S.O.S.

So, no government of Israel should include the elected representatives of 33% of the population, the "ultra-orthodox fanatics and modern orthodox messianics", and refugees from the former Soviet Union, in order to appease international opinion?
Shame on TNR for falling into this trap.
YNet.co.il, May 18, 2010: "The Central Bureau of Statistics report published Sunday reveals that 8% of Israel's Jewish population defines itself as haredi, 12% as religious, 13% as traditional-religious, 25% as traditional and 42% as secular, on a descending scale of religiosity. The data is from the annual general survey carried out for the CBS, which supplies information about living conditions for Israel's population. As part of the survey, some 7,500 people above the age of 20 were interviewed from throughout the country.

Among the Jewish population, the percentage of haredim is higher among younger people. In the age bracket 20-29, some 14% define themselves as haredi, compared to only 2% among those aged 65 and above. ..."

K2K, that 33% doesn't have to make policy for the other 67%.

Including them in the government, in the form of elected officials - fine. But this is nuts. The tail is wagging the dog.

Isn't it?

The Israelis withdrew from southern Lebanon and Gaza. Those withdrawals created even more dangerous situations, providing platforms for Hezbollah and Hamas. No thanks came from the international community. No reciprocal concessions came from Arabs. As noxious as some of the settlers are and as strategically useless as the more isolated settlements may be, they are bargaining chips for the Israeli government and should not be surrendered casually. I don't think that the settlement blocks around Jerusalem should be surrendered; they are too big now. Uproot 200,000 or 300,000 Jews? And there is nothing sacred about the pre-1967 borders; they were/are armistice lines from 1948. The Arabs never agreed to any borders for Israel. What can come of further appeasement?

It is time for Israeli academics such as Taub to stick up for their country abroad. The government of Israel is their own internal matter. It is also time for the American diaspora to be more assertive in defending Israel and countering a hostile Obama administration.

If the Israeli Left is unhappy with the influence of conservative elements in the government, they need to join with Likud to form a viable grand coalition. Then Netanyahu can dispense with some of the less useful or extreme conservatives. So far I don't see any better leadership or strategy from the Israeli Left. Livni? Barak? Olmert? Beilin? Appeasement and hasty withdrawals are not a strategy. Weakness will only invite more Islamic aggression.

I agree wholeheartedly with this article although I am not a fan of Gadi Taub. Nathayahu and Barak and Lieberman a well, are living in the past. The world has changed and the US administration has changed. I think that Taub comment about presenting some peace plan is very to the point. Currently, Israel only reacts. And that is a shame.

Hasn't Olmert presented a peace plan? Has Abbas accepted it? Negotiated over it?

Obviously, by the standards of the Spine boobocracy, Taub must be an anti-Semite to say such things.

_____________

The fact that fanatics and messianic nuts have the right to vote doesn't make them any less fanatics and messianic nuts. It only makes it more imperative that they be declaimed as such and that the sane elements of society organize government without them. You make a deal with the devil, you are going to have to pay the bill. It should not be forgotten that Netanyahu could have formed a coalition with Kadima but couldn't bring himself to utter the words "two-state solution" in order to do so. Nothing short of the absolute necessity that compelled the US and GB to ally themselves with Stalin's Russia justifies including these people in government.

It is good to be reminded that there are some Israelis who understand that it is not only Arabs who create obstacles to peace. Netanyahu could have peace tomorrow, and the abandonment of Arab claims east of the Green Line, if he would agree to Palestinian Arab sovereignty on all land west of the Green Line, even with the settlements left in place. I don't advocate this and would like to see Israel avoid this outcome, but I raise it to point out, yet again, that the issue that divides Arabs and Israelis is no longer peace or the recognition of Israel as a state but territory and the claims of settlers and refugees.

Israel will not succeed in making a deal in which it excludes refugees from Israel but includes settlements in Israel. This is so obvious that even a thick head like Netanyahu understands. He therefore looks for any basis to procrastinate and prevent negotiations from moving forward. I have written here many times that both sides imagine that time is on their side, and at least one of them must be wrong. I am quite certain that time is not on Israel's side. Taub explains some of the reasons why. Netanyahu can be forgiven his illicit desires. Who does not harbor some? But his strategic, tactical, and diplomatic stupidity are unforgivable. States cannot afford such leadership. The stakes are too high.

"Netanyahu inherited a winning hand. He could have put a peace plan on the table, leaving the Palestinians to refuse it. He could have declared that Israel wanted to withdraw from the West Bank and would do so if its security was guaranteed by an agreement with the Palestinians or a third party. "

Was Taub asleep when Netanyahu agreed to a two state solution based on security guarantees, including a demilitarized Palestinian State?

Israel had every right and obligation to enforce the blockade, they were simply trying to prevent missile technology from getting into Gaza and if they were allowed to inspect and monitor the shipments from day one, nothing would have happened. You can argue about the tactics, but not the strategy. And Gaza has no settlements, and being that Gaza and the West Bank are effectively 2 different countries (separated by distance and leadership) lets start to treat them as such instead of indulging the fantasy of a unified Palestine. So Israel is correct in its treatment of Hamas, and screw world opinion.

Now as to the West Bank, well I agree with a lot that has been said and take some exception to what some posters wrote: "As noxious as some of the settlers are and as strategically useless as the more isolated settlements may be, they are bargaining chips for the Israeli government and should not be surrendered casually" but why treat the settlers themselves as bargaining chips? It seems to me that the West Bank has not been in open warfare with Israel, it is time Israel recognized this and stop all settlement expansion on the West Bank, and where possible begin to disband it. Hopefully it would do some good PR wise, but it also has the benefit of being the most sensible thing to do. For the punishment of Gaza to be valid (based on self defense) then there is no reason not to reward the West Bank (for not being in a state of war). A prosperous and peaceful West Bank would present a powerful indictment of Hamas. And would be good for the Palestinians of the West Bank and Israel itself.

As to Netanyahu, I simply don't understand him. He seems to be a man of limited imagination.

Noga, it's really time to retire the argument that Abbas's refusal to accept Olmert's peace plan means that there is no more hope in presenting peace plans to the Arabs. Under the circumstances in which said peace plan was presented, it was perfectly rational for Abbas to refuse to entertain it. Namely, that Olmert was a lame-duck Prime Minister who had recently waged an unsuccesful war in Lebanon and was under major investigation for financial improprieties. It was not at all clear that any peace plan that Olmert proposed would actually be embraced by the Israeli public or his successor as Prime Minister, and Abbas thought that it was best not to stick his own neck out by negotiating and potentially accepting such a plan under the circumstances.

This doesn't mean that all rejections of prior peace plans by the Arabs were justified -- many, if not most, were not, especially Arafat's refusal to accept the Camp David and Taba plans in 1999. But Abbas's rejection of Olmert's plan unfortunately made perfect sense. Recall that Syria's dictator Husni Al-Zaim proposed a peace plan to Israel in 1949 that would have included resettling several hundred thousand Palestinian refugees in exchange for giving Syria the eastern shore of Lake Kinneret. Ben-Gurion refused to serious entertain this offer, in part because it contained a potentially unacceptable territorial compromise but mostly because it wasn't clear that Zaim had the power to make his offer stick. It turned out that Ben-Gurion's instinct was right, as Zaim was overthrown and shot later the same year. Times change, but rational decision-making does not.

what amidut wrote. Gadi Taub sees no postmodern irony in Turkish PM Erdogan Islamist political base which includes the IHH that sponsored the Mavi Marmara, Erdogan's internal war against the entire Turkish secular opposition, and Erdogan's belief that Israel supports the Turkish Kurd PKK through Israeli relationships inside Iraqi Kurdistan. Easier for Gadi Taub to "blame it on Bibi and his offensive-to-Meretz coalition".

"IHH Preparations for a Violent Confrontation with IDF Soldiers Aboard the Turkish Ship Mavi Marmara: Initial conclusions from questioning passengers and examining equipment on board the ship"
"...Passengers said that before the flotilla set sail, Prime Minister Erdogan constructed a scenario based on a possible confrontation with Israel which he could use to further his own needs. The statements were supported by descriptions found in files on laptop computers belonging to the passengers.

6. That was supported by a statement from a journalist who had good connections with the heads of the Turkish government and with Bülent Yildirim, head of IHH. The following are statements from the journalist, who was a passenger on the Mavi Marmara:

A. Prime Minister Erdogan’s power base is built on IHH activists. Without their help he could not have been elected prime minister.

B. The Turkish government was behind the flotilla to the Gaza Strip and its objective was to embarrass Israel: “The Turks set a trap for you and you fell into it.”

C. The flotilla was organized with the support of the Turkish government and Prime Minister Erdogan gave the instructions for it to set sail. That was despite the fact that everyone knew it would never reach its destination.

D. The affair of the flotilla strengthened Erdogan’s status in Turkey and turned him into the leader of Islamic world.

E. Three additional flotillas are expected to sail for Israel and the modus operandi will repeat itself.

F. The journalist stated he had visited the Gaza Strip as part of a humanitarian delegation and his impression was that there was no distress or lack [of commodities] in the Gaza Strip. He added that “everything is propaganda.”
..." from: http://www.terrorism-info.org.il/malam_multimedia/English/eng_n/html/ham...

K2K adds nice to see TNR changed the accompanying photo of PM Netanyahu overnight.

wildboy: Fatah's PA President Abbas' term expired more than one year ago. PA PM Fayyad was appointed, not elected, and has no political base. Hamas used violence to rid Gaza's government of Fatah after elections.

Who exactly is ANY Israeli government supposed to be negotiating with?

"not even Israel’s American friends—will believe that Netanyahu seeks peace."

He does seek peace, but that is not all he wants. In the event Israel's enemies do not want the kind of peace allowing Israel to exist as a Jewish state (as part of 2 states for two peoples), then he has to get Israel in the best strategic position possible for the 100+ year conflict that persists.

Amidut: "And there is nothing sacred about the pre-1967 borders; they were/are armistice lines from 1948. The Arabs never agreed to any borders for Israel."

That's an interesting point. So when it is said that the Palestinians were offered 99% of the land back (or whatever percentage), where are they pulling those numbers from?

Jerryl has a good point. But the worst single thing about the West Bank settlements is that they render Israel's strategic posture for a long struggle with no war (or not too much war), no peace untenable. If Israel could manage to limit it's control over both the West Bank and Gaza to the minimum necessary for the security of Israel proper, including incorporated Jerusalem, while permitting and indeed encouraging the best possible life for the inhabitants, it would have a shot at out waiting the Arabs. As it is, the chance that the status quo can be maintained indefinitely, or even very much longer, in the face of growing world hostility is nil. An Israeli government with any brains would want to make the best acceptable deal it can now as Israel's bargaining position is eroding, not strengthening, all things considered. If the only immediate cost for entering into full, final negotiations were a complete suspension of construction east. Of the Green Line, the price is trivially cheap.

Good catch wkwami. There are certain objectively absurd formulaic arguments repeated endlessly by Israel's self-styled defenders endlessly even though they do nothing to enhance Israel's position. As that position erodes anyway, they blame anti-Semitism and call it a day. Problem solved. Except that it isn't.

Israel really needs a plan. Right now there is absolutely none

...06/09/2010 - 12:50pm EDT | roidubouloi ...

Sorry roidubouloi, I in substance agree with your post. In fact I don't understand rational arguments against it. The elusive key, however, is "...to limit it's (sic) control over both the West Bank and Gaza to the minimum necessary for the security of Israel proper..." I don't enough to judge what that functionally is, but whatever it is, it's not, on balance, building more settlements, as opposed to natural growth, which has its own issue. Israel needs to do everything it can consistent with its security interest to put the best face on its actions as a matter of responsible international perception. But what its security interest requires, and not messianic claims, is a prettty tough call involving multivalences over which reasonable people can disagree.

Sorry again for the typos. I have difficulty seeing what I have written.

Of course what would be necessary for security in the absence of settlements is far from a trivial question. But the settlements increase enormously both the demands of security and the visibility of the Israeli presence. It is possible that without the settlements and with active cooperation from Israel to encourage economic development, most Palestinian Arabs would have little day to day contact with or awareness of the military government to which they are subject.

K2K, they can offer a plan to Abbas and Fayyad -- after all, the lack of full democratic and diplomatic credentials has never before prevented Israel from negotiating with its neighbors such as, well, all of them. But in offering plans, Israel and its friends should keep two things in mind: first, that a plan must be offered to an Arab government that has broad popular legitimacy and the means to enforce its acceptance of a peace deal (or can reasonably acquire those things in short order once a peace deal is approved) and, second, that the Israeli government that offers such a peace plan can be expected to survive its acceptance and enforce its compliance by a successor government -- which, as you may know from following Israeli politics, can appear in rather short order. Given those criteria, the Abbas/Fayyad regime is as good a candidate to receive a peace plan as any post-Arafat Palestinian government, and the Netenyahu government is as good a candidate to offer a plan as any government since Olmert's before the Lebanon War.

"Amidut: "And there is nothing sacred about the pre-1967 borders; they were/are armistice lines from 1948. The Arabs never agreed to any borders for Israel."

That's an interesting point. So when it is said that the Palestinians were offered 99% of the land back (or whatever percentage), where are they pulling those numbers from?"

Cease-fire line vs. permanent border

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1949_Armistice_Agreements#Cease-fire_line_v...

Noga: Olmert presented a secret plan in a face to face meeting with Abbas. That is not the kind of plan I refer to. Since Palestinians will reject any plan put forward by Israel than why not to capitalize on it. Present a plan, publish it, distribute it to every media outlet, discuss it publicly, call Thom Friedman and let him look in a drawer, put it on the table and let the Arabs reject it. Why can't the Israeli gov. be like fox for a change?

What don't you understand about the 1967 borders Roi or wkwami? 98% refers to the borders held by Jordan on the West Bank on June 5th 1967. Is that so complicated?

"There are certain objectively absurd formulaic arguments repeated endlessly by Israel's self-styled defenders endlessly even though they do nothing to enhance Israel's position."

That's your opinion Roi. There are other just as valid although diametrically opposed:

לְמַעַן צִיּוֹן לֹא אֶחֱשֶׁה, וּלְמַעַן יְרוּשָׁלִַם לֹא אֶשְׁקוֹט, עַד-יֵצֵא כַנֹּגַהּ צִדְקָהּ, וִישׁוּעָתָהּ כְּלַפִּיד יִבְעָר

For Zion's sake will I not hold My peace, and for Jerusalem's sake I will not rest, until her triumph go forth as brightness, and her salvation as a torch that burneth.

Re the security issues - this is no small problem. Look at the topography, where the high ground is vs the greatest number of Israelis.

Also, security includes other issues besides space. Water and electronic warning systems are also an issue, so are ecological considerations and also the security of ports on the Red Sea and the Med.

Finally though there is the problem that Israel's nature as a Jewish state isn't recognized. The Saudi Peace Plan doesn't address this. Also, it does demand a complete withdrawal to the "Green Line," which would apparently entail real and deliberate ethnic cleansing as opposed to the accidental sort that occurs during war including 1948 (except for the Jordanian cleansing of the West Bank and "East Jerusalem."

Maybe Netanyahu's big mistake was quoting Winston Churchill at the UN, so disliked by President Obama that he returned the bronze bust of Churchill on indefinite loan from the British Government Art Collection. [Perhaps the Tate Gallery should now offer the loan of "The Remnants of An Army", 1879, by Lady Elizabeth Butler as a reply to Obama's current pressure on Great Britain for more troops in Afghanistan]

Best speech of 2009:
Thursday, September 24, 2009
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's speech at the UN General Assembly

"Mr. President, Ladies and Gentlemen,

Nearly 62 years ago, the United Nations recognized the right of the Jews, an ancient people 3,500 years-old, to a state of their own in their ancestral homeland.

I stand here today as the Prime Minister of Israel, the Jewish state, and I speak to you on behalf of my country and my people.

The United Nations was founded after the carnage of World War II and the horrors of the Holocaust. It was charged with preventing the recurrence of such horrendous events.

Nothing has undermined that central mission more than the systematic assault on the truth. Yesterday the President of Iran stood at this very podium, spewing his latest anti-Semitic rants. Just a few days earlier, he again claimed that the Holocaust is a lie.

Last month, I went to a villa in a suburb of Berlin called Wannsee. There, on January 20, 1942, after a hearty meal, senior Nazi officials met and decided how to exterminate the Jewish people. The detailed minutes of that meeting have been preserved by successive German governments. Here is a copy of those minutes, in which the Nazis issued precise instructions on how to carry out the extermination of the Jews. Is this a lie?

A day before I was in Wannsee, I was given in Berlin the original construction plans for the Auschwitz-Birkenau concentration camp. Those plans are signed by Hitler’s deputy, Heinrich Himmler himself. Here is a copy of the plans for Auschwitz-Birkenau, where one million Jews were murdered. Is this too a lie?

This June, President Obama visited the Buchenwald concentration camp. Did President Obama pay tribute to a lie?

And what of the Auschwitz survivors whose arms still bear the tattooed numbers branded on them by the Nazis? Are those tattoos a lie? One-third of all Jews perished in the conflagration. Nearly every Jewish family was affected, including my own. My wife's grandparents, her father’s two sisters and three brothers, and all the aunts, uncles and cousins were all murdered by the Nazis. Is that also a lie?

Yesterday, the man who calls the Holocaust a lie spoke from this podium. To those who refused to come here and to those who left this room in protest, I commend you. You stood up for moral clarity and you brought honor to your countries.

But to those who gave this Holocaust-denier a hearing, I say on behalf of my people, the Jewish people, and decent people everywhere: Have you no shame? Have you no decency?

A mere six decades after the Holocaust, you give legitimacy to a man who denies that the murder of six million Jews took place and pledges to wipe out the Jewish state.

What a disgrace! What a mockery of the charter of the United Nations! Perhaps some of you think that this man and his odious regime threaten only the Jews. You're wrong.

History has shown us time and again that what starts with attacks on the Jews eventually ends up engulfing many others.

This Iranian regime is fueled by an extreme fundamentalism that burst onto the world scene three decades ago after lying dormant for centuries. In the past thirty years, this fanaticism has swept the globe with a murderous violence and cold-blooded impartiality in its choice of victims. It has callously slaughtered Moslems and Christians, Jews and Hindus, and many others. Though it is comprised of different offshoots, the adherents of this unforgiving creed seek to return humanity to medieval times.

Wherever they can, they impose a backward regimented society where women, minorities, gays or anyone not deemed to be a true believer is brutally subjugated. The struggle against this fanaticism does not pit faith against faith nor civilization against civilization.

It pits civilization against barbarism, the 21st century against the 9th century, those who sanctify life against those who glorify death.

The primitivism of the 9th century ought to be no match for the progress of the 21st century. The allure of freedom, the power of technology, the reach of communications should surely win the day. Ultimately, the past cannot triumph over the future. And the future offers all nations magnificent bounties of hope. The pace of progress is growing exponentially.

It took us centuries to get from the printing press to the telephone, decades to get from the telephone to the personal computer, and only a few years to get from the personal computer to the internet.

What seemed impossible a few years ago is already outdated, and we can scarcely fathom the changes that are yet to come. We will crack the genetic code. We will cure the incurable. We will lengthen our lives. We will find a cheap alternative to fossil fuels and clean up the planet.

I am proud that my country Israel is at the forefront of these advances – by leading innovations in science and technology, medicine and biology, agriculture and water, energy and the environment. These innovations the world over offer humanity a sunlit future of unimagined promise.

But if the most primitive fanaticism can acquire the most deadly weapons, the march of history could be reversed for a time. And like the belated victory over the Nazis, the forces of progress and freedom will prevail only after an horrific toll of blood and fortune has been exacted from mankind. That is why the greatest threat facing the world today is the marriage between religious fanaticism and the weapons of mass destruction.

The most urgent challenge facing this body is to prevent the tyrants of Tehran from acquiring nuclear weapons. Are the member states of the United Nations up to that challenge? Will the international community confront a despotism that terrorizes its own people as they bravely stand up for freedom?

Will it take action against the dictators who stole an election in broad daylight and gunned down Iranian protesters who died in the streets choking in their own blood? Will the international community thwart the world's most pernicious sponsors and practitioners of terrorism?

Above all, will the international community stop the terrorist regime of Iran from developing atomic weapons, thereby endangering the peace of the entire world?

The people of Iran are courageously standing up to this regime. People of goodwill around the world stand with them, as do the thousands who have been protesting outside this hall. Will the United Nations stand by their side?

Ladies and Gentlemen,

The jury is still out on the United Nations, and recent signs are not encouraging. Rather than condemning the terrorists and their Iranian patrons, some here have condemned their victims. That is exactly what a recent UN report on Gaza did, falsely equating the terrorists with those they targeted.

For eight long years, Hamas fired from Gaza thousands of missiles, mortars and rockets on nearby Israeli cities. Year after year, as these missiles were deliberately hurled at our civilians, not a single UN resolution was passed condemning those criminal attacks. We heard nothing – absolutely nothing – from the UN Human Rights Council, a misnamed institution if there ever was one.

In 2005, hoping to advance peace, Israel unilaterally withdrew from every inch of Gaza. It dismantled 21 settlements and uprooted over 8,000 Israelis. We didn't get peace. Instead we got an Iranian backed terror base fifty miles from Tel Aviv. Life in Israeli towns and cities next to Gaza became a nightmare. You see, the Hamas rocket attacks not only continued, they increased tenfold. Again, the UN was silent.

Finally, after eight years of this unremitting assault, Israel was finally forced to respond. But how should we have responded? Well, there is only one example in history of thousands of rockets being fired on a country's civilian population. It happened when the Nazis rocketed British cities during World War II. During that war, the allies leveled German cities, causing hundreds of thousands of casualties. Israel chose to respond differently. Faced with an enemy committing a double war crime of firing on civilians while hiding behind civilians – Israel sought to conduct surgical strikes against the rocket launchers.

That was no easy task because the terrorists were firing missiles from homes and schools, using mosques as weapons depots and ferreting explosives in ambulances. Israel, by contrast, tried to minimize casualties by urging Palestinian civilians to vacate the targeted areas.

We dropped countless flyers over their homes, sent thousands of text messages and called thousands of cell phones asking people to leave. Never has a country gone to such extraordinary lengths to remove the enemy's civilian population from harm's way.

Yet faced with such a clear case of aggressor and victim, who did the UN Human Rights Council decide to condemn? Israel. A democracy legitimately defending itself against terror is morally hanged, drawn and quartered, and given an unfair trial to boot.

By these twisted standards, the UN Human Rights Council would have dragged Roosevelt and Churchill to the dock as war criminals. What a perversion of truth. What a perversion of justice.

Delegates of the United Nations,

Will you accept this farce?

Because if you do, the United Nations would revert to its darkest days, when the worst violators of human rights sat in judgment against the law-abiding democracies, when Zionism was equated with racism and when an automatic majority could declare that the earth is flat.

If this body does not reject this report, it would send a message to terrorists everywhere: Terror pays; if you launch your attacks from densely populated areas, you will win immunity. And in condemning Israel, this body would also deal a mortal blow to peace. Here's why.

When Israel left Gaza, many hoped that the missile attacks would stop. Others believed that at the very least, Israel would have international legitimacy to exercise its right of self-defense. What legitimacy? What self-defense?

The same UN that cheered Israel as it left Gaza and promised to back our right of self-defense now accuses us –my people, my country - of war crimes? And for what? For acting responsibly in self-defense. What a travesty!

Israel justly defended itself against terror. This biased and unjust report is a clear-cut test for all governments. Will you stand with Israel or will you stand with the terrorists?

We must know the answer to that question now. Now and not later. Because if Israel is again asked to take more risks for peace, we must know today that you will stand with us tomorrow. Only if we have the confidence that we can defend ourselves can we take further risks for peace.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

All of Israel wants peace.

Any time an Arab leader genuinely wanted peace with us, we made peace. We made peace with Egypt led by Anwar Sadat. We made peace with Jordan led by King Hussein. And if the Palestinians truly want peace, I and my government, and the people of Israel, will make peace. But we want a genuine peace, a defensible peace, a permanent peace. In 1947, this body voted to establish two states for two peoples – a Jewish state and an Arab state. The Jews accepted that resolution. The Arabs rejected it.

We ask the Palestinians to finally do what they have refused to do for 62 years: Say yes to a Jewish state. Just as we are asked to recognize a nation-state for the Palestinian people, the Palestinians must be asked to recognize the nation state of the Jewish people. The Jewish people are not foreign conquerors in the Land of Israel. This is the land of our forefathers.

Inscribed on the walls outside this building is the great Biblical vision of peace: "Nation shall not lift up sword against nation. They shall learn war no more." These words were spoken by the Jewish prophet Isaiah 2,800 years ago as he walked in my country, in my city, in the hills of Judea and in the streets of Jerusalem.

We are not strangers to this land. It is our homeland. As deeply connected as we are to this land, we recognize that the Palestinians also live there and want a home of their own. We want to live side by side with them, two free peoples living in peace, prosperity and dignity.

But we must have security. The Palestinians should have all the powers to govern themselves except those handful of powers that could endanger Israel.

That is why a Palestinian state must be effectively demilitarized. We don't want another Gaza, another Iranian backed terror base abutting Jerusalem and perched on the hills a few kilometers from Tel Aviv.

We want peace.

I believe such a peace can be achieved. But only if we roll back the forces of terror, led by Iran, that seek to destroy peace, eliminate Israel and overthrow the world order. The question facing the international community is whether it is prepared to confront those forces or accommodate them.

Over seventy years ago, Winston Churchill lamented what he called the "confirmed unteachability of mankind," the unfortunate habit of civilized societies to sleep until danger nearly overtakes them.

Churchill bemoaned what he called the "want of foresight, the unwillingness to act when action will be simple and effective, the lack of clear thinking, the confusion of counsel until emergency comes, until self-preservation strikes its jarring gong.”

I speak here today in the hope that Churchill's assessment of the "unteachibility of mankind" is for once proven wrong.

I speak here today in the hope that we can learn from history -- that we can prevent danger in time.

In the spirit of the timeless words spoken to Joshua over 3,000 years ago, let us be strong and of good courage. Let us confront this peril, secure our future and, God willing, forge an enduring peace for generations to come."

http://blogs.jta.org/politics/article/2009/09/24/1008134/netanyahus-un-g...

I understand perfectly well the legal status of the 1967 lines, makover. My point is the inconsistency of insisting on the one hand that those lines are meaningless because not borders and on the other hand making a big deal about the percentage of the land east of the Green Line that Israel is willing to give up -- with "compensation" acre-for-acre. Regardless of the legal status of those lines, clearly they have stature, stature acknowledged by Israel. That makes it rather pointless to keep harping on the legal status which makes the legal status of the Green Line (it even has a name) one of those "absurd formulaic arguments repeated endlessly" although quite disconnected from the reality of the situation: The 1949 armistice lines became de facto borders and everyone, including Israel, regards them this way.

I think Israel might have had a shot at moving the de facto border eastward, just as the portions of the Arab partition west of the armistice lines came to be considered part of Israel, had Israel not over-reached by settling non-contiguous areas, obliterating the very concept of a boundary between what Israel claimed and what it didn't claim. Since this state of affairs, created by Israel, necessitates some withdrawal, it becomes difficult to pick a logical stopping place for the withdrawal other than the Green Line itself. This is the price of strategic over-reach.

As well, at this late date, Israel wants the area it annexed, East Jerusalem and environs, to be regarded differently than rest of the West Bank. But since Israel maintained no such distinction, settling where it claimed and had incorporated and settling where it didn't claim and had not incorporated, it is rather too late in the day for that. Apart from the security and diplomatic problems they created, this is the third leg of the awful legacy of the profoundly misguided settlement policy -- leaving everything east of the Green Line up for grabs until the end.

Conceding Palestinian Arab sovereignty east of the Green Line does not necessarily mean ethnic cleansing as Sophia says. First, given that the settlements are illegal under all but the most implausible and tendentious readings of the Fourth Geneva Convention, removal of the settlements is arguably just rectifying a legal wrong. But, apart from the legalities, there is no fundamental reason why there should not be Jews living in Palestine, just as there are Arabs living in Israel. It might be healthy for Israelis to start thinking about this as I believe it is more likely than not to be the outcome unless Israel wants to close all the settlements. I think a final peace settlement will entail concession of Palestinian sovereignty in all of the land east of the Green Line, with some security arrangements along the Jordan and some exceptional provisions regarding Jerusalem. The Settlement Bloc will not be annexed to Israel.

Some time ago I suggested what I thought the end game was most likely to be -- abandonment of the non-contiguous settlements, concession of Palestinian sovereignty over the Settlement Bloc and all other unincorporated land east of the Green Line, Palestinian refugees equal to the numbers in the Settlement Bloc allowed to return to Israel, some annexation by Israel to the east of Jerusalem including parts of East Jerusalem itself, and a Palestinian enclave in part of East Jerusalem. Jerusalem would then be an open city as the functional Israeli-Palestinian border would lie to the east.

A smart barter would be to demand an Israeli enclave in Hebron. Then the two would be hostage to each other. If the arrangement were not respected, Israel would merely have to close its border and all of Jerusalem is then re-occupied. Similarly, the Settlement Bloc, although within Palestine, would be so close that, if Palestine did not respect the security arrangements and see to the safety of Jews in Palestine, it is trivial, militarily if not diplomatically, for Israel to re-occupy that area.

Makover says that I am only expressing my own opinions. Of course. What else should I be expressing? Is makover expressing someone else's opinions? And as to the equal validity of other opinions, the right to express them may be equally valid, but not all opinions are created equal. Some are more clear-sighted than others. Makover has his opinions about which opinions should be given credit. I have mine. Everyone else has theirs. And the sun rises in the east, too.

K2K, reading that speech it kind of struck me that Netanyahu used similar language that Obama did when talking about the founding of the state of Israel, and Marty went nuts. In fact, Netanyahu mentioned virtually nothing about the ancient heritage of Jews living there beyond a few lines about writing on a wall, he simply made reference to the fact that the UN recognized Israel and then he went into a lengthy discourse about the holocaust. I am not criticizing what Netanyahu said, just that I don't recall any outrage about this speech. Should he have mentioned what Jews, Christians, and Moslems believe, that the land of Israel was the promised land that Jews went to after they left Egypt? Maybe, I don't know. The UN is supposed to be secular after all, but reminding Moslems that according to their own beliefs this land was promised to jews by (supposedly) God couldn't hurt.

I am shocked, shocked, that anyone could accuse Martin Peretz of hypocrisy. Blackton must be an anti-Semite. He has finally revealed himself, as it is the only rational explanation for these appalling charges. K2K will now vote blackton off the island and that will be that.

Off topic but on point:

By Barry Rubin today from his blog:

....President Barack Obama has announced an additional $400 million in aid for housing, school construction and business development in Gaza and West Bank in his meeting with Palestinian Authority leader Mahmoud Abbas. Calling the status quo in Gaza unsustainable, Obama said he was talking with Europeans, Egypt, Israel, and the PA on how to have a better approach that takes into account the security concerns of Israel and the needs of people in Gaza.

He also urged the need to rush ahead on a peace process which has no chance of success, calling this situation, too, unsustainable. It is in fact Obama's policy which is unsustainable.

Obama said, "As part of the United Nations Security Council, we were very clear in condemning the acts that led to this crisis and have called for a full investigation." What does this mean? Which acts? The acts of provocation and attacks on Israeli soldiers or is he blaming Israel? Who knows? The president of the United States is not supposed to be inscrutable.

Moreover, the president of the United States shouldn't hide behind the UN. What is his policy? Where is the leadership?

And then he repeated something he has done before--claimed that Israelis backed his policy-- which is blatantly untrue as polls show. ""What we also know is that the situation in Gaza is unsustainable. I think increasingly you're seeing debates within Israel, recognizing the problems with the status quo." The truth is that Obama understands nothing about Israel. He should leave the choice of Israel's government to its people and the setting of policies to its government.

Aside from all this, Obama displays no strategic sense. He should make clear that the United States does not want an Iranian client, a revolutionary jihadists Taliban-like regime on the Mediterranean Sea. It should be the goal of U.S. policy to avoid this. Instead he deals with this as a “humanitarian” issue and makes no effort to get across what should be the main point.

And so Obama said:

"We agree that Israelis have the right to prevent arms from entering into Gaza that can be used to launch attacks into Israeli territory. But we also think that it is important for us to explore new mechanisms so that we can have goods and services, and economic development, and the ability of people to start their own businesses, and to grow the economy and provide opportunity within Gaza."

He and his advisors have no comprehension of what makes Hamas and its leaders tick. So he wants a prosperous Gaza Strip under Hamas leadership? Money will be pouring in, jobs will be created. Of course, only until Hamas decides to start the next war. What does he envision is going to happen under his strategy? That the lean and hungry leaders of Hamas will sell out to the infidels and open a chain of fast-food restaurants?

Nor does he have the slightest clue about Palestinian politics. Just as he misstates Israeli thinking, Obama has no conception that Fatah is full of radicals and is in competition with Hamas to prove itself more militant. He keeps repeating the idea that the Palestinians are suffering so much that they are eager for a deal, the same error made--with more justification to be sure--by the Clinton Administration in 2000. And as long as the Palestinian Authority has no control over almost half the people it purports to rule, and Hamas uses its power to sabotage any agreement or stability, how could there possibly be progress on peace?

Remember the U.S. policy up until now has been to help the Palestinian Authority to become more stable and prosperous so that Gazans would contrast their situation with it and say, "Moderation is certainly better than extremism!" Now they and many others will say, "Extremism is certainly better than moderation! You still get Western support, they protect you from being overthrown, and you don't have to moderte or sell out at all!"

Who's really making the Middle East unsustainable? Barack Obama is with a policy of weaken your friends and help your enemies get stronger.

Note that Obama did not mention the conditions for easing the blockade--that Hamas abandon terrorism and accept Israel's existence--nor did he say that anything the Palestinian Authority or Hamas is doing is "unsustainable." Only Western and Israeli policy are said to be unsustainable. In effect, Obama is saying that the policies of Hamas, Iran, Hizballah, and Syria, among others, are infinitely sustainable, especially because of his reluctance to do things to make them unsustainable.

And thus in Middle East terms, he's saying: Your intransigence has won. We couldn't move you so our policy has failed. We must give in.

Let's be clear here. The assessment in this article is a harsh one but the policy of this administration is a disastrous one. To condemn it has nothing to do with party or ideology. Unfortuntely, though, this administration has taken leave of any sense of national interests' policy, has substituted Feelgoodpolitik for Realpolitik.

Obama may honestly believe that pumping money into specific projects in Gaza like houses, schools, and businesses is not a subsidy for Hamas. But of course that is what it will be. Anyone should be able to understand this:

--Schools. That means classrooms were Hamas can indoctrinate children into thinking that they should grow up to be terrorists, Israel must be wiped off the map, peace with Israel is unacceptable, the Jews must be murdered, America is evil and its influence should be driven out of the region, and all existing Arab states except for Syria should be overthrown.

If I was a cartoonist I'd draw a picture of a classroom. On the wall is a plaque saying: Paid for by the American people. The teacher is telling the kiddies: "And so you must all grow up to be holy warriors and wipe out the Zionist pigs and imperialist dogs." That is no exaggeration.

----Construction. Yes it would be nice if Gazans had jobs and nicer places to live. But no body in a Palestinian refugee camp (except perhaps if they bribe someone) will get a new apartment since they must continue to suffer until they can presumably return in triumph to take over housing recently vacated by murdered Israelis. Apartments will be given first by the Hamas government to its supporters and thus used to recruit people and bind them to the movement. Some of the concrete and other equipment will be siphoned off for building bunkers or rockets to fire at Israel.

If I were a cartoonist I'd draw a picture of an apartment building with a sign saying, "Gift of the American people" in front of it and with a Hamas official saying to a man: "And if you become a suicide bomber you not only get to go to heaven but your family will receive a two-bedroom apartment with a nice view of the beach." That, too, is no exaggeration.

Remember the United States has no one on the ground in the Gaza Strip to supervise these projects and prevent Hamas from stealing money, materials, and products. I'd prefer all the money be given for aid to the West Bank than have any funds go to the Gaza Strip.

And what happens when Hamas attacks Israel again? I can see the media coverage now, complaining that Israel is damaging all those beautiful U.S.-financed buildings, which are being used as rocket-launching sites and bunkers by Hamas.

Can’t the U.S. government figure this stuff out for itself? The president is not the head of a foundation providing grants to community organizers. So the money will be taken by Hamas and other Islamists as “blood money” to pay compensation for the blockade or as tribute from a frightened America. It will win no friends and do no good strategically or politically.

Here's the bottom line:

The president of the United States has just announced that his country must give in to the defiance of a dictatorship with about 1.2 million people. The chief executive of the greatest power in the world (even if he doesn't think that's true) is changing his policy because a few dozen radical Islamists picked up iron bars, hit Israeli soldiers, and forced a confrontation. How do you think that lesson will be absorbed by others in the world, especiallyAmerica's enemies, and what do you think that will motivate them to do?

And so now President Obama is going to subsidize and stabilize a genocidal-intentioned, antisemitic, terrorist regime allied to Iran for no material gain to U.S. interests...

blackton, what I loved about Netanyahu's speech was the context that, since he was following MahmoudA, BiBi used the Holocaust as a pivot to focussing on Iran, and then included a nice summary of Israel's quest for peace. I was not reading Peretz at the time. I do recall Obama's address to the UN that week was uninspired and forgettable.

basman: is Barry Rubin referring to Obama's joint press statement with Abbas? On one point, I read that most of that $400MIL was already appropriated, and none of it will go directly to Hamas.

basman, Obama (with Abbas) on Wednesday, from the transcript: "...Obviously you've got organizations like Hamas that have not recognized Israel, have not renounced violence, who are calling for a different approach. ..."

read the whole transcript:THE WHITE HOUSE Office of the Press Secretary For Immediate Release June 9, 2010 11:58 A.M. EDT
REMARKS BY PRESIDENT OBAMA AND PRESIDENT ABBAS OF THE PALESTINIAN AUTHORITY AFTER MEETING Oval Office
http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2010/06/obama_palestinian_authority_pr.html

Basman prefers ineffectual moralism to effective policy. See above.

We "subsidize" dictatorships all over the place. The question in policy is what achieves the outcome we need, not how nice are the people we are dealing with.

The point about subsdizing unlovely regimes for pragmatic ends in America's interest--like the cold war struggle for the soul of reprehensible regimes-- is a fair and well taken, but the point being argued by Rubin, as I read him, is that the aid will "achieve" negative outcomes both for the Gazans and for American interests. The brunt of Rubin's analysis is a concrete argument for that and not moralism, ineffuctual or otherwise.

I just reglanced at Rubin. I'd be more careful than him to distinguish between what part of the money is going to the West Bank, which I'd think generally and subject to specifics is good policy, and which part is going to Gaza, which seems generally and subject to specifics not such good policy.

Other than huffing and puffing and expressing his outrage at how awful it is, Rubin gives no concrete explanation of how continuing to prevent the Gazans from developing a functioning domestic economy is going to lead to either the ouster or pacification of Hamas. However, people who enjoy a decent domestic standard of living are much less likely to support military adventures that result in losing it. In addition, there is exactly zero evidence that the blockade has weakened Hamas's hold on Gaza. To the contrary, it is not Hamas that is blamed by the Gazans, but Israel and the west. We and Israel actually enable Hamas to maintain its grip by providing an external enemy for Hamas to exploit to direct attention away from its oppression and failure at governance. Not smart, just satisfying for the smug and self-righteous. In any case, it should be of no great importance to Israel or the US that Hamas is oppressive so long as it is denied weapons. The Arab world is replete with repressive regimes, including our "good friends," the Saudis, whose support for Wahabism is responsible for a large part of Arab terrorism and the Egyptians to whom we provide billions.

This is a typical example of conservative thinking -- the preference for moralizing, and the insistence that our leaders engage in moralizing, rather than thinking through just how A will lead to B will lead to C, or not, and building policy on that basis.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/11/world/middleeast/11gaza.html?hp

Pressed to End Gaza Embargo, Israel Looks for New Policy
By ETHAN BRONNER
A consensus is emerging among some world powers and Israeli officials that the attempt to weaken Hamas has failed.

________________

This explains why Rubin wants to continue doing the same thing. Nothing attracts neo-cons to defend a conservative policy like its abject failure. If tax cuts are ruining your economy, just do more. If blockade is empowering your enemies, keep it up. One wonders how people so deeply lost in magical thinking manage to get dressed in the morning.

The assumption, stated but not demonstrated, in your post is that American aid to Gaza will get to the Gazans, and getting there may help effect political and social transformation. But Rubin paraphrases and parodies Obama’s thinking here: “So he wants a prosperous Gaza Strip under Hamas leadership? Money will be pouring in, jobs will be created.” What warrants this assumption? Why not, as Rubin ridicules Obama: “Of course, only until Hamas decides to start the next war. What does he envision is going to happen under his strategy? That the lean and hungry leaders of Hamas will sell out to the infidels and open a chain of fast-food restaurants?”

As long as Hamas, fresh from ransacking the offices of NGOs in Gaza, is ideologically and fanatically bound to destroy Israel, different arguably than the Palestinian constituency led by Abbas and Fayed, where beckons a better life leading to Israeli Palestinian amelioration? I can’t see it. I agree that there is no evidence that the blockade has weakened Hamas’s hold on Gaza, but I don’t see how it follows, necessarily or just prudentially, from that that mollification is any answer.

Plus your argument skewers the essential purpose of the blockade: to prevent the inflow of war material to Hamas. If part of the thinking of the blockade—and I understand it is—is to punish the Gazans to try to separate them from Hamas, these different purposes must e borne in mind for clear thinking. Ratcheting down the sheer punitiveness of the blockade is a point entirely separate from maintaining it as a matter of military necessity. So, finally, is the issue here is not a matter of labeling policy makers smug or self righteous but trying to understand concretely what might work.

As long, again, as a fanatical regime is bent on destruction and is at war with Israel, as opposed to, arguably, more pragmatic Fatah leaders trying to effect practical change by building up infrastructure and the constituents of statehood, then policy must be geared to that. The differences in Israel’s approach to the West Bank and its approach to Gaza are precisely a function of whom and what she is dealing with. I wouldn’t assume Israel’s leaders aren't thinking though what confronts them in Gaza, even if their conclusions are different from yours.

I didn't say this clearly enough: I can see arguments for easing the blockade by lessening or getting rid of any aspect of it that isn't driven by military necessity. I can see no argument for getting rid of the blockade in toto.

There is no question that the blockade of arms and materials with military uses must be continued so long as Hamas is a belligerent. I don't think that is Rubin's point, however.

The purpose of allowing commerce in Gaza apart from military materials is to undermine support for Hamas military adventurism, to give the Gazans more to lose from violence, and to drain the oxygen from the forces trying to isolate Israel in the world. It is not to mollify Hamas. Hamas will not be mollified, but it may be neutered. The morality and legality of blockading a belligerent such as Hamas is also quite beside the point. The question is whether the blockade, to the extent it goes beyond military materials, advances Israel's security and diplomacy. I think the answer is clearly no. And I don't mind a bit ignoring the oppression that Hamas visits on the Gazans if it is in Israel's interest to do so. That problem is for the Gazans to solve.

forgot to post this here: "What About Hamas's Siege of Gaza?"
by Khaled Abu Toameh
June 8, 2010 at 5:00 am

www hudson-ny.org/1362/hamas-siege-of-gaza

As Israeli naval commandos raided the flotilla ship convoy that was on its way to the Gaza Strip, Hamas security officers stormed the offices of five non-governmental organizations, confiscated equipment and documents, and ordered them closed indefinitely.

Ever since it seized control over the Gaza Strip in the summer of 2007, Hamas has imposed a reign of terror on the local population in general and its critics in particular. Hamas has brought nothing to the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip other than death and disaster.

The raid on the NGOs in the Gaza Strip, which received little coverage in the media, is seen by many Palestinians as part of Hamas's ongoing crackdown on political opponents and human rights organizations.

Further, Hamas's recent decision to ban municipal elections in the Gaza Strip is yet another violation of one of the basic rights of its constituents.

Hundreds of Palestinians have been arrested by Hamas's security forces for daring to speak out against the state of tyranny and intimidation in the Gaza Strip. Over the past three years, dozens of Fatah officials and members have either been thrown into prison or killed.

Under Hamas, the Gaza Strip is being transformed into a fundamentalist Islamic entity resembling the regimes of the Ayatollahs in Iran and the Taliban in Afghanistan.

While there is no ignoring the fact that Hamas originally came to power in a free and democratic election in January 2006, this does not give the movement the right to impose a social, intellectual, political and economic blockade on the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip.

Instead of searching for ways to improve the living conditions of the 1.5 million Palestinians of the Gaza Strip, Hamas is busy enforcing strict Islamic rules on the population, such as Hamas policemen, for example, often stopping men and women who are seen together in public to inquire about the nature of their relationship.

Since the kidnapping of IDF soldier Gilad Schalit in 2006, more than 3,500 Palestinians have been killed, many of them during Operation Cast Lead which followed the firing of rockets at Israel.

The kidnapping of Schalit and the rocket attacks have made the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip pay a very heavy price.

If Hamas were really serious about ending the blockade on the Gaza Strip and helping the poor people living there, it would have accepted at least shown some pragmatism in dealing with the outside world.

Hamas could have, for instance, accepted the international community's demand to renounce terrorism and honor all previous agreements signed between the Palestinians and Israel. Moreover, it could have allowed representatives of the International Committee of the Red Cross to visit Schalit.

Hamas, however, is more interested in clinging to power than in serving its people; and in light of increased calls for lifting the blockade following the flotilla incident at sea, the movement's leaders in Syria and the Gaza Strip are now convinced that they are marching in the right direction.

The flotilla incident came at a time when Hamas appeared to be losing its popularity among Palestinians, largely due to the deteriorating economic situation in the Gaza Strip. It also came at a time when even some of Hamas's supporters were beginning to criticize the movement, especially over its decision to demolish scores of "illegal" houses in the southern Gaza Strip and the execution of criminals and "collaborators" with Israel.

It is one thing to help the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip, but it is another thing to help Hamas. Those who wish to deliver aid to the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip can always find better and safer ways to do so - either through Israel or Egypt. But those who only seek confrontation with Israel in the sea are only emboldening Hamas and helping it tighten its grip on the people of Gaza Strip."