Displaying posts categorized under

ISRAEL

The War on Israel Never Ends Settlements aren’t the issue. Many of the Jewish state’s enemies don’t even believe in its right to exist. By Douglas J. Feith

Last week’s United Nations Security Council resolution on Israel is a weapon of war pretending to be a plea for peace. Israel’s enemies say it has no right to exist. They claim the whole state was built on Arab land and it’s an injustice for Jews to exercise sovereignty there. Palestinians still widely promote this untruth in their official television and newspapers, whether from the PLO-controlled West Bank or Hamas-controlled Gaza. That is the unmistakable subtext of Friday’s U.N. Resolution 2334, despite the lip service paid to peace and the “two-state solution.”

The resolution describes Israel’s West Bank towns and East Jerusalem neighborhoods as settlements that are a “major obstacle” to peace. But there was a life-or-death Arab-Israeli conflict before those areas were built, and before Israel acquired the West Bank in the 1967 war.

Arab opposition to Israel’s existence predated—indeed caused—that war. It even predated Israel’s birth in 1948, which is why the 1948-49 war occurred. Before World War I, when Britain ended the Turks’ 400-year ownership of Palestine, Arab anti-Zionists denied the right of Jews to a state anywhere in Palestine.

Officials of Egypt (in 1979) and Jordan (in 1994) signed peace treaties with Israel, but anti-Zionist hostility remains strong. The Palestinian Authority signed the Oslo Accords in 1993 but continues to exhort its children in summer camps and schools to liberate all of Palestine through violence.

Arab efforts to damage Israel have been persistent and various, including conventional war, boycotts, diplomatic isolation, terrorism, lower-intensity violence such as rock-throwing, and missile and rocket attacks. Israel’s defensive successes, however, have constrained Palestinian leaders to rely now chiefly on ideological war to de-legitimate the Jewish State.

Highlighting the “occupied territories”—in U.N. resolutions, for example—implies moderation. It suggests an interest only in the lands Israel won in 1967. But the relatively “moderate” Palestinian Authority, in its official daily newspaper, Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, continually refers to Israeli cities as “occupied Haifa” or “occupied Jaffa,” for example. In other words, even pre-1967 Israel is “occupied territory” and all Israeli towns are “settlements.”

When David Ben-Gurion declared Israel’s independence in 1948, he invoked the “historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine,” as recognized in the Palestine Mandate approved in 1922 by the League of Nations. That connection applied to what’s now called the West Bank as it did to the rest of Palestine. Because no nation has exercised generally recognized sovereignty over the West Bank since the Turkish era, the mandate supports the legality of Jewish settlement there. That’s why attacking the settlements’ legality—as opposed to questioning whether they’re prudent—is so insidious. Arguing that it is illegal for Jews to live in the West Bank is tantamount to rejecting Israel’s right to have come into existence.

Friday’s U.N. resolution is full of illogic and anti-Israel hostility. It says disputed issues should be “agreed by the parties through negotiations.” Among the key open issues is who should control the West Bank and East Jerusalem. Yet the resolution calls these areas “Palestinian territory.” So much for negotiations.

Kerry’s Rage Against Israel The Secretary doesn’t understand why his peace talks failed.

John Kerry delivered a marathon speech Wednesday excoriating Israel for its settlements policy, and we hear Israeli TV stations dropped the live broadcast after the first half-hour. Who can blame them? If Israelis don’t feel the need to sit through another verbal assault from the soon to be former Secretary of State, it’s because they live in a reality he shows no evidence of comprehending.

Mr. Kerry has made the pursuit of Israeli-Palestinian peace a major goal of his tenure, conducting intensive negotiations for nearly a year until they collapsed in spring 2014. That collapse came after the Palestinian Authority announced the creation of a unity government with Hamas, the terrorist group sworn to Israel’s destruction. Shortly thereafter, Hamas started a war with Israel from its Gaza stronghold, the third such war since Israel vacated Gaza of all settlements in 2005.

We recite this history to show that it’s not for lack of U.S. diplomacy that there is no peace—and that mishandled diplomacy has a way of encouraging Palestinian violence. In 2000 then-President Bill Clinton brought Israeli and Palestinian leaders to Camp David to negotiate a final peace agreement, only to watch Palestinians walk away from an offer that would have granted them a state on nearly all of Gaza and the West Bank. That failure was followed by another Palestinian terror campaign.

Israelis remember this. They remember that they elected leaders—Yitzhak Rabin in 1992, Ehud Barak in 1999, Ehud Olmert in 2006—who made repeated peace overtures to the Palestinians only to be met with violence and rejection.

In his speech, Mr. Kerry went out of his way to personalize his differences with current Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, claiming he leads the “most right-wing” coalition in Israeli history. But Israelis also remember that Mr. Netanyahu ordered a settlement freeze, and that also brought peace no closer.

The lesson is that Jewish settlements are not the main obstacle to peace. If they were, Gaza would be on its way to becoming the Costa Rica of the Mediterranean. The obstacle is Palestinian rejection of Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state in any borders. A Secretary of State who wishes to resolve the conflict could have started from that premise, while admonishing the Palestinians that they will never get a state so long as its primary purpose is the destruction of its neighbor.

But that Secretary isn’t Mr. Kerry. Though he made passing references to Palestinian terror and incitement, the most he would say against it was that it “must stop.” If the Administration has last-minute plans to back this hollow exhortation with a diplomatic effort at the U.N., we haven’t heard about it.

Contrast this with last week’s Security Council resolution, which the Obama Administration refused to veto and which substantively changes diplomatic understandings stretching to 1967. Mr. Kerry claimed Wednesday that Resolution 2334 “does not break new ground.”

UN, Obama Further Radicalize Palestinians by Khaled Abu Toameh

Last week’s UN Security Council resolution sent the following message to the Palestinians: Forget about negotiating. Just pressure the international community to force Israel surrender up all that you demand.

Abbas and his cronies are more belligerent and defiant than ever. They have chosen the path of confrontation, and not direct negotiations — to force Israel to its knees.

One of Abbas’s close associates hinted that the resolution should be regarded as a green light not only to boycott Israel, but also to use violence against it, to “bolster the popular resistance” against Israel — code for throwing stones and firebombs, and carrying out stabbing and car-ramming attacks against Israelis.

The resolution has also encouraged the Palestinians to pursue their narrative that Jews have no historical, religious or emotional attachment to Jerusalem or any other part of Israel.

The Gaza-based Hamas and Islamic Jihad see the resolution as another step toward their goal of replacing Israel with an Islamic empire. When Hamas talks about “resistance,” it means suicide bombings and rockets against Israel — it does not believe in “light” terrorism such as stones and stabbings.

The UN’s highly touted “victory,” is a purely Pyrrhic one, in fact a true defeat to the peace process and to the few Arabs and Muslims who still believe in the possibility of coexistence with Israel.

Buoyed by the latest United Nations Security Council resolution condemning Israeli settlements as illegal, Palestinian leaders are now threatening to step up their diplomatic warfare against Israel — a move that is sure to sabotage any future effort to revive the moribund peace process. Other Palestinians, meanwhile, view the resolution as license to escalate “resistance” attacks on Israel. By “resistance,” of course, they mean terror attacks against Israel.

Obama discards his court Jews: Richard Baehr

When U.S. President Barack Obama announced his candidacy for president in 2007, he was just two years removed from having served as an undistinguished backbencher in the Illinois State Senate. Some people committed to the U.S.-Israel relationship took the time to explore Obama’s background in Illinois, and found a significant number of troubling things. One of the explorers was Ed Lasky in the American Thinker. Lasky’s article on Obama and Israel was widely (though quietly) circulated by the Hillary Clinton campaign in her ultimately unsuccessful effort against Obama to win the Democratic nomination in 2008. Clinton believed that policy toward Israel was a major differentiating factor between herself and Obama, and in the primaries, Clinton won more votes than Obama among Jewish Democrats.

Another writer who came to explore Obama’s history on Israel and the Palestinians was Stanley Kurtz, who arguedtwo years into Obama’s first term that Obama was indeed a man of the hard Left, particularly when it came to the Middle East struggle. It did not take a lot of digging to discover that Obama’s mentors on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict included the likes of Rashid Khalidi, Edward Said, radical activist Bill Ayers, his minister Reverend Jeremiah Wright and Electronic Intifada founder Ali Abunimah. In perhaps the most meaningful article on the subject, and one that was almost entirely ignored by the national media, Abunimah argued in “How Barack Obama Learned to Love Israel” that the once Palestinian-friendly Obama had tacked toward Israel so as to look like more of a mainstream candidate and help get himself elected as senator and then president (and to collect lots of campaign cash from pro-Israel liberal Jews for his election contests). To get some idea of how radical Obama’s long-time friend Abunimah is on the subject of Israel, he opposed the U.N. Security Council resolution passed on Friday for not being harsh enough in targeting Israel (no sanctions) and for condemning violence committed by those who are only exercising resistance against occupation.

In both of his races for president in 2008 and 2012, Obama won a large majority of the Jewish vote according to exit polls, though some Jewish voters seemed to have wised up, noticing during Obama’s first term that the president was a lot less than advertised in terms of support for the Jewish state. Among Jews, the gap between support for Obama and for his Republican opponent dropped from 56 to 39 percentage points.

On Friday, while vacationing in Hawaii, Obama observed his normal pattern of not being around to face the music when something controversial occurs, ordering his U.N. Ambassador Samantha Power to abstain on U.N. Security Council Resolution 2334, which targeted all Israeli activity, settlements and otherwise, beyond the 1949 armistice line, as a violation of international law. The measure also called for the nations of the world to take account of the dividing line, meaning of course that boycotts of Israeli products produced on the wrong side of the line, or by companies that produced products on both sides, were in order. Jews now living in the Jewish Quarter of Jerusalem, where they have lived nearly continuously for the last 3,000 years, are apparently illegal settlers in the eyes of the United Nations and Barack Obama.

John Kerry to Give Speech Wednesday on Middle East Peace Process Speech expected to lay out administration’s vision for resolving conflict between Israel, Palestinians By Felicia Schwartz

WASHINGTON—Secretary of State John Kerry will give a speech Wednesday laying out the Obama administration’s vision for resolving the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians, State Department spokesman Mark Toner said.

Mr. Kerry’s speech comes nearly a week after the Obama administration allowed the passage of a United Nations resolution harshly criticizing Israel’s expansion of Jewish settlements in the Palestinian territories, a move that inflamed tensions between the longtime allies. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu summoned the U.S. ambassador to Israel over the weekend to lodge a formal complaint.

Mr. Toner said Tuesday that Mr. Kerry would touch on the United Nations resolution, but that he would more broadly address a path forward toward peace. Frank Lowenstein, the State Department’s special envoy for Israeli-Palestinian negotiations, told reporters Friday that Mr. Kerry’s talk would be informed by his experience trying to broker peace between the Israelis and Palestinians while serving as the U.S.’s top diplomat.

“The secretary has obviously put a great deal of time and effort over the course of the last four years to negotiations between the Israelis and the Palestinians…not only with the parties but also with key players in the region and other stakeholders around the world,” Mr. Lowenstein said. “Out of that, I think he’s got some ideas about where we go from here.”

Trump Could Be Even More Wrong on Israel Rejecting a two-state solution would be worse than Obama’s U.N. abstention. By William A. Galston see note please

But Mr. Galston was also outraged when Netanayhu addressed the U. S. Congress in 2015…
Netanyahu’s Capitol Hill Debacle The Israeli leader and House speaker are risking a rupture in U.S.-Israel relations.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/william-a-galston-netanyahus-capitol-hill-debacle-1424218804
Netanyahu’s Forceful but Misguided Address His logic should lead him to urge an Iranian regime change, but he knows that won’t sell in the U.S.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/william-a-galston-netanyahus-forceful-but-misguided-address-1425427204

As children we are taught that two wrongs don’t make a right. And when we grow up, we learn that this maxim harbors a deep, sad truth—nowhere more so than in the Middle East.

The Obama administration’s decision to abstain on U.N. Security Council resolution 2334, which condemns Israel for its settlements on the West Bank and east Jerusalem, was a mistake. Understandable, perhaps, but still a mistake. It has given false hope to Israel’s adversaries while uniting Israelis across the political spectrum against an institution they see as one-sided and hypocritical.

The resolution makes no discernible contribution to the cause of peace in the Middle East. Most Israelis regard it as the final act of an expiring administration, not a long-term change in U.S. policy.

The recent resolution is most accurately understood as a continuation of past Security Council and U.S. policy in the region. As my Brookings colleague Natan Sachs points out, by abstaining in 1987, the Reagan administration allowed the passage of the Security Council’s Resolution 605, which included “Jerusalem” in the “Palestinian and Arab Territories, occupied by Israel since 1967.”

When it comes to the Middle East, it is Donald Trump who represents a breach with the past, not Barack Obama. blah,blah, blah….

Obama’s Barbaric UN Resolution Report: he’s cooking up another one. P. David Hornik

UN Security Council Resolution 2334, which was passed on Friday and focuses on Israeli settlement activity, is even worse than its critics—who include Democratic lawmakers and the staunchly left-wing Central Conference of American (Reform) Rabbis (here and here)—have made it out to be.

The resolution—whose passage was made possible by the U.S. abstention ordered by President Obama from Hawaii—is not just shameful, unfair, unbalanced, or destructive. It’s barbaric.

Only in one clause—which is in the preamble, which has less force than the body of the text—does the resolution explicitly call on Palestinians to do anything. The preamble calls on “the Palestinian Authority Security Forces to maintain effective operations aimed at confronting all those engaged in terror and dismantling terrorist capabilities.”

In contrast, five full clauses in the body of the text portray Israel as a rogue state engaged in endemic criminality.

These clauses call “the establishment by Israel of settlements in the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem…a flagrant violation under international law” and demand “that Israel immediately and completely cease all settlement activities in the occupied Palestinian territory, including East Jerusalem.”

But if even “East Jerusalem” is off limits to Israeli Jews, then—as pointed out by Alan Dershowitz, who was for years a center-left supporter of Obama:

Under this resolution, the access roads that opened up Hebrew University to Jewish and Arab students and the Hadassah Hospital to Jewish and Arab patients are illegal, as are all the rebuilt synagogues—destroyed by Jordan—in the ancient Jewish Quarter of the Old City.

And even as the diplomatic Chanukah greetings keep rolling in, “illegal,” too, are the Chanukah candle-lighting ceremonies at the Western Wall—another “East Jerusalem” site that Israel has extensively refurbished.

UN Resolution 242: The Linchpin of Israel’s Security By Shoshana Bryen

The 1948 restoration of Jewish sovereignty to parts of the historic Jewish homeland, under the auspices of the United Nations, was not accepted by Israel’s Arab neighbors who launched the first of several wars against it. The 1948-49 war resulted in the illegal occupation of the West Bank and Gaza by Jordan and Egypt, respectively. Jordan also illegally grabbed the eastern side of Jerusalem from UN control and

laid siege to Jewish residents, eventually driving them out,
destroyed or desecrated as much evidence of Jewish patrimony as possible, and
forbade Jews to come and pray at their holiest site and bury their dead.

Then, in a monstrously stupid decision, the King of Jordan shelled Israel from Jerusalem in 1967 on the fourth day of a Six-day War. Israel’s defense left it in control of the illegally occupied territories, including eastern Jerusalem. Recognizing that the root of the “Arab-Israel conflict” was not where Jews lived, but that they had sovereign rights to a Jewish homeland, and that Israel should not be forced to concede territory as it had in Sinai in 1956 without concrete security, the UN Security Council passed Resolution 242.

Last week’s passage of UN Security Council Resolution 2334 erases the guarantees of UNSCR 242.

Rather than requiring Arab recognition of the legitimacy and permanence of the State of Israel, this newest resolution expresses “grave concern that continuing Israeli settlement activities are dangerously imperiling the viability of the two-State solution based on the 1967 lines.” The Arabs and Palestinians are off the hook for decades of rejecting Israel peace, but the problem has been reduced to Jews building houses where the Arabs don’t want them.

Fury at the Obama administration’s betrayal of America’s ally Israel is fully warranted as is disgust with politically impotent countries such as Senegal, Malaysia, Venezuela, and New Zealand looking for relevance. But more important than venting would be a review of text of UNSCR 242 – the resolution most closely tied to the time and actual events of 1947, 1948, and 1967.

Facing Conservatives, Israel’s Leader Takes Harder Stance on Settlements Lawmakers led by Prime Minister Netanyahu’s rival have called for an end to the notion of a two-state solution By Rory Jones

TEL AVIV—Israel’s settlement-building in disputed areas is accompanied by an edging away from support for a Palestinian state, thanks partly to domestic political rivalries—a trend that helped spur a United Nations condemnation of the country but also could limit the impact of that censure.

Conservative lawmakers, led by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s rival, Naftali Bennett, and emboldened by the election of Donald Trump, have in recent weeks called for the annexation of most of the West Bank and an end to the notion of a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The pro-settlement Jewish Home party, led by Mr. Bennett, has also proposed legalizing dozens of currently outlawed settlements in the West Bank.

In response, Mr. Netanyahu has shifted to a more hardline stance on the issue, hinting he could move away from his long-standing support for the two-state solution when Mr. Trump takes office next month. He has also spoken in recent weeks about his government’s “love for settlement.”

That rhetoric was a key reason the Obama administration abstained from the vote Friday in the U.N. Security Council, which allowed a censure of Israeli settlements to pass for the first time in 36 years, according to U.S. envoy to the U.N. Samantha Power.

“The Israeli prime minister recently described his government as more committed to settlements than any in Israel’s history and one of his leading coalition partners recently declared that the era of the two-state solution is over,” Ms. Power said Friday at the U.N. vote, referring to Mr. Bennett. “The prime minister has said that he is still committed to pursuing a two-state solution. But these statements are irreconcilable.”

The U.N. resolution vote comes as tensions between the White House and Mr. Netanyahu’s government have reached a new pitch.

Mr. Netanyahu accused the White House of colluding with Palestinians to put the resolution forward, a charge it denies. He summoned the U.S. ambassador on Sunday to protest while the foreign ministry summoned top diplomats from 10 countries that voted in favor of the resolution.

An Israeli official said Mr. Netanyahu had advised officials to limit travel to countries that voted in favor of the resolution, but hadn’t suspended relations. Following the U.N. vote, he recalled his ambassadors to New Zealand and Senegal. Israel also cancelled a meeting between Mr. Netanyahu and Ukraine’s leader. The Ukrainian government summoned the Israeli ambassador to Kiev as a result.

Israel also fears a speech by U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry, scheduled for as soon as this week, could lead to further action at the U.N. on the conflict. Mr. Kerry could lay out parameters for a future peace deal, which could then be enshrined in another U.N. resolution, Israeli officials fear. Such a resolution would increase international pressure on Israel, which worries it would embolden Palestinians not to compromise in any peace talks.

Israel’s ambassador to the U.S., Ron Dermer, suggested there was the prospect of a new resolution during an interview Monday on MSNBC. “We’re not sure that this is the end of it,” he said. “We may get a new U.N. Security Council resolution in the waning days of the administration.”

However, administration officials said Monday there are no plans for any additional U.N. resolution.

Friday’s U.N. vote was a stark reminder of the gulf between Israel on one side and the U.S. and international community on the other over how to approach the Israeli-Palestinian conflict moving forward.

Mr. Netanyahu’s official policy is to pursue a separate Palestinian state. But he has also overseen an increase of more than 100,000 settlers since winning power for the second time in 2009. His diverging policy has caused Western diplomats to question his real goals and plans to solve the conflict.

Mr. Bennett has been much clearer in his approach. He advocates annexing the West Bank, giving Palestinians autonomy in their cities and increasing spending on infrastructure to benefit both Jews and Arabs living in the territory. However, this falls far short of longstanding Palestinian demands for their own state.

Mr. Netanyahu’s forceful response to the U.N. vote is aimed at placating the conservative members of his own government and is part of a one-upmanship with Mr. Bennett, said Yehudit Auerbach, a political scientist at Bar Ilan University near Tel Aviv.

“It’s kind of a contest or competition about who will be the future leader of the right in Israel,” said Ms. Auerbach. “Is it Bibi Netanyahu or is it Bennett?” she added, using a nickname for the prime minister. CONTINUE AT SITE

PRIME MINISTER NETANAYHU ON THE UN RESOLUTION….SEE NOTE PLEASE

Well said but will he now do the courageous thing and call the two state dissolution process null and void? rsk

From a Hanukkah message by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu:

All American presidents since Carter upheld the American commitment not to try to dictate permanent settlement terms to Israel at the Security Council. And yesterday, in complete contradiction of this commitment, including an explicit commitment by President Obama himself in 2011, the Obama administration carried out a shameful anti-Israel ploy at the UN.

I would like to tell you that the resolution that was adopted, not only doesn’t bring peace closer, it drives it further away. It hurts justice; it hurts the truth. Think about this absurdity, half a million human beings are being slaughtered in Syria. Tens of thousands are being butchered in Sudan. The entire Middle East is going up in flames and the Obama administration and the Security Council choose to gang up on the only democracy in the Middle East—the State of Israel. What a disgrace.