Palestine Pales

"The Arabs never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity."
Abba Eban

"We hold him (Netanyahu) fully responsible for the collapse of these negotiations."
Saeb Erekat of the Palestine Authority (PA), Nov. 8, 2010 (1)

The prospects for setting up a Palestinian state were never better than in the early months of 2009. The new American President Barack Hussein Obama, the first such ever raised as a Muslim (2), had been elected with 53% of the popular vote and had both houses of Congress controlled by his party. He went to Cairo and promised the creation of a state of Palestine, and was determined to put "some daylight" between the US and Israel to achieve it. Obama even obtained a ten-month freeze on settlement construction from the Netanyahu government to create the atmosphere for successful negotiations.

President Abbas of the PA should have exclaimed, " Yes! Let's begin serious talks at once and keep negotiating till we get our state!" Instead , his attitude seemed to be "Hang tough and we will get everything we want!"

At first he was not ready for any talks with the Israelis, then only agreed to "proximity" (indirect) talks with them, then finally met face-to-face . When the ten month freeze expired, he asked for its extension. Now that construction is resuming, the PA is threatening to walk away from the talks altogether. (1) Like a winning football team that "eats up the clock" in the final minutes of the game, the Palestinians have dithered and stalled for the first two years of the Obama presidency. But all they have to show for it is a well-chewed clock.

Meanwhile, changes in the American political dynamic have undermined President Obama's ability to pressure Israel into making the kind of concessions necessary to garner Arab agreement (if that were possible at all):

1. The 2010 Congressional elections
The Democrats lost the House, and have about a 6-vote majority in the Senate. According to AIPAC, the present Congress is pro-Israel, and the next one will be even more so. But more important is the fact that a Democratic-led House would never repudiate the efforts of a Democratic president, but a Republican-led one just might! Obama will have to be very friendly to Israel in 2011 and 2012 to avoid such a humiliation.

2. It's almost 2012.
So far the 2012 Democratic presidential nomination is Obama's for the asking. But if he does something outrageous enough, such as souring our relationship with Israel, an ambitious Democrat could challenge him for the nomination. The first primaries and caucuses are just over a year away, and candidates will be gearing-up their campaigns by mid-2011. Although a challenging an incumbent president for the nomination of his party is usually unsuccessful, a serious challenge could split the party so deeply that the nominee loses the general election. (3)
All the serious potential Republican candidates (Gingrich, Palin, Romney, etc.) are pro-Israel. So even if Obama is the unanimous choice for the Democratic nomination, anything he does that can be characterized as even remotely anti-Israel can and will be used against him by the Republicans in the 2012 campaign.
However, if Barack Obama declines to seek re-election, he can mess with Israel all he wants during his remaining months in office, and Congress may not be able to stop him. But since he will then be a "lame duck", no one will listen much.


So the Palestinians blew their big chance. But in early 2013 the President will revive the "peace-process" and the game will be on again.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

(1) Associated Press, quoted in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, page 4A.

(2) His Indonesian stepfather Loto Soetero was a Muslim, and presumably raised Barack as one. He converted to Christianity in Chicago around 1992.

(3) In 1952 and 1968 the incumbent Democratic president lost the New Hampshire primary and withdrew from the race. Both times the Republicans took the presidency.
In 1884 the Republican Party denied the incumbent (Chester Alan Arthur) the nomination, and the Democrats took the presidency for the first time since 1856.

Deal or No Deal?

Consider the following Game Theory problem:

Mr A and Mr B have a dispute, and decide to negotiate directly to settle it. Mr A is extremely anxious to make a settlement, but Mr B is not. Mr A proposes a compromise under which both sides get about half of what they want; B declares that he will not settle unless virtually all his demands are met. Either B wins the negotiation, or there is no settlement at all.

Now Mr C, who can influence, but cannot control, either party, enters the picture. C has no particular stake in the terms of a settlement of the dispute, except that he considers it urgent for his own interests that some settlement be made, on whatever terms. C offers to be an "honest broker" between A and B, relaying their proposals to each other, and sometimes offering suggestions of his own. But all the while, C is urging the parties to settle their dispute already.

Even if C is scrupulously "even-handed" between A and B, it is easy to see that C's efforts actually serve the interests of B, because no settlement can be made except upon B's terms. Thus C's urgency in finding a settlement, no matter how well-intentioned, works in favor of the more demanding party.

Readers will recognize that this abstract problem is a paradigm of the efforts to negotiate a settlement of the dispute between A (Israel) and B (the Palestinians) by C (the United States). But today there is a new player : J, which stands for "J Street", the mostly-Jewish lobby that pushes for stronger US efforts to create a "two-state solution" to the Israel-Arab dispute. A recent publication by the group entitled "Turning No into Yes on a Two-State Solution" dated July 9, 2010, illustrates how the efforts of J Street objectively serve the Arab cause, despite the group's claim to be "pro-Israel."

The document includes 9 talking points, but let us zero-in on point 7: Jerusalem. J Street writes, "Jerusalem will ultimately be shared in some manner and it will be a good thing for Israel......the two-state solution is only possible if both Israeli and Palestinian claims to Jerusalem are reconciled.....This must mean finding a way for Israeli Jerusalem ...to be recognized as Israel's capital, and Palestinian Jerusalem....to be recognized as the capital of Palestine. This is the only way forward....."

On this point J Street has bought the Palestine Authority (PA) position hook, line and sinker, so "J" is actually sitting on B's side of the negotiating table while prodding C to push for a settlement. But why is a " two-state solution only possible" if Israel cedes part of Jerusalem to Arab rule? Because the Palestinians (B) won't settle otherwise! Actually a Palestinian state is possible without Jerusalem; the capital could be Nablus or Ramallah or Jenin. But the Palestinians are not so anxious for a deal that they would accept a state without at least part of Jerusalem, so the alternative capitals are out of the question.

By the same token, the Palestinians will not accept a state with Jewish settlements, so no solution is possible unless the settlements are "dismantled" and residents evicted. Those who buy this perspective consider every settlement, including every Jewish-occupied apartment in East Jerusalem, an "obstacle to peace." They are obstacles only because the Arabs say they are obstacles, and that is that. But no one says that Arab homes in Israel are obstacles to peace. (1)

If peace between Israel and the Arabs is possible only if Israel gives away East Jerusalem, the settlements, and whatever more, then there should be no peace in the Middle East today, since Israel has these assets. But ----mirable dictu (2)--- Israel does have peace today (July 11, 2010 at 3:21 CDT, k'eineh horah) without making the concessions demanded. No thanks to self-restraint on the part of the enemies of Israel (Hamas, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade, etc.), but thanks to the the Security Fence, which has actually worked well to keep terrorists out of the country. (Remember the claims that no fence could protect Israel from terrorism, but a peace treaty could?)

Israel continues to face threats to its security today and tomorrow---from Iran and its surrogates on the country's borders, but neither Iran nor the surrogates support a negotiated two-state solution. Thus the Palestine Authority lacks both the power to make war and the power to deliver a real peace. So why the urgency in negotiating a peace agreement with the PA, especially when their terms are so unreasonable?

In any negotiation, the party that feels free to walk away wins and the party that must have a deal at any price loses. If agreement is only possible on Arab terms, Israel should feel free to walk away. No deal is better than a bad deal, especially to the party that doesn't really need one.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(1) Rabbi Meir Kahane claimed that the Arab population of Israel was a demographic threat to the Jewish nature of the State, but he was excluded from the Knesset for that position, and was subsequently assassinated in New York. No Israeli party today takes that stance.

(2) Latin for "miraculous to speak of", a favorite phrase of former Prime Minister Menachem Begin.

Gaza or Paradise!

Looking back on the Israeli boarding of the Turkish-flagged ship Marmara on May 31 in which soldiers were injured (some seriously), nine Turks were killed and Israel was condemned around the world, some questions persist:

1. Why weren't the militants aboard the Marmara armed with guns?
Everyone aboard knew that the ship was running an Israeli blockade, and was likely to be boarded by soldiers. Yet the defenders of the vessel used nothing more lethal than sticks and knives; you would find more firepower in the typical Milwaukee bar any Saturday night than on the Marmara. Why didn't the militants pick up firearms in Cyprus before sailing?
One possibility is that the group sponsoring the flotilla, the so-called Humanitarian Relief Foundation ( or IHH, the Turkish acronym) banned firearms because enforcing the blockade on an unarmed ship would maximize the outrage aimed at Israel . It is also possible that the men who attacked the Israeli commandos sought martyrdom (shahida) by dying in jihad against Israel. They were either going to Gaza or Paradise, and the most fanatic Muslims prefer the latter destination. Perhaps they learned that one can harm Israel more by provoking its defenders to slaughter unarmed people than by killing Israelis with bombs or bullets. In the court of world sentiment, the former activity elicits sympathy for the Arab cause, while the latter elicits sympathy for Israel.

2. What were IDF leaders thinking?
On Jan. 3, 2002, IDF ships captured the Karinne A, a vessel loaded with arms for the Palestine Authority, without firing a single shot. Faced with overwhelming force and taken by surprise, the crew surrendered without resistance. There were no casualties, and no international repercussions.
This time the IDF chose to board the Marmara from a helicopter. If any man on deck were armed with so much as a rifle, he could have picked-off the soldiers one-by-one as they descended; worse yet, a single rocket fired from the deck could have destroyed the helicopter and killed everyone on it. By the grace of God, no one on the ship had any of these weapons, so the IDF was spared a massacre. But the IDF strategy was based upon the presumption of no resistance at all, and that was a mistake that could have had tragic consequences.
When the US blockaded Cuba in October, 1962, American naval commanders were determined to disable any Soviet ship that crossed the blockade line by firing a single shot into its rudder underwater. Blockading ships have also fired warning shots over the bow of any vessel trying to run the blockade, and then sinking any that were not deterred. Israel could have easily sunk the Marmara without endangering its own soldiers at all, but chose the far more risky course of boarding it from a helicopter. I have yet to hear any nation praise the Jewish state for showing admirable restraint by not firing on the Marmara, and thereby endangering its own soldiers rather than the passengers and crew of the hostile vessel. Don't hold your breath.

3. Has Turkey gone Islamic?
Turkey, the first Muslim nation to recognize Israel, has cancelled joint military exercises with the Jewish state and withdrawn its ambassador. The decision of the Turkish government to allow the IHH Flotilla to sail from the Turkish ports on Cyprus precipitated the entire crisis, which Ankara now blames entirely on Israel.
As a member of NATO, Turkey is aligned with the United States. Yet Ankara refused to allow American and allied forces to use Turkish territory for launching the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Today Turkey is governed by the Islamic Justice and Development Party, which has ties to IHH, which in turn has ties to Al Qaeda and other Islamic terrorists . Although Turkey had been hosting talks between Israel and Syria, its support of the pro-Hamas blockade runners has negated its role as a neutral party to the Arab-Israeli dispute. Unfortunately, Turkey today must be viewed as in the camp of Iran, Syria , Hezbollah and Hamas. (1) This is a serious loss for both Israel and the United States, whose influence in Ankara is low and falling.
The angry mobs in Istanbul chanting hate-Israel slogans indicate that the policies of Prime Minister Recip Erdogan are popular in the Turkish street. But how do they sit with Turkey's military leaders? It was a military commander named Mustapha Kemal Ataturk (1881-1938) that seized power in 1923 and turned the nation into a secular pro-western country. His successors have deposed several elected governments in an effort to prevent the nation from sliding into an Iran-style Islamic republic. If Ergodan over-plays his hand and makes a total break with the US and NATO, he risks another military takeover.

As this is written, plans are underway for another Gaza-bound flotilla, and diplomats are working to prevent another lethal confrontation. Israel has proposed that an international naval force inspect future aid ships bound for Gaza, and allow non-military cargoes to proceed, but Hamas insists that "the aid must arrive complete." (2) Stay tuned.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(1) Benny Avni in the NY Post, June 2, 2010.

(2) NY Times, June 4, 2010.

Liberalism vs Zionism

"The Declaration of the State of Israel is a schizophrenic document!"
Rabbi Meir Kahane

Most Jews are liberals, and most Jews love Israel, so most are also Zionists, even if they do not describe themselves with that word. The trouble is that it is increasingly difficult to be both, so many Jews are conflicted about developments in Israel.

Among the core principles of liberalism are:

1. There should be no legal distinctions among citizens on the basis of race, religion, or ethnicity.

2. Government policies should not be based on religious beliefs.

Before the 1967 Six Day War, in which Israel seized the West Bank (including Jerusalem), Gaza, the Golan Heights and the Sinai, there was minimal conflict between these two principles of liberalism and strong support for Israel. Major non-Jewish American liberals, such as Senator Hubert Humphrey, were staunch supporters of the Jewish state, then threatened by Egypt and Syria, both aligned with the Soviet Union. The appointment of Arthur Goldberg to represent this country at the UN by President Lyndon B Johnson in 1965 was an unmistakable sign of American solidarity with the Jewish state.

Today, only the West Bank and the Golan remain in Israeli hands. It is in the West Bank that "the rubber meets the road" in the conflict between liberal principles and Zionism. The unpleasant fact is that Israel is ruling over a hostile foreign people who want the Israelis out. Moreover, about a quarter of a million Israelis now live in the area seized from Jordan in 1967, and they show no signs of leaving.

From a liberal perspective, Principle 1 would indicate that Israel should treat Jews and Arabs equally. Indeed, Arabs living within the "Green Line" (1948 border) are citizens of Israel and some even serve in the Knesset. The trouble is that they increasingly view themselves as Arabs who happen to live in Israel, rather than Israelis who happen to be Arabs. To the extent that Israel is a Jewish state, Israeli Arabs are like "guest workers." Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman urged that Arab members of the Knesset who met with Hamas should be executed, and all Arabs in Israel should be required to swear allegiance to this country to keep their citizenship. (1) (His views have not been adopted by the Government, but he is still in the governing coalition.) Except for the Druze, Arabs are not generally accepted (let alone drafted) into the Israeli Defense Forces. Distinctions based upon ethnicity prevail in Israel, in defiance of Principle 1, as they must if Israel is to be a Jewish state at all.

Although Israel has accepted the concept of setting up a Palestinian state in the West Bank, opinion within the country remains deeply divided. For example, Effi Eitam, Prime Minister Netanyahu's special emissary to American youth, proposed that most West Bank Arabs be expelled from the territory and Israeli Arabs be "removed from the political system." (1) Neither of these things are going to happen, but it is just as unrealistic to try to absorb over a million Palestinians into Israeli society, which they hate with a passion. The only real alternative to establishing some kind of Palestinian state (even with limited sovereignty) is ruling the West Bank by force indefinitely, which is repugnant to most Israelis, most American Jews and the international community.

But this where the faith of the settlers (shared by many other Israelis) that the West Bank is part of the land promised to the Jewish people by God in the Torah crashes head-on into the practical necessity of ceding at least some of this land to Arab rule. Not all the settlers are orthodox, but most of them are, and the orthodox are the most determined to hang on to their homes. Liberal Principle 2 would impel Israel to ignore Torah in setting public policy (as many secular Israelis insist), but the fact is that orthodox power within the Israeli government has been growing. While secular Zionism is fading fast among younger Israelis (as well as among Jews in the US and Europe), the desire to settle in the Biblical Holy Land (including East Jerusalem and the West Bank) has drawn religious Jews from around the world. The trend is for religious Zionism to become the only Zionism around.

The effect of this split between orthodox and secular is also felt here in the United States: 79% of orthodox Jews under 40 feel "very close to Israel", while only 16% of non-orthodox in the same age cohort feel that way. (2) This implies that in the near future, American Zionism will also be increasingly religious Zionism, which means more solidarity with the settlers and other orthodox factions ("haredim") in Israel.

This is not your father's AIPAC.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(1) The Failure of the American Jewish Establishment, by Peter Beinart in the NY Review of Books, May, 2010.

(2) Survey by the American Jewish Committee in 2006, quoted in the article (1) cited above.

Admit It, Already!

"An Iranian-hosted ...conference ...demanded that Israel join the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) to ensure a nuclear-weapons free Middle East."
Nasser Karimi of the Associated Press, April 19, 2010.

The NPT, which became effective on March 5, 1970, recognized five countries as "Nuclear Weapons States" : the United States, the Soviet Union (now Russia), Britain, France and China. Another 184 nations signed-on as "Non-Nuclear Weapons States" (NNWS). The treaty requires that the states having these weapons will not provide them to any NNWS, and the latter group agrees not to acquire them. Moreover, the NNWS signatories also agree to inspection of their nuclear facilities by International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to verify that they are not diverting nuclear materials to weapons production.

Three nations declined to sign the NPT: Israel, India and Pakistan. Although the NPT was signed under the authority of the Shah of Iran, the Islamic Republic of Iran (established in 1979) claims to adhere to the NPT, but has refused to allow IAEA inspections of some reactors. North Korea signed the NPT, but withdrew in 2003 after admitting that it had built atomic weapons and openly testing them.

India and Pakistan have also tested nuclear weapons, and show no signs of giving them up. Israel has neither admitted nor denied having "nukes", but a 1991 book entitled "The Samson Option" by Seymour Hersh (1) disclosed that Israel has been a nuclear power since late 1966, years before the NPT was even enacted. Since the book was published, former President Jimmy Carter has confirmed that Israel had nuclear weapons during his presidency (1977-1981); unlike Mr Hersh, Carter had access to CIA intelligence at the time. In 2008, Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul, a Texas congressman, estimated that Israel had about 200 atomic bombs.

In light of all this evidence, it is absurd for the Israeli government to continue the pretense that it may not be a nuclear power. Instead, I contend that Israel should offer to sign the NPT as a Nuclear Weapons State, if the treaty can be amended to permit the addition of new ones. Signing on this basis would encourage India and Pakistan to also sign-on as nuclear powers, which would subject them to the obligation not to transfer atomic weapons technology or materials to any NNWS.

Of course, if new nations were added to the five recognized nuclear powers of the NPT, that would be an admission that the NPT had failed in its core mission of preventing the proliferation of nuclear weapons. But, since none of the three (India, Israel and Pakistan) had ever agreed to be bound by the NPT at all, bringing them in as nuclear powers would actually increase the jurisdiction, as so the binding force, of the treaty. It would also acknowledge reality, which is always an improvement over illusion.

Of course the Iranians will ask, "If its OK for Israel to have the Bomb, why not Iran?" (But that is equivalent to asking. "If its OK for China, why not Israel?" Israel's strategic position is a lot more perilous than China's, and so it has a greater need for the ultimate "Equalizer" weapon.) A facile answer is that Iran agreed to be bound by the NPT, but Israel did not, which is why the UN has sanctioned Iran for refusing IAEA inspections but never sanctioned Israel ( or India or Pakistan, for that matter. ) But a more realistic answer is that Israel has had the Bomb for more than forty years and never used it, despite repeated threats and missile attacks. Israel does not threaten to destroy any other country, even those that have threatened its very existence. Iran, on the other hand, is led by a man who has repeatedly threatened to destroy Israel. Such a nation cannot be trusted with nuclear weapons, but Israel can. This reasoning will not sit well in Tehran.

In today's world, power is respected more than any other attribute of a nation. Even rogue North Korea, a very small nuclear power widely reviled in the civilized world, is apparently to be spared the kind of "regime change" that was inflicted upon NNWS Afghanistan and Iraq. With Israel as an acknowledged nuclear nation, those leaders who threaten it will have to face down their own countrymen who would rather not be incinerated in return.

In his book The Prince, Niccolo Machiavelli concluded that it was better to be feared than loved. Since Israel is certainly not loved in this crazy world, I ask only that it be feared.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(1) Published by Random House, New York.

Hillary on Truth Serum

"Clinton told (AIPAC) that provocative Israeli land policies in areas claimed by the Palestinians are not in Israel's long-term interests."
Associated Press, March 23, 2010

During the heyday of the Soviet Union, KGB agents would close-in on an enemy of the regime on a busy street and use an umbrella point (or the like) to inject poison into the victim. Imagine for a moment that an equally unscrupulous person today could obtain a powerful truth serum and inject it into an important public figure, making it impossible for the victim to lie for hours. For example, if this had been done to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton just before her AIPAC speech, would the speech have been any different?

I surmise that the speech would have more like this: (edited to preserve the Glazerbeam's G-rating)

" I am supposed to say that I'm so pleased to be here today, but the truth is that I would rather be undergoing a colonoscopy with a rusty roto-rooter right now. That is because you all hate what the President, Vice President and I have been saying these past few days about Israeli plans to build Jewish housing in East Jerusalem.

Now you know and I know that the more Jews live in an area, the less likely that area is to wind-up in a Palestinian state. So, the more solidly- Jewish a neighborhood in any part of Jerusalem is, the more absurd it becomes to pretend that Israel will ever cede it to Arab rule. Now, some say that President Obama is deeply concerned about building homes for Jews in East Jerusalem; the fact is that he doesn't give a rat's (rectum) if the Israelis put up a (expletive deleted)ing Trump Tower there, and neither do I!

The reason that we are blowing a (expletive deleted)ing ton of political capital on this (urine)ant issue is that while Israeli interests are measured in meters, America's interests are measured in continents. We are fighting Al Qaeda, the Taliban and the like in three Muslim countries right now: Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan. Without Muslim support, we can't win. And all Muslims hate Israel, more or less. Osama bin Laden and other jihadists never miss a chance to link the United States with Israel, and they are smart to do that! If we go along with every (expletive deleted)ing thing that Israel does, we play into that. That is why George W Bush was so ineffective in the Muslim world, and why Barack Obama had to give that speech in Cairo to show that he would be more attuned to Muslim and Arab interests.

So, we have to show the world that there is daylight between the US and Israel, especially on Jerusalem, a real flashpoint for devout Muslims. We have to do it out loud and in public to have any impact. Of course, we know that the Israeli government won't like it, but what are they going to do: give back the $3 billion?

If the President really wanted to make Israel knuckle-under, he would recall our ambassador from Tel Aviv. If that didn't get Netanyahu's attention, he would suspend military co-operation. And if that didn't work, he could impound the whole (expletive-deleted)ing three billion! And that probably would work!
J Street would be ecstatic! So, why doesn't he do it? He knows that Bill got impeached for (expletive deleted)ing just one Jew, and he ain't going to find out what the pay-back would be for doing that to a whole (expletive deleted)ing country of 'em!

So, Barack and I are caught between (urinating)-off the Jews of America and (urinating)-off the whole Muslim world. That's why we talk tough to Israel, but don't really do anything to make Israel listen. Even so, we know we are killing Democrats in New York; a Republican will probably take my old senate seat, and Democratic congressmen in Jewish areas are likely to go down in flames too. If it costs his own re-election bid in 2012, tough (manure)!

So why antagonize the Israel Lobby? Because Barack puts the geopolitical interests of the United States of America above the domestic political interests of the Democratic Party! Yes, its (expletive deleted)ing patriotism! The next edition of Profiles in Courage will have a chapter on Barack Obama!

I hope you appreciate being told the truth for a change, but if you don"t , you can kiss my (donkey)! Happy Passover, anyway.

Guardians in Gaza

"(Israel's invasion of Gaza in 2008) was against Palestine, against Judaism, against the Jewish people and against humanity."
Rabbi Dovid Feldman of New York, speaking in Gaza, December 30, 2009 (1)

Rabbi Feldman and three other members of the tiny Neturei Karta (NK) movement participated in an international group of about 100 who joined around 500 Gaza Arabs in demonstrating against the Israeli partial blockade of Gaza. NK, like Hamas and Islamic Jihad, is totally opposed to the existence of the State of Israel, so Rabbi Feldman and his colleagues apparently were comfortable in collaborating with those who have fired thousands of rockets at Sderot and other Israeli cities.

Who are these guys, and what do they want?

The Neturei Karta (Aramaic for "Guardians of the City" of Jerusalem) began as a movement among Hungarian and Lithuanian Jews who settled in the Mea Shearim (100 Gates) area of Jerusalem during the 19th Century(2). They were happy to live as a tolerated small minority, first under the rule of Muslim Turks, and subsequently under the British. They steadfastly opposed the idea of establishing a Jewish state in the Land of Israel before the coming of Moshiach (Messiah) as a violation of the post-Exile covenant between God and Jewish people (3). NK joined with Satmar chasidim and Agudas Israel in trying to prevent the partition of the Palestine Mandate by the United Nations in 1947.

After the State was established in 1948, Agudas Israel accepted it and participated in the Knesset. But NK and Satmar refused to support the State of Israel in any way, and have isolated themselves from it to the extent possible. While most other orthodox Jews in the country became Israeli patriots, NK established contacts with PLO; one rabbi even served in Yassir Arafat's cabinet. NK has splintered into a number of factions, including some that have settled in Brooklyn and Monsey, New York.

Among the most radical of NK activists is Rabbi Yisroel Dovid Weiss of Monsey, New York, who spoke at the Holocaust revisionist conference in Tehran in 2006. Although insisting that the Holocaust was an indisputable historical fact (which some other participants denied), he asserted that it should never be "used as a tool to oppress other people." Weiss supported the goal of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad that the State of Israel be dismantled, albeit by peaceful means., and replaced by a Palestinian state.

Like the rejectionist Arab factions, Neturei Karta longs to turn back the clock to 1918, when Jews lived in Jerusalem as a tolerated minority in a Muslim-run country. To this end they are willing to align themselves with the enemies of Israel, who use them for anti-Israel propaganda. The media are happy to publicize their activities and statements, despite their tiny numbers and lack of support among other orthodox Jews.

What the NK rabbis do not realize is that the world of 1917 has vanished forever; if the Arabs ever did take over in Jerusalem (God forbid!), there would be no Jews in Mea Shearim, or anywhere else in the Land of Israel. Their Arab friends would have no further use for them, and they would be driven out or killed. Only the despised State of Israel defends their ability to live in the Holy Land.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(1) Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, Dec. 31, 2009, page 5A.

(2) Wikipedia.

(3) Talmud: Kesubos 111A.

Bargaining for Barghouti

"I am not a terrorist, but neither am I a pacificist...."
"I strongly oppose attacks and targeting of civilians inside Israel, our future neighbor, but ...I reserve the right to resist the Israeli occupation of my country."
Marwan Barghouti (1)

Despite these denials, Barghouti is serving five life sentences for participation in a terror operation in Tel Aviv that killed five Israelis. The Government of Israel is now negotiating a possible trade of Barghouti and perhaps hundreds of Palestinian prisoners (most, if not all, convicted terrorists) for Sgt. Gilat Schalit, who was captured by Gazan terrorists in 2006.

Marwan Barghouti was born near Ramallah in was then Jordan in 1959. As a teenager he joined a youth wing of Fatah and fought against Israeli forces in the First Intifada in 1987. He was caught and deported to Jordan, but was permitted to return to the West Bank in 1994 as a result of the Oslo Accords. Two years later, Barghouti was elected to the Palestinian Legislative Council. He then became Secretary General of Fatah in the West Bank and commander of Tanzim, the movement's armed branch. In this role, he publicly criticized Yasser Arafat's security forces for human rights violations.


Barghouti was arrested again in 2002, this time for terrorist actions.He was convicted of murder for the Tel Aviv attack in May, 2004. Although incarcerated, he announced his candidacy for President of the Palestine Authority in late 2004, but withdrew from the contest at the request of Fatah leaders committed to Mahmoud Abbas. He remains a leader of Fatah, and is widely considered its most popular figure. Shimon Peres promised to pardon Barghouti if elected President of Israel; Peres won the election, but has not yet kept that promise.

Abbas has declined to seek another term as Palestinian President, and if freed, Marwan Barghouti is a favorite to succeed him. He would be a hard-line leader, but one strong enough to make a deal stick.

I am aware of the Jewish precept of "pidyon shvuim" (redeeming captives), and sympathize with the family and friends of Sgt Schalit, who want desperately to have him home. Moreover, securing his safe return would send a strong signal all Israeli soldiers that even if captured by terrorists, their government will never forget them.

But government leaders must put the interests of the nation above sentiment. Freeing Barghouti sends two messages to potential terrorists: Israeli hostages are extremely valuable, so capture as many as possible! And don't worry about being caught-----you will be traded for another Israeli hostage before long!

Unfortunately, the dire consequences of freeing convicted murderers like Barghouti and some of his fellow prisoners overwhelm the benefit of returning Sgt Schalit to his family and his country.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(1) Wikipedia Biography.

Palestine Ploy

"The Palestinians asked the European Union (EU) ...to back their plan to have the UN Security Council recognize an independent Palestinian state without Israeli consent.."
Associated Press, Nov. 17, 2009

If Israel won't give them the state they want, why not just declare independence? Just run the flag of Palestine up the flagpole, and see who salutes it?

The Arab League has already saluted it, and sympathy for the "plight of the Palestinians" is rampant in Europe as well as in all Muslim countries. Even the United States has supported the concept of a State of Palestine under three presidents (1), and former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has declared such an entity absolutely necessary.

Actually there are several major downsides for the Palestinians in making a Unilateral Declaration of Independence (UDI). Such a move would render the Oslo Accords, formalized in the presence of President Bill Clinton at the White House in 1993, a dead letter. Under this agreement, the Palestine Authority (PA) continues to receive substantial aid from Israel, including transfer of importation taxes. Without those funds, the PA would have to beg for help from other Arab states. Israel could also seal its border with the new state, thus depriving Palestinians of consumer goods and electricity. Palestine could continue to trade with Jordan, but that may prove insufficient.

Even if the EU supports UN recognition for a unilaterally-declared State of Palestine, the Associated Press article quoted above predicts that the United States would veto it. Since UDI would effectively kill the hope for a negotiated settlement that the US has championed for years, the US cannot be expected to allow the Security Council to recognize the new state. Moreover, the domestic political pressure for a veto would be overwhelming.

The UDI would not affect Gaza at all, since it is already independent in all but name. Even if Mahmoud Abbas were recognized as President of Palestine by the Arab League, the EU and the UN, he will still be President of Nothing in Gaza.

The hundreds of thousands of Israeli settlers on the West Bank may welcome a UDI of Palestine, since that would effectively eliminate the prospect of Israeli soldiers dragging them out of their homes in accordance with some future peace-deal with the PA. But if they defy orders by the President of Palestine to vacate their settlements, attacks by the jihadist militias aligned with Fatah (2) would be virtually certain. The settlers are well-armed, and most are veterans of the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF); I would expect them to defend their settlements just as Israelis did in the 1948 war. If Palestinian security forces and the IDF were drawn into settlement battles, the entire West Bank could be engulfed in a long and bloody war. Those Arabs staring down the barrel of an IDF tank may be comforted by the thought that Mary Robinson (3) and many other Europeans are concerned about their plight, and wish them well.

When the smoke clears, the settlements will still be there, the IDF will patrol the entire West Bank, and the State of Palestine will be reduced to smoldering ruins. Then Judge Goldstone will condemn Israel for more war crimes.

And Barack Obama will send George Mitchell to the Middle East to jump-start a new round of peace talks.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(1) Bill Clinton (who offered Yasser Arafat a state). George W Bush (who convened the Annapolis Conference), and Barack Obama (who promised the Palestinians a state in his Cairo address).

(2) Islamic Jihad and the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade. Hamas militias, though not allied with Fatah, might seize the opportunity to attack settlements in hopes of provoking clashes between the IDF and PA forces.

(3) UN High Commissioner for Human Rights (1997-2002), known for her sympathy for the Palestinians.

How the GOP Can Win in 2010

Republicans swept the races for Governor of New Jersey and Virginia, but lost both special elections for Congress (one in NY, one in California). The gubernatorial victories refute the claim that the GOP has dwindled into a narrow base of white southern evangelicals; Republican candidates won over independents by a two-to-one margin in both states, which backed Barack Obama only a year ago. New Jersey is a northern industrial state, with a very diverse population, including large numbers of Jews and other minorities.

But how can Republicans win the 2010 Congressional elections?

I contend that President Obama has made a major strategic error in his foreign policy that is ripe for exploitation by Republicans: the effort to create a Palestinian state. As noted in several previous postings, this effort is futile, because Hamas does not want a peace settlement with Israel, and Fatah is too weak to make a settlement without Hamas support. Apparently Obama, Clinton, Ross, Emanuel,and Mitchell do not know this.

Right now the dispute seems to concern expansion of Israeli settlements on the West Bank; the Palestinians insist that all settlement activity be halted, and Obama agrees. (Actually, all American administrations since Israel acquired the West Bank in 1967 have been opposed to the settlements, but this President has pressured Israel more vehemently than any since George H W Bush in 1991.) Moreover, Obama has visited Egypt since becoming President, but not Israel. He has moved the US from a staunchly pro-Israel position toward a more neutral stance vis-a-vis the Palestinians. (1)

Unlike many of Obama's policies in domestic affairs (such as health-care reform, economic stimulus, reduction of pollution, etc.), the shift in Middle East policy has a very small political constituency: Muslim-Americans, J Street, leftists and peace-activists. Jews and pro-Israel Christians vastly outnumber them. Democratic candidates for the House and Senate should be asked at every opportunity if they support President Obama's efforts to halt settlement activity and create a Palestinian state!

Republican candidates can appeal to pro-Zionist voters by calling for a Congressional resolution that defends the rights of Israeli settlers to build in the West Bank. Congress is always more friendly to Israel than is the Executive Branch (especially the State Department), but rarely breaks with Administration policy. Would AIPAC support such a resolution?

The obvious choice to lead this effort would be Rep. Eric Cantor of Virginia, the only Jewish Republican in all of Congress. (2) Most of the issues touted by Republican candidates, such as opposition to abortion and the right to own guns, leave Jewish voters cold, but unqualified support for Israel will get to some of them. The downside of emphasizing this issue is very minor, since most anti-Israel activists are so far left that they would not vote Republican anyway.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(1) However, the US is aligned with Israel against Iran. So far, Obama has been no more effective that George W Bush was in opposing Iran's nuclear program.

(2) Arlen Spector of Pennsylvania was the last Jewish Republican in the Senate before he switched parties. There have been many others, such as Norman Coleman (of Minnesota, who lost to another Jew: Al Franken), Warren Rudman (New Hampshire) and Chic Hecht (Nevada).

Build, Bibi, Build!

"PM Benjamin Netanyahu said Sunday (May 24) that Israel will continue to build homes in existing West Bank settlements, defying US calls to halt settlement growth."
Yahoo News, May 24, 2009

As predicted in our May 8 posting (1), Netanyahu has rebuffed US President Barack Obama's personal plea to stop expanding Israeli settlements, which Palestinian leaders consider obstacles to peace. That is because the Palestinians want their future homeland to be "Judenrein" (free of Jews). Unlike the Serbs, who undertook the onerous work of ethnic cleansing the Bosnian Muslims themselves, the Palestinians insist that the Israelis evict the settlers for them, and hand-over a pristine land. The Israelis, then under the leadership of PM Ariel Sharon, actually did just that in Gaza in 2005, but the Palestinians have not shown much appreciation for that effort.

In opposing the settlements, Obama is carrying forward the policy of the US government for more than the past thirty years, through both Republican and Democratic administrations. In fact, the most adamant opponent of the settlements was none other than Republican President George H W Bush (1989-1993), who often lambasted specific settlements by name. Of course, none of these administrations ever exacted a serious price from the Israelis for building and expanding the settlements, and I doubt that Obama will.

As noted in previous postings on the Glazerbeam, there is nothing illegal about the settlements, nor are they really obstacles to peace. The international community, represented by the League of Nations, called for "the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people" (2) on July 24, 1922. (The term "Palestine" at that time included not only the West Bank, but also the East Bank of the Jordan River, now known as the Kingdom of Jordan.) Jews were not restricted to any particular part of Palestine, although most settled in Jerusalem and along the Mediterranean shore.

Moreover, the 1947 United Nations Partition Plan did not ban Jewish settlement in the territory assigned to the future Arab state (which was annexed by Jordan in 1948) or Arab settlement in Israel. Indeed, about a million Arabs now live in Israel, and no one considers their villages to be obstacles to peace (even though large numbers of them are not loyal to Israel). Jordan expelled all Jews living in East Jerusalem and the West Bank after taking that territory in the 1948 war, but there is no reason for Israel or the US to support restoring this Jordanian policy. If the Palestinians want a state, let them accept all those who reside there now as full citizens.

It is time for Congress to weigh-in on the settlement issue. I suggest adoption of a "Sense of Congress Resolution" containing language like the following:
"The United States shall not recommend or support the creation of any new state, or transfer of land from one state to another, that infringes upon the rights of people to remain in their homes, or discriminates in any way against any group of people on the basis of race, religion or national origin."

I hope that AIPAC will prevail upon Israel's many friends in Congress to take this stand. Those who are most supportive of human rights should now defend the human rights of Jews who have chosen to live in the West Bank, even if their land comes under Arab rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(1) "Biden Dreams of Peace".

(2) League of Nations Mandate for Palestine, Paragraph 3.

Biden Dreams of Peace

"Israel must work for a two-state solution...."
Vice President Joe Biden at the 2009 AIPAC National Conference

"You may say that I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one,
Maybe someday you'll join us, and the world will live as one!"
"Imagine" by John Lennon (1971)

If Biden believes that a Palestinian state will live in peace alongside Israel, he is as much of a dreamer as the late John Lennon ever was. Even the United States Government, for which the Vice President speaks, is not powerful enough to make this particular dream a reality.

The main obstacle to peace is Hamas, which has held a iron-grip on Gaza since 2006. Hamas is adamantly opposed to any peace agreement with Israel, and has fired thousands of rockets over the border in the past few years to prove it. Iran supports this position, not only with words, but also with money and armaments. Given this backing, Hamas is about as likely to submit to rule by a Fatah government in Ramallah as Bangladesh is to rejoin Pakistan. (1) Therefore, there will be no peaceful border between Gaza and Israel in the foreseeable future, no matter what Israel or the US does. Of course, the Israelis know this, but American policymakers either do not know it, or pretend not to know it.

But why not establish a mini-Palestine in the West Bank alone?

To do so would require settling at least three intractable disputes: over settlements, Arab refugees, and borders (especially in the Jerusalem area). But even if these disputes could be resolved, the new state would be vulnerable to a takeover by Hamas, possibly in alliance with Islamic Jihad and the El-Aqsa Matyrs Brigade (2). If that happened, the West Bank could then be used to fire rockets into Israel, just as Gaza is now. This would mean war, in which case Israel would face rocket attacks from Gaza, Lebanon and the West Bank all at once. Unfortunately, this nightmare scenario is more likely to occur than Biden's dream of a Palestinian state living in peace with Israel.

The summit meeting scheduled for May 18 between President Barack Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu is certain to be contentious. Obama will demand that Israel move ahead with the Palestinian state, and Netanyahu will seek covert US support for an attack on Iran. Those who think of Israel as a client-state of the United States will be surprised to learn that Netanyahu will insist on his country's freedom of action with respect to both the Palestinians and Iran. (3)

Of course the "Hate Obama" crowd (including its many Jewish members) will castigate the Obama Administration for pushing Israel into supporting the "two-state solution". But the fact is that the US Government has been advocating exactly that under both Presidents Bill Clinton (at Camp David in 2000) and George W Bush (at Annapolis in 2008). The United Nations devised the two-state plan in 1947, but did nothing to advance it during the period of Arab rule over Gaza and the West Bank (1948-67). The Government of Israel, under both Ehud Barak and Ehud Olmert, has agreed to the establishment of a Palestinian state.
Although Netanyahu has not publicly repudiated this position, I do not believe he has any intention of creating such an entity.

The US has no leverage at all over Gaza or Iran, but has some over the Palestine Authority, if only because of American aid. The US and Israel are strategic partners and co-operate in intelligence and development of defense systems, but their interests do not always coincide. The question that remains is how much political capital is President Obama willing to commit to pressure Israel into making concessions to the Palestinians. I do not believe that he is willing to face a full-scale confrontation with the Israel Lobby over these issues; more likely, he will say that the US did all it could to achieve an agreement, bu the two sides were just too far apart.

The Glazerbeam endorsed the Obama-Biden ticket in 2008, but if the Administration pushes Israel too hard to make unwise concessions, it will face an uphill battle for another term in 2012.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

(1) Bangladesh was East Pakistan until 1971, when it seceded with the help of India. The idea of a country in two parts, separated by a hostile nation, was poorly conceived for that subcontinent, and makes no more sense for Palestine now.

(2) See the Dec. 21, 2008, Glazerbeam entitled "Martyrs."

(3) Recall that in May, 1967, President Lyndon Johnson urged Israel to let the US and its allies deal with the Egyptian blockade of the Straits of Tiran. Johnson did not get his way. Nasser blamed the US anyway.

Amnesty for AIPAC Aides

On Friday, May 1, the US Justice Department announced that it would drop all charges against former American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) lobbyists Steven Rosen and Keith Weissman. (1) In August of 2005, Rosen and Weissman had been indicted for "communicating national defense information to people not entitled to receive it," in violation of the Espionage Act of 1917, 18 USC 793 (2). Former Defense Department analyst Lawrence Franklin was also indicted in the case; he was also charged with one count of passing classified information to an Israeli official.

Franklin, a former attache at the US Embassy in Israel, was one of the officials responsible for American defense policy regarding Iran. He provided a classified presidential directive and other documents about Iran policy to the AIPAC staffers, who then passed them on to Israel. Franklin negotiated a guilty plea in October, 2005, and was sentenced the following January to 12 years in prison and a fine of $10,000 by US Judge T S Ellis III. AIPAC fired Rosen and Weissman, but denied the organization was responsible for their alleged activities.

As a government employee with a high security clearance, Lawrence Franklin clearly betrayed the trust placed in him, and deserved his punishment. Former Navy civilian analyst Jonathan Pollard had been sentenced to life in prison in 1987 for transmitting even more damaging information to Israel. (3)

However, the two AIPAC staffers were the first people not employed by the US Government ever charged with this particular violation of the Espionage Act of 1917. (1) This unprecedented prosecution apparently opened the way for bringing similar charges against reporters who receive and use classified information they obtain from government employees . Sometimes this type of information is the only way to corroborate claims of corruption or subversion in government. Although no reporters were ever charged during the remaining three years of the Bush Administration, the prosecution of Rosen and Weissman may have had a chilling effect on the willingness of reporters to deal with classified information.

Judge Ellis made two pre-trial rulings that resulted in dropping the charges:
1. The defense could introduce the secrets themselves at the trial.
2. To obtain a conviction, the prosecutors would have to show that the defendants knew that disclosing this information would harm the United States.

Once the first of these rulings was upheld by the US Court of Appeals, the Government was placed into a "Catch 22" situation: if disclosing the secrets would harm US interests, the nation would be harmed by the Government in bringing the case to trial. ( Since the trial would receive massive publicity, the harm done by the Government would be even greater than that done by the defendants, who merely disclosed it to a friendly nation, which did not make it public. ) But if disclosing the info would not harm US interests, the second ruling meant that the defendants had done nothing wrong, and should be acquitted!

A similar conundrum occurred during the 1896 trial of French Army Captain Alfred Dreyfus, who was accused of passing military secrets to the German Army. But in that case. the judge ruled that the "borderaux" of secrets need not even be provided to the defense, let alone made public. The rest is history: Dreyfus was convicted and spent years on Devil's Island before finally being exonerated.

Fortunately for Rosen and Weissman, Judge Ellis was more fair than the one Dreyfus faced a century before. We may never know just what information Lawrence Franklin gave them, although it clearly concerned American policy toward Iran under President George W Bush. I would like to know what the Israelis found out, but I doubt that they will tell me.

AIPAC continues its highly-effective work of influencing US policy in a pro-Israel direction, although without the services of Mssrs. Rosen and Weissman.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(1) Jerry Marion in the Washington Post, May 2, 2009.

(2) Wikipedia "Lawrence Franklin Espionage Scandal."

(3) See the Glazerbeam of Dec. 24, 2008, entitled "Parole for Pollard?"

Israel Veers Right

Although the centrist Kadima Party came in first in elections for the new Knesset with 28 seats, the most likely next Government will be a coalition of Likud (with 27 seats) and other rightist and religious parties. The most important result is that Yisrael Beitenu (Israel is Our Home), led by Moldovan immigrant Avigdor Leiberman, won 15 seats, ahead of both Labor (13) and Shas (10). (Labor, which governed Israel for the first 29 years of its history, is a pale shadow of its former power and glory.)

Leiberman arrived in Israel in 1978, and soon joined the Likud Party. Within a few years he was chief of staff to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. After "Bibi" fired him, he started his own party, whose name is similar to the Russian party known as Rossiya Nash Doma (Russia is Our Home). The new party, most popular among fellow immigrants from the former Soviet Union, takes a hard-line on Arabs, both inside and outside Israel. Lieberman has proposed that all voters take a loyalty oath to Israel's flag and anthem, which would discourage Israeli Arabs from voting. He has become "The New Kahane", echoing the late rabbi's warnings that Israeli Arabs threaten the Jewish character of the State of Israel.

Although known for his hawkish views on the Palestinians, his proposal to allow the Prime Minister to rule by decree during a State of Emergency is even more disturbing. Meir Kahane said that Israel cannot be both Jewish and democratic; it is clear that if Avigdor Leiberman had to choose, it would be the former.

Although Leiberman is haggling with Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni as well as with Netanyahu, it is obvious that he and his followers would be far more comfortable in a Likud-led coalition. He is no doubt using his leverage to secure the highest possible cabinet position for himself, and perhaps iron-clad guarantees that the new Government would not agree to ceding any part of Jerusalem to the Palestinians or the Golan to the Syrians.

Given this hardening of the Israeli position, the mission of former Senator George Mitchell in brokering a Middle East settlement is doomed. The touted "Two-State Solution" was a long shot anyway, but if Kadima and Labor (perhaps bolstered by Meretz) would have secured a big victory on February 10, there might have been a chance for an agreement between Israel and Abbas, though it would have left Gaza in the hands of Hamas. With Netanyahu and Leiberman calling the shots, even that seems impossible.

Of course George Mitchell (and his boss Barack Obama) know all this, but the mission will go on, if only because the US must always appear to be seeking peace in the Middle East. But can the US impose a peace-agreement on Israel that its Government does not want?

My answer is "No." If the Obama Administration were to break with Israel over a proposed settlement, the Republican Party would stand to gain enormous political support from American Jews, a key component of the Democratic majority in this country.

Even President Ronald Reagan, who did not need Jewish support at all, expended huge political capital to win the fight with the Israel Lobby over the sale of the AWACS surveillance system to Saudi Arabia in 1982. His successor, President George H W Bush, was defeated for re-election after opposing loan guarantees to Israel. Barack Obama, already viewed with suspicion by many American Zionists, will be loathe to confirm these suspicions by trying to pressure Israel into taking an unpalatable deal.

So, we already know that even if Israeli-Palestinian negotiations take place, they are sure to fail. The only question left is whether the Israelis will be able to pin the blame on the intransigence of the other side.

Jewish Intifada

"Israeli soldiers and police officers stormed a disputed building ..in ...Hebron,, dragging out 250 young settlers....Activists responded with ..attacks on Israeli forces and Palestinians......settlers rioted, setting fire to at least 3 Palestinian houses and burning 9 cars."
Associated Press and NY Times, Dec. 5, 2008.

It took some 600 Israeli soldiers and police to evict the settlers, who had been ordered to vacate the four-story house by the Israeli Supreme Court. Settlers claim to have bought the house from an Arab, but apparently could not produce a valid deed.

Incidents of Jewish violence, against both Arabs and Israeli security forces, have been reported in recent months. These acts are both foolish and reprehensible, and portend more serious trouble ahead.

My sympathies are with the Israeli soldiers, who were carrying out the legitimate orders of their government in enforcing a court decision. Although no doubt some of the soldiers are sympathetic to the goals of the settlers, they carried out their responsibilities professionally, and with notable restraint, considering the violence they encountered. So far both the IDF and the settlers have avoided the use of deadly force against one another, but violent conflicts tend to escalate; and there is the real prospect of Jews killing other Jews if the resistance to eviction orders continues.

What are the settlers thinking, if they are thinking? Do they not realize that they ultimately depend on the Israeli Army for their own security in the West Bank? How dare they hurt the soldiers that are protecting them? These acts are bound to create animosity toward the settler movement among the soldiers they are fighting; since most Israeli families have a member in the military, attacks on the soldiers may turn the majority of the country against the settlers!

From the press reports, it appears that Jewish attacks on local Palestinians were unprovoked, but many Arabs responded by throwing rocks at both settlers and Israeli soldiers. We know that the Palestinians hate Israel, and especially the settlers, but why inflame their hostility? Why provide a pretext for attacks on Israelis? How long will Palestine Authority (PA) security forces stand idly by while Arabs are harmed? If they try to protect their brethren, will there be armed clashes will Israeli forces? The fragile co-operation between Israeli and PA security forces is seriously endangered by these events.

Palestinians are likely to avenge these attacks, either on the settlements in the West Bank or inside Israel . Morevoer, Israeli Arabs may also be impelled to turn against their Jewish neighbors. Trouble begets trouble.

As bad as all this is right now, the future looks even worse. After the Israeli elections, the new government will resume negotiations with the PA over the establishment of a Palestinian state in the West Bank. (1) Since this "Two-State Solution" to the Arab-Israeli conflict has been endorsed by the present Government of Israel, the Quartet (2) and the Arab League, it is hard to believe that those opposed to such a state will prevail. The PA wants all settlers to leave the area, but there is no reason for Israel to agree to such a demand. The price of a Palestinian state must include acceptance of a substantial Jewish population, which must enjoy all the rights of citizenship that Arabs living in Israel have today. But this can only work if there is peace between Arab and Jew in the West Bank, and Jewish violence is every bit as destructive of this goal as is Arab violence.

If Israeli leaders are contemplating evicting all Jewish settlers from the West Bank, as they did from Gaza, and before that from Sinai, the resistance in Hebron should serve as a "wake-up call." There are hundreds of thousands of Jews living in the West Bank; the exact number depends upon where you draw the line between that land and Israel. Removing that large a number by the labor-intensive, non-lethal, methods used so far in Hebron and Gaza would take the entire Israeli Army, including reserves. Since the Army is also needed to guard the Egyptian, Lebanese, and Syrian borders, deploying it in this manner is not practical.

Suppose that the Israeli Army withdraws from the West Bank and the bulk of the settlers remain. If the PA forces then try to evict them, they will face far more fierce and lethal resistance than the IDF faces now. Their will be no restraint on the use of deadly force by either side. The result could be horrendous, and could trigger another Middle East war.

The only hope for a peaceful resolution to this imbroglio is for all sides to exercise restraint: the settlers must obey Israeli law and co-operate with the Army, the Palestinians must forgo revenge and accept the permanent presence of Jews in their country, and the Israeli leadership must abandon the idea of forcing the settlers out of their homes.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(1) Gaza is a "de-facto" independent Arab state right now, but no one wants to recognize this. Re-uniting Gaza with the West Bank under a single government is about as likely as Bangladesh rejoining Pakistan.

(2) The United States, Russia, the European Union and the United Nations.

Israel After Bush

President George W Bush will be remembered as very friendly toward Israel. To his everlasting credit, he severed all contact with Yasser Arafat after the Palestinian leader lied to him about the Karrine A, a boat loaded with Iranian arms intended for Fatah and intercepted by Israeli naval forces.
However, after the death of Arafat, Bush established a warm relationship with the Abbas government, which led to the Israeli withdrawal from Gaza in 2005. Meanwhile, Bush promoted democracy for Arabs, so the Palestine Authority (PA) held fair elections that were won by Hamas. This, in turn, led to the violent Hamas takeover of Gaza.
The Bush Administration has struggled mightily to broker a peace-deal between Israel and the PA before the end of its term in office, but that was not to be.
Many Jewish people fear that President-Elect Barack Obama, who has visited Israel and made many pro-Israel statements, is really anti-Israel and will turn US policy against the Jewish state after taking office. This is partially because the Illinois senator has accepted political support from Arabs and anti-Semites, and has an unfortunate tendency to tell everybody what they want to hear. As a result, both Zionists and anti-Zionists claim that the next President sides with them.
Here is what I believe will really happen in Israel during the next four years:

1. Israeli Election
In view of the corruption and failures of the Kadima Government, I believe that Likud will come in first in the election, and will govern in coalition with Shas and other religious and nationalist parties. The coalition will be dead-set against giving away any part of Jerusalem.

2. Gaza
The ceasefire between Israel and Gaza was abrogated Nov. 4 when Israeli forces found a tunnel under the border. (1) If the Hamas regime resumes rocket attacks into Israel after the Likud Government comes into power, look for an Israeli invasion of Gaza that will crush Hamas.

3. West Bank Negotiations
The US will continue to pressure both Israel and the PA into making a deal, but the issues of Jerusalem and the Right of Return will continue to prevent one. A Likud Government will be more resistant to American and international pressure than the current one.

4. Syria and Hezbollah
If Syria is willing to accept the presence of neutral forces in the Golan to prevent either Syrian or Hezbollah forces from using the Heights to attack Israel, a deal is possible. The neutral forces could be American, French, German or even Turkish. The fact that both Israel and the United States have attacked Syrian territory with impunity in the past year proves that Syria is not strong enough to secure its borders or airspace.
Syria needs Hezbollah to control Lebanon, but cannot afford to let the Shiite militia into the Golan. Hezbollah is armed with thousands of rockets, and could launch them into Israel at any time. If that happens after Likud takes power, the new Israeli Government will devastate southern Lebanon before a cease-fire is imposed.

5. Iran
The US will not attack Iran's nuclear facilities, and will try to dissuade Israel from doing so. There are signs that President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is losing power, and may well be replaced in 2009. (2) If so, I believe his successor will allow UN nuclear-inspectors back into the country to verify that the Islamic Republic is not enriching uranium to the levels required for an atomic bomb. This could defuse the crisis, end the sanctions on Iran, and prevent a catastrophic war.
On the other hand, if Israeli intelligence determines that Iran is anywhere near building an atomic bomb, Israel will bomb Iran with conventional weapons. This would trigger attacks upon Israel by both Iran and Hezbollah, God forbid, leading to a big war in the Middle East.

6. The US-Israel Special Relationship
Although Israel has become dependent upon American foreign aid, diplomatic support, and military co-operation, the US has only limited leverage on Israeli actions. This is because no American president wants a confrontation with the Israel Lobby and its many friends in Congress. The last one to incur the wrath of the Lobby, President George H W Bush, was defeated for re-election (3). Members of Congress who openly oppose aid to Israel are targeted for defeat, and most of them lose. (4)

I intend to review each of these predictions in the Glazerbeam following the 2012 Election.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

(1) Associated Press, November 5, 2008.

(2) See "Iran Parliament ousts Ahmadinejad ally for faking college degree", NY Times, Nov. 5, 2008, quoted in that day's Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, page 13A.

(3) The issue was $10 billion dollars of loan guarantees for Israel to settle recent immigrants. Bush Sr complained he was "Just one guy here against hundreds of lobbyists."

(4) Senator Charles Percy (R, IL), Rep. Paul Findley (R, IL) and Rep. Cynthia McKinney (D, GA) are a few examples.

Iran Faces Armageddon

"Iran filed a UN Security Council complaint after an Israeli official threatened to attack its nuclear facilities."

Jewish Telegraphic Agency (JTA)


Transportation Minister Shaul Mofaz said that Israel would have no choice but to attack Iran, given the failure of UN sanctions to curb its nuclear program, according to Yediot Aharonot on Friday, June 6, 2008. It is not clear if Mofaz was authorized by the Cabinet to make this statement.
If so, it can be taken as a message to the ruling Guardian Council of Iran that the reckless threats made by President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad are leading Iran into a war with Israel. (1)
If Mofaz was speaking for himself, he may be positioning himself as a more hawkish alternative to Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni, if Prime Minister Ehud Olmert is forced to resign because of a corruption investigation now underway.

The Iranians have reacted like a schoolyard bully who goes around picking fights, then complains to the teacher when someone thrashes him. Jews have learned from bitter history to take threats to their existence seriously. Ahmadinejad can afford to be ignorant of this history, but the Jews cannot. His repeated threats to "wipe Israel off the map" have made Iran's enrichment of uranium a greater danger than it would be otherwise.


Q. What is "uranium enrichment" and why is Iran doing it now?
A. Over 99% of the uranium found in the world has atomic weight (2) 238, while less than one percent has weight 235. Only the lighter isotope (U-235) is useful for generating electricity or atomic bombs. To generate electric power, a mass of uranium must contain at least 20% U-235; to make a bomb, the uranium must be at least 80% U-235.
To increase the percentage of U-235 in a supply of uranium, it is combined with fluorine to form the gas uranium hexafluoride (UF-6), which is then spun in a centrifuge. The lighter gas ( containing the U-235) rises and is drawn off from the upper part of the centrifuge. The process is repeated until the percentage of U-235 reaches the desired range.

If Iran is enriching uranium only to generate electricity, there is no need to enrich the supply beyond about 20% U-235. Continuing the enrichment process to anywhere near the 80% level is a sure sign that weapons-grade uranium is being produced. Iran has refused to allow the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to inspect its nuclear facilities to ascertain the level of enrichment going on. This refusal is taken a sign that Iran intends to enrich the uranium to the level required for an atomic bomb.



Q. Can airstrikes alone stop Iran from going nuclear?
A. Yes, if the location of the reactors and centrifuges are known. Although many (if not all) of Iran's nuclear facilities are deep underground, accurate bombing could block access to them from the surface, and powerful enough bombs could even destroy them underground. Both Israel and the United States have high-resolution satellite-imaging systems that can monitor these sites. However spies on the ground, especially those working on the program, would be invaluable in making the strikes successful. Of course, there is no way to know if either the US or Israel has such spies in place in Iran.



Q. If this happened, could Iran rebuild the facilities and re-start a nuclear program later?
A. Yes, but that would take years and be extremely expensive. Since the new facilities could also be destroyed, the leaders of Iran might decide that it is not worthwhile to do so. Also, political change in Iran in the months and years following an attack on the nuclear sites may quash the effort to develop nuclear weapons.

Q. How would Iran respond to destruction of its nuclear facilities by Israel?
A. Unless Israel first destroyed Iran's air force and missile sites in a "June 1967"-type attack, Iran would no doubt launch missiles at Israel in return. However, Israel's Arrow anti-missile defense system could explode the Iranian missiles in mid-air.
Iran would also demand that Hezbollah fire its thousands of missiles from Lebanon at Israel, triggering another war with the Shiite militia.

Q. If the uranium enrichment continues, might President Bush attack Iran's nuclear facilities before the end of his term?
A. There have been reports that he has decided to do so, even though the November, 2007, National Defense Estimate on Iran claimed that the Islamic Republic had cancelled its nuclear weapons development program in 2003. He would not dare to launch an attack against Iran before the US presidential election (November 4), since that could sink Republican chances for both the White House and Congress (3). If the US were to launch such an attack, the window of opportunity would be November 5, 2008-January 21, 2009. If that does not occur by Inauguration Day, look for Israel to attack Iran .

Q. How can the ruling Guardian Council save Iran from this disaster ?
A.1. Depose President Ahmadinejad. (4)
2. Allow the AIEA to inspect all Iranian nuclear facilities to verify that enrichment is not proceeding beyond the level needed for generating electricity.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(1) Grand Ayatollah Ali Khameini, chief of the ruling Guardian Council, has flatly contradicted all these threats, saying that "Iran is not a threat to any nation, not even the Zionist entity. " However, so far neither Khameini nor the Guardian Council have taken even one step (as far as we know) to restrain the President's rhetoric.

(2) The atomic weight of an element is the number of of all protons and neutrons in its atomic nucleus. The number of protons alone determine which element the atom represents; two forms of the same element that contain different numbers of neutrons ( and thus have different atomic weights, such as U-235 and U-238) are called isotopes.

(3) Any war involving Iran would send oil prices "through the roof." No matter how the war turned out, voters would reject the President's party if high gasoline prices could be blamed on his action.

(4) Ahmadinejad's term as President of Iran expires in 2009, and there is no indication he intends to seek re-election at that time. The Guardian Council can bar any candidate from the ballot. I believe they also have the power to remove an incumbent President, though this has not been done so far.

Christians for Israel

"The US must join Israel in a pre-emptive military strike against Iran to fulfill God's plan...which will lead to the Rapture, Tribulation and ... the Second Coming of Christ."
Rev. James Hagee, addressing Christians United for Israel (CUFI) (1)

Do you share Rev. Hagee's apocalyptic vision? If not, would you still work with him to foster the US-Israel special relationship?

The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) featured him as a guest speaker at a Washington conference. Senator Joe Lieberman and Israeli Ambassador Sallai Meridor (among other notables) are scheduled to appear at Hagee's CUFI Washington-Israel Summit next month.

On the other hand, Leonard Fein, founder of Moment Magazine, referred to Hagee's "A Night to Stand for Israel" as a "noxious melodrama", which Jews should repudiate. (1) Indeed, quite a few Jews picketed this event in Madison,Wisconsin, on June 18, 2007. Who is right? Who is wrong?

By the term "Christian Right" I do not mean simply devout Christians, but those who have sought to use the power of government to promote Christian beliefs and practices, such as teacher-led prayer, Bible study, and Christmas carols in the public schools. They have looked upon Jews primarily as targets for proselytization efforts.

However, since the 1967 Six Day War there has been a subtle re-alignment of political forces in the United States relative to Israel. While many liberals have embraced the cause of the Palestinians, conservatives have come to admire Israel for standing up first to Soviet allies (such as Egypt and Syria) and more recently to Islamic terrorism. (2) Today I would estimate that the majority of the most fervent advocates for Israel in America today are evangelical Christians, not Jews.

Many Jews today, including notably Mr Fein, are uncomfortable in an alliance with people like Mr Hagee. (3) While I sympathize with this discomfort, I believe those who support a strong US-Israel relationship should continue to work together, even when sharply divided on religion and other issues.

In any democracy, various groups of people often support a common cause for totally different reasons. For example, feminists may back a bill demanding long mandatory prison terms for rapists because rapists hurt women, while hard-line conservatives may back the same bill because they want all violent criminals treated harshly. By the same token, I hope that Jews and Muslims will work together to thwart any measure that would give Christian beliefs or practices any form of state preference, even while they battle over Middle East policy.

Co-operation can have its pitfalls. For example, several Zionist groups have proposed to speak for Israel in churches; if this is permitted, should Christians then be allowed to speak for Christ in synagogues? I hope not! CUFI has made many donations to Jewish Federations; should Jews be expected to contribute to Christian causes? It would be contrary to halacha (Torah-law) to contribute to any church or mission.

In other words, we should accept support for Israel wherever we can get it, even from the Christian Right, but offer nothing in return. If that arrangement is good enough for Rev. Hagee and his colleagues, it is good enough for me.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(1) Quoted in the Wisconsin Jewish Chronicle, May 30, 2008, page 4.

(2) See "Dead End on J Street", the May 16, 2008, Glazerbeam.

(3) Rev. Hagee does not advocate trying to convert Jews because (a) they already have a covenant with God, which is still valid and (b) they cannot be converted. However, he holds that "in the end of times, someone's going to have to make a major theological readjustment, I think it will be them (the Jews)......" The "end of times" refers to after the "Second Coming."
(Thanks to Jim Beer for this quotation.)