyze and destroy its society.

On the PA's radio, chief negotiator Saib Arikat (choose your transliteration) said--what a delicious Freudian slip this is--that the Palestinians "don't want new ideas." His proposal is that the United States just recognizes Palestine as a state immediately and urges the UN to accept it as such, followed no doubt by huge international pressure for an immediate unconditional Israeli withdrawal from everywhere in the West Bank and east Jerusalem.

This isn't going to happen, of course. But once again it signals U.S. officials, if they bothered to look, that they will get no cooperation, not even the tiniest concession, and the barest minimum of kind words from the PA. This also makes clear why a solution is impossible and why it would not solve all U.S. problems in the Middle East.

Because even if--this is just for the sake of explanation--the Obama Administration were to give the Palestinian leadership 99 percent of what it wants, it would still have to force it to concede 1 percent. Also it wojld forecolose--at least in theory--wiping Israel off the map. That would lead to the political settlement being denounced by all Islamists, all militant Arab nationalists, and many Arab governments.

I'm not even sure if the Egyptian and Jordanian media would applaud Obama. The latest Palestinian poll (Palestinian Public Opinion Poll no. 40, Center for Opinion Polls and Survey Studies at An-Najah National University, pril 8-10, 2010) asked:

"Do you accept the creation of a Palestinian state on the area of the 1967 borders as a final solution for the Palestinian problem?"

Of those polled, 44.7 percent (and this is after 17 years of supposed moderate policies by the PLO following the Oslo agreement) said "no." While 51.7 percent said "yes," remember that they were almost certainly assuming the Palestinians would get the precise pre-1967 borders plus the right to move to Israel for almost anyone who wanted to do so.

And so if Obama were to implement any conceivable negotiated solution--even an extremely pro-Palestinian one by Western standards--he'd be labelled as the man who sold out the Palestinians and go down in history as a betrayer and Zionist imperialist. I'd bet money on being able to collect a considerably large set of clippings denouncing him as worse--more "anti-Muslim" and "anti-Arab"--than George W. Bush! And if you think that isn't likely then, forgive me for saying so, you don't really understand how Middle East politics work.

The United States would not be portrayed as a hero because it created Palestine but a villain because it robbed the Arabs of getting everything some day. Terrorism against American targets would go up, as it would argued that the Americans had forever destroyed the chance of wiping Israel off the map. Of course, terrorism against any Palestinian leaders who agreed to such terms would also break out. Abbas's knowing this is one of the reasons he will say "no" to everything.

And don't ever forget that little detail: If Palestine is proclaimed a state, presumably Hamas is the legal government of about half of it, despite the fact that it is a terrorist, antisemitic, genocide-seeking client of Iran which won't even accept the agreement that makes Palestine a state. Here's one example of the ridiculous situation that would prevail: If the Hamas government wanted to import long-range missiles from Iran and Israel tried to stop it by intercepting them with its navy, would the UN then be able to accuse Israel of an act of aggression against a sovereign state?

Again, nothing is going to happen, not because of Israel but because the PA will torpedo any U.S. effort to solve the issue no matter how bad the terms seem for Israel. Meanwhile U.S. policymakers will pretend this isn't happening, that the United States isn't constantly being insulted by the PA.

Unless you understand the above, the whole story of the Arab-Israeli and Israel-Palestinian conflict makes no sense.

Question 1: During the four years of the Obama Administration's term in office, will his officials ever publicly criticize the PA for anything it does, including honoring terrorists who killed Americans? Prediction: No it won't.

Question 2: During the four years of the Obama Administration's term in office, will the Palestinians make any material gain due to his being so supportive of them? Prediction: No they won't because the extremist goals and intransigence of their leadership will prevent thus.

Note: At last the State Department issues a very mild criticism of the PA, after ignoring for almost two weeks the issue in question. On April 8, it made the
following statement:

"Regarding the Middle East, we are disturbed by comments of Palestinian Authority officials regarding reconstruction and refurbishing of Jewish sites in the Jewish quarter of Jerusalem's Old City. Remarks by the Palestinian ministry of information denying Jewish heritage in and links to Jerusalem undermine the trust and confidence needed for substantive and productive Israeli-Palestinian negotiations. We also strongly condemn the glorification of terrorists honoring terrorists who have murdered innocent civilians either by official statements or by the dedication of public places hurts peace efforts and must end. We will continue to hold Palestinian leaders accountable for incitement. "

But this isolated statement seems to have been made for form's sake and when compared to the administration's outrage at Israel looks quite limited. I predict we won't be hearing about any follow-up to these issues.

What makes this particularly ridiculous is that the PA named a square in honor of a terrorist who murdered both Israelis and Americans--for more on this issue see
HERE--during Vice-President Joe Biden's visit yet there was no talk about the United States being insulted nor was there any major crisis with the PA declared by the U.S. government. Indeed, well after the affair happened, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was insisting that the deed had been done by Hamas, an absurd error which--to my knowledge--has never been formally corrected by her office.


* Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. His latest books are The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), with Walter Laqueur (Viking-Penguin); the paperback edition of The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan); A Chronological History of Terrorism, with Judy Colp Rubin, (Sharpe); and The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley). To read and subscribe to MERIA, GLORIA articles, or to order books, go to http://www.gloria-center.org/.






IDF: Terrorists Were Heavily Armed


IDF Spokesperson April 13th, 2010

Four Terrorists Targeted This Morning were Heavily Armed

IDF searches following this morning's incident near the central Gaza Strip security fence, turned up the bodies of terrorists associated with the Palestinian Islamic Jihad terrorist organization. The IDF found explosive devices, assault rifles, hand grenades and additional weaponry on the bodies.

Earlier this morning, an IDF force identified a number of suspicious persons planting explosives along the security fence in the central Gaza Strip. The force fired at the suspects, and confirmed direct hits. Four militants were
apparently killed and two injured as a result of the shooting.

The presence of Palestinian civilians in the area adjacent to the security fence in Gaza is used by terrorist organizations as cover for their activities, including planting explosive devices, planning terrorist attacks and attempts to kidnap IDF soldiers. For this reason, the IDF considers this a combat zone.

On March 26th, an IDF officer and an IDF soldier were killed and two soldiers were injured, during an exchange of fire with terrorists who were planting explosive devices along the security fence.

Approximately 350 rockets and mortars were fired at Israel from the Gaza Strip since Operation Cast Lead last year.

The IDF operates defensively on both sides of the Gaza Strip security fence on a routine and daily basis, in order to locate and thwart terrorist efforts and to ensure the safety of Israeli residents in the area.

The IDF will not tolerate any attempt to harm the citizens of the State of Israel and will continue to operate resolutely against anyone who uses terror against it. The IDF holds Hamas as solely responsible for maintaining peace and quiet in the Gaza Strip and its surrounding area.

IDF: Gaza Terror Attack Thwarted




IDF Spokesperson April 13th, 2010

IDF Thwarts Attack Along Gaza Security Fence

Earlier this morning, an IDF force identified a number of suspects planting
explosives along the security fence in the central Gaza Strip.

The force fired at the suspects, identifying direct hits.




TGI NOTE: Please take note of the media bias in the following Reuters report:

Israeli Forces Kill Palestinian Gunman In Gaza
By REUTERS
Published: April 13, 2010

GAZA (Reuters) - A Palestinian gunman was killed and three were wounded in Israeli military strikes in the Gaza Strip Tuesday, Palestinian medics and the Israeli army said.

The Palestinian death was the first in the Islamist Hamas-ruled territory since three gunmen and two Israeli soldiers were killed more than two weeks ago in the most serious clash between the two sides in 14 months.

A spokesman for the Islamic Jihad militant group said Israeli tanks fired shells and a helicopter launched a missile at its men east of the al-Bureij refugee camp in the central Gaza Strip.

An Israeli army spokeswoman said: "An Israeli force identified a number of suspects planting explosives along the security fence (with Gaza). It fired at the suspects, identifying direct hits."

A Palestinian hospital source said the three wounded men were in serious condition.

The Gaza Strip is controlled by the Hamas movement, which wrested control of the coastal enclave from Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas's Fatah faction in 2007.

Hamas has largely held its fire since a costly three-week war with Israel in the opening days of 2009 in which some 1,400 Palestinians, mainly civilians, and 13 Israelis, mostly soldiers, were killed.

But smaller factions like Islamic Jihad have ignored the de facto truce by firing rockets and mortar shells into Israel.

(Reporting by Nidal al-Mughrabi, writing by Ori Lewis; Editing by Ralph Gowling)

Copyright 2010 Thomson Reuters



Prof. Efraim Karsh - Palestine Betrayed





"A brave and exceedingly important piece of work."-David Vital, author of A People Apart

"With Isaiah Friedman, Efraim Karsh is the preeminent scholar-spokesman of the Revisionist (politically-rightist) Movement in Zionism. I consider this latest of Karsh''s books, Palestine Betrayed, a work of meticulous, even exhaustive scholarship which must be taken with the greatest seriousness and respect by historians of diverse points of view. Indeed, any student of modern Israel will ignore at their peril its sheer cornucopia of factual revelations." - Howard Sachar

About Palestine Betrayed

The 1947 UN resolution to partition the British Mandate over Palestine irrevocably changed the political landscape of the Middle East, giving rise to six full-fledged wars between Arabs and Jews, countless armed clashes, blockades, and terrorism, as well as a profound shattering of Palestinian Arab society. Its origins, and that of the wider Arab-Israeli conflict, are deeply rooted in Jewish-Arab confrontation and appropriation in Palestine. But the isolated occasions of violence during the British Mandate era (1920–48) suggest that the majority of Palestinian Arabs yearned to live and thrive under peaceful coexistence with the evolving Jewish national enterprise. So what was the real cause of the breakdown in relations between the two communities?

In this brave and groundbreaking book, Efraim Karsh tells the story from both the Arab and Jewish perspectives. He argues that from the early 1920s onward, a corrupt and extremist leadership worked toward eliminating the Jewish national revival and protecting its own interests. Karsh has mined many of the Western, Soviet, UN, and Israeli documents declassified over the past decade, as well as unfamiliar Arab sources, to reveal what happened behind the scenes on both Palestinian and Jewish sides. It is an arresting story of delicate political and diplomatic maneuvering by leading figures—Ben Gurion, Hajj Amin Husseini, Abdel Rahman Azzam, King Abdullah, Bevin, and Truman —over the years leading up to partition, through the slide to war and its enduring consequences. Palestine Betrayed is vital reading for understanding the origin of disputes that remain crucial today.

About the Author
Efraim Karsh is professor and head of the Middle East and Mediterranean Studies Programme, King’s College London. His books include Islamic Imperialism: A History; The Arab-Israeli Conflict: The Palestine War, 1948; Saddam Hussein: A Political Biography; and Empires of the Sand: The Struggle for Mastery in the Middle East, 1789–1923.




Monday, April 12, 2010

IDF: 17 Explosive Devices Uncovered Near Tul Karem



IDF detonates 17 explosive devices near Tul Karem uncovered by PA forces

IDF Spokesperson 11 April 2010 , 14:57

http://dover.idf.il/IDF/English/News/today/10/04/1103.htm

Palestinian security forces uncovered 17 explosive devices near Tuk Karem area and transferred them to the IDF. Military sappers detonated the explosives in a controlled manner.

Despite the relative calm in the area, terrorist attempts by Hamas and Hezbollah continue in Judea and Samaria region. The move however, indicates a positive cooperation between the Palestinian security apparatus and the Israeli security forces.

Earlier this month, Palestinian forces transferred an explosive device weighing 12 kilograms attached to a gas ballon in Jenin. The IDF forces detonated the explosive in a controlled manner causing no casualties or damage.

IDF: Chief of the General Staff Expresses Condolences to Polish Military



IDF Chief of the General Staff Expresses Condolences to Polish Military

IDF Spokesperson April 10th, 2010

The IDF Chief of the General Staff, Lt. Gen. Gabi Ashkenazi expressed his deepest condolences to the Polish military this evening, to its General Staff and to the family of the Chief of the General Staff of the Polish Armed Forces, General Franciszek Gagor who was killed in the devastating plane crash today, April 10th 2010

The Chief of the General Staff said: "Over the past three years, I met with the Chief of Staff of the Polish Armed Forces, General Gagor, a number of times, during personal meetings that took place between us, during a NATO conference in Brussels and in Warsaw, where he hosted me during the March of the Living. I met a commander, an amazing military man, who integrated his army in the NATO pact.

It especially touched my heart, his great interest in the journey of military officers to concentration camps in Poland in the framework of the Witnesses in Uniform program. We discussed this at length and it was very important to him that young IDF officers meet with young officers in the Polish Armed Forces and get to know the new generation who is educated about the Holocaust.

In the name of the Israel Defense Forces, in the name of the General Staff and myself, I share the grief felt by the Polish nation and the grief of the Polish military and its commanders."

Sunday, April 11, 2010

IDF: General Staff Honors Holocaust Victims at Yad Vashem



IDF General Staff Holds Special Day of Activities in Honor of Holocaust Remembrance Day at Yad Vashem Museum

IDF Spokesperson April 11, 2010

The IDF General Staff, headed by the Chief of the General Staff, Lt. Gen. Gabi Ashkenazi, is to hold a special day of activities, today, April 11th, 2010, in honor of Israel's Holocaust Remembrance Day at the Yad Vashem Museum.

The special commemoration day, which has become a tradition within the IDF, will be opened by the chairman of the Yad Vashem Directorate, Mr. Avner Shalev and will focus on "Jewish communities during the Holocaust". Throughout the day, the General Staff members will hear lectures by different experts on the subject and will discuss the meaning of the term "community" in modern-day Israel.

The General Staff will also tour the Valley of Communities memorial, listen to survivors' testimonies and will hold an official memorial ceremony in the Museum's Bulgarian Garden . There, the IDF Chief of the General Staff, Lt. Gen. Gabi Ashkenazi, will deliver a speech and light the memorial torch.

Thursday, April 08, 2010

Obama bans terms such as Islam, jihad from U.S. security strategy





Obama bans terms such as Islam, jihad from U.S. security strategy
Wednesday 07th April, 02:15 PM JST

WASHINGTON — Associated Press: President Barack Obama’s advisers will remove religious terms such as “Islamic extremism” from the central document outlining the U.S. national security strategy and will use the rewritten document to emphasize that the United States does not view Muslim nations through the lens of terror, counterterrorism officials said.

The change is a significant shift in the National Security Strategy, a document that previously outlined the Bush Doctrine of preventative war and currently states: “The struggle against militant Islamic radicalism is the great ideological conflict of the early years of the 21st century.”

The officials described the changes on condition of anonymity because the document still was being written, and the White House would not discuss it. But rewriting the strategy document will be the latest example of Obama putting his stamp on U.S. foreign policy, like his promises to dismantle nuclear weapons and limit the situations in which they can be used.

The revisions are part of a larger effort about which the White House talks openly, one that seeks to change not just how the United States talks to Muslim nations, but also what it talks to them about, from health care and science to business startups and education.

That shift away from terrorism has been building for a year, since Obama went to Cairo, Egypt, and promised a “new beginning” in the relationship between the United States and the Muslim world. The White House believes the previous administration based that relationship entirely on fighting terror and winning the war of ideas.

“You take a country where the overwhelming majority are not going to become terrorists, and you go in and say, ‘We’re building you a hospital so you don’t become terrorists.’ That doesn’t make much sense,” said National Security Council staffer Pradeep Ramamurthy.

Ramamurthy runs the administration’s Global Engagement Directorate, a four-person National Security Council team that Obama launched last May with little fanfare and a vague mission to use diplomacy and outreach “in pursuit of a host of national security objectives.” Since then, the division has not only helped change the vocabulary of fighting terror but also has shaped the way the country invests in Muslim businesses, studies global warming, supports scientific research and combats polio.

Before diplomats go abroad, they hear from the Ramamurthy or his deputy, Jenny Urizar. When officials from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration returned from Indonesia, the NSC got a rundown about research opportunities on global warming. Ramamurthy maintains a database of interviews conducted by 50 U.S. embassies worldwide. And business leaders from more than 40 countries head to Washington this month for an “entrepreneurship summit” for Muslim businesses.

“Do you want to think about the U.S. as the nation that fights terrorism or the nation you want to do business with?” Ramamurthy said.

To deliver that message, Obama’s speechwriters have taken inspiration from an unlikely source: former President Ronald Reagan. Visiting communist China in 1984, Reagan spoke to Fudan University in Shanghai about education, space exploration and scientific research. He discussed freedom and liberty. He never mentioned communism or democracy.

“They didn’t look up to the U.S. because we hated communism,” said Deputy National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes, Obama’s foreign policy speechwriter.

Like Reagan in China, Obama in Cairo made only passing references to terrorism. Instead he focused on cooperation. He announced the United States would team up to fight polio with the Organisation of the Islamic Conference, a multinational body based in Saudi Arabia. The United States and the OIC had worked together before, but never with that focus.

“President Obama saw it as an opportunity to say, `We work on things far beyond the war on terrorism,’” said World Health Organization spokeswoman Sona Bari.

Polio is endemic in three Muslim countries—Nigeria, Pakistan and Afghanistan—but some Muslim leaders have been suspicious of vaccination efforts, which they believed to be part of a CIA sterilization campaign. Last year, the OIC and religious scholars at the International Islamic Fiqh Academy issued a fatwa, or religious decree, that parents should have their children vaccinated.

“We’re probably entering into a whole new level of engagement between the OIC and the polio program because of the stimulus coming from the U.S. government,” said Michael Galway, who works on polio eradication for the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.

The Centers for Disease Control also began working more closely with local Islamic leaders in northern Nigeria, a network that had been overlooked for years, said John Fitzsimmons, the deputy director of the CDC’s immunization division.

Though health officials are reluctant to assign credit to any one action, new polio cases in Nigeria fell from 83 during the first quarter of last year to just one so far this year, Fitzsimmons said.

Public opinion polls also showed consistent improvement in U.S. sentiment within the Muslim world last year, although the viewpoints are still overwhelmingly negative, however.

Obama did not invent Muslim outreach. President George W. Bush gave the White House its first Quran, hosted its first Iftar dinner to celebrate Ramadan, and loudly stated support for Muslim democracies like Turkey.

But the Bush administration struggled with its rhetoric. Muslims criticized him for describing the war against terror as a “crusade” and labeling the invasion of Afghanistan “Operation Infinite Justice”—words that were seen as religious. He regularly identified America’s enemy as “Islamic extremists” and “radical jihadists.”

Karen Hughes, a Bush confidant who served as his top diplomat to the Muslim world in his second term, urged the White House to stop.

“I did recommend that, in my judgment, it’s unfortunate because of the way it’s heard. We ought to avoid the language of religion,” Hughes said. “Whenever they hear ‘Islamic extremism, Islamic jihad, Islamic fundamentalism,’ they perceive it as a sort of an attack on their faith. That’s the world view Osama bin Laden wants them to have.”

Hughes and Juan Zarate, Bush’s former deputy national security adviser, said Obama’s efforts build on groundwork from Bush’s second term, when some of the rhetoric softened. But by then, Zarate said, it was overshadowed by the Guantanamo Bay detention center, the abuses at Abu Ghraib prison and a prolonged Iraq war.

“In some ways, it didn’t matter what the president did or said. People weren’t going to be listening to him in the way we wanted them to,” Zarate said. “The difference is, President Obama had a fresh start.”

Obama’s foreign policy posture is not without political risk. Even as Obama steps up airstrikes on terrorists abroad, he has proven vulnerable to Republican criticism on security issues at home, such as the failed Christmas Day airline bombing and the announced-then-withdrawn plan to prosecute 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in New York.

Peter Feaver, a Duke University political scientist and former Bush adviser, is skeptical of Obama’s engagement effort. It “doesn’t appear to have created much in the way of strategic benefit” in the Middle East peace process or in negotiations over Iran’s nuclear ambitions, he said.

Obama runs the political risk of seeming to adopt politically correct rhetoric abroad while appearing tone deaf on national security issues at home, Feaver said.

The White House dismisses such criticism. In June, Obama will travel to Indonesia, the world’s most populous Muslim country, and is expected to revisit many of the themes of his Cairo speech.

“This is the long-range direction we need to go in,” Ramamurthy said.

Copyright 2010 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Tuesday, April 06, 2010

IDF: Redistribution of "Protection Kits" Begins






Home Front begins nationwide distribution of protection kits
Jonathan Urich IDF Spokesperson's Office 6 April 2010

http://dover.idf.il/IDF/English/News/today/10/04/0601.htm

The IDF Home Front Command and the Israel Postal Authority are launching their national protection kit distribution. In the coming days distribution stations will open in the cities of Ashdod and Rishon LeZion.

In accordance with a recent experiment conducted in recent weeks concerning the distribution arrangements between the Israel Postal Authority and the IDF Home Front Command, a nationwide distribution of protection kits to all residents of Israel will begin on Tuesday (Apr. 6).

The distribution will be carried out in one of two ways: direct mail through the Israel Post Authority, or through distribution stations which will gradually open up throughout the country.

This is the first time a direct postal distribution will be executed. Anyone interested in receiving protection kits to their home is required to call the Israel Postal Authority's 171 hotline and coordinate an appointed time for delivery. This delivery service will cost 25 NIS per household.

As mentioned before, a few weeks ago the Home Front Command and the Israel Postal Authority conducted an experiment in the Bikat Ono area, in which they have distributed up until now about 70 thousand protection kits to residents of the area.

The high satisfaction with the Home Front Command's service regarding the distribution time and according to the terms of the agreement with the Israel Post, has brought further cooperation with them on a national level.

Similarly, distribution stations of protection kits are expected to open gradually throughout Israel. In the coming days distribution stations will open in the cities of Ashdod and Rishon LeZion, and shortly after that eight additional stations are expected to open up in the Tel Aviv Metropolitan Area, Jerusalem, Beer Sheva, Haifa and its surrounding areas. The Home Front Command reported that according to the agreement additional distribution stations will be established later.

Meanwhile, a television campaign will be launched on Tuesday evening (Apr. 6) to encourage Israeli citizens to equip themselves with the protection kits; later on billboards will also be put up at local authorities.


Monday, April 05, 2010

Dr. Emmanuel Navon: Liberal Conventional Wisdom



Ne Cherchez pas la Femme

The latest Middle-East conventional wisdom in liberal newspapers and Western chancelleries is that, in order for peace to prevail between Israel and the Palestinians, Benjamin Netanyahu must trade the conservative parties of his current coalition for Kadima. Were Tzipi Livni to return to her previous job as Foreign Minister, the argument goes, the Israeli Government would finally be able to agree to what everyone knows [sic] is the solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

One wonders were the proponents of this theory have been for the past four years. When Tzipi Livni was Foreign Minister, her Government did agree to the "solution known by everyone." Ehud Olmert offered Mahmoud Abbas the entire West Bank (with land swaps), a shared sovereignty over Jerusalem, and an agreed-upon mechanism for the compensation of Palestinian refugees (as well as the "return" of a symbolical number to Israel). Abbas turned down the offer and declared a few months later to The Washington Post that the gap is huge" between what Olmert offered and what the Palestinians are willing to accept.

So why would re-enacting the Olmert proposal now (under a hypothetical Netanyahu-Livni government) make a difference? Claiming that Abbas turned down Olmert’s offer because the latter was a lame-duck at the time is a dishonest or ignorant way (or both) of refusing to face the bitter truth: for the Palestinians, the conflict is not about 1967 but about 1948 (hence their uncompromising stance on the so-called "right of return"). And yet, the current US Administration is pressuring Israel to "accept" a deal which the Palestinians have rejected in the recent past and still adamantly refuse today.

Advocates of the "keep trying" method are generally skeptical about the prospects of having the Palestinians agree to the two-state solution. And yet, because maintaining the status-quo would eventually render this solution moot, they choose compulsiveness out of despair. This is because, their punching line and ultimate argument goes, the status-quo is untenable. But untenable for whom? Only for Israel. For the Palestinians, the status quo is actually quite tenable. They reasonably see it as the only way to use what they’ve always considered their best weapon against Israel: demography. Their dream is Israel’s nightmare. And so it is naïve and absurd to expect them to save us from their trap. Yet when Israelis beg the Palestinians to agree to a two-state solution, they do just that: they ask the Palestinians to care more about the Israeli nightmare than about the Palestinian dream.

Most Israeli experts on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict agree that this conflict is both unsolvable and unsustainable under the present circumstances. Benny Morris, for example, sees no alternative to the two-state solution but also sees no reasonable prospect of implementing it (he utterly blames the Palestinians for that). He suggests the revival of the "Jordanian Option," but this doesn’t wash: with whom, exactly, is Israel supposed to close such a deal? As for Ehud Yaari’s recent article in Foreign Affairs, it just repeats the delusional mistake that because Israel simply cannot afford to see the two-state solution progressively wither, the Palestinians must be either sweet-talked or coerced into accepting it.

The only way out of that imbroglio is for Israel to unilaterally and physically make the one-state solution impossible by completing the construction of the separation fence, by withdrawing from about 90% of the West Bank and by annexing the settlement blocs. The West Bank would undoubtedly turn into another Gaza, but Israel is better off fighting the enemy form without than from within. On balance, bombarding Gaza and the West Bank on a regular basis is still preferable to letting Israel turn into anther Lebanon. Implementing unilateralism without Ahamdinejad and Goldstone in the background would obviously be preferable, but we are talking here about the least bad option in purely Realpolitik terms.

I abhor this scenario emotionally but swallow it intellectually. Dan Schueftan has been advocating it for years, to his credit. When I told him at the end of his panel debate at the last Herzliya Conference that he is the only one who doesn’t talk nonsense, he said he agrees with me. I agree with myself too.


http://www.navon.com





Sunday, April 04, 2010

Richard Holbrooke: Washington's Battle Over Israel's Birth

From the GI Archives

Washington's Battle Over Israel's Birth
By Ambassador Richard Holbrooke
Wednesday, May 7, 2008

In the celebrations next week surrounding Israel's 60th anniversary, it should not be forgotten that there was an epic struggle in Washington over how to respond to Israel's declaration of independence on May 14, 1948. It led to the most serious disagreement President Harry Truman ever had with his revered secretary of state, George C. Marshall -- and with most of the foreign policy establishment. Twenty years ago, when I was helping Clark Clifford write his memoirs, I reviewed the historical record and interviewed all the living participants in that drama. The battle lines drawn then resonate still.

The British planned to leave Palestine at midnight on May 14. At that moment, the Jewish Agency, led by David Ben-Gurion, would proclaim the new (and still unnamed) Jewish state. The neighboring Arab states warned that fighting, which had already begun, would erupt into full-scale war at that moment.

The Jewish Agency proposed partitioning Palestine into two parts -- one Jewish, one Arab. But the State and Defense departments backed the British plan to turn Palestine over to the United Nations. In March, Truman privately promised Chaim Weizmann, the future president of Israel, that he would support partition -- only to learn the next day that the American ambassador to the United Nations had voted for U.N. trusteeship. Enraged, Truman wrote a private note on his calendar: "The State Dept. pulled the rug from under me today. The first I know about it is what I read in the newspapers! Isn't that hell? I'm now in the position of a liar and double-crosser. I've never felt so low in my life. . . ."

Truman blamed "third and fourth level" State Department officials -- especially the director of U.N. affairs, Dean Rusk, and the agency's counselor, Charles Bohlen. But opposition really came from an even more formidable group: the "wise men" who were simultaneously creating the great Truman foreign policy of the late 1940s -- among them Marshall, James V. Forrestal, George F. Kennan, Robert Lovett, John J. McCloy, Paul Nitze and Dean Acheson. To overrule State would mean Truman taking on Marshall, whom he regarded as "the greatest living American," a daunting task for a very unpopular president.

Beneath the surface lay unspoken but real anti-Semitism on the part of some (but not all) policymakers. The position of those opposing recognition was simple -- oil, numbers and history. "There are thirty million Arabs on one side and about 600,000 Jews on the other," Defense Secretary Forrestal told Clifford. "Why don't you face up to the realities?"

On May 12, Truman held a meeting in the Oval Office to decide the issue. Marshall and his universally respected deputy, Robert Lovett, made the case for delaying recognition -- and "delay" really meant "deny." Truman asked his young aide, Clark Clifford, to present the case for immediate recognition. When Clifford finished, Marshall, uncharacteristically, exploded. "I don't even know why Clifford is here. He is a domestic adviser, and this is a foreign policy matter. The only reason Clifford is here is that he is pressing a political consideration."

Marshall then uttered what Clifford would later call "the most remarkable threat I ever heard anyone make directly to a President." In an unusual top-secret memorandum Marshall wrote for the historical files after the meeting, the great general recorded his own words: "I said bluntly that if the President were to follow Mr. Clifford's advice and if in the elections I were to vote, I would vote against the President."

After this stunning moment, the meeting adjourned in disarray. In the next two days, Clifford looked for ways to get Marshall to accept recognition. Lovett, although still opposed to recognition, finally talked a reluctant Marshall into remaining silent if Truman acted. With only a few hours left until midnight in Tel Aviv, Clifford told the Jewish Agency to request immediate recognition of the new state, which still lacked a name. Truman announced recognition at 6:11 p.m. on May 14 -- 11 minutes after Ben-Gurion's declaration of independence in Tel Aviv. So rapidly was this done that in the official announcement, the typed words "Jewish State" are crossed out, replaced in Clifford's handwriting with "State of Israel." Thus the United States became the first nation to recognize Israel, as Truman and Clifford wanted. The secret of the Oval Office confrontation held for years, and a crisis in both domestic politics and foreign policy was narrowly averted.

Clifford insisted to me and others in countless discussions over the next 40 years that politics was not at the root of his position -- moral conviction was. Noting sharp divisions within the American Jewish community -- the substantial anti-Zionist faction among leading Jews included the publishers of both The Post and the New York Times -- Clifford had told Truman in his famous 1947 blueprint for Truman's presidential campaign that "a continued commitment to liberal political and economic policies" was the key to Jewish support.

But to this day, many think that Marshall and Lovett were right on the merits and that domestic politics was the real reason for Truman's decision. Israel, they argue, has been nothing but trouble for the United States.

I think this misses the point. Israel was going to come into existence whether or not Washington recognized it. But without American support from the very beginning, Israel's survival would have been at even greater risk. Even if European Jewry had not just emerged from the horrors of World War II, it would have been an unthinkable act of abandonment by the United States. Truman's decision, although opposed by almost the entire foreign policy establishment, was the right one -- and despite complicated consequences that continue to this day, it is a decision all Americans should recognize and admire.

Richard Holbrooke was U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations from 1999 to 2001 and chief architect of the 1995 Dayton peace agreement. He is currently Special Representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan in the Obama administration.






Prof. Efraim Inbar: Netanyahu Can Say "No"




BESA Center Perspectives Papers No. 103, March 25, 2010

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The Obama administration's attempt to force Israel to accept the division of Jerusalem as a prerequisite for peace talks is astonishing. Despite the obvious reluctance to confront an American president, Prime Minister Netanyahu can effectively resist such American pressure on Jerusalem. In fact, Jerusalem is the issue on which Netanyahu can best make a stand against Obama.

President Barack Obama capitalized on a minor Israeli glitch - the announcement of Israel's plans to build in Ramat Shlomo - to fabricate a crisis in US-Israeli relations. Obama seeks to renegotiate the agreement reached for starting proximity talks with the Palestinians and to extract additional concessions from Israel. Most striking and central is the administration's effort to force Israel into accepting the division of Jerusalem even before the talks start.

The White House expects that the Israeli prime minister will bend under pressure to its wishes. While in the past Netanyahu has proven susceptible to such pressure, the administration may be overplaying its hand on the issue of Jerusalem. Despite the obvious reluctance to confront an American president, Prime Minister Netanyahu can effectively resist American pressure. In fact, this is the issue on which Netanyahu can best take a stand against Obama.

The division of the city is opposed by the current democratically-elected Israeli government and (according to polls that I have directed) by over 70 percent of the Jews in Israel. Few issues in Israel command such a large and clear majority.

The timing of the crisis also serves Israel well. A few days before Passover when Jews repeat a 2,000-year-old text pledging, "Next year in Jerusalem," Netanyahu can say no to American demands for concessions in Jerusalem. Rejection of the division of Jerusalem expresses the deepest wishes of an overwhelming number of Jews living both in Israel and the Diaspora.

In contrast to parts of Judea and Samaria, the Israeli need to maintain the status quo in Jerusalem is easiest to explain. The Palestinian claim to Jerusalem is weak. There was never a Palestinian state and the Jews have been the majority in Jerusalem for the past 150 years. Jerusalem has never been a capital of any political entity, except that of a Jewish State.

Moreover, the Arab residents of Jerusalem, if given a choice, would in all probability prefer to live under Israeli sovereignty than become part of a failed Palestinian state. Finally, dividing a city makes very little urban or political sense.

Netanyahu has the rhetorical power to galvanize widespread Jewish support for continued and unrestrained Israeli rule in Jerusalem. In 1967, the Jews were fortunate to liberate Jerusalem, their ancient capital, and particularly the Temple Mount, their holiest site. The fortunes of the eternal city strike an emotional chord for every Jew. Even many non-Jews share the same sensitivity.

Israel can reject the Obama demands for additional confidence-building measures by pointing to Obama's unfairness toward Israel. Netanyahu's already significant concessions have been belittled by the American administration and rejected as a sign of Israeli seriousness entering into peace talks. Netanyahu's acquiescence to the two-state paradigm was coolly received in Washington. A partial freeze in Judea and Samaria, an unprecedented concession by an Israeli government, was welcomed only as a "step in the right direction." Agreeing to proximity talks instead of insisting on direct negotiations - another significant Israeli concession - also is not good enough for the Obama White House.

In contrast, Obama appears to relish humiliating and bullying Netanyahu, the prime minister of a democratic, embattled state. This appears to fit Obama's overall foreign policy approach of estranging democratic allies while appeasing anti-American dictators.

Israel's prime minister is acutely aware of the need for American support and friendship and has gone a long way to dispel skepticism about his sincere pursuit of peace. Israelis are frustrated with Obama for favoring the Palestinians, who continue to deny the right of Jewish self-determination and who continue to glorify terrorists that kill Jews.

The US, under Obama, ignored the fact that the offers by Ehud Barak and Ehud Olmert to cede virtually all of the disputed territories were respectively rejected by Arafat in 2000 and ignored by his successor, Abbas, in 2008.

Moreover, in 2000 the Palestinians launched a campaign of terror and recently they have threatened to renew it. Similarly, after the Sharon government unilaterally withdrew from Gaza and dismantled all settlements in 2005, the Gaza Strip was converted into a launching pad for intensified missile attacks. Nowadays, it is the Palestinians that are dragging their feet, hoping that the US will force Israel to accept their preconditions.

Flagrant conflict with the US is not something an Israeli leader prefers, but sometimes the asymmetry between a great power and its small ally is not compelling. The Israeli interest in keeping Jerusalem united is more intense than the Obama desire for a foreign policy success. The balance of determination tilts in Israel's favor. Moreover, Israel has some leverage by its nuisance value; that is, it can do things that the US does not like. One clear example is an attack on Iran. Another source of Israeli influence is the character of the American political system, which is susceptible to lobbies and popular sentiment.

Fortunately, the level of public support for Israel in the US is at a record high. Over two-thirds of Americans view Israel favorably and prefer the Jewish State to the Palestinians. Congress reflects such widespread attitudes. Since the President is not in sync with a huge majority of Americans on this issue, Israel has a good chance of convincing the American people that their president is unfair to the Jewish State and is wrong in trying to impose his views on democratic Israel. We already see American voices in the media and in Congress expressing criticism of Obama for not treating Netanyahu properly.

At stake is not just a policy issue. Hanna Arendt in her book, The Origins of Totalitarianism, points out that attitude toward Jews is the litmus test for measuring democratic retrogression. This is true of the attitude toward the Jewish state as well. The unwavering American commitment to democracy incorporates respect for choices made by other democracies. Israel can convince Americans that its democratically-elected government has every right to determine its future.

If Obama continues to insist on freezing construction in Jerusalem, Israel's prime minister has the option to tell the US and the world that the Jews have returned to where King David established his capital 3,000 years earlier and that they intend to stay there. The text of such a response is easily available:

"If I forget thee, O Jerusalem, let my right hand wither. Let my tongue cleave to my palate if I do not remember you, if I do not set Jerusalem above my highest joy"
(Psalms 137, 5-7).

Once in a while such words have great power.

Prof. Efraim Inbar is director of the Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies, and professor of political science at Bar-Ilan University. BESA Perspectives is published through the generosity of the Greg Rosshandler Family.

Courtesy: BESA







Saturday, April 03, 2010

JINSA Flag & General Officers Statement




JINSA Note: When U.S.-Israel relations hit a rough patch, there are those who quickly blame Israel for America's difficulties abroad. Israel has outrageously been blamed for endangering American soldiers in Afghanistan and Iraq, and erroneously been blamed for preventing the formation of an Arab coalition to work with the US to contain Iran. While we recognize, as Gen. Petraeus did, that American support for Israel is used by our adversaries to foment anti-Americanism, we also recognize that the important countries of the region won't like us any better if we shed Israel as an ally. They will wonder how quickly we will shed THEM when they are inconvenient. The correct response to those who denigrate the U.S.-Israel relationship, is to note that Israel is a friend by virtue of shared civic and political values and a security asset upon which the United States can rely.

For nearly 30 years, JINSA has been taking recently retired American Admirals and Generals to Israel to better understand the threats Israel faces, the resources it brings to its own defense and ways in which the U.S. and Israel can cooperate on common security issues. Their understanding of the role of Israel is in the ad below. JINSA is working to place the ad in newspapers (Jewish and other) around the country to ensure that Americans (Jewish and other) hear these voices.

You too can help spread the word by
making a contribution to JINSA.


We, the undersigned, have traveled to Israel over the years with The Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA). We brought with us our decades of military experience and, following unrestricted access to Israel's civilian and military leaders, came away with the unswerving belief that the security of the State of Israel is a matter of great importance to the United States and its policy in the Middle East and Eastern Mediterranean. A strong, secure Israel is an asset upon which American military planners and political leaders can rely. Israel is a democracy - a rare and precious commodity in the region - and Israel shares our commitment to freedom, personal liberty and rule of law.

Throughout our travels and our talks, the determination of Israelis to protect their country and to pursue a fair and workable peace with their neighbors was clearly articulated. Thus we view the current tension between the United States and Israel with dismay and grave concern that political differences may be allowed to outweigh our larger mutual interests.

As American defense professionals, we view events in the Middle East through the prism of American security interests.

The United States and Israel established security cooperation during the Cold War, and today the two countries face the common threat of terrorism by those who fear freedom and liberty. Historically close cooperation between the United States. and Israel at all levels including the IDF, military research and development, shared intelligence and bilateral military training exercises enhances the security of both countries. American police and law enforcement officials have reaped the benefit of close cooperation with Israeli professionals in the areas of domestic counter-terrorism practices and first response to terrorist attacks.

Israel and the United States are drawn together by shared values and shared threats to our well-being.

The proliferation of weapons and nuclear technology across the Middle East and Asia, and the ballistic missile technology to deliver systems across wide areas require cooperation in intelligence, technology and security policy. Terrorism, as well as the origins of financing, training and executing terrorist acts, need to be addressed multilaterally when possible. The dissemination of hatred and support of terrorism by violent extremists in the name of Islam, whether state or non-state actors, must be addressed as a threat to global peace.

In the Middle East, a volatile region so vital to U.S. interests, it would be foolish to disengage - or denigrate - an ally such as Israel.

Rear Admiral Charles Beers, USN (ret.)
General William Begert, USAF (ret.)
Rear Admiral Stanley W. Bryant, USN (ret.)
Lieutenant General Anthony Burshnick, USAF (ret.)
Lieutenant General Paul Cerjan, USA (ret.)
Admiral Leon Edney, USN (ret.)
Brigadier General William F. Engel, USA (ret.)
Major General Bobby Floyd, USAF (ret.)
Major General Paul Fratarangelo, USMC (ret.)
Major General David Grange, USA (ret.)
Lieutenant General Tom Griffin, USA (ret.)
Lieutenant General Earl Hailston, USMC (ret.)
Lieutenant General John Hall, USAF (ret.)
General Alfred Hansen, USAF (ret.)
Rear Admiral James Hinkle, USN (ret.)
General Hal Hornburg, USAF (ret.)
Major General James T. Jackson, USA (ret.)
Admiral Jerome Johnson, USN (ret.)
Rear Admiral Herb Kaler, USN (ret.)
Vice Admiral Bernard Kauderer, USN (ret.)
General William F. Kernan, USA (ret.)
Major General Homer Long, USA (ret.)
Major General Jarvis Lynch, USMC (ret.)
General Robert Magnus, USMC (ret.)
Lieutenant General Charles May, Jr., USAF (ret.)
Vice Admiral Martin Mayer, USN (ret.)
Major General Fred McCorkle, USMC (ret.)
Rear Admiral Mark Milliken, USN (ret.)
Major General William Moore, USA (ret.)
Lieutenant General Carol Mutter, USMC (ret.)
Major General Larry T. Northington, USAF (ret.)
Lieutenant General Tad Oelstrom, USAF (ret.)
Major General James D. Parker, USA (ret.)
Vice Admiral J. T. Parker, USN (ret.)
Major General Robert Patterson, USAF (ret.)
Vice Admiral James Perkins, USN (ret.)
Rear Admiral Brian Peterman, USCG (ret.)
Lieutenant General Alan V. Rogers, USAF (ret.)
Rear Admiral Richard Rybacki, USCG (ret.)
General Crosbie Saint, USA (ret.)
Rear Admiral Norm Saunders, USCG (ret.)
Major General Sid Shachnow, USA (ret.)
Rear Admiral Jeremy Taylor, USN (ret.)
Major General Larry Taylor, USMCR (ret.)
Lieutenant General Lanny Trapp, USAF (ret.)
Vice Admiral Jerry O. Tuttle, USN (ret.)
General Louis Wagner, USA (ret.)
Rear Admiral Thomas Wilson, USN (ret.)
Lieutenant General Robert Winglass, USMC (ret.)
Rear Admiral Guy Zeller, USN (ret.)


- signatures as of April 1, 2010


-
Courtesy of JINSA