The Daily Show tackles the latest flap between Israel and Washington which is really just a lover’s tiff, likely to be resolved with some relaxing baths and nice walks along the beach:
| The Daily Show With Jon Stewart | Mon – Thurs 11p / 10c | |||
| The Path From Peace | ||||
|
||||
Senior Australian unionist Paul Howes wrote recently that Israel’s murder of a Hamas operative in Dubai was a wonderful thing to celebrate.
Retiring Labor MP Julia Irwin disagrees and said the following in Federal Parliament on 15 March:
Mrs IRWIN (Fowler) (9.18 pm)—I rise tonight to comment on an article in the Sunday Telegraph on 7 March
2010. The article, by the National Secretary of the Australian Workers Union, Mr Paul Howse, highlights three
things: (1) that Mr Howse is ignorant of the concept of justice; (2) that Mr Howse has little appreciation of the
values that Australians hold dear: and (3) that Mr Howse is completely ignorant of why unionists the world
over abhor extrajudicial killings. Mr Howse’s article celebrates the recent killing in Dubai of Mr Mahmoud al-
Mabhouh, a member of the Palestinian group Hamas, which Mr Howse described as ‘an ugly Islamo-fascist
terrorist organisation’. Paul Howse not only praises the extrajudicial killing of al-Mahbhouh, but happily declares his pride in Australia’s accidental involvement by virtue of the use of forged Australian passports to facilitate the travel of those involved in this murder.While no-one is rushing to claim responsibility for the killing, there is ample anecdotal supposition that the
state of Israel may be responsible for this extrajudicial killing. Anecdotal evidence and supposition do not stand
up in a court of law. In the absence of a direct admission or direct evidence of the real identities of those involved there may be little that can be done, and that is very much the point. We will now never have the evidence against al-Mabhouh presented to a court. Its veracity will never be tested. There will be no due process. Al-Mabhouh will never face his accusers, and the families of his alleged victims will never have the opportunity to see him face public scrutiny for his alleged crimes, nor will they receive justice. These families will never have the opportunity to see the evidence and know for certain that al-Mabhouh was directly responsible for their tragedies.In the case of Iraq’s Saddam Hussein, he was captured, due process was observed, he was tried in a court of
law, evidence was presented, and he was convicted and sentenced. The families of Saddam Hussein’s victims
received justice. The old adage says: justice must not only be done; it must be seen to be done. Extrajudicial
killings fall far short of this standard and they have no place in a true democracy. Yet Paul Howse is happy for
our laws to be broken, for our sovereignty to be impinged upon and for the Australians whose identities were
stolen to be placed in precarious positions—Australians, I might add, who share Israeli citizenship, Australians
who now face the prospect of being detained whenever they travel because of Interpol alerts. They must now
prove their innocence but even then when they travel their doubts will remain, not to mention the other Israeli
dual nationals from various countries who have also had their identities stolen in the commission of this murder.I am certain that these individuals would object to their identities being stolen for the commission of a crime.
The term extrajudicial killing is a polite way of referring to state sponsored murder, the execution of individuals
without judicial sanction and without due process. Of course the Dubai killing is not the first time extrajudicial
killings have been used as a tool to eliminate those deemed to be enemies of the state or simply undesirable. It has long been a tool of totalitarian regimes and military dictatorships around the world. Regimes in Europe, Africa, Asia, Latin and South America have all used this tool to eliminate opponents. In Latin and South America, for example, those who were opposed to right-wing regimes or military dictatorships were simply eliminated by right-wing death squads. Many of these were unionists representing the working class and defending workers’ rights and many were identified as left-wingers or communists and deemed opponents of a regime. Thousands disappeared in an orgy of kidnapping, torture and murder. In south-western Sydney today the Latin and South American communities tell of their stories. Many have told me personally of fleeing from their homelands in order to escape the extrajudicial punishment and extrajudicial murders meted out at the hands of regime thugs, often police, military or intelligent operatives acting under a cover with a nudge and a wink from those apparently in charge. Many lost family and friends without justification, and many victims remain missing even today.It may be easy for Paul Howse to glorify extrajudicial killings from the sidelines, but if we legitimise this
extrajudicial killing we legitimise them all, because each one is based not on law but on hearsay and a subjective
point of view. But such a view may not always be admissible in a court. It has no legal basis and falls far short
of the judicial and community standard. It would be open slather. What would the reaction have been had the
killers in Dubai been discovered and forced to kill others to effect an escape? A hotel worker, a hotel guest or a
tourist—would they have just been collateral damage? What would the reaction of Paul Howse have been had thekillings taken place on the streets of Sydney or Melbourne? Would the Australian media have been as accepting?
Would we have excused this as an act of a friend?While professing to share those values that we as Australians hold dear, Mr Howes is ready to compromise
them by terminating a life without judicial warrant or excuse. If it is acceptable for one group to act outside
traditional norms and practices and kill, then it will be open to others to act in a similar way. Civilised societies
do not accept this. Democratic and fair societies certainly do not. Australia does not and would not condone
extrajudicial killings, nor can we accept being a party to them, intentionally or unintentionally. Mr Howes needs to be reminded that in Australia we no longer have the death penalty. In fact, legislation has just passed in this parliament to extend the current Commonwealth prohibition on the death penalty to state laws. It ensures that the death penalty cannot be reintroduced in Australia; and extrajudicial killing, therefore, necessarily cuts against the grain. To be involved in its commission innocently or otherwise is abhorrent and unacceptable.The killers of al-Mabhouh, and their supporters, were willing to commit identity fraud and commit passport
and visa fraud to travel to a third country to murder an individual declared an enemy of the state by a small,
unknown and unaccountable group of individuals. In so doing, the perpetrators have trampled on the sovereignty of several nations, including our own—Australia. The reaction of the federal government, the Prime Minister and the foreign minister is entirely appropriate. The use of forged Australian passports is now being investigated by the Australian Federal Police and other agencies. Action will no doubt be taken if the evidence obtained warrants it.Rest assured that any further action by the Australian government will not involve extrajudicial punishment.
As a society Australians have always championed legal rights. Evidence is collected by the police and assessed
by the state’s legal officers. If that evidence warrants them, charges may be laid against an accused. Due process is observed. The evidence is presented in a court of law. If the accused is found guilty, punishment is handed out according to law—not according to what I think, not according to what Paul Howes thinks, but according to the law. Justice is not only done; it is seen to be done. It is the foundation of our Australian democracy and it is the foundation of our Australian society. I shudder to think where we might be without it,but I shuddered even more when I read the last paragraph of Paul Howes’s article:
Therefore, it is in our nation’s interest to do whatever we can to remove these vile people from power—by any means necessary.
Paul Howes—judge, jury and executioner.
Just in case we’d forgotten why Washington should never pressure Israel (today it’s Iran, yesterday it’s Iraq and perhaps in years to come…Venezuela?):
As more than a dozen lawmakers go on record to ask the Obama administration to end the diplomatic spat with Israel following Vice President Joe Biden’s visit, some are now warning that a prolonged dispute could risk harming international efforts to contain Iran’s nuclear program.
“What are we doing playing hardball with an ally like this?” asked House Minority Whip Eric Cantor, R-VA, in an interview with The Cable. “What’s important here is for all of us to be focused on the nuclear threat from Iran … We’re dependent upon that ally to be with us to combat Iran’s nuclear program.”
Cantor phoned White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel last night to make clear his view that it’s time for the administration to get over its anger at Israel for announcing the approval of 1,600 new housing units in East Jerusalem last week. He said he fears the White House is trying to capitalize on the incident to pressure the Israelis to agree to things Washington would otherwise not be able to get.
“There was an incident and no one defends the government of Israel over that, whether it was intentional or not,” Cantor said. “For the White House to seize on that incident and seize on that opportunity, that says a lot about the thinking of this administration.”
Cantor suggested there could be some legislative way of documenting Congress’s sentiments on this issue, but no specific plans have yet surfaced.
Congressional concern over how the row will impact Iran diplomacy has been bipartisan. Democratic New York Senator Kirsten Gillibrand echoed Cantor in a statement Tuesday morning.
“While the timing of the East Jerusalem housing announcement was regrettable, it must not cloud the most critical foreign policy issue facing both counties — Iran’s nuclear threat,” Gillibrand said.”As a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, I am focused on strengthening international pressure on Iran’s regime to derail its pursuit of nuclear weapons.”
Politico reports on a letter to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton from Reps. Mark Kirk, R-IL, and Chris Carney, D-PA, which said, “While the recent controversy is regrettable, it should not overshadow the importance of the US-Israel alliance. A zoning dispute over 143 acres of Jewish land in Israel’s capital city should not eclipse the growing threat we face from Iran… We urge your Administration to refrain from further public criticism of Israel and to focus on more pressing issues affecting this vital relationship, such as signing and enforcing the Iran Refined Petroleum Sanctions Act when it comes to your desk.”
Former Middle East negotiator Aaron David Miller said that U.S.-Israel cooperation on Iran was crucial and should not be sacrificed over this dispute.
“You can’t create a situation where we have no leverage over them and they think they’re basically on their own.”
The Atlantic’s Jeffrey Goldberg thinks he knows what the Obama administration is doing with Israel at the moment:
There is much speculation that this kerfluffle over 1,600 theoretical apartments on the wrong side of the green line in Jerusalem will lead to a rupture in American-Israeli relations, but analysts who suggest this are missing the point of President Obama’s maneuverings. I’ve been on the phone with many of the usual suspects (White House and otherwise), and I think it’s fair to say that Obama is not trying to destroy America’s relations with Israel; he’s trying to organize Tzipi Livni’s campaign for prime minister, or at least for her inclusion in a broad-based centrist government. I’m not actually suggesting that the White House is directly meddling in internal Israeli politics, but it’s clear to everyone — at the White House, at the State Department, at Goldblog — that no progress will be made on any front if Avigdor Lieberman’s far-right party, Yisrael Beiteinu, and Eli Yishai’s fundamentalist Shas Party, remain in Netanyahu’s surpassingly fragile coalition.
So what is the goal? The goal is force a rupture in the governing coalition that will make it necessary for Netanyahu to take into his government Livni’s centrist Kadima Party (he has already tried to do this, but too much on his terms) and form a broad, 68-seat majority in Knesset that does not have to rely on gangsters, messianists and medievalists for votes. It’s up to Livni, of course, to recognize that it is in Israel’s best interests to join a government with Netanyahu and Barak, and I, for one, hope she puts the interests of Israel ahead of her own ambitions.
Obama knows that this sort of stable, centrist coalition is the key to success. He would rather, I understand, not have to deal with Netanyahu at all — people near the President say that, for one thing, Obama doesn’t think that Netanyahu is very bright, and there is no chemistry at all between the two men — but he’d rather have a Netanyahu who is being pressured from his left than a Netanyahu who is being pressured from the right.
The Freedom Theatre in the Palestinian occupied territories gives locals the opportunity to learn and experience the live theatre and film experience.
This short film examines the challenges of young women struggling against the inherent conservatism of the area:
A press release from 15 March:
HaMoked: Center for the Defence of the Individual, Gisha – Legal Center for Freedom of Movement, and 11 other Israeli and Palestinian human rights organizations petitioned the Supreme Court today against the military and the Minister of Defense, demanding the revocation of an illegal procedure which prevents Palestinians living in the Gaza Strip from relocating to the West Bank, even in clearly humanitarian cases. The petition, written by Att. Ido Blum of HaMoked, states: “With the stroke of a pen, the procedure severs the fabric of life between Gaza and the West Bank for residents of the Territories. It effectively cancels Palestinians’ right to family life, tearing apart families and separating spouses, parents and children, grandparents and grandchildren. The procedure is, in effect, the last nail in the coffin of the connection between Gaza and the West Bank and their status as a single territorial unit (and in the future, perhaps, a single Palestinian state).”
In the new procedure, Israel empties the term “humanitarian” of any content by determining that family ties do not, in and of themselves, constitute sufficient humanitarian grounds for receiving a permit to relocate from Gaza to the West Bank. Thus, for example, Israel forbids a child who lost his mother in Gaza from moving to live with his father who resides in the West Bank, if he has any relatives in Gaza, no matter what degree, who can care for him. According to the procedure, spouses’ requests to live together and children’s requests to live with their parents are to be rejected out of hand, without being reviewed. The petition asks: “Is it conceivable that a security–bureaucratic procedure will determine which parent a child will live with; who will care for the elderly matron of the family; who will care for an ailing brother?”The petition further argues that the procedure is another component of a policy allowing one-way passage as the sole means through which Palestinians can fulfill their right to family life: permanent relocation from the West Bank to Gaza.The Petition challenges the procedure which was submitted to the Supreme Court following a number of petitions filed by HaMoked and Gisha requesting family unification between Gaza and the West Bank. The procedure prevents thousands of families – some of which are represented by HaMoked and Gisha – from uniting in the West Bank.Mrs. Fathiya Abu Jalaleh, a mother of five, lived in the West Bank for more than 10 years. In January 2008, she traveled with her four minor children to the Gaza Strip, while her husband Issam and their eldest son remained in Jenin due to the father’s position with National Security. In the two years since, Israel has continued to prevent the family from reuniting in the West Bank since Fathiya’s registered address is in Gaza.Mrs. Wafaa Sufi was married in the Gaza Strip to Mr. Subhi Sufi from the West Bank, They lived for some time with their four young daughters in the Gaza Strip, but about three years ago, Mr. Sufi had to return to the West Bank for the purpose of work and securing a livelihood, among other things. The two have not seen each other since, nor have the girls seen their father. Mrs. Sufi recently traveled to Jordan with the girls and sought to enter the West Bank via the Allenby Bridge. The Israeli military refused to let them in.The organizations which filed the petition: HaMoked: Center for the Defence of the Individual, Gisha – Legal Center for Freedom of Movement, The Association for Civil Rights in Israel, The Public Committee Against Torture in Israel, Al-Dameer Association for Human Rights, Yesh Din – Volunteers for Human Rights, Al Mezan Center for Human Rights, Jerusalem Legal Aid and Human Rights Center, Gaza Community Mental Health Programme, Palestinian Centre for Human Rights, Physicians for Human Rights – Israel, Rabbis for Human Rights.
Trust Daniel Pipes to both infuriate and shock. Sadly, the US-backed Palestinian militias are essentially a police state in the making and a useful army to quash any resistance to American/Israeli designs on the Palestinian territories:
“The stupidest program the U.S. government has ever undertaken” – last year that’s what I called American efforts to improve the Palestinian Authority (PA) military force. Slightly hyperbolic, yes, but the description fits because those efforts enhance the fighting power of enemies of the United States and its Israeli ally.
…
Looking ahead, however, I predict that those troops will more likely be a war partner than a peace partner for Israel.
Washington and Israel, the best of friends again:
Israel’s ambassador to Washington and the White House denied remarks that have fueled the current Israel-U.S. crisis.
Israel’s Michael Oren was quoted this week by Ha’aretz as saying that relations were at a 35-year-low after Israel embarrassed Vice President Joe Biden during visit to the region by announcing a massive housing start in Jerusalem.
On Tuesday evening, Oren issued a statement flatly denying that account of a conference call he had Saturday night with Israeli diplomats.
“I was flagrantly misquoted about remarks I made in a confidential briefing this past Saturday,” Oren said in a statement. “Recent events do not — I repeat — do not represent the lowest point in the relations between Israel and the United States. Though we differ on certain issues, our discussions are being conducted in an atmosphere of cooperation as befitting long-standing relations between allies. I am confident that we will overcome these differences shortly.”
Separately, numerous media quoted senior White House officials as denying an account in Yediot Achronot last week that Biden had told Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu that Israel was endangering the lives of American troops in the region.
“He never said that, and there’s no basis to assert that he did,” The Atlantic quoted one official as saying. “What he did say in a meeting with the prime minister and his senior advisers and his own team was that the U.S. is doing a number of things in our national security interest, and in Israel’s national security interest, and they include a strong effort to build a coalition against Iran’s nuclear program; deploying 200,000 troops in conflict areas in the region; standing against efforts to delegitimize Israel in various international bodies, sometimes virtually alone; acting decisively against terrorists in very significant ways; and building probably the strongest defense cooperation relationship with Israel that we’ve seen, including on missile defense.”
Everybody calm down. Hillary Clinton has reaffirmed Washington’s “absolute commitment to Israel’s security”.
Jerusalem is facing growing Palestinian protests, especially since Hamas called for a “day of rage”.
Bradley Burston writes in Haaretz a completely over the top comment:
Washington is beginning to relate to the Netanyahu government as if it were Hamas.
Please. Israel has not suffered any financial or diplomatic pain from America. The occupation continues. Settlements expand. Rightists are emboldened.
Washington ought to remember one thing, however: The majority of Israelis wholly oppose halting construction in east Jerusalem. They may be angry over the timing of the announcement – but most want building to continue.
I applaud critical Jewish voices, the more the merrier.
Welcome Lawrie Zion, Australian writer, academic and proud Jew. The fear of speaking out against Israeli immorality is decreasing by the day:
Some of my happiest times have been at the Passover table. Even for a relatively non-observant Jew like me, participation in a Seder has enhanced my sense of connection with my community, especially those shared with close friends who I have had the privilege to know since I was a child several decades ago.
The Passover story, which commemorates the departure of the Jews from their enslavement in Egypt, reminds us of the value of self-determination and freedom from oppression.
But when Passover begins in less than two weeks I will not be celebrating, because the disjuncture between what this festival is about and the reality of what is happening in modern Israel cannot be reconciled.
More than anything else, I cannot bring myself to be part of an even symbolic rendition of the line that punctuates every Seder – “Next Year in Jerusalem”.
I cannot utter these words while long-term Arab residents such as Nasser Jaber are thrown out of their homes in East Jerusalem. The house was invaded by settlers last year while Jaber spent four nights away while his house was being renovated.
I cannot utter these words when the Israeli government signals further turmoil to Arab residents by announcing plans to build another 1600 new homes in East Jerusalem – a provocation that just happened to coincide with the visit of the US Vice-President, who was attempting to reinvigorate the peace process.
I cannot say “Next Year in Jerusalem” when Israel refuses to discuss the serious suspicions that Mossad stole the identity of Diaspora Jews during the recent assassination of a Hamas militant in Dubai. (And I’m not laughing at the fact that an Israeli supermarket chain has seen fit to satirise the whole episode by spoofing the surveillance footage in a recent advertising campaign that culminates with the line ‘We offer killer prices’.)
I don’t expect that my personal boycott of Passover will achieve anything at all. But I believe that those Jews – and I don’t think I’m alone here – who feel alienated by the behaviour of the Israeli government and the excesses of the settler movement should feel free to make a gesture of silence this Passover instead of following the rituals of the festival.
I look forward to saying “Next Year in Jerusalem” at a time when Israel’s government acknowledges the values that Passover is meant to represent.
Dr Lawrie Zion is a Senior Lecturer and coordinator of the Journalism degree program at La Trobe University.
The growing public anger over gender segregated buses in Israel signifies the profound hypocrisy of those in the West who complain about gender apartheid in the Muslim world and remain mute over Israel’s ultra-Orthodox insanities.
Here’s a trailer from a documentary about the issue, Black Bus:
This from the Electronic Intifada in February:
Despite Israel’s oppressive tactics against it, the boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) movement has marked additional victories with many institutional investors divesting from or blacklisting Israeli military contractor Elbit Systems. One of the largest Dutch pension funds told The Electronic Intifada today that it is selling off its shares in Elbit.
The wave of divestment follows campaigning by Palestinian organizations and international solidarity activists to divest from companies profiting from the Israeli occupation.
A crucial role was played by the Palestinian Stop the Wall Campaign in convincing the Norwegian State Pension Fund to divest from Elbit Systems last September. In response, Israel detained campaign activist Mohammad Othman after he returned from a trip to Norway where he met Minister of Finance Kristin Halvorsen. Subject to office raids and its activists arrested, Stop the Wall has become a key target of Israeli attempts to suppress the nonviolent movement BDS. However, these repressive tactics haven’t stopped the BDS momentum.
In early September, Norway’s Minister of Finance Kristin Halvorsen announced that the Norwegian State Pension Fund had sold its shares in Elbit, worth $5.4 million. The pension fund’s Council on Ethics assessed that investments in Elbit constitute an unacceptable risk of contributing to serious violations of fundamental ethical norms because of the company’s involvement in the construction of Israel’s wall in the occupied West Bank. “We do not wish to fund companies that so directly contribute to violations of international humanitarian law,” Halvorsen explained.
According to the Who Profits from the Occupation? website, a subsidiary of Elbit also supplies the Israeli army with unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV) to the Israeli army. These UAVs, better known as drones, are used during Israeli military attacks in the occupied West Bank and Gaza Strip.
Elbit Systems Ltd won a $300 million contract on Monday to supply the Australian Army with command-and-control systems for its ground forces. The system will be similar to the Tzayad C4I system recently inaugurated by the IDF Ground Forces Command.
…
Under the contract with the Australians, Elbit will provide capabilities that will increase the commander’s battlespace awareness, automate combat messaging and assist in the execution of operations. Installation of the system on military vehicles, as well as the portable version carried by infantry commanders, will significantly reduce the risk of friendly fire incidents.
The great Amira Hass, a beacon in dark times.
One:
The army has declared the West Bank villages of Bil’in and Na’alin a ‘closed military area’ until August 17, it emerged Monday.
In arresting a demonstrator on Friday, police cited a military edict closing off the two villages, where weekly protests against the barrier Israel is erecting around the West Bank have often turned violent.
Two:
The response from the Israel Defense Forces spokesman came surprisingly quickly; a mere two or three hours after the query had been sent by Haaretz, the spokesman replied orally, and then in writing, that “following the reporter’s question and after receiving most of the facts, the chief [military] prosecutor, Col. Jana Modzagbrishvili has instructed the military police to look into the matter.”
The matter, according to most of the facts, was that soldiers had beaten a civilian, who was bound and blindfolded, for several hours on January 7.
Starting in the village of al-Tawani in the southern Hebron Hills, the affair continued at the military base in Sussia. The man who was beaten was Masab Rabai, aged 22.
A running, mainstream media commentary on Israel’s current spat with Washington is below. Countless articles are now appearing across the world detailing the supposed crisis between the close allies.
Frankly, I’m skeptical. I don’t doubt that the Obama administration is upset with Israel’s apparent dissing of Vice President Biden but what matters is a serious reversal of building in the West Bank and East Jerusalem. Without threatening financial or diplomatic punishment, Israel has nothing to worry about. Is this coming? Watch this space.
President Barack Obama and the Israeli prime minister, Binyamin Netanyahu, are on a collision course today in a row described by a senior Israeli diplomat as the worst crisis between the two countries for more than three decades.
An Obama administration source told the Guardian that the White House and US state department are intent on pushing Israel into substantive peace talks with the Palestinians and will not shy away this time as they did when the last effort ended in embarrassing failure in September.
“No one gets anywhere by accusing each other. We are hoping to lay the foundations for negotiations,” the source said. In order to get negotiations under way, the US is demanding that Netanyahu cancel or freeze plans to build 1,600 planned Jewish homes in Palestinian East Jerusalem. But Netanyahu, speaking at a meeting of his own Likud party, showed no signs of backing down. “The building in Jerusalem, and in all other places, will continue in the same way as has been customary over the last 42 years,” he said.
The Israeli ambassador to the US, Michael Oren, in a weekend telephone call to other Israeli diplomats, expressed alarm about the extent of the confrontation.
The Israeli newspaper Yedioth Ahronoth quoted the normally cool Oren, an academic-turned diplomat, as saying: “Israel’s ties with the United States are in their worst crisis since 1975 … a crisis of historic proportions.”
The Wall Street Journal editorial:
In recent weeks, the Obama Administration has endorsed “healthy relations” between Iran and Syria, mildly rebuked Syrian President Bashar Assad for accusing the U.S. of “colonialism,” and publicly apologized to Moammar Gadhafi for treating him with less than appropriate deference after the Libyan called for “a jihad” against Switzerland.
When it comes to Israel, however, the Administration has no trouble rising to a high pitch of public indignation. On a visit to Israel last week, Vice President Joe Biden condemned an announcement by a mid-level Israeli official that the government had approved a planning stage—the fourth out of seven required—for the construction of 1,600 housing units in north Jerusalem. Assuming final approval, no ground will be broken on the project for at least three years.
But neither that nor repeated apologies from Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu prevented Secretary of State Hillary Clinton—at what White House sources ostentatiously said was the personal direction of President Obama—from calling the announcement “an insult to the United States.” White House political chief David Axelrod got in his licks on NBC’s Meet the Press yesterday, lambasting Israel for what he described as “an affront.”
Since nobody is defending the Israeli announcement, least of all an obviously embarrassed Israeli government, it’s difficult to see why the Administration has chosen this occasion to spark a full-blown diplomatic crisis with its most reliable Middle Eastern ally. Mr. Biden’s visit was intended to reassure Israelis that the Administration remained fully committed to Israeli security and legitimacy. In a speech at Tel Aviv University two days after the Israeli announcement, Mr. Biden publicly thanked Mr. Netanyahu for “putting in place a process to prevent the recurrence” of similar incidents.
The subsequent escalation by Mrs. Clinton was clearly intended as a highly public rebuke to the Israelis, but its political and strategic logic is puzzling. The U.S. needs Israel’s acquiescence in the Obama Administration’s increasingly drawn-out efforts to halt Iran’s nuclear bid through diplomacy or sanctions. But Israel’s restraint is measured in direct proportion to its sense that U.S. security guarantees are good. If Israel senses that the Administration is looking for any pretext to blow up relations, it will care much less how the U.S. might react to a military strike on Iran.
As for the West Bank settlements, it is increasingly difficult to argue that their existence is the key obstacle to a peace deal with the Palestinians. Israel withdrew all of its settlements from Gaza in 2005, only to see the Strip transform itself into a Hamas statelet and a base for continuous rocket fire against Israeli civilians.
Israeli anxieties about America’s role as an honest broker in any diplomacy won’t be assuaged by the Administration’s neuralgia over this particular housing project, which falls within Jerusalem’s municipal boundaries and can only be described as a “settlement” in the maximalist terms defined by the Palestinians. Any realistic peace deal will have to include a readjustment of the 1967 borders and an exchange of territory, a point formally recognized by the Bush Administration prior to Israel’s withdrawal from Gaza. If the Obama Administration opts to transform itself, as the Europeans have, into another set of lawyers for the Palestinians, it will find Israeli concessions increasingly hard to come by.
That may be the preferred outcome for Israel’s enemies, both in the Arab world and the West, since it allows them to paint Israel as the intransigent party standing in the way of “peace.” Why an Administration that repeatedly avers its friendship with Israel would want that is another question.
Then again, this episode does fit Mr. Obama’s foreign policy pattern to date: Our enemies get courted; our friends get the squeeze. It has happened to Poland, the Czech Republic, Honduras and Colombia. Now it’s Israel’s turn.
As Washington went to bed Monday night, officials, wonks, and reporters were still struggling to digest where the diplomatic crisis between the U.S. and Israel stood.
Following Friday’s public dressing down of Israel Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu, announced via a State Department spokesman’s readout of an angry call with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, the Israeli side thought that a détente would follow and cooler heads would soon prevail. The Obama administration had made its point, and the Israeli side believed the harsh rhetoric would subside while Clinton waited for Netanyahu to respond to the list of demands she had read to him.
But that plan unraveled and confusion set in Monday after a roller-coaster couple of days where public and private signals crossed and different parts of the Obama administration seemed to be sending different messages.
As of late Monday evening, even Special Envoy George Mitchell didn’t know what to do, after having delayed his trip back to the region by one day. A State Department official said Monday afternoon that Mitchell wasn’t sure he could go ahead with his planned meetings unless he heard something constructive from the Israelis. Maybe he would just go on to Moscow for the scheduled meeting of the Quartet, the high-level diplomatic contact group that includes the European Union, Russia, the United Nations, and the United States.
Late Monday evening, the same official told The Cable that Mitchell would still leave Washington Monday night, “but he wants to be informed by the Israeli response before he departs.” That struck Israeli sources as odd because in Israel it was the middle of the night at the time.
“They are waiting for some kind of response from Prime Minister Netanyahu and I’m under the impression the response is coming soon,” an Israeli official who had no direct knowledge about Netanyahu’s thinking told The Cable. But, he added quickly, “If they don’t like the response … then what?”
So what happened between Friday and Monday?
A State Department official confirmed to The Cable that initially there was a U.S. effort to avoid talking about Clinton’s list of demands in order to allow Netanyahu to mull them over without feeling public pressure from all sides. It had been agreed an answer would come within “a couple of days,” the Israel official said.
But then on Sunday, White House political advisor David Axelrod doubled down, talking openly about the administration’s displeasure over the announcement that Israel would move forward with 1,600 new housing units in East Jerusalem, calling it an “affront” and an “insult.”
“We thought they would ratchet down the rhetoric on Saturday, but Axelrod didn’t tone it down,” the Israeli official said.
That led to a push on Sunday night and Monday by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, the powerful lobbying group that is usually in step with the Israeli government, calling on the administration to step back from the ledge. AIPAC was involved in encouraging almost a dozen senior Congressmen and Senators issue statements on Monday criticizing the White House for escalating the war of words.
More worrying, perhaps, is the growing realization that Clinton’s demands on Netanyahu might be impossible for him to fulfill, and therefore the administration may have drawn lines that will further reduce the possibility the “proximity” talks between the Israelis and the Palestinians can get off the ground.
State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley said Monday that Clinton wants Netanyahu to prove Israel is “willing to address the core issues at the heart of the peace process.” The Israeli official said that there is no belief inside the Israeli government that final status issues such as borders can be negotiated through a third party, even the Americans.
Clinton also wants Netanyahu to reverse the announcement of the new East Jerusalem homes, but that also may be a complete nonstarter for the Israelis, because it would force them to abandon their long-held position that any issues related to Jerusalem are their own domain and prerogative.
A further complicating factor is that the ultra-Orthodox Shas Party has threatened to withdraw from Netanyahu’s governing coalition if he puts Jerusalem up for discussion in peace talks with the Palestinians. Shas controls the Interior Ministry, which issued the settlement announcement that started the crisis in the first place.
“It’s in Netanyahu’s power to try to reverse the decision, but I doubt politically that can be achieved. Beyond that I don’t see him as willing to do so,” the Israeli official explained. “It could be a tactical starting point. But on the issue of Jerusalem per se, nobody’s led the administration to believe there can be any kind of movement on our part.”
And so, Mitchell heads to the region Tuesday without knowing what his plans are; Clinton heads to Moscow for a Quartet meeting later this week in which nobody knows what the path forward is; and Netanyahu prepares a response that he must know will conflict with what the White House wanted, at least as of last Friday.
And time is of the essence because Netanyahu is coming to Washington at the end of the week and Clinton is scheduled to speak at the AIPAC convention next Monday.
Deputy Secretary of State James Steinberg tried to lend an adult voice to the discussion Monday evening.
“Making peace in the Middle East is not easy, but you have to keep at it. And you have to deal with the fact that we have challenges on both sides,” Steinberg said. “It’s the responsibility of both sides to help create the conditions that make it possible to engage on this difficult task. Even with that, success is not guaranteed.”
“Despite the difficulties and despite differences that we have with Israel over certain things, in particular the settlements, we have a deep and abiding commitment to Israel’s security,” Steinberg continued.
“That we pursue this not because we are uninterested in Israel’s security, but precisely because we’re interested in Israel’s security.”
American Jewish groups take sides (and most love Israel far more than Obama).
The brave Palestinian videographers risking life and limb to document soldier and settler abuse in the West Bank:
Murdoch attack-dog Andrew Bolt worries that the West is “selling out Israel” – yes, saying anything critical of the Jewish state is clearly one step away from anti-Semitism – and then this:
I understand from excellent sources that Israel is alarmed by Kevin Rudd’s increasingly hostile comments (esepcially these) and policies, and major Labor donors among the Jewish Left are finding it much harder to reach for their wallets.
Veteran White House reporter Helen Thomas asks a question to Press Secretary Robert Gibbs that too few journalists do: Why does the US support Israel when it continues to violate international law?
A sample from the recently released position paper summarising the discussions of the Working Group on Delegitimisation at the 2009 Global Forum against Anti-Semitism.
Under the section “going on the offensive”:
Launch a Saudi apartheid campaign. It is galling that Israel is tarred with comparisons to South Africa when there is a country that really does merit this comparison. Progressive and women’s groups should be natural allies in such a campaign, which might have a goal of adopting Sullivan-like principles for Western companies doing business in the kingdom.
Norman Finkelstein on the less discussed importance of the Goldstone report:
“The impact of the Goldstone report is tremendous,” the Middle East scholar Norman Finkelstein said when I reached him in New York. “It marks and catalyzes the breakup of the Diaspora Jewish support for Israel because Goldstone is the classical Diaspora Jew. He is a lawyer and upholder of human rights and a liberal. He has distinguished himself in the field of law and he is also a lover of Zion. He calls himself a Zionist. His mother was an activist in the Zionist movement. His daughter did aliyah. He sits on the board of governors of the Hebrew University in Jerusalem. He has an honorary degree from the Hebrew University in Jerusalem. He has said over and over again that he is a Zionist. He believes Jews have a right to a state in Palestine. His is a mostly emblematic profile of the classically liberal Jew.”
“Liberal has a distinct connotation,” Finkelstein went on. “It means to believe in the rule of law. It means to believe in international institutions. It means to believe in human rights. Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch are liberal organizations. What the Goldstone phenomenon registers and catalyzes is the fact that it is impossible to reconcile liberal convictions with Israel’s conduct; too much is now known about the history of the conflict and the human rights record and the so-called peace process. It is impossible to be both liberal and defend Israeli policy. That was the conflict that confronted Goldstone. I very much doubt he wanted to condemn Israel.”
“Israeli liberalism always had a function in Israeli society,” said Finkelstein, whose new book, “This Time We Went Too Far,” examines the Israeli attack a year ago on Gaza. “When I talk about liberals I mean people like A.B. Yehoshua, David Grossman and Amos Oz. Their function was to issue these anguished criticisms of Israel which not only extenuated Israeli crimes but exalted Israeli crimes. ‘Isn’t it beautiful, the Israeli soul, how it is anguished over what it has done.’ It is the classic case of having your cake and eating it. Not only were any crimes being committed extenuated, but they were beautiful. And now something strange happened. Along comes a Jewish liberal and he says, ‘Spare me your tears. I am only interested in the law.’ ”
“Goldstone did not perform the role of the Jewish liberal,” Finkelstein said, “which is to be anguished, but no consequences. And all of a sudden Israeli liberal Jews are discovering, hey, there are consequences for committing war crimes. You don’t just get to walk into the sunset and look beautiful. They can’t believe it. They are genuinely shocked. ‘Aren’t our tears consequences enough?’ Aren’t our long eyes and broken hearts consequences enough?’ ‘No,” he said, ‘you have to go to the criminal court.’ ”
