Ran HaCohen - December 27, 2007
Israeli "Defense" Minister Ehud Barak is definitely the most dangerous politician in the Middle East. Ahmadinejad can only dream of having the powers – political and military, conventional and non-conventional – that Barak already possesses. Netanyahu and other far-right Israeli politicians say what they think and are earmarked as extremists, so they are under permanent scrutiny. Barak is more extreme than Netanyahu, but he's an extremist in disguise.
The person who destroyed the Oslo Process and initiated the second Intifada, the person who demolished the Israeli peace camp from within, by spreading legends about a "generous offer" rejected by the Palestinian, by persuading the Israelis that he "unmasked" Arafat and that there was no Palestinian partner – this person still calls himself "the leader of the Israeli peace camp." That's one of Barak's most dangerous traits: his inherent untruthfulness, his presenting himself as the very opposite of what he actually is.
Barak hasn't changed. As Yedioth Ahronoth announced just a few months ago ("Labor Leader More Right-Wing Than Netanyahu," Aug. 10, 2007), Barak described the renewal of the peace talks as "a fantasy," said "there is no difference between Hamas and Fatah"; promised "I will not remove roadblocks in the West Bank"; and repeated his old mantra, "there is no chance for a settlement with the Palestinians."
Indeed, Barak opposed the Annapolis Summit all along. His opposition turned into reserved support just a few weeks before, when it became clear the meeting would be nothing but a photo-op. On top of it, to make sure nothing comes out of the newly launched process, Barak repeatedly calls to resume peace negotiations with Syria, simultaneously with the Palestinian track. A characteristic Barakian trick: urging to resume peace talks with Syria enables Barak to boost his false reputation as a man of peace even as he knowingly works to sabotage any prospect of peace. In an official report written under then-Prime Minister Ehud Barak in 2000, recently obtained and published in Hebrew by Ha'aretz (Dec. 13, 2007), Barak's bureau chief wrote that resuming negotiations with Syria had led to extreme distrust and stiffening on the Palestinian side, and, on top of it, that the Israeli team had been unable to manage negotiations on both fronts simultaneously. In other words, resuming negotiations with Syria is a tested measure to make sure the Palestinian track doesn't work, and Barak is playing this dirty card for the second time.
Barak promised to quit the coalition with Olmert after the publication of the Winograd Commission final report, which is likely to blame Olmert for the failed war in Lebanon in summer 2006. He has now hinted, through his "aides," that he won't keep his promise (Barak never speaks to the media; he sends his "aides" to hint at his intentions, so that no one can hold him responsible for anything he actually says). It is quite likely that Barak's perverse logic leads him to plan his return to the prime minister's office by way of a "small" war. Once Olmert is officially discredited for the failed Lebanon war, Barak as defense minister can hope to take all the credit for a new, successful war – a big operation in Gaza ("drawing nearer all the time," as Barak tirelessly repeats), a war on Syria, a strike on Iran, or a combination of all these. Such a war would also be an excellent pretext to break his promise to exit the coalition: after all, it would be "irresponsible" to quit when a war is imminent.
Barak knows all too well how to get Israel into a war, even behind the government's back if needed: after all, it was young Maj. Gen. Barak who in the early 1980s recommended to his superiors in the army to use deception in order to allure the Israeli government and public into a war in Lebanon.
Rwanda Is Richer
Much of the foreign news in the popular media falls under "infotainment": "Man Bites Dog," "Host Eats Guest," "Woman Dry-Cleans Cat." Recently this kind of reporting – in both style and contents – is applied ever more often to the Gaza Strip, a region under effective Israeli control, just an hour's ride from Tel Aviv. We are informed about the price of a pack of cigarettes in besieged Gaza – more than $15 – while 63 percent of Gaza residents live on less than $2.50 a day, beating the poverty rate of Rwanda. We watch an amused television report about a soft-drink producer in the Strip, who, unable to get CO2-gas, found an original way to produce soda pop using some other, available gas. Or about a dramatic rise in the prices of donkeys, since there is no gasoline for cars, and how the transport of goods is done by animals. Great pictures: The soft-drink producer proudly showing his chemical invention, shaking off allegations it may cause cancer. A starving Gazan donkey auctioned for $60, $75, $100, the seller saying he cannot afford to feed it. Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh congratulating his people on the Muslim holiday of Eid ul-Adha, admitting there are no lambs to sacrifice in the starving Strip.
Hermetically under siege, after decades of occupation and years of Intifada in which Israel destroyed the little infrastructure that the Strip ever had, following many months of total embargo on everything except basic food products, which brought the economy to a halt, with daily invasions of Israeli tanks and extra-judicial killings by Israeli airplanes, and now with gasoline supplies cut and electricity supply to be reduced soon, the Gaza Strip (1.5 million people, 80 percent refugees) is no longer the world's biggest open-air prison. It's a huge laboratory for human experimentation, run by the Israeli army.
Some of these reports came together with the "good news" about the international community promising to give more than $7 billion to the Palestinian Authority over the next three years. Some Israeli commentators described the promised sum as the biggest amount ever given to any leader anywhere, though it is significantly smaller than the American military support given to the regional power, Israel, in any given three years. Others quickly calculated that every Palestinian family would "earn" about a $1,000 a month, if the sum were to be divided equally; but, they added triumphantly, we all know that most of it would get to the corrupt pockets of the Fatah leadership and not to the poor guy selling his donkey in Gaza. Dramatic sigh of despair and self-righteousness: once again, the Palestinians are to blame for their own plight. No one bothers to take the thought a step forward – for example, to wonder why Israel is so anxious to keep alive the corrupt Fatah leadership, even after it lost the support of its own people and was overthrown in Gaza, precisely because of its inherent corruption.
The public discourse in Israel does love questions – but only of the kind posed by President Shimon Peres last week: "There's not a single Israeli settler or soldier in Gaza now, so why do they shoot at us?" Yes, why do they?
Saturday, 29 December 2007
Fewer Jews are choosing to make Israel their home
December 29, 2007
This year nineteen thousand Jews immigrated to Israel. That's a drop of nearly 9.3 per cent from 2006. And it's a fall of nearly 30 percent since the year 2000.
This year nineteen thousand Jews immigrated to Israel. That's a drop of nearly 9.3 per cent from 2006. And it's a fall of nearly 30 percent since the year 2000.
Al Jazeera's Ayman Mohyeldin looks at why fewer Jews are choosing to make Israel their home.
Critical Mass against the Occupation
Tel Aviv 27-12-2007
Critical Mass against the Occupation and for resistance to the Apartheid roads.
The opportunity to practice our freedom compels us to join the struggle of those who are unable to move without restraint.
This action demonstrates a freedom that can not be utilized by people living an hour away from Tel-Aviv!
Wednesday, 19 December 2007
PM will visit Israel
Michelle Grattan, The Age, December 7, 2007
Kevin Rudd will go to the Middle East, including Israel, during this term.
Mr Rudd made this commitment to Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, who rang him offering congratulations on Wednesday night.
Mr Olmert, who called the Prime Minister at home, was particularly interested to inquire about the success of the new Labor MP for Eden-Monaro, Mike Kelly, who is married to a cousin of Mr Olmert.
Mr Rudd and Mr Olmert discussed the Middle East peace talks and Mr Rudd wished Mr Olmert every success.
They also discussed getting together at some international event.
------------------------
Olmert joins growing list of overseas callers
Paul Maley, The Australian, December 7, 2007
Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has joined the growing list of world leaders to congratulate Kevin Rudd on his recent win.
Mr Olmert called the Labor leader on Wednesday night and the two had a 10-minute phone call.
It is understood the conversation covered the Israeli-Palestinian peace talks conducted in the US city of Annapolis.
Mr Rudd's office last night confirmed Mr Olmert had phoned but refused to discuss the details of the call.
However, a spokesman for the Israeli embassy said Mr Rudd had expressed support for the talks and pledged to visit Israel at some point during his first term, as part of a broader trip to the Middle East.
The spokesman said the tone of the phone call was positive.
Mr Rudd twice visited Israel as Opposition foreign affairs spokesman, first in 2003 and again in 2004.
The last time an Australian prime minister visited Israel was in 2000, when John Howard was invited by then-Israeli prime minister Ehud Barak.
It is understood the two men also discussed Eden Monaro MP Mike Kelly, whose wife, Shelley is Mr Olmert's cousin.
The Australian understands Mr Olmert also phoned Mr Kelly to congratulate him on his victory over former special minister of state, Liberal MP Gary Nairn.
===============================
Sydney Peace Prize row
PM - Monday, 3 November , 2003 18:38:00
Reporter: Nick Grimm
MARK COLVIN: Who'd have thought that the awarding of a peace prize could create so much hostility and in so many places? The row over plans to award the Sydney Peace Prize to the Palestinian activist, Hanan Ashrawi, has now widened to the Australian military.
A senior Australian army officer in Iraq wrote to the New South Wales Premier, Bob Carr, pleading with him not to proceed with the award.
It was supposed to be a private letter, but it was leaked to the media, and it's raised questions about the military's relationship to politics, and about whether the Colonel was right in linking Iraq to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Nick Grimm compiled this report.
MIKE KELLY: And people have to realise that if they're arguing against this legislation, they're arguing in favour of the maintenance of this archaic status quo.
NICK GRIMM: That's the voice of military lawyer, Colonel Mike Kelly, three years ago when he was a plain old lieutenant colonel in charge of the Australian Defence Forces Military Law Centre.
In those days, he was well known to the Canberra press gallery, as he helped to argue the merits of the Federal Government's controversial Defence Legislation Amendment Bill. At the time, it was being opposed by the Opposition parties because it opened the way for the military to be sent in against striking workers, or, it was argued, for troops to open fire on civilian protestors.
MIKE KELLY: We're in fact attempting to fix that problem.
NICK GRIMM: Now, Colonel Kelly is back in the news, apparently most unwillingly. He's currently serving in Baghdad as a senior adviser to Coalition forces. A highly regarded expert in military law, until now Mike Kelly has been noted for his writings on the legal aspects of peacekeeping operations.
But it was a letter he sent to New South Wales Premier Bob Carr, urging him to reconsider plans to award the Sydney Peace Prize this week, to the Palestinian activist Dr Hanan Ashrawi, that has brought the Colonel back into the spotlight.
Sections of that letter leaked to the media are as follows:
EXCERPT OF LETTER: It is precisely these kinds of legitimising actions that have encouraged the terrorism that I and my colleagues in the Coalition forces are engaged in fighting.
I am well aware, having studied and been involved in the counter-terrorist effort over 16 years that people like Hanan Ashwari are paraded before the Western media as a voice of reason, while out of the corner of their mouths establishing the basis for the slaughter of the innocents in a cynical, calculated, malevolent method of operating that completely dupes naïve Westerners.
You have to have spent time in this part of the world to appreciate what I am saying, but I would suggest that you credit my opinion as based on bitter experience. It would be hard to explain to a soldier here who has just lost both legs in a terrorist attack, why an Australian State Premier, supposedly an ally in this war, has been in effect, comforting the enemy.
NICK GRIMM: According to the Australian Defence Force, Mike Kelly is not interested in speaking to the media, and he's said to be angry that what was sent as a "private letter" has been leaked.
Today meanwhile, Bob Carr attacked the officer who he's dismissed as "clanking around in colonel's regalia".
BOB CARR: Since he very kindly sent it to the media and it was publicised in The Australian on Saturday, I have confirmed that it's been received in the office. But it is very, very wrong for someone wearing the uniform of his country, serving all Australians to find time to shoot off an intervention in Australian politics.
NICK GRIMM: The Defence Force says Colonel Kelly's views are his own and not those of the Department. A Spokesman told PM his letter does not contravene any defence instructions to its personnel and that no action will be taken against him.
Certainly, it's not matter for a court martial, but whether it was wise, is open for judgment.
NEIL JAMES: Well, the position of the Australian Defence Association is that we're somewhat surprised to see something like this appear in the media.
NICK GRIMM: Neil James is from the Australian Defence Association.
NEIL JAMES: I think the fact the letter's become public is obviously somewhat of an embarrassment. The other way of looking at the question is, is there would appear to be a somewhat tenuous connection between the peace prize being awarded to Dr Ashwari and the ensuing controversy, and Coalition operations in Iraq.
NICK GRIMM: So, Neil James in the light of that, are you surprised this letter was written in the first place?
NEIL JAMES: I'm somewhat surprised that an officer of Colonel Kelly's experience wrote a letter like this.
NICK GRIMM: But the views expressed in Colonel Kelly's letter aren't so far off the mark, according to Justice Marcus Einfeld, who has also publicly criticised the choice of Hanan Ashrawi.
MARCUS EINFELD: The problem with Dr Ashwari is that she hides under an ostensibly peace agenda, with eloquence and considerable intellect, a proposal or series of proposals that far from creating peace would in fact create war.
NICK GRIMM: Let's get it straight though, you're not actually arguing that the prize shouldn't go to a Palestinian, per se?
MARCUS EINFELD: Absolutely not. I know… I've worked with and know well a significant number of Palestinians who have made and are still making major efforts to bring about peace and an end to the senseless killing that is taking place on both sides.
NICK GRIMM: But Bob Carr says Dr Ashwari's efforts to find a peaceful solution to the Middle East conflict will make her a worthy recipient of the Sydney Peace Prize when he awards it to her in the New South Wales Parliament, on Thursday.
MARK COLVIN: Nick Grimm reporting.
Kevin Rudd will go to the Middle East, including Israel, during this term.
Mr Rudd made this commitment to Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, who rang him offering congratulations on Wednesday night.
Mr Olmert, who called the Prime Minister at home, was particularly interested to inquire about the success of the new Labor MP for Eden-Monaro, Mike Kelly, who is married to a cousin of Mr Olmert.
Mr Rudd and Mr Olmert discussed the Middle East peace talks and Mr Rudd wished Mr Olmert every success.
They also discussed getting together at some international event.
------------------------
Olmert joins growing list of overseas callers
Paul Maley, The Australian, December 7, 2007
Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has joined the growing list of world leaders to congratulate Kevin Rudd on his recent win.
Mr Olmert called the Labor leader on Wednesday night and the two had a 10-minute phone call.
It is understood the conversation covered the Israeli-Palestinian peace talks conducted in the US city of Annapolis.
Mr Rudd's office last night confirmed Mr Olmert had phoned but refused to discuss the details of the call.
However, a spokesman for the Israeli embassy said Mr Rudd had expressed support for the talks and pledged to visit Israel at some point during his first term, as part of a broader trip to the Middle East.
The spokesman said the tone of the phone call was positive.
Mr Rudd twice visited Israel as Opposition foreign affairs spokesman, first in 2003 and again in 2004.
The last time an Australian prime minister visited Israel was in 2000, when John Howard was invited by then-Israeli prime minister Ehud Barak.
It is understood the two men also discussed Eden Monaro MP Mike Kelly, whose wife, Shelley is Mr Olmert's cousin.
The Australian understands Mr Olmert also phoned Mr Kelly to congratulate him on his victory over former special minister of state, Liberal MP Gary Nairn.
===============================
Sydney Peace Prize row
PM - Monday, 3 November , 2003 18:38:00
Reporter: Nick Grimm
MARK COLVIN: Who'd have thought that the awarding of a peace prize could create so much hostility and in so many places? The row over plans to award the Sydney Peace Prize to the Palestinian activist, Hanan Ashrawi, has now widened to the Australian military.
A senior Australian army officer in Iraq wrote to the New South Wales Premier, Bob Carr, pleading with him not to proceed with the award.
It was supposed to be a private letter, but it was leaked to the media, and it's raised questions about the military's relationship to politics, and about whether the Colonel was right in linking Iraq to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Nick Grimm compiled this report.
MIKE KELLY: And people have to realise that if they're arguing against this legislation, they're arguing in favour of the maintenance of this archaic status quo.
NICK GRIMM: That's the voice of military lawyer, Colonel Mike Kelly, three years ago when he was a plain old lieutenant colonel in charge of the Australian Defence Forces Military Law Centre.
In those days, he was well known to the Canberra press gallery, as he helped to argue the merits of the Federal Government's controversial Defence Legislation Amendment Bill. At the time, it was being opposed by the Opposition parties because it opened the way for the military to be sent in against striking workers, or, it was argued, for troops to open fire on civilian protestors.
MIKE KELLY: We're in fact attempting to fix that problem.
NICK GRIMM: Now, Colonel Kelly is back in the news, apparently most unwillingly. He's currently serving in Baghdad as a senior adviser to Coalition forces. A highly regarded expert in military law, until now Mike Kelly has been noted for his writings on the legal aspects of peacekeeping operations.
But it was a letter he sent to New South Wales Premier Bob Carr, urging him to reconsider plans to award the Sydney Peace Prize this week, to the Palestinian activist Dr Hanan Ashrawi, that has brought the Colonel back into the spotlight.
Sections of that letter leaked to the media are as follows:
EXCERPT OF LETTER: It is precisely these kinds of legitimising actions that have encouraged the terrorism that I and my colleagues in the Coalition forces are engaged in fighting.
I am well aware, having studied and been involved in the counter-terrorist effort over 16 years that people like Hanan Ashwari are paraded before the Western media as a voice of reason, while out of the corner of their mouths establishing the basis for the slaughter of the innocents in a cynical, calculated, malevolent method of operating that completely dupes naïve Westerners.
You have to have spent time in this part of the world to appreciate what I am saying, but I would suggest that you credit my opinion as based on bitter experience. It would be hard to explain to a soldier here who has just lost both legs in a terrorist attack, why an Australian State Premier, supposedly an ally in this war, has been in effect, comforting the enemy.
NICK GRIMM: According to the Australian Defence Force, Mike Kelly is not interested in speaking to the media, and he's said to be angry that what was sent as a "private letter" has been leaked.
Today meanwhile, Bob Carr attacked the officer who he's dismissed as "clanking around in colonel's regalia".
BOB CARR: Since he very kindly sent it to the media and it was publicised in The Australian on Saturday, I have confirmed that it's been received in the office. But it is very, very wrong for someone wearing the uniform of his country, serving all Australians to find time to shoot off an intervention in Australian politics.
NICK GRIMM: The Defence Force says Colonel Kelly's views are his own and not those of the Department. A Spokesman told PM his letter does not contravene any defence instructions to its personnel and that no action will be taken against him.
Certainly, it's not matter for a court martial, but whether it was wise, is open for judgment.
NEIL JAMES: Well, the position of the Australian Defence Association is that we're somewhat surprised to see something like this appear in the media.
NICK GRIMM: Neil James is from the Australian Defence Association.
NEIL JAMES: I think the fact the letter's become public is obviously somewhat of an embarrassment. The other way of looking at the question is, is there would appear to be a somewhat tenuous connection between the peace prize being awarded to Dr Ashwari and the ensuing controversy, and Coalition operations in Iraq.
NICK GRIMM: So, Neil James in the light of that, are you surprised this letter was written in the first place?
NEIL JAMES: I'm somewhat surprised that an officer of Colonel Kelly's experience wrote a letter like this.
NICK GRIMM: But the views expressed in Colonel Kelly's letter aren't so far off the mark, according to Justice Marcus Einfeld, who has also publicly criticised the choice of Hanan Ashrawi.
MARCUS EINFELD: The problem with Dr Ashwari is that she hides under an ostensibly peace agenda, with eloquence and considerable intellect, a proposal or series of proposals that far from creating peace would in fact create war.
NICK GRIMM: Let's get it straight though, you're not actually arguing that the prize shouldn't go to a Palestinian, per se?
MARCUS EINFELD: Absolutely not. I know… I've worked with and know well a significant number of Palestinians who have made and are still making major efforts to bring about peace and an end to the senseless killing that is taking place on both sides.
NICK GRIMM: But Bob Carr says Dr Ashwari's efforts to find a peaceful solution to the Middle East conflict will make her a worthy recipient of the Sydney Peace Prize when he awards it to her in the New South Wales Parliament, on Thursday.
MARK COLVIN: Nick Grimm reporting.
Zochrot - Remembering the Nakba
Zochrot marked 60 years to the partition resolution
Tel Aviv, Israel, 29/11/2007
Life-sized posters of Palestinian refugees expelled from the village of al-Ras al-Ahmar, now residents at Ein al-Hilwa refugee camp in Lebanon, were brought to Rotchild Ave in Tel Aviv on the 29th of November 2007, to commemorate 60 years of the UN's Partition Plan.
http://flickr.com/photos/activestills/tags/zochrot/
Tel Aviv, Israel, 29/11/2007
Life-sized posters of Palestinian refugees expelled from the village of al-Ras al-Ahmar, now residents at Ein al-Hilwa refugee camp in Lebanon, were brought to Rotchild Ave in Tel Aviv on the 29th of November 2007, to commemorate 60 years of the UN's Partition Plan.
http://flickr.com/photos/activestills/tags/zochrot/
The right wing's Jerusalem gambit
A new coalition of religious hard-liners with ties to President Bush seeks to scuttle any plans for dividing Jerusalem between Israelis and Palestinians.
Gregory Levey, Salon.com, December 13, 2007
On Nov. 26, the U.S. State Department got hit with an unexpected barrage of phone calls. The Coordinating Council on Jerusalem, a new coalition of American groups with hard-line views on Israel, was on the line -- all of the lines. Or so the group said two days later in a press release, proudly proclaiming that with 10,000 calls in less than 48 hours it had managed to overload the State Department's voice-mail system. The group was making known its opposition to any Israeli concessions on dividing Jerusalem between Israelis and Palestinians -- an issue that was swirling around the Bush administration's peace summit taking place in Annapolis, Md.
The new coalition's dubious achievement wasn't much noticed by the media, and perhaps isn't in itself important, but it was a sign of battles to come in the year ahead, as Israeli and Palestinian leaders struggle to move forward with any real progress after Annapolis. Although most appraisals of the conference were reservedly positive -- after all, at least the two sides were talking seriously again after a seven-year drought -- the event also opened a can of worms.
On the eve of Annapolis, the new right-wing coalition's representatives directly lobbied a top Bush official with their concerns about the summit. Even Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert took notice and seemed threatened by their potential to obstruct progress -- leveling some harsh words just before the Annapolis conference apparently directed at the coalition.
Annapolis was only the beginning of a renewed series of high-level negotiations, and the joint Israeli-Palestinian statement read by President Bush at the event was purposefully vague so as to avoid angering either leader's constituents or allies. Anyone reading between the lines, however, could see that the most explosive issue of all, dividing Jerusalem, had reemerged. The new coalition of religious groups seeks to use the incendiary Jerusalem question to scuttle any of the progress promised by Annapolis. Its efforts also threaten to cause painful rifts among American Jews, and perhaps shake up some pro-Israel political alliances.
Although the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, the most influential pro-Israel lobbying group in the U.S., seems to be taking a wait-and-see approach to the new high-level negotiations, some of AIPAC's major donors and allies are involved with the Coordinating Council on Jerusalem. The coalition is also being aided in its efforts by evangelical Christian groups and supported by figures such as G. Gordon Liddy. It is directed by an influential former fundraiser for George W. Bush, Jeff Ballabon.
Ballabon is a Washington lobbyist who served as a major fundraiser for the 2004 Bush reelection campaign and was the architect of a strategy that has sought to bring Orthodox Jews into the Republican fold, in an effort to balance the overwhelmingly Democratic voting habits of mainstream American Jews. Just before the conference in Annapolis, Ballabon, along with Christian leaders and representatives of various Orthodox groups, met with Bush's national security advisor, Stephen Hadley, to make sure their point of view, and the force of their commitment, were understood by the administration. According to the Israeli newspaper Haaretz, Hadley reportedly assured them that, for the time being, the issue of Jerusalem was in fact not on the negotiating table.
Some interesting fissures have begun to crop up along with the new coalition. A few weeks before the Annapolis meeting, a congressional letter requesting increased aid for the Palestinian Authority -- which would help it meet some of its obligations toward achieving peace -- was endorsed by AIPAC, surprising many in Washington lobbying circles. (The Israeli government had not opposed the aid.) That decision earned AIPAC a sharp rebuke by one of its most important donors, billionaire Sheldon Adelson, who said, "If someone is going to jump off a bridge, it is incumbent upon their friends to dissuade them." Adelson, reportedly the third richest person in the United States and a prominent donor to the Republican Party, is also a major donor to the Zionist Organization of America, a group that, although lacking anything near the clout that AIPAC wields, is still influential among Middle East hawks in the GOP. And it is a core member of the new Coordinating Council. The national president of ZOA, Mort Klein, told Salon in an interview that "Israel should not be willing to give away any part of Jerusalem to another entity, just as the U.S. wouldn't give away any part of Washington." He added, "Jerusalem is mentioned 700 times in our holy book. It's not mentioned even once in the Quran."
ZOA has been active for a long time, but has never gotten the kind of political attention enjoyed by AIPAC and other more mainstream groups, or by the Christian evangelical groups pushing hawkish Middle East polices who have joined the Coordinating Council. What has changed is that the obstructionist agenda of the ZOA and the evangelical groups is now being aided by the Orthodox and ultra-Orthodox Jewish member organizations of the newly formed coalition -- many of which have, prior to now, stayed aloof from international politics.
Agudath Israel, for example, an umbrella organization of ultra-Orthodox American Jews and a member group of the Coordinating Council, recently broke its long-held rule of not delving into Middle East politics by speaking out against the division of Jerusalem. The Orthodox Union, the largest Orthodox Jewish umbrella organization in the United States, also recently broke its tradition of supporting the policies of the Israeli government, issuing a press release that sharply criticized Olmert's statements at Annapolis because he "did not explicitly resist Palestinian President [Mahmoud] Abbas' claim to a piece of Jerusalem."
That a successful peace deal would necessitate some sharing of Jerusalem is at this point essentially a given in the eyes of most political leaders. It has been floated subtly by Prime Minister Olmert's Cabinet allies, is quite clearly supported by many in the State Department and is thought of as an absolute minimum for agreement by Abbas.
To Orthodox Jews, however, Jerusalem is a red line (just as it is to their opposites on the Muslim side). Any perceived threat to sole ownership of the holy city summons dangerous levels of emotion and energy, even from those who would not normally pause from their prayers and everyday lives to wade into the swamp of Middle East politics. It is these thousands of Americans, normally not involved in Middle East discourse, that may give the Coordinating Council for Jerusalem the strength and potential to be a real obstacle to peace in the year to come.
These stirrings stateside have not gone unnoticed by the Israeli government. In response to the lobbying intended to preempt any talk of dividing Jerusalem, Olmert stated, "Israel is sovereign to decide on any issue regarding Israel." The message was that Jerusalem is an issue to be determined by Israel itself, and not by its hard-line American cheerleaders.
To be sure, the views of this new American coalition of religious right-wingers don't come anywhere near representing the consensus of American Jewry or of Israel's mainstream supporters in the United States -- whose views, unlike those of the CCJ, don't generally turn on Scripture but rather on issues of peace and security. Still, the vigor with which these actors have recently entered the debate, and the determined efforts with which they will likely proceed over the next year, aren't going to make anything easy for those striving for a Middle East accord of any kind.
The Annapolis conference may have been a start, but it has also unleashed a zealotry on U.S. shores that may once again help demonstrate how nearly impossible achieving Middle East peace could really be.
Gregory Levey, Salon.com, December 13, 2007
On Nov. 26, the U.S. State Department got hit with an unexpected barrage of phone calls. The Coordinating Council on Jerusalem, a new coalition of American groups with hard-line views on Israel, was on the line -- all of the lines. Or so the group said two days later in a press release, proudly proclaiming that with 10,000 calls in less than 48 hours it had managed to overload the State Department's voice-mail system. The group was making known its opposition to any Israeli concessions on dividing Jerusalem between Israelis and Palestinians -- an issue that was swirling around the Bush administration's peace summit taking place in Annapolis, Md.
The new coalition's dubious achievement wasn't much noticed by the media, and perhaps isn't in itself important, but it was a sign of battles to come in the year ahead, as Israeli and Palestinian leaders struggle to move forward with any real progress after Annapolis. Although most appraisals of the conference were reservedly positive -- after all, at least the two sides were talking seriously again after a seven-year drought -- the event also opened a can of worms.
On the eve of Annapolis, the new right-wing coalition's representatives directly lobbied a top Bush official with their concerns about the summit. Even Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert took notice and seemed threatened by their potential to obstruct progress -- leveling some harsh words just before the Annapolis conference apparently directed at the coalition.
Annapolis was only the beginning of a renewed series of high-level negotiations, and the joint Israeli-Palestinian statement read by President Bush at the event was purposefully vague so as to avoid angering either leader's constituents or allies. Anyone reading between the lines, however, could see that the most explosive issue of all, dividing Jerusalem, had reemerged. The new coalition of religious groups seeks to use the incendiary Jerusalem question to scuttle any of the progress promised by Annapolis. Its efforts also threaten to cause painful rifts among American Jews, and perhaps shake up some pro-Israel political alliances.
Although the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, the most influential pro-Israel lobbying group in the U.S., seems to be taking a wait-and-see approach to the new high-level negotiations, some of AIPAC's major donors and allies are involved with the Coordinating Council on Jerusalem. The coalition is also being aided in its efforts by evangelical Christian groups and supported by figures such as G. Gordon Liddy. It is directed by an influential former fundraiser for George W. Bush, Jeff Ballabon.
Ballabon is a Washington lobbyist who served as a major fundraiser for the 2004 Bush reelection campaign and was the architect of a strategy that has sought to bring Orthodox Jews into the Republican fold, in an effort to balance the overwhelmingly Democratic voting habits of mainstream American Jews. Just before the conference in Annapolis, Ballabon, along with Christian leaders and representatives of various Orthodox groups, met with Bush's national security advisor, Stephen Hadley, to make sure their point of view, and the force of their commitment, were understood by the administration. According to the Israeli newspaper Haaretz, Hadley reportedly assured them that, for the time being, the issue of Jerusalem was in fact not on the negotiating table.
Some interesting fissures have begun to crop up along with the new coalition. A few weeks before the Annapolis meeting, a congressional letter requesting increased aid for the Palestinian Authority -- which would help it meet some of its obligations toward achieving peace -- was endorsed by AIPAC, surprising many in Washington lobbying circles. (The Israeli government had not opposed the aid.) That decision earned AIPAC a sharp rebuke by one of its most important donors, billionaire Sheldon Adelson, who said, "If someone is going to jump off a bridge, it is incumbent upon their friends to dissuade them." Adelson, reportedly the third richest person in the United States and a prominent donor to the Republican Party, is also a major donor to the Zionist Organization of America, a group that, although lacking anything near the clout that AIPAC wields, is still influential among Middle East hawks in the GOP. And it is a core member of the new Coordinating Council. The national president of ZOA, Mort Klein, told Salon in an interview that "Israel should not be willing to give away any part of Jerusalem to another entity, just as the U.S. wouldn't give away any part of Washington." He added, "Jerusalem is mentioned 700 times in our holy book. It's not mentioned even once in the Quran."
ZOA has been active for a long time, but has never gotten the kind of political attention enjoyed by AIPAC and other more mainstream groups, or by the Christian evangelical groups pushing hawkish Middle East polices who have joined the Coordinating Council. What has changed is that the obstructionist agenda of the ZOA and the evangelical groups is now being aided by the Orthodox and ultra-Orthodox Jewish member organizations of the newly formed coalition -- many of which have, prior to now, stayed aloof from international politics.
Agudath Israel, for example, an umbrella organization of ultra-Orthodox American Jews and a member group of the Coordinating Council, recently broke its long-held rule of not delving into Middle East politics by speaking out against the division of Jerusalem. The Orthodox Union, the largest Orthodox Jewish umbrella organization in the United States, also recently broke its tradition of supporting the policies of the Israeli government, issuing a press release that sharply criticized Olmert's statements at Annapolis because he "did not explicitly resist Palestinian President [Mahmoud] Abbas' claim to a piece of Jerusalem."
That a successful peace deal would necessitate some sharing of Jerusalem is at this point essentially a given in the eyes of most political leaders. It has been floated subtly by Prime Minister Olmert's Cabinet allies, is quite clearly supported by many in the State Department and is thought of as an absolute minimum for agreement by Abbas.
To Orthodox Jews, however, Jerusalem is a red line (just as it is to their opposites on the Muslim side). Any perceived threat to sole ownership of the holy city summons dangerous levels of emotion and energy, even from those who would not normally pause from their prayers and everyday lives to wade into the swamp of Middle East politics. It is these thousands of Americans, normally not involved in Middle East discourse, that may give the Coordinating Council for Jerusalem the strength and potential to be a real obstacle to peace in the year to come.
These stirrings stateside have not gone unnoticed by the Israeli government. In response to the lobbying intended to preempt any talk of dividing Jerusalem, Olmert stated, "Israel is sovereign to decide on any issue regarding Israel." The message was that Jerusalem is an issue to be determined by Israel itself, and not by its hard-line American cheerleaders.
To be sure, the views of this new American coalition of religious right-wingers don't come anywhere near representing the consensus of American Jewry or of Israel's mainstream supporters in the United States -- whose views, unlike those of the CCJ, don't generally turn on Scripture but rather on issues of peace and security. Still, the vigor with which these actors have recently entered the debate, and the determined efforts with which they will likely proceed over the next year, aren't going to make anything easy for those striving for a Middle East accord of any kind.
The Annapolis conference may have been a start, but it has also unleashed a zealotry on U.S. shores that may once again help demonstrate how nearly impossible achieving Middle East peace could really be.
Palestinian donor talks in Paris
Part 1
Part 2
Al Jazeera English - December 17, 2007
Ninety international donors have begun a one-day meeting in Paris to pledge funds to help lift the Palestinian economy and underpin the Middle East peace talks.
But is mobilising financial and political support for the Palestinian Authority enough to stop the worsening economic crisis in the West Bank and Gaza Strip?
The economic well-being of the Palestinians is widely seen as an essential pre-condition for the building of a viable and successful Palestinian state.
We explore the Paris conference and its chances of success, especially as the situation in the Gaza Strip continues to deteriorate.
The development plan presented by Salam Fayyad, the Palestinian prime minister, has won the support of the World Bank, but it relies on the gradual shift to development projects under a scenario that has Israel easing restrictions and enabling the private sector to recover. Can the Paris conference kickstart this process?
Part 2
Al Jazeera English - December 17, 2007
Ninety international donors have begun a one-day meeting in Paris to pledge funds to help lift the Palestinian economy and underpin the Middle East peace talks.
But is mobilising financial and political support for the Palestinian Authority enough to stop the worsening economic crisis in the West Bank and Gaza Strip?
The economic well-being of the Palestinians is widely seen as an essential pre-condition for the building of a viable and successful Palestinian state.
We explore the Paris conference and its chances of success, especially as the situation in the Gaza Strip continues to deteriorate.
The development plan presented by Salam Fayyad, the Palestinian prime minister, has won the support of the World Bank, but it relies on the gradual shift to development projects under a scenario that has Israel easing restrictions and enabling the private sector to recover. Can the Paris conference kickstart this process?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
