The Foreign Policy Problem

A famous Turkish proverb expresses similarities between relationship and a string – when a string is cut, it says, there is always a possibility to tie it again, but connecting both ends of the thread gives no option to avoid the knot. If that is the path Turkey chooses to take when it comes to Israel, Israel is in big trouble. But Turkey will not gain too much from the conflict either.

The Mavi Marmara affair was grasped as “The 9/11 of Israeli- Turkish relations,” a term used for manifesting the shock coming from Ankara after the incident. Despite all precautions, the Turks never dreamed the result of the flotilla would occur as they did.

The death of nine Turkish citizens from IDF-fire was taken as if it was a declaration of war. They were furious and made the Marmara incident a dead end for relations with Israel, unless the latter bowed down and apologized.

In addition, the Turks complained about extensive leaks of information in Israel (e.g. Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu’s initial decision to apologize). Israel should have more carefully observed the importance the Turks attributed to the incident and its effect on bilateral ties. Israel should have also kept in mind two main things:

Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu and the AKP government are just part of the problem. Turkish society must be taken into consideration as well.

The responses following the Marmara raid were similar in all segments of Turkish society, creating a growing wave of criticism against Israel. True, AKP’s 2011 elections campaign was “Hedef 2023,” (Aim: 2023. Erdogan believes his government will still be ruling when the Turkish Republic celebrates its 100th anniversary) but no one can guarantee that of course. How can Israel bring back the Turks’ alliance as well as friendship on the day after Erdogan?

In the unusual diplomacy of the Middle East, especially when Israel can look at the great Turkish example, why does Jerusalem ignore the art of pragmatism? Why haven’t we learned from Erdogan how to negotiate and twist reality to satisfy our own needs and interests? Some believe that especially in this region, apologizing means humiliation, submission and a blow to “national pride.” But following the Turks, their famous pragmatism anchored in their days as an empire, did them only good. Why would Israel be interested in making it easier on Erdogan, who already called to lower the level of diplomatic relations in the past? Why should Israel give up on the staggering $2.6 billion the two nations exchange in trade every year? Why fall into the trap of Erdogan instead of learning from his tactic strategy? Israel must play a new, sharp, calculated game of diplomacy and let Turkey act first.

Israelmight emerge as the greater loser here, but Turkey will not carry the day either. Domestic criticism accompanied by heated rhetoric, coming especially from the opposition leading party CHP, on AKP’s decision, claiming that Erdogan’s “zero problem policy” does not prove itself on one hand, and the price, on the other hand, is just too high.

Turkey’s need for special military equipment required for combating the terrorist organization PKK, produced and made in Israel is a concern for Turkey, as well as losing trade and other options. Turkey’s current problems with Syria and the heated declarations against Turkey coming from Ahmadinejad, do not make the “zero problem policy” more relevant to this region.

Since AKP took control in Turkey, it has been trying to persuade the world, especially the West, that being at the same time a democratic and Muslim country is possible, Turkey has no tendencies of becoming “a second Iran” and that it can mediate between East and West. After downgrading the ties and threatening Israel with “extra measures,” Turkey will have to work harder on proving its “balanced policy” to us all.

Source:

Dr. Efrat Aviv

The Game Blame

Egypt accuses Israel of not doing enough to keep the border safe; it hints at its intention to recall its ambassador from Tel Aviv to protest the casualties suffered in the course of Thursday’s terrorist attack on the road to Eilat.

Indeed a sorry attempt by the Supreme Military Council, which has been ruling Egypt since Hosni Mubarak’s ouster, to cover its failure to keep the peace in Sinai by throwing the blame on someone else – Israel of course – in a time honored Egyptian practice. It would have been too much to expect from the country whence the terrorists who carried out the attack came to say: “We are sorry; let us jointly investigate what happened so that it never happens again.”

A bare week ago, retired Egyptian generals were accusing that same Supreme Military Council of dangerously neglecting the situation in the Sinai Peninsula. They told the press that Egypt no longer controlled the area and that a state of emergency had to be declared immediately in Sinai in order to impose a curfew and facilitate the necessary steps by the army. What is happening in Sinai, said one of them, has crossed a red line and is threatening the security of Egypt. They added that a number of extremist Islamic organizations were acting with complete impunity and that the peninsula was in a state of anarchy.

These harsh accusations came in the wake of an increasing number of attacks carried out by unidentified forces on state institutions such as police stations, as well as no less than five attacks on the pipeline carrying Egyptian natural gas to Jordan and to Israel. The fifth attempt stopped the flow indefinitely, causing heavy financial losses to Egypt. It had became obvious to all that with the fall of Mubarak the central government had lost its grip on Sinai, and that the void had immediately been filled by elements hostile to Egypt and to Israel.

It took two startling developments to force the Supreme Military Council to finally act: a disciplined attack mounted on the El-Arish police station by a group of Islamist extremists (it failed) and the proclamation by the Salafist organizations of northern Sinai of their intention to set up Islamic courts to supplant state courts, and to use their armed militias numbering some 6,000 young members to enforce their decisions.

Taking the measure of the danger, the Supreme Military Council first tightened security around the Suez Canal and then, in coordination with Israel, sent troops to the area to restore order.

What happened Thursday on the road to Eilat is yet another demonstration of the state of anarchy in the peninsula. A group of some 20 terrorists from Gaza, equipped with large quantities of weapons and explosives, made its way to Sinai, probably through the smuggling tunnels, and was able to circulate on sovereign Egyptian soil for a week or more. What is clear is that the terrorists must have had logistic support from one or more extremist organizations active in Sinai. They had to obtain vehicles, food and water as well as to set up observation points on the road to Eilat which they intended to attack.

One can well ask how it was possible for them to do so without being seen by the Egyptians. There are thousands of members of the Mukhabarat and of the other security services in Sinai; how come the movements of such an large terrorist group, having to cover some 240 kilometers over several days, escaped their notice? What about the soldiers manning positions all along the border? How come they saw nothing? Could it be that there were some who decided to close their eyes – and maybe others who decided to help? That there was a massive failure on the Egyptian side is glaringly obvious – but the Supreme Military Council is busy trying to shift the blame.

Unfortunately, as was to be expected, there were demonstrations against Israel in Cairo, Alexandria and Suez. Calls were heard to expel the ambassador of Israel and even to sever relations between the two countries. It does seem as these demonstrations were primarily organized by the Muslim Brothers, who are now a legitimate political force in Egypt. Their spokesmen called for the severing of relations.

But two leading contenders for the presidency, former Arab League head Amr Moussa and former International Atomic Energy Agency chief Mohamed ElBaradei, jumped on the bandwagon. Moussa demanded a “fitting reaction” and Baradei called for a suspension of relations. The Supreme Council appeared to have been swayed by the protests.

On a more promising note, the same Egyptian military commentators cautioned against listening to the mob and suggested strongly a more responsible attitude to avoid an open crisis with Israel. Gen. (ret.) Abdelmoneim Kato called for an immediate inquiry into the events, and for a measured reaction limited to diplomatic protests. He added that the Egyptian Army had to pursue its fight against troublemakers and to restore order in Sinai.

Another military commentator, Mohamed Gamal Edin Mazloum, said that in the present situation Egypt had no interest whatsoever in a crisis with Israel, a country which had done nothing more than to defend itself against an attack on the road to Eilat.

Egypt today is facing a major hurdle in Sinai, where there are many more Islamist extremists than in the past. Some come from Gaza, but there is a strong Iranian influence. There are elaborate smuggling networks bringing weapons, explosives and missiles from Iran and from Hezbollah to Gaza via Sudan and Sinai. Now that the central government is so weak, there is talk of setting up a “free Islamic zone” – similar to what happened in Afghanistan with al- Qaida – which would be a base for attacks against Israel as well as against Egypt itself and other neighboring nations.

Neither Israel nor Egypt has an interest in escalating the present incident. What must be done now is to refrain from inflammatory statements and to thoroughly investigate what happened and how it happened through coordinated, efforts. More than ever in these troubled times, peace is of paramount importance both to Egypt and to Israel.

Zvi Mazel is a former ambassador to Egypt, and a fellow of The Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs.

Netanyahu losing control

The prime minister has sustained numerous blows in recent days and weeks. None of them is supposed to surprise him or his associates, as he is the main party responsible for them. As a result, at this time the almost official countdown to the demise of the second Netanyahu government is underway.

Within fewer than 20 months, Netanyahu managed to do the impossible – that is, to repeat all his past mistakes.

He ruined Israel’s foreign relations with many countries, headed by the United States, zigzagged himself to death with a series of puzzling decisions and counter-decisions, messed up the diplomatic process vis-à-vis the Palestinians because he capitulated to the Right, made secular and centrist voters sick and tired of his government because of the liquidation sale to the haredim, and turned his office into a hornets’ nest that is almost impossible to work at.

Yet the prime minister did not manage to do one thing – to keep his wife from getting involved in matters out of her jurisdiction.

Netanyahu also managed to be perceived as the major culprit, along with Interior Minister Eli Yishai, behind the horrifying neglect of Israel’s firefighting and rescue services. And we haven’t even mentioned the controversial laws passed by his government, and his hesitation and inability to take decisions which manifested itself through the establishment of infinite needless committees that keep on putting off important decisions.

Barak out of excuses

On the diplomatic front, the prime minister just got another reminder that time does not stand still. The American Administration’s announcement that the talks failed conveyed a sense of losing its patience with the bargaining vis-à-vis Netanyahu in recent weeks. Officials in Washington decided to put an end to the virtual reality that helped Netanyahu maintain his coalition; a reality that painted a distorted picture as though the diplomatic process was still alive and well.

The American decision to declare that contacts with Israel over the freeze issue failed has dramatic political implications. The Labor Party, which as it is had been reaching boiling point in recent months, may find itself out of the government within a short period of time should we not see rapid progress on the diplomatic front. Ehud Barak no longer has any excuses left to keep his crumbling party in the coalition.

Now, the pressure shall grow and senior Labor officials are talking about the beginning of the end and full recognition that “everything is stuck.” And when this is the case, Labor has no reason to stay in Netanyahu’s government, and the prime minister may end up with the coalition he most feared: A narrow rightist coalition.

The second Netanyahu government can be likened to a car that is about to run out of fuel. It’s going on vapors at this time; the remnants of shady political deals and the personal fears of politicians who are clinging to their government seats like a drowning man hanging on to straw. Yet any rookie parliamentary aide knows that one cannot drive for long on vapors. The car is indeed moving, yet it’s only make-belief; it won’t be making it far.

Source: Ynet

Saudi Arabia funding terror

Even US allies in the Arab world continue to fund terror organizations, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton claimed in a cable posted Monday by WikiLeaks. The document, written last December, said that citizens in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar and the UAE are the main funders of various organizations including al-Qaeda, the Taliban, Hamas, Lashkar e-Taiba and others.

Saudi Arabia, a principal US ally on both military and diplomatic levels, is presented in the cables as a particularly troubling problem. A cable from February this year said Saudi funding of terrorists remains a serious problem, and that Saudi Arabia does little to prevent such activity, relying mainly on tips from the CIA.

In a memo, Clinton notes that terror groups raise millions of dollars each year from Saudi sources, often during the hajj pilgrimage and the month of Ramadan. It is an ongoing challenge to persuade the authorities to make prevention of such activity a top priority, Clinton wrote. She added that Saudi contributors were the main source of funding for terror groups around the world.

In the leaked cables, Clinton and other senior sources note the "strategic gap" between the US and the UAE, which is exploited by terror groups. Qatar, which defeated the US in its bid to host the 2022 World Cup, is described as the "worst" in the region in its struggle against terror, while Kuwait is noted as a key point in the transfer of funds.

Clinton emphasized in a State Department internal memo that political will must be formed in those states in order to block terror funding networks, which threaten the stability in Pakistan and Afghanistan and threaten the lives of coalition soldiers.

Kuwait: US taking draconian measures

However, while the US may be frustrated by the failure of Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states to prevent the flow of funds, Arab states claim the US is "jumping to conclusions." According to cables from various US diplomats published in the New York Times and other papers, these states hold that the US has insufficient evidence that Islamic charitable groups and individuals fund terror.

A cable sent to Washington reports that senior figures in Kuwait oppose what they call America's "draconian measures" against important charitable organizations. US sources repeatedly expressed their concern regarding such organizations which are not under the supervision of state authorities, and are used to fund groups abroad.

However, another document details a meeting between a Kuwaiti minister and the US ambassador, during which the minister was "honest and pessimistic" about abilities to stop those funding terror in the framework of the law and political climate in Kuwait.

In another cable, the US embassy in Riyadh reports that the finance minister told the Saudi intelligence services about a visit of three senior Taliban members who were coming to the country to raise funds. The Saudis said they knew nothing of the visit. Prince Muhammad bin Nayef, who managed affairs during the absence of King Abdullah who went to the US for an operation, said it was a case of poor judgment and not support for terror.

Iran fails to get seat on UN Women board

Iran failed to secure a seat on a key board running the new UN super agency to improve women's rights as fierce lobbying by western nations and rights groups swayed an election Wednesday. Saudi Arabia, whose candidacy was also criticized, got an automatic seat and rights groups said they will now seek to put the spotlight on the kingdom's record.

Iran was beaten to an Asian seat on the executive board by East Timor, a late entrant to the contest, in a vote at the UN General Assembly. Four UN agencies were merged this year to set up UN Women under the leadership of former Chilean president Michelle Bachelet.

Iran had originally been guaranteed a place as the Asia region had put forward 10 candidates for 10 seats. Iran and Pakistan were on the agreed list. East Timor risked the wrath of its Asian neighbors by putting itself forward as a spoiler late last week, as controversy mounted over Iran's rights record, diplomats said. It won 36 votes against 19 for Iran.

The United States, European Union, Australia and Canada carried out an intensive diplomatic campaign to thwart Iran, diplomats said."It was an expression of disapproval of Iran's rights record," Norway's UN ambassador Morten Wetland told AFP, explaining his country's decision to back East Timor.

"They lost and they lost handily," commented US ambassador Susan Rice on Iran's defeat."We have made no secret of our concern that Iran joining the board of UN Women would have been an inauspicious start to that board," she told reporters.

'Shocking system of male guardianship'

Campaigners had highlighted Iran's treatment of women, including the case of Sakineh Mohammadi-Ashtiani who was sentenced to be stoned to death for adultery. Though Iran has said this will not be carried out, reports say she could now be hanged after being found guilty of the murder of her husband.

"We are extremely relieved," said Philippe Bolopion, UN specialist for the Human Rights Watch group. "Iran has a catastrophic record on rights," he said."It is a country which has distinguished itself by actively repressing women's rights activists, they have harassed many and imprisoned some," he told AFP.

A resolution on Iran's human rights is to be voted at the UN General Assembly next week and is already the subject of intense new lobbying, diplomats said. Iranian Nobel Peace Prize winner Shirin Ebadi had said before the vote that having either Iran or Saudi Arabia on the board of UN Women would "a joke".Ebadi said that Saudi Arabia's record on women is worse than Iran.

In Saudi Arabia women are forbidden to drive and cannot take major decisions without the permission of a male relative. "They have one of the worst records in the world when it comes to women's rights. But by being on the board they have essentially put the spotlight on their own record," said Bolopion.

"We want to use this spotlight to push them to start making some significant progress. By working to put an end to the shocking system of male guardianship, by which women in Saudi Arabia cannot make any important decisions in their lives," he said. It secured an automatic seat from a group of donor countries for which there was no vote.

The US ambassador said that UN Women is "a vitally important institution", and questioned about the Saudi presence she added: "I am not going to deny that there were several countries that are going to join the board of UN Women that have less than stellar records on women's rights and indeed human rights."

The HRW specialist said that Saudi Arabia had "bought" a seat on the UN Women board. "They have one of the worst records in the world when it comes to women's rights. But by being on the board they have essentially put the spotlight on their own record," said Bolopion.

"We want to use this spotlight to push them to start making some significant progress. By working to put an end to the shocking system of male guardianship, by which women in Saudi Arabia cannot make any important decisions in their lives," he said.

Livni: Government suffers from political schizophrenia

"I heard (Foreign Minister Avigdor) Lieberman say that whoever thinks peace with Syria can be achieved is a political hypochondriac. If we're already talking in psychiatric terms, I think a government that says this one day and then talks of peace with Syria and the Palestinians the next day – this is a government of political schizophrenia," Opposition Chairperson Tzipi Livni said Friday.

During a meeting with residents of the Menashe Regional Council, the leader of the Kadima party said the government "is not being truthful with the public or with itself."

Addressing the bill granting yeshiva students millions in state funds, Livni blamed "the bad system of government and weak politicians" for creating a situation whereby haredi parties "have a monopoly on the issue of Judaism.

"The younger generation does not want to be connected to very problematic politics that take advantage of the ruling party's (Likud) weakness. The haredi parties must not be given a monopoly on the Jewish state," she says.

HRC grants legitimacy to “murderous” Gadaffi regime

A UN Watch-led coalition of 27 NGO’s has appealed for Libya to be expelled from the UN Human Rights Council. Libya and other rights abusers are influencing the “dictator-dominated” council’s resolutions, UN Watch director Hillel Neuer says. “But given the high quantity as well as quality of Libya’s oil, we fear most countries will choose silence.”

Libya took its seat in the 47-member UN Human Rights Council (HRC) this week for the first time since its May election. A three-week council session began on Monday, triggering the rights coalition’s appeal.

In a petition signed by 27 NGO’s on Thursday, they called on the UN’s 192 members to expel Libya from the council unless Kadhafi significantly improves its human rights situation. Several victims of Libyan human rights abuses were present during the coalition’s press conference on Friday.

Given its “notorious record as one of the world’s worst violators of human rights,” the NGO’s argue Libya’s membership contradicts the UN’s promise to elect member states based on their commitment to the promotion and protection of human rights.

Libyan oil

Under the resolution that created the HRC, the General Assembly may suspend any council member that commits “gross and systematic” human rights violations. A two-thirds vote is required.

But UN Watch director Hillel Neuer told Radio Netherlands it is highly unlikely that Libya will be suspended. “Given the high quantity as well as quality of Libya’s oil, we fear that most countries will choose silence,” he told Radio Netherlands Worldwide.

He added that meanwhile, Libya’s influence continues. “As a voting member, Libya has the power to support or oppose any resolution, and as a result to influence its drafting. What may be even more damaging is that Libya’s presence in the world’s highest human rights body grants legitimacy to a murderous dictatorship - a crushing blow to Libya’s dissidents and ordinary citizens.”

World’s worst abusers

Neuer said the UN HRC, which he referred to as “the dictator-dominated council”, actively undermines and twists basic principles of human rights. He added that it has failed to take any action against “the world’s worst abusers” including Iran, China, Zimbabwe, Syria and Venezuela.

“And, far worse than that: there is a faction of 30 out of 47 seats, including China, Russia, Saudi Arabia and Cuba, that actively promote measures to weaken the protection of freedom of speech and to erode the council’s few remaining mechanisms for independent scrutiny of country conduct,” Neuer said.

He added that after its creation in 2006, the new council gradually eliminated the country investigators for human rights in Belarus, Cuba, Liberia and DR Congo.

Freedom House report

In a damning report published this week, democracy watchdog Freedom House noted that countries which violated human rights have a far-reaching negative influence on the UN HRC.

Since its establishment in 2006, the number of members deemed “free” by Freedom House has dropped from 25 to 20. The number of “not free” members, on the other hand, has risen from 9 to 13. The remaining country members are rated “partly free”. Freedom House said that as a result, the HRC is unable to tackle the most serious human rights violations and even covers some of them up.

The original UN human rights body, the Human Rights Commission, was disbanded following years of criticism. Ironically, the final straw for many was the appointment of Libya to the chairmanship of the body.

The council is made up of 47 member nations, each elected for three years. The seats are apportioned by region, and every year a third of the body's seats are up for renewal.

In May 2010, Libya and 13 other nations ran unopposed for 14 of the council's seats. Regional groups for the first time put forward the same number of candidates as the number of seats available to them, meaning they were elected without competition.

Cracks in the Iranian Monolith

The Iranian regime loves to boast of its military strength, international clout and hold on domestic power. Much of this is accepted by outside experts, but in fact the regime is in trouble. Iran's leaders have lost legitimacy in the eyes of the people, are unable to manage the country's many problems, face a growing opposition, and are openly fighting with one another.

A few weeks ago, according to official and private reports, the Iranian air force shot down three drones near the southwestern city of Bushehr, where a Russian-supplied nuclear reactor has just started up. When the Revolutionary Guards inspected the debris, they expected to find proof of high-altitude spying. Instead, the Guards had to report to Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei that the air force had blasted Iran's own unmanned aircraft out of the sky.

Apparently, according to official Iranian press accounts, the Iranian military had created a special unit to deploy the drones—some for surveillance and others, as President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad bragged on Sunday, to carry bombs—but hadn't informed the air force.

These incidents have taken place against a general backdrop of internal conflict within the regime. In late July, Mohammad Ali Jaffari, commander of the Revolutionary Guard Corps, the regime's Praetorian Guard, admitted publicly that many top officers were supporters of the opposition Green Movement. Shortly thereafter, according to official government announcements, some 250 officers suddenly resigned. In the past weeks, several journalists from the Guards' FARS news agency have defected, some to France and others to the United States.

Meanwhile, Iran has suffered a series of attacks against its petroleum industry. As Iranian media reported (detailed in the London Telegraph), a pipeline to Turkey was blown up last month, most likely by Kurdish oppositionists. Soon afterwards there was an explosion in a natural gas pipeline near Tabriz.

That was followed by a spectacular blast at the Pardis petrochemical plant in Assalouye, which—being a major facility for converting natural gas to fuel for vehicles—is central to Iranian efforts to cope with the new United Nations, U.S. and European Union sanctions against refined petroleum products.

The same plant was similarly sabotaged six months ago. No one has taken responsibility for that attack, but it suggests an activist opposition with considerable "inside" assistance.

That opposition is fed by enduring social and economic crises. Unemployment last month reached 15% and is as high as 45% in some regions. In Tehran, health officials warned pregnant women and mothers of young children not to drink the water. Electrical failures are widespread. Taxi drivers have been striking around the country this summer, some because of the long lines at gas stations and others because of a shortage of compressed natural gas. The sanctions seem to be having an effect.

As these pressures have mounted, Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei—against whom Iranians chant "Death to the Dictator!" at public gatherings and nightly from their rooftops—has sought to reaffirm his authority. Late last month he issued a fatwa declaring that his opinions had a status equal to those of the prophet Mohammed. The fatwa caused such consternation that it was removed from his website, then quietly returned a few days later.

Shortly thereafter, the country celebrated the funeral of Iran's most cherished performer, the singer Mohammed Nouri. Nouri was no dissident and was often praised by clerics as a "pious" man. But Mr. Khamenei chose the moment to issue a broad fatwa against music. "It's better that our dear youth spend their valuable time in learning science and essential and useful skills and fill their time with sport and healthy recreations instead of music," he declared.

Only "Western music" had previously been banned by Mr. Khamenei, and Iranian youth reacted with predictable hostility. In the days that followed, a Canadian-made remix of the 1979 Pink Floyd song "Another Brick in the Wall" went viral on the Internet with the new chorus, "Hey Ayatollah, leave those kids alone."

President Ahmadinejad has also tried to buttress his popular support, first by claiming that "stupid Zionists" were trying to kill him, and then by putting out a story—which few in Iran took seriously—of an assassination attempt on his motorcade. As usual, the "report" went through various iterations: first it was a grenade, then a firecracker, then nothing at all.

Even the government's campaign of repression seems increasingly sloppy. Recently the Judiciary Minister, in an extraordinary case of buck-passing, asked Mr. Khamenei for permission to execute 1,120 prisoners—as if the minister could imagine being prosecuted himself some day, and he wanted to be able to say it was Mr. Khamenei's fault.

These various debacles have strengthened the Green Movement, and opposition leaders Mir Hossein Mousavi and Mehdi Karroubi continue to launch serious verbal attacks on the regime. When the head of the powerful Guardian Council recently accused the Greens of receiving money from the Saudis and the Americans, Mr. Karroubi gave him the back of his hand: "If I am a conspirator because I object [to the rigged presidential election], then you are a partner of those who stole this nation's vote and are disloyal to the nation."

To add insult, Zahra Rahnavard, Mr. Mousavi's firebrand wife, wryly commented that the accusation would "make a cooked chicken laugh." Mr. Mousavi himself said that the Islamic Republic has become worse than the shah's regime, because "religious tyranny is the worst form of tyranny."

Challenges to the regime now come even from prisoners. When Mr. Ahmadinejad challenged Barack Obama to a debate this month, a Green Movement website reported with grim admiration that five journalists in Tehran's infamous Evin Prison had invited Mr. Ahmadinejad to come to jail and debate them.

Very little of this news reaches a mass Western audience, and one wonders to what extent Western governments understand what's going on. If they do, their failure to support the democratic revolutionaries is all the more lamentable.

Source:Michael Ledeen

Beware Palestinian apartheid

The Palestinian Authority is under heavy international pressure, mostly American, aimed at facilitating the transition from proximity talks to direct negotiations with Israel.

The written message recently sent by President Obama to Palestinian Chairman Mahmud Abbas indicated that the American administration is not content, to say the least, with the Palestinian foot-dragging in the peace process, or with what is perceived to be a lack of appreciation for American pressure on Israel (which led PM Netanyahu to accept the two-state solution and to temporarily freeze settlement activity in the West Bank and Jerusalem.)

However, there is no obvious fundamental change in the Palestinian stance. The PA hesitates and refrains from explicit commitment to direct negotiations without any pre-conditions. Instead, it tries to weather the American demands by raising a new proposal to convene a three-way meeting of Palestine, Israel, and America to discuss the agenda of the negotiations, its legitimacy, and the settlement cessation.

While briefing the Egyptian media in Cairo, Abbas divulged last week his version of the failure of the peace talks with former Israeli PM Ehud Olmert and his positions regarding the political settlement of the conflict. Abbas noted that he almost reached an agreement with Olmert, but the negotiations failed at the final stretch because of disagreement on the discussed land swap.

Olmert proposed 6.5% but Abbas accepted to no more than 1.9%. Abbas said that he demanded to divide Jerusalem, with the city’s eastern section handed over to the Palestinians and the western part remaining in Israeli hands, and insisted that the refugee problem must be settled in accordance with an Arab peace initiative from March 2002, and UN resolution 194. He also stressed that he will never recognize Israel as a Jewish state.

"I'm willing to agree to a third party that would supervise the agreement, such as NATO forces, but I would not agree to having Jews among the NATO forces, or that there will live among us even a single Israeli on Palestinian land,” he was quoted by Wafa, the official Palestinian news agency.

A state without Jews

The Palestinians intend to demand the implementation of the UN resolution regarding refugees, from a Palestinian perspective, which gives the 5.5 million refugees and their descendants the right of return and to settle in the State of Israel. In his briefing to the Egyptian media, Abbas presented this strategy and denied the Jewish character of Israel. He maintains that Israel should, in fact, become a bi-national state, but on the other hand that Palestine must become a state “clean” of Jews.

The term “Israeli” used by Abbas means “Jew,” as the PA sees Israeli Arabs, Muslims and Christians alike as an integral part of the Palestinian people. The future State of Palestine, according Abbas, must resist any Jewish presence in its territory. In other words, the PA embraces a racist policy – Palestinian apartheid – directed at Jews, based on denial of Jewish history and the cultural and religious linkage of the Jewish people to the land.

The anti-Semitism embodied in Abbas’ words refers also to his position towards the NATO observers’ force that may be deployed in the West Bank to monitor the implementation of the peace agreement with Israel. He is opposed to Jews being included in this force; meaning, he will ask Germany and all other partner countries in NATO to use their own forces in the West Bank, in an effort to the exclude any Jewish soldiers.

He didn’t explain how these countries would determine who is a Jew, whether according to orthodox Jewish laws or just if one of the parents or grandparents was a Jew. But even Saudi Arabia didn’t dare oppose the deployment of American Jewish soldiers on its land during operation Desert Storm (1990-1), and no one in Israel ever demanded to disqualify Muslim soldiers from serving in the international observers’ forces in Lebanon, the Golan Heights and Sinai.

The racist language used by Abbas is particularly despicable as it doubts the loyalty of the Jews to their country. It is for this reason that his comments call for a firm Israeli and European response.

Source:

Jonathan Dahoah Halevi is a senior researcher and fellow at the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs and Director of Research at the Orient Research Group

US boosts Israeli missile funding

US House appropriators have pushed funding for Israeli missile defense programs to its highest level ever, with $422.7 million now slated for 2011. Last week, the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense added $95.7m. to the original White House funding request for the long-range Arrow programs and medium-range David’s Sling, according to sources close to the panel. The lion’s share – $108.8m. – will go to the Arrow 3 system, which the US signed off on after some initial hesitation.

In addition, the monies include $205m pledged this spring by US President Barack Obama to the short-range Iron Dome project.The package is more than twice as much as last year’s total, and adds up to nearly $1 billion in aid to joint US-Israel missile defense programs in the past four years.

“Chairman [Norm] Dicks, myself and all the members of the Defense Subcommittee understand how important it is to be at the cutting edge of anti-missile technology, both to safeguard our own citizens and troops, but also those citizens and troops of our allies and friends such as the people of the Jewish state of Israel,” Rep. Steve Rothman (D-New Jersey) told The Jerusalem Post on Friday.

Rothman has pushed for greater funding of joint US-Israel missile defense programs during his tenure on the committee.“It would be political suicide for the Senate to come in with a lower number”The funding will need to be voted on by the full House when it reconvenes in the fall, as well as approved by the Senate in its own defense appropriations bill.

That bill could be “marked up” next week but is more likely to be reviewed after the August recess. In the “mark-up session,” amendments may be offered to the bill, and the committee members would vote to accept or reject those changes.

“It would be political suicide for the Senate to come in with a lower number,” said one source close to the issue of his expectation that the Senate will agree to the totals set by the House last week. “There’s virtually zero chance that these [projects] don’t get funded at these levels.”The funding comes at a time when the US has been under pressure to tighten its belt given the recession, with the defense budget no exception.

“Given the concern and attention that we are focusing now on every dollar we are expending on behalf of the US taxpayer for all purposes, including the defense of the United States and its allies, it is a mark of the importance of these projects that they were all funded so robustly and fully by our subcommittee,” Rothman said.

There were also concerns among some elements of the pro-Israel community that the new money for the Iron Dome project announced by Obama would come at the expense of the funding for the Arrow and David’s Sling projects, so that overall missile defense aid would not significantly increase.The Israeli government is among those pleased by the outcome.

“The embassy of Israel deeply appreciates this latest expression of the congressional commitment to Israel’s security and to the development of systems that will enhance the defense of both Israel and the United States,” Ambassador to the US Michael Oren said.

Israel to UN: Rocket firing hurting peace efforts

Israel's UN envoy in Geneva Aharon Leshno Yaar sent a letter to the Human Rights Council over the weekend following the recent rocket attacks from the Gaza Strip. State officials claim the council has a "peculiar obsession" against Israel. In an official complaint letter sent at the Foreign Ministry's request it was noted that "The indiscriminate launching of rockets at civilians and civilian objects amounts to war crimes and crimes against humanity."

The letter also stated that the attacks hurt the peace process and the resumption of direct talks between Israel and the Palestinians. "The people of Israel have the right to live in peace and security. The recent attacks on southern Israel from the Gaza Strip seriously violate international law and undermine the peace process and the efforts to renew the direct negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian Authority," it was stated.

A Qassam rocket fired from northern Gaza on Saturday night hit the roof of a building in an educational institution located in the Shaar Hanegev Regional Council, outside of Sderot. There were no reports of injuries. Israel's Air Force responded by targeting a weapons smuggling tunnel on the Egyptian border and a tunnel below the border fence meant to serve terrorists in attacks inside Israeli territory. A mortar shell fired from the northern Gaza Strip on Sunday morning exploded near a kibbutz in the Shaar Hanegev Regional Council. There were no reports of injuries or damage.

The current round of violence along Israel's border with Gaza began Friday morning, when a Grad rocket fired from the Hamas-ruled territory landed near an apartment building in central Ashkelon. A few hours later two mortars landed within the limits of the Eshkol Regional Council. There were no reports of injury in either attack, but eight people suffered from shock in Ashkelon.

State officials postulated Friday that the Grad rocket fire was an attempt by terror groups in Gaza to strike up conflict in the region ahead of negotiations between Israel and the PA.

In response to the firing, the IAF bombed various targets in the Gaza Strip on Friday night killing a Hamas militant and injuring 12 people.

Peres says English are anti-Semitic draws fury

President Shimon Peres evoked the anger of Jewish parliament members and leaders in Britain when he said in an interview last week that England is "deeply pro-Arab and anti-Israel", adding that "they always worked against us". Still there were some groups that backed the Israeli president and noted that the number of anti-Semitic incidents in the UK had risen dramatically in recent years.

In an interview to a Jewish website, Peres said, "There is in England a saying that an anti-Semite is someone who hates the Jews more than is necessary." His remarks came days after British Prime Minister David Cameron called Gaza a "prison camp".

Peres said England's attitude towards Jews is Israel's "next big problem". "There are several million Muslim voters, and for many members of parliament, that's the difference between getting elected and not getting elected," he said. "And in England there has always been something deeply pro-Arab, of course, not among all Englishmen, and anti-Israeli, in the establishment," he added, noting that in contrast, ties with Germany, France and Italy are "pretty good".

Peres' comments were made in an interview with historian Professor Benny Morris, and were published on the Jewish website "Tablet". 'Britain among best countries to live in'

Following Peres' comments, Conservative MP James Clappison, who is also the vice-chairman of Conservative Friends of Israel, said: "Mr Peres has got this wrong. There are pro- and anti-Israel views in all European countries. Things are certainly no worse, as far as Israel is concerned, in this country than other European countries."

Clappison told the British Telegraph that he understands the "frustration" that people in Israel feel with "certain elements of the British broadcast media" which present an unbalanced view of Israel.

While Clappison said he understands Peres' concerns, he added he does not "recognize what he is saying about England."

Dr. Jonathan Romain, a writer, broadcaster and minister of Maidenhead synagogue, did not agree with the president's statements, and said, "I am surprised at Peres. It is a sweeping statement that is far too one-sided.

"Britain has supported both Israel and Arab causes at different periods over the last 50 years. There are elements of anti-Semitism but it is not endemic to British society. The tolerance and pluralism here make Britain one of the best countries in the world in which to live."

According to Vince, the director of Christian Friends of Israel, the Cameron government is trying to appease the Arabs. "Peres' comments have serious connotations and I am sure would not be said lightly,"

New sanctions against Iran

The European Union formally adopted new energy sanctions against Iran Monday which target the country's energy, banking, and foreign trade sectors.

The move comes on the heels of the unilateral US sanctions passed last month by the Senate. The EU sanctions were agreed to in principle by European leaders in June, and are the latest in a series of measures taken by the international community in an effort to halt Iran's nuclear program.

EU foreign ministers adopted a decision "on a package of restrictive measures" in the areas of trade, financial services, energy and transport, said a diplomat who spoke on condition of anonymity under standing rules.

The new measures will come into force in the next few weeks, after they are published in the bloc's official gazette, officials said.

"We have a comprehensive set of sanctions. This is something where we have all 27 countries working together," EU foreign policy Chief Catherine Ashton said ahead of the meeting.

According to the decision reached in June, the sanctions will target dual-use items that could be used as part of a nuclear program, and Iran's oil and gas industry — including the "prohibition of new investment, technical assistance and transfers of technologies."

Iran's shipping and air cargo companies will be blacklisted and banned from operating in EU territory, and new visa bans and asset freezes will be imposed on Iran's Revolutionary Guard. The sanctions also encompass trade insurance and financial transactions.

EU exports to Iran — mainly machinery, transport equipment and chemicals — amounted to euro 14.1 billion in 2008.

Imports from Iran, the EU's sixth largest energy provider, amounted to euro 11.3 billion, with energy being 90 percent of the total.

The new European restrictions will come on top of a fourth round of sanctions imposed last month by the UN Security Council to curtail Iran's nuclear program over fears it is developing weapons. The council endorsed those sanctions after Iran rebuffed a plan to suspend uranium enrichment and swap its stockpiles of low-enriched uranium for fuel rods.

The new restrictions are similar to measures adopted by US President Barack Obama's administration, which has imposed penalties against additional individuals and institutions it says are helping Iran develop its nuclear and missile programs, and evade international sanctions.

Iran denies that it is working on a nuclear weapon, saying its program is intended solely for peaceful purposes such as energy-generation, and that it has the right to enrich uranium under the international non-proliferation treaty.

EU foreign ministers also are expected reaffirm the bloc's invitation to Tehran to hold talks on the issue.

"Our aim is to bring Iran back to the negotiating table," said German State Secretary Werner Hoyer. "We're offering our hand, and all they have to do is to take it

Constructive Clarity in Israeli-Palestinian Negotiations

• The PLO platform, as reaffirmed in the Fatah Congress in August 2009, states that their struggle will not stop until the Zionist entity is eliminated and Palestine is liberated. As a logical corollary, they refuse to accept Israel as the nation-state of the Jewish people.
• This explains why, when Mahmoud Abbas was asked in a Washington Post interview in May 2009 why he had declined Olmert's far-reaching offer, he answered that "the gaps were wide."
• The Palestinian leadership insists that negotiations now start at the point they had reached with Olmert at the end of 2008. That means they are not satisfied with what was put on the table a year ago. They want more than that.
• One cannot expect a plausible, peaceful solution in the foreseeable future unless the PLO leadership changes its mind, heart, and writings.

What Israel Has Offered

Under the banner of the 2008 Annapolis process, the Israeli government and the PLO leadership failed to reach a lasting agreement. According to Mahmoud Abbas, Prime Minister Olmert proposed that Israel withdraw from 98 percent of the total territory in Samaria, Judea, and Gaza. Actually, the deal encompassed 100 percent because the balance was to be swapped with some territory from inside the State of Israel proper.

Olmert also proposed a safe passage between Gaza and Judea - under Israeli sovereignty. According to Mahmoud Abbas, Olmert also agreed that Israel recognize in principal the so-called "right of return." Mr. Olmert denies this. However, he did propose that thousands of Arab refugees would be allowed to come into the State of Israel on a humanitarian basis.

As for Jerusalem, Olmert proposed the partition of the city into two parts. The neighborhoods populated by Arabs would become a part of the capital of the Palestinian Arab sovereign state. The Jewish neighborhoods would be retained under Israeli sovereignty. In addition, he proposed that Israel relinquish its sovereignty over the Temple Mount, the Mount of Olives, and the City of David - referred to by some as the "holy basin." Israel's rule of these areas would be replaced by a consortium that would administer them, comprised of Saudi Arabia, Jordan, the United States, the PLO, and Israel. This far-reaching proposal by Prime Minister Olmert - addressing borders, refugees and Jerusalem - was declined by the PLO.

Why the PLO Said No

Mahmoud Abbas was asked in a Washington Post interview in May 2009 why he had declined Olmert's proposal and his answer was: "the gaps were wide." This truthfully reflects the situation because, from the PLO point of view, the gaps were indeed still wide.

During the negotiations in the Annapolis process, the PLO leadership was asked whether once an agreement was reached to the liking of both parties, they would agree to include an article stating that this agreement puts an end to the conflict and concludes all claims by the parties. That question was answered in the negative.

Why would Olmert's proposal still leave wide gaps, so as to be unacceptable from the point of view of the PLO leadership only a year or so ago? Concentrating on Jerusalem, the answer is that the PLO does not accept a situation of shared sovereignty in Jerusalem over the Temple Mount and its surroundings. Their goal is to have Arab-Palestinian-Muslim sovereignty at that site.

This is not just a whim of the current Palestinian leadership. In 2000, Prime Minister Barak proposed that Israel relinquish its rule over the upper part of the Temple Mount to Arab-Palestinian sovereignty and that the lower part of the Temple Mount would be retained under Israeli sovereignty, but still this was rejected. The PLO assertion was that the whole Temple Mount should be under Arab-Muslim sovereignty.

The PLO Does Not Recognize Two States for Two Peoples

The reason for this has been well explained by the PLO leadership, which is considered to be the moderate faction within the Arab-Palestinian camp. They actually deny the undeniable. They say there is no historic connection between the Jewish people and the Temple Mount - that the stories about two Jewish temples destroyed 2,600 and 2,000 years ago is a fairy tale. Their basic tenet is that there is no Jewish connection to Jerusalem. Of course this also relates to Judea, Samaria, Gaza, the Galilee, and the Negev. For them, there is no historic Jewish connection to any of these places.

The PLO leadership, in this respect, is consistent. This is their basic philosophy, and you will find its corollary in their adamant refusal to accept the State of Israel as the nation-state of the Jewish people. They explain openly that, for them, Judaism is not a nationality but merely a religion. Since Judaism is merely a religion, and since religions are not entitled to establish and maintain states of their own, then the State of Israel has no right to exist as the nation-state of the Jewish people and they will not recognize it as such.

Less than a year ago, in August 2009, the Fatah Congress in Bethlehem reaffirmed their platform, referring to Chapter One of their charter as the point of departure for their policy. Article 19 in Chapter One states:

Armed struggle is a strategy, not a tactic. The armed revolution of the Arab Palestinian people is a crucial element in the battle for liberation and for the elimination of the Zionist presence. This struggle will not stop until the Zionist entity is eliminated and Palestine is liberated.

For Fatah, then, there is a "Zionist entity," not the Jewish nation deserving their one and only sovereign state on earth. Such an understanding is not currently in their mind, in their philosophy, in their ideology, and will not occur for a long time unless they are pressed by the international community to amend it.

As long as this is left as something that cannot be changed and maybe need not be changed, it will be there. Unless the leadership of our neighbors changes their view, very little will be achieved in the foreseeable future regarding a peace agreement between Jews and Arabs west of the Jordan River.

Where is the agreement by the PLO to come to terms with reality and to agree in some way to the minimum requirements of any sober Israeli faction in the Knesset? Abbas maintains that Olmert offered him too little. Former Foreign Minister Livni, the leader of the Knesset Opposition, would tell you that Olmert offered him too much. Under this geometry, an agreement cannot be achieved unless the PLO leadership changes their mind. Unless people impress upon them that they should do so, I don't see this happening.

In June 2009 in Trieste, the Quartet issued a statement that for the first time included the political term "two states for two peoples" as a proposed solution. This is not my solution, but this is agreed to by many - just not by the PLO. The PLO leadership and activists never say that the solution entails two nations.

However, in March 2010 in another Quartet statement issued in Moscow, mention of a two-state solution for two peoples vanished. Mention was made only of the Palestinian people, with no mention whatsoever of the Jewish people. What kind of a signal does that send?

Jerusalem Is Not a Security Issue

Three thousand years ago Jerusalem became the capital city of the Jewish sovereign state. To a reasonable person, this is undeniable. But Jerusalem also exemplifies the larger scope of the dispute.

The Temple Mount can be described as an important hill from a tactical point of view. From this commanding terrain you can control the road leading from the Dead Sea to Jerusalem, northward to Ramallah and then Shechem (Nablus), and southward to Hebron. However, the Temple Mount is not a security issue, but rather a basic issue that has to do with the feelings of people, feelings that must be respected. Yes, it does belong to the Jewish people. Others feel that it belongs to them. Please do not belittle these values.

What More Can Israel Offer?

When people ask what the government of Israel can be expected to offer to the PLO, we may refer them to the fact that previous Israeli governments offered to relinquish Samaria, Judea, and Gaza, and parts of Jerusalem, but to no avail. People must recognize this. The Palestinian leadership insists that negotiations now start at the point they had reached with Olmert at the end of 2008. That means they are not satisfied with what was put on the table a year ago. This means that they want more than that. For example, in February, in a children's program on PLO TV, a young lady addressed Arab children in Beersheva, Lod, and Haifa - three cities within the State of Israel proper. She told them they have been under occupation since 1948. There are many similar examples on PLO TV.

The Palestine Liberation Organization seeks the liberation of Palestine from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea, which is why their true aim is not a two-state solution but a two-stage solution. In stage one they try to push Israel to the 1949 armistice lines. In stage two they will push for the insertion of hundreds of thousands of refugees into the State of Israel, to explode it from within and liberate Palestine. There is no other rational explanation for their total, vehement rejection of the far-reaching proposals by two previous Israeli governments.

Unless there is a profound change in their thinking, the only thing to do is what we have been doing - trying to improve the lives of both Jews and Arabs. For example, the PLO leadership maintains that last year they enjoyed an economic growth of around 9 percent, and Israel had a part in it.

The Moral Basis of Israel's Position

My position rests on two moral pillars: the natural and historical right of the Jewish people to its homeland, Israel, which of course extends beyond the artificial armistice demarcation line of 1949; and the right of Israeli citizens to national security. From the right of Jews to their ancient homeland ensues their right to dwell and build their homes in Jerusalem, in Samaria and in Judea. It has been proven time and again that if you try to detach these two basic rights, the result is loss of Israeli lives. By relinquishing Jericho, Gaza, Hebron, Nablus, Jenin, Tulkarm, and Kalkilya to the PLO under the Oslo agreements, and thus depositing our security in their hands, the result was the creation of havens of impunity for terrorism that tragically resulted in the Second Intifada which began in 2000. In 2005, another attempt was made to detach these two rights, by unilaterally relinquishing Gaza, and the result was the launching of hundreds of rockets towards Israel.

Let me conclude with a quotation by Prime Minister Menachem Begin. When he went to Washington over thirty years ago, he said that he was coming to Washington, D.C. - District of Columbia, from Jerusalem, D.C. - David's Capital. This still directs us, to a large extent, in our activities in Jerusalem - David's Capital.