The war on de-legitimisation

The political war aimed at delegitimising Israel, and at preventing the IDF from acting to stop terror attacks, is now recognised as a major threat. These are not the sentiments of alarmists; this is the conclusion drawn by Eitan Haber, a close advisor to prime ministers, including Yitzhak Rabin (“IDF isn’t enough in face of global de-legitimisation campaign faced by Israel.”)

Haber’s analysis only scratches the surface of the de-legitimisation campaign waged against Israel. These efforts are not new; since the 2001 UN “World Conference Against Racism” in Durban, South Africa – international NGOs and some within Israel have introduced into the public lexicon slogans referring to Israel as an “apartheid state” guilty of “war crimes” that does not have the right to exist.

The campaign is gaining strength, and as Haber notes the importance of mobilising the Jewish people “to fight back against the ubiquitous de-legitimisation process, against the indifference, and possibly also against the despair among us.”

Examples of NGO campaigns are, unfortunately, plentiful. The recent “Free Gaza” flotilla incident demonstrated the sophisticated use of the “humanitarian,” “peace” and “non-governmental” labels to cover a preplanned attack on IDF soldiers, resulting in injuries and deaths. Insani Yardim Vakfi (IHH Humanitarian Relief Foundation) – a Turkish “charity” with close links to Hamas, jihadist groups, and the Turkish government – led the efforts in this instance.

Working with European and American anti-Israel campaigners, including the confrontational International Solidarity Movement (ISM), they tapped into a wider diplomatic and political campaign driven by the false charges of “war crimes” and “collective punishment.”

NGOs orchestrate these incidents, stripping away the context of terror and hate, and placing Israel and its supporters on the defensive. This strategy is coupled with ongoing efforts, such as the boycotts, divestment, and sanctions (BDS) movement, to single out and isolate Israel.

A parallel tactic, promulgated by Israeli-Arab NGO Adalah (funded by the New Israel Fund -NIF and the European Union) portrays “Israel as an inherent undemocratic state.” Similarly, NGO “lawfare” cases against Israeli officials in foreign courts attempt to delegitimise the Israeli justice system.

Detailed research reports published by NGO Monitor document the damage caused by powerful NGOs that use the façade of liberal agendas, and the funders that enable these campaigns. European governments provide tens of millions of dollars annually, without the necessary transparency, to many of these NGOs.

‘Soft power’ war

Many of these groups, including the NIF, are attempting to prevent the Knesset from adopting legislation that would provide transparency regarding how and where NGOs receive their funding. These groups fear that they too would lose their funding and impact, and placed their private agendas and interests above the right of the public to know who is paying for the de-legitimisation efforts.

Haber's is a welcomed voice, joining the growing mainstream chorus that has highlighted the power of NGOs in the “soft power” war against Israel. Other prominent liberals in the US - including NY Times columnist Thomas Friedman, who echoed the criticism of Human Rights Watch by founder Robert Bernstein -have criticized the “foul… trend, both deliberate and inadvertent, to delegitimize Israel - to turn it into a pariah state, particularly in the wake of the Gaza war.”

Criticism and debate on particular policies is an appropriate part of all democratic societies. Blanket de-legitimisation is not. The fact that Friedman, Bernstein, Haber, and others are calling attention to this danger shows that the mainstream Left and Right in Israel and the Diaspora have found an issue around which they can unify.

It also means those who care about Israel should follow their lead and take action. This includes demanding the implementation of NGO funding guidelines based on transparency and assurance that their donations will not be used for de-legitimisation. Other guidelines reject the BDS campaign and international “lawfare” cases in all forms and arenas; offer criticisms of Israel in proper context; and use the vast resources available to assist those whose human rights truly are being infringed upon, in Iran, Sudan, Europe, and elsewhere, but are overshadowed by the obsessive emphasis on Israel

Haber’s call for a military-type effort and a “huge body” to “fight back” against the de-legitimisation process is understandable. But size is less important than intelligence, in both senses of the word. Israel and the Jewish people, working in partnership, need to think and act strategically, to name and shame the hardcore anti-Israel activists who use the façade of morality to promote their racism.

The funders and enablers, particularly the anonymous officials in European governments, need to be similarly exposed. In parallel, we need alliance with those who agree on the wider principles of Israel’s place among the nations, despite polity differences, including on settlements and other issues.

The alternative to this war strategy would consign us to watching from the sidelines as Israel’s place among the nations erodes further, and our ability to defend citizens against mass terror becomes more difficult. This alternative, as Eitan Haber has discovered, is unacceptable.

Prof. Gerald Steinberg is president of NGO Monitor and professor of Political Science at Bar Ilan University

Palestinian Authority has neither desire nor ability to finalize agreement with Israel

While the Palestinians debate whether to enter direct negotiations with Israel, we would do well to again ask the following question: Are their peace intentions genuine?

The State of Israel had a golden opportunity to scrutinize the frankness of their intentions to finalize a future peace agreement during Operation Fortress in 2002. Security forces uncovered the most guarded secrets of Arafat and his men in the PLO’s Ramallah archive, which contained thousands of security and political documents of unprecedented quality.

However, one document was conspicuously absent; a document that could have shed genuine light on the Palestinian Authority’s attitude to a future peace deal with Israel.

In the few historical junctions where the Palestinian national movement was called upon to make a decision regarding a possible historic compromise with the Zionist movement, the Palestinian leadership’s reply was unequivocally firm and determined: There would be no compromise because we, the Arabs, view the entire territory as belonging to the Arab Palestinian people.

The passing years have turned Palestinian rejectionism into a sanctified notion, one which current-day Palestinians address with the kind of reverence reserved for things that are greater than life.

Today we clearly know that Arafat, too, resorted to manipulation via the Oslo Accords. Even the greatest leader to rise within Palestinian society in the past 100 years froze in place when facing the dilemma of whether to shun the value of rejectionism. “Those who preach for compromise put their lives on the line,” is a commonly used dictum across the Palestinian Authority.

Those holding their breath ahead of Ramallah’s next moves should be aware of another important detail. Even the formulation of an agreed-upon Palestinian agenda is an impossible mission over there. The PA cannot close ranks even ahead of the possibility of make-belief direct talks.

We’ve seen that movie before

The Israeli side is insufficiently familiar with one of the main reasons for this: The deepening rift between the two main population groups comprising Palestinian society - the rural “mountain community” that never left the area, and the “coastal plain community” comprising the “1948 refugees.” Both groups realize that should talks get underway, a more “lenient” Israeli position could be elicited on only one of the four “core issues.”

And so, the group of 1948 refugees presses for focus on the “right of return” and the arrival of as many refugees to the area, while the first group clings to the notion of holding on to the land – that is, the removal of as many settlements as possible.

What our troops did find in the PLO archive, in large quantities, were numerous documents showing that the Palestinians are drawing immense benefits from the transitional status of “being less than a state” – which explains why they fell in love with the “peace process.” A peace activist recently told me that he tried to voluntarily bring hundreds of donated computers to PA children. “How much do I get for mediating this?” wondered a senior Fatah figure asked to offer his assistance.

Over the years, the PA’s leadership adopted techniques and skills that enable it to fully exploit its situation to its economic benefit. This transitional political situation, a twilight-zone government facing no scrutiny, is a political heaven for them made up of bottomless barrels of money. Who needs an actual state that would get into trouble sooner or later and be declared a failed state?

Palestinian society is not ripe for the great change planned for it by Barack Obama and heads of the European Union. A historical compromise is off-limits. In the wake of the last photo opportunity it will turn out again - for the umpteenth time - that Abbas can at most commit to “upgraded security arrangements,” in exchange asking for a high price in terms of settlements, prisoners, roadblocks, and so on. Regrettably, we’ve seen that movie before.

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.

Livni meets Ramon amid report he tried to derail talks

With international pressure growing on Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas to negotiate directly with Israel, Kadima council chairman Haim Ramon met on Friday with the Kadima chairwoman Tzipi Livni to discuss allegations he tried to convince the PA to reject such talks.Sources close to the two confirmed that in the course of the conversation, Ramon reiterated his denials of last week’s report that he told the PA’s chief negotiator Saeb Erekat not to enter into direct talks.

A man who allegedly heard the July 8 conversation between the two in the capital’s American Colony Hotel said Ramon told Erekat: “There is no point in starting direct talks, because Bibi won’t agree to anything.”Israel Radio’s Ayala Hasson described the witness as reliable and not politically motivated.

When the story of Ramon’s alleged comments broke, Livni said that she would meet with him on Friday, after he returned from a visit overseas.The meeting with Erekat, he told her on Friday, had been public and not hidden, and he never encouraged the Palestinians to avoid direct talks.He told Livni that the comments that he made in such meetings were no different than those that he has made in numerous public venues.

Ramon also denied reports that he told Erekat that he was speaking to him as an emissary of President Shimon Peres, telling Livni that he does not hold such meetings as a messenger from anyone.Livni’s office emphasized over the weekend that Kadima as a matter of principle is not trying to run any alternative peace process in place of the elected government, and that Livni herself is not an alternative channel.

Her office said, following the Ramon-Livni meeting, that “meetings by Kadima members, including Ramon, with Palestinian Authority officials who oppose terror and work to advance peace arrangements with Israel – [meetings] of which Livni is aware – are designed to maintain a missing link today between the [two] nations and to advance cooperation and understanding in a way that will aid in reaching a peace arrangement.”

Kadima, her office said, calls on the prime minister “to take responsibility for Israel’s state today instead of placing the blame on others for Israel’s decline to one of the worst diplomatic states in its history and making capital out of an open meeting between an Israeli and a Palestinian.” Calling to return to the “negotiations that Livni and Abu Ala [former PA prime minister Ahmed Qurei] held only a year-and-a-half ago,” Kadima officials said that picking up the talks where they left off then would bring a speedy end to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

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,"