We welcome your comments to this and any other CIJR publication. Please address your response to: Rob Coles, Publications Chairman, Canadian Institute for Jewish Research, PO Box 175, Station H, Montreal QC H3G 2K7 – Tel: (514) 486-5544 – Fax:(514) 486-8284; E-mail: rob@isranet.wpsitie.com
What's Plan B?: David M. Weinberg, Israel Hayom, May 9, 2014— Knowing in advance that U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry's nine-month diplomatic effort was unlikely to succeed, all sides had to be thinking of Plan B, their next step following the failure of negotiations.
Why Negotiations Collapsed – American Perceptions and Future Indications: Alex Joffe, Times of Israel, May 3, 2014 — Effective foreign policy requires a balance between the predictable and the unpredictable.
The Tinkerbell Effect: Elliott Abrams, Weekly Standard, Apr. 21, 2014 — In his Senate Foreign Relations Committee testimony last week, Secretary of State John Kerry blamed Israel for the breakdown in peace negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians.
A Sad Independence Day: Caroline Glick, Jerusalem Post, May. 8, 2014— Yom Ha’atzma’ut, Israeli Independence Day, is a joyous holiday.
Moving Beyond the Doomed ‘Peace Process’: Amir Taheri, New York Post, Apr. 30, 2014
Apartheid 101 for John Kerry: Jewish Press, May 1, 2014
In Major Speech, Indyk Opens up on 'Breakdown' of Israeli-Palestinian Peace Talks: Michael Wilner, Jerusalem Post, May 9, 2014
Uri Ariel: No More Prisoner Releases: Avi Tuchmayer, Jewish Press, May 8, 2014
A List of Canada’s Fallen in Afghanistan: Globe & Mail, May 8, 2014
David M. Weinberg
Israel Hayom, May 9, 2014
Knowing in advance that U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry's nine-month diplomatic effort was unlikely to succeed, all sides had to be thinking of Plan B, their next step following the failure of negotiations. For the Palestinians, Plan B was clear from the outset: Pursue further unilateral recognition of Palestinian statehood from international organizations, and use global legal forums to criminalize, isolate and pressure Israel. In fact, it's quite clear that all along this was Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas' intention. He was in the negotiating game for a while just to satisfy Kerry and secure the release of Palestinian terrorists from Israeli jails.
But what is Plan B for Israel? What was Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu thinking when he went into these negotiations? He knew that Abbas was a flight risk, given that Abbas has repeatedly run away from negotiations each time a decision-making juncture approaches. He must have understood that Abbas was incapable and unwilling to make any true compromises for peace with Israel. So having engaged in the Kerry talks to prove that Israel is serious and to unmask Abbas, now what? Does the government of Israel have a Plan B?
Netanyahu hasn't given us any indication of where he might go next, except to hold the door open for further negotiations in case the Palestinians come to their senses by disconnecting from Hamas and dropping their outlandish conditions for renewal of talks. Others are jumping into the vacuum, however, with multiple versions of Plan B involving unilateral Israeli moves in Judea and Samaria. The Right wants to annex about 60 percent of the territory, and the Left wants to withdraw from 80 percent or more of the territory. Alarmingly, I sense an undercurrent of growing support for the left-wing withdrawal plan nonsensically called "constructive unilateralism." Essentially this involves the withdrawal (i.e., destruction) of many settlements in remote areas, and some realignment of the IDF presence, without any peace agreement. I view this as misguided and dangerous.
Israeli withdrawal from much or most of the West Bank in the absence of a full peace agreement with the Palestinians will not bring security to Israel, even if it is "constructively" coordinated with America and supposedly matched by indirect, reciprocal Palestinian promises to Israel. After an Israeli withdrawal, how are we going to be able to prevent the fall of Judea and Samaria to Hamas? If we reserve the right to regularly raid the territories in order to root out Hamas cells, how is that any different from the situation today? And if we keep a significant troop presence on the hilltops and at key junctures, who will really consider this an end to the Israeli "occupation"? Moreover, can you imagine what would befall Israel's rump troop presence in the West Bank once our civilian settlements were unilaterally torn down and out of the area? Remember just how badly Israel's "security zone" in southern Lebanon worked out? Our forces there had no legitimacy whatsoever, brought us sustained international opprobrium, and suffered heavy casualties. Do we want to turn the West Bank into southern Lebanon?
Nor will a unilateral move provide Israel with diplomatic breathing room, as the plan's proponents claim. Withdrawing from one part of the territories won't convince anyone that Israel has a right to keep other parts. On the contrary: A partial Israeli pullout will intensify the illegitimacy of our remaining presence in the territories. Every Israeli retreat is taken as proof that the territories are all stolen property that must be returned to their rightful Palestinian owners. Unilateral withdrawal will bolster Palestinian maximalism. Worst of all, a unilateral withdrawal will unnecessarily and unjustifiably tear the internal fabric of this country asunder. It's unforgivable and simply indefensible to drag Israelis out their homes in Judea and Samaria — if at all — without any hope for real peace in the offing.
In short, unilateral Israeli withdrawal will not increase Israel's international diplomatic position or its moral standing, nor will it enhance our security or our internal cohesion. And as the Lebanon and Gaza precedents proved, a unilateral Israeli withdrawal will only guarantee continuation of the conflict and even its escalation, not its de-escalation. Yet in the Left's newfangled political parlance, unilateral withdrawal is being giving a heroic shine. It's absurdly being called "brave Zionism." "I would supplant the word unilateralism with Zionism," gushes former Ambassador to the U.S. Michael Oren in support of the plan. "One good definition of Zionism is Jews taking their destiny in their hands. … We do not outsource our fundamental destiny to Palestinian decision-making." Such over-the-top and fallacious salesmanship of the leftist Plan B — unilateral withdrawal in the "best traditions" of Zionism — has me very worried…
[To Read the Full Article Click the Following Link –Ed.]
AMERICAN PERCEPTIONS AND FUTURE INDICATIONS
Alex Joffe
Times of Israel, May 3, 2014
Effective foreign policy requires a balance between the predictable and the unpredictable. Alliances require careful maintenance and no surprises while adversarial relationships sometimes require unpredictable responses. It is the unique gift of the Obama administration to have reversed this equation. The collapse of peace negotiations was wholly predictable and has finally taken place. Efforts are now being made to assign blame and exert pressure on the parties. In a series of off the record interviews with Israeli newspapers, unnamed American officials involved in the negotiations have quite predictably put most of the blame on Israel. Careful reading, however, reveals more about America than it does Israelis or Palestinians.
In a wide-ranging interview with veteran Israeli journalist Nahum Barnea, blame was systematically assigned to Netanyahu and his government and a single, overarching cause: “people in Israel shouldn’t ignore the bitter truth – the primary sabotage came from the settlements.” “Settlements” are indeed a primary issue, both for peace negotiations and for Israeli politics. But “settlements” have become a kind of deus ex machina for both domestic and international critics of Israel, the first and last explanation for why bad things happen. One of the more remarkable statements from Barnea’s interlocutor shows just how little understanding there is regarding “settlements” as an Israeli political issue. “We didn’t realize continuing construction allowed ministers in his government to very effectively sabotage the success of the talks.”
Since the 1980s there has been a predictable manner in which low and mid level Israeli committees embarrass prime ministers engaged in peace negotiations with announcements of construction tenders, some for projects far in the future. This is a major Israeli political problem, but reasonably informed American observers should at least be aware of it. Amazingly, the Americans appear not to have been. Instead, they reacted with outrage, which is more foolish than simply being surprised and disappointed, since it rewards the Israeli right wing. It also betrays just how ill-informed American diplomats appear to be about the convoluted, if not demented, nature of Israeli politics and bureaucracy. Allowing Abbas to collapse the talks because of housing tenders issued for Gilo – a Jerusalem neighborhood that no reasonable observer could possibly expect to be evacuated – is doubly so.
The outsized and deeply personal nature of the negotiations agenda in American foreign policy is reflected elsewhere. Moshe Ya’alon’s overly blunt outburst against Kerry, in which he said the Secretary of State was only interested in winning a Nobel Peace Prize for brokering an Israeli-Palestinian agreement at a time when American allies were under threat around the world, is thus characterized as deeply hurtful; “the insult was great.” At the time American officials reacted with even more pique: ““We were shocked by Moshe Ya’alon’s comments, which seriously call into question his commitment to Israel’s relationship with the United States.” Ya’alon’s remarks were accurate but ill-considered, and were in keeping with many being made by nervous American allies. But the American response then and now seems to be that Israelis should simply shut up.
Barnea reports that the US perceives the hero of the recent negotiations to be Tzipi Livni, who “fought for all her might to promote the agreement.” This may be so, but characterizing Livni as the righteous woman of the hour simply amplifies the longstanding perception that she is the Obama administration’s favored successor to Netanyahu. This will not do her any good politically. Despite it all, and to Kerry’s credit, progress was made and an agreement was outlined. But one obstacle remained, Abbas’ refusal to recognize Israel as a Jewish state. Here too the American official betrays something bordering on criminal ignorance:
“We couldn’t understand why it bothered him [Abbas] so much. For us, the Americans, the Jewish identity of Israel is obvious. We wanted to believe that for the Palestinians this was a tactical move – they wanted to get something (in return) and that’s why they were saying ‘no.’ Recognizing Israel as a Jewish state is, for Abbas and the Palestinian leadership, if not the majority of Palestinians, a declaration that Jews have historic rights as a nation and a people, not simply a religion. Such a declaration would end the conflict once and for all by mandating that a Jewish nation-state may stand alongside a Palestinian state. And for those reasons it was out of the question.
The American habit of seeing Israel as a Jewish state is comforting, but the inability to understand that Palestinians refuse to do so out of religious convictions that Jews are a religion, not a people entitled to sovereignty in their historic homeland, is absurd. If the Arab-Israeli conflict has a “root cause,” this is it. But American blindness is not surprising, since the religious context of international affairs has never been well-understood by American policymakers, and has, since 9/11, been deliberately obfuscated, denied, and pushed far to the background. Finally, Barnea’s interview betrays the understated American strategy of pressuring Israel with threats of international boycotts. This approach goes back at least a year, with statements by Kerry and enshrined as policy in President Obama’s notorious interview with Jeffrey Goldberg prior to the AIPAC meeting in March 2014. Barnea’s interviewee made the threats clear: “The international community, especially the European Union, avoided any action during the negotiations. Now, a race will begin to fill the void. Israel might be facing quite a problem.”
As with Kerry’s and Obama’s statements in the past, European states and corporations have been given explicit license to explore boycotting Israel. European foreign ministries and the European Commission, pressured by anti-Israel NGO’s that they themselves fund, will rush to the task. Rarely has a bludgeon been wielded so blatantly by American administration against an ally. Kerry’s haphazard use of the term “apartheid” makes the message unmistakable. Historical outcomes are never inevitable but they are frequently predictable. So it was in the case of Kerry’s latest efforts, where the pitfalls were obvious and self-made. As more details emerge there will be much blame to be shared by Israelis and Palestinians. America, however, will take the lion’s share.
Elliott Abrams
Weekly Standard, Apr. 21, 2014
In his Senate Foreign Relations Committee testimony last week, Secretary of State John Kerry blamed Israel for the breakdown in peace negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians. He argued that an Israeli announcement of 700 new housing units for a neighborhood in Jerusalem were what did in the talks. “Poof, that was sort of the moment,” Kerry said. “We find ourselves where we are.” This is an amazing claim, especially when the housing units are not in a settlement—but are in Jerusalem, Israel’s capital, in a location that every Israeli and every Palestinian knows will be part of Israel in any possible peace agreement. In fact, Kerry’s actions during his 15 months as secretary of state are why “we find ourselves where we are.” The only surprise here is the total lack of introspection or comprehension he exhibits. Kerry jumped into these negotiations, secure in the belief that he could deliver success—and therefore not even thinking about the damage that could be done if the talks blew up. But why—why was he so confident? What was his analysis of world affairs, of events in the region, or of the politics of the two sides that led him to conclude this was the moment—2013 and 2014—when a deal was at hand?
The answer is found in his speech last December to the Saban Forum, a gathering of Israeli and American officials and former officials at the Brookings Institution in Washington. Here are the key passages: Late last night I got back from my eighth visit to Israel . . . my eighth visit as secretary of state. Now, I am not a masochist. (Laughter.) I am undertaking this because I believe in the possibilities. And as many of you know, I have spent almost 30 years in the United States Senate, and I’m proud of my 100 percent voting record for Israel, but I’m proud also that I built up relationships in the Mideast with leaders in Arab countries and elsewhere who learned that they could come to trust me. And I believe that I approach this great challenge with a huge sense of responsibility about building trust and ultimately building a process that will test and provide guarantees to people about this concept called peace.
I will tell you point blank, and I’ve read all of the history of these negotiations and I’ve lived part of the history of these negotiations. I was on the lawn when the famous handshake took place. And I’ve had many, many a meeting over the course of time as chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee and as a senator. But I believe that if you indeed care about Israel, and everybody here does, if you care about its security, if you care about its future, if you care about Palestinians achieving their legitimate aspirations for self-determination, which we do also, we need to believe that peace is possible. And we all need to act on that belief. This is a combination of faith-based diplomacy and personal vanity. The argument seems to be that peace is possible because Kerry has relationships with leaders, Kerry is trusted, Kerry was in the Senate for 30 years, Kerry chaired the Foreign Relations Committee, and Kerry was on the White House lawn when Rabin shook hands with Arafat. So our job is to have faith in him, and if we believe that peace is possible, it will come.
This latter is known as the Tinkerbell Effect, based on the passage in Peter Pan where the fairy Tinkerbell has taken poison but can be revived if people believe in her. Peter flung out his arms. There were no children there, and it was night time; but he addressed all who might be dreaming of the Neverland. . . . “If you believe,” he shouted to them, “clap your hands; don’t let Tink die.” Apparently it didn’t work with the Palestinians, who failed to clap. Kerry’s casting of blame at Israel was rebuffed sharply by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu: An official in his office told the New York Times, “Secretary Kerry knows that it was the Palestinians who said ‘no’ to continued direct talks with Israel in November; who said ‘no’ to his proposed framework for final status talks; who said ‘no’ to even discussing recognition of Israel as the nation-state of the Jewish people; who said ‘no’ to a meeting with Kerry himself; and who said ‘no’ to an extension of the talks.”
And remember, this comes after various bribes were paid to the Palestinians to get them to come to the negotiating table after four years of refusal—Barack Obama’s entire first term. One of those bribes was the release of 78 murderers from Israeli jails—Palestinian terrorists who were granted a hero’s welcome upon returning home. This is the rebuttal to those who believe Kerry’s 15 months of efforts have produced nothing at all: Seventy-eight killers are free, anyway. It is also the rebuttal to those who think that efforts like Kerry’s may of course fail but come at little cost: Freeing killers is a cost. Failure for the United States is a cost. And now, blaming Israel and thereby damaging U.S.-Israel relations is another cost. Kerry gets an A for effort, to be sure, and was sincere and dogged throughout these 15 months of exertion. He displayed a deep desire to help both sides move forward. But his own vanity got in the way of a sober assessment of the chances for success, and the failure of the effort—even if sooner or later the two sides do sit down together again—diminishes his own prestige and effectiveness as our top diplomat. It’s past time for the administration to keep him home and spend a while rethinking five years of failed Middle East policy. “Clap your hands; don’t let Tink die” doesn’t make the grade.
Caroline Glick
Jerusalem Post, May 8, 2014
Yom Ha’atzma’ut, Israeli Independence Day, is a joyous holiday. In Israel, every year, from Eilat to Metulla, from Tel Aviv to the Jordan Valley, everyone across every spectrum – secular, religious; rich, poor; left, Right, Ashkenazi, Sephardi – is out celebrating. The reconstitution of the Jewish state, and its growth within three generations from a third world economic and military basket case into a prosperous and powerful country, is among the most astounding success story in human history. Certainly it is the greatest story of Jewish success since Joshua led a nation of former slaves in conquering and settling the land of Israel some 3,500 years ago.
And today, three generations after the enslavement and genocide of European Jewry and the expulsion of the Jews from Islamic lands, the Jewish people in the Land of Israel have built arguably the most dynamic society in the world. For the Jews of the Diaspora, Israel’s success should be a source of enduring pride and joy. Independence Day should be celebrated by Jews throughout the world. But in recent years, associations of Israel with joy have become increasingly rare. As one Jewish student activist put it, the celebration on his campus was nothing more than “a bunch of kids eating cake.” And at the same time, he explained, many students were posting statuses on their Facebook pages talking about how the day was “bittersweet because of the Nakba.” The situation was all too similar in campuses throughout North America. Yom Ha’atzma’ut, the celebration of the greatest act of Jewish will in modern times, was marked with a shrug, and small clumps of students eating felafel and humous, and cake.
No doubt, part of the problem is the distance. It may be that you have to live in Israel to understand how amazing it is. But then again, thanks to programs like Birthright, far more young American Jews have visited Israel in recent years than had visited in previous generations. And previous generations of American Jews felt far greater joy in Israel’s accomplishments than young American Jews feel today. Part of the problem is ignorance. With steadily decreasing levels of Jewish education and religious affiliation among non-Orthodox Jews in the US, young American Jews don’t know almost anything about their Jewish identity. They are unfamiliar with their history. Their religious education – if they had any – generally came to a grinding halt immediately after their bar mitzvas. And their Zionist education, such as it may have been, was filtered through the media and then, once they arrived in college, through the rants of their anti-Israel professors. And part of it is that they are intimidated. Hate groups like Students for Justice in Palestine and Jewish Voices for Peace harangue Jewish students for uttering even the mildest defenses of Israel. When students are willing to stand up to these hate groups, they are beset by J Street U members telling them that there is nothing anti-Israel about being anti-Israel, and that being anti-Israel really means being pro-Israel. The ignorant Jews shrug their shoulders and walk away because Israel is just too much trouble. Or they stay and become convinced that they can be pro-Israel by being anti-Israel.
A poll of Israeli Jews published on Independence Day by Tel Aviv University found that 80 percent are optimistic about Israel’s future, and 85% are optimistic about their own future. Eighty percent of Israelis wouldn’t want to live anywhere but Israel. Israelis are most concerned about domestic issues. Forty-seven percent are most concerned about the divide between the wealthy and the poor. Twenty-one percent are most concerned with skyrocketing housing prices. Only 8.7% think the most urgent challenge is to make peace with the Palestinians. For most American Jews, these Israeli priorities are incomprehensible. Over the past 20 years, and at an accelerated pace over the past five years, they have been browbeaten by the mantra that Israel is all but synonymous with the peace process, and that without it, the Jewish state will be lost. This mantra, which denies Israel an existence independent of the Palestinian conflict, was created immediately after Israel embarked on the peace process with the PLO in 1993. It was bad enough from the outset. But it has become gravely exacerbated by the appearance of J Street on the American Jewish scene. Before J Street, ignorant American Jews could defend Israel because it is pro-peace. But since J Street arrived at the scene, the fact that Israel has always sought peace with its neighbors is increasingly denied and replaced with lies about Israeli culpability for the pathologies of the Palestinians and the wider Islamic world…
[To Read the Full Article Click the Following Link –Ed.]
Moving Beyond the Doomed ‘Peace Process’: Amir Taheri, New York Post, Apr. 30, 2014—President Obama’s deadline for Israelis and Palestinians to seal a peace deal has passed with the two sides as far as apart as ever.
Apartheid 101 for John Kerry: Jewish Press, May 1, 2014 —In a ‘private’ conversation, John Kerry unleashed the well-known narrative that dictates that if Israel does not retreat, it will become an apartheid state and suffer the same fate as South Africa. .
In Major Speech, Indyk Opens up on 'Breakdown' of Israeli-Palestinian Peace Talks: Michael Wilner, Jerusalem Post, May 9, 2014—Neither Israel nor the Palestinians sense urgency in their pursuit of peace with one another, Martin Indyk, US special envoy to the Middle East, said in an unprecedented speech on Thursday night.
Uri Ariel: No More Prisoner Releases: Avi Tuchmayer, Jewish Press, May 8, 2014—Housing Minister Uri Ariel told the family of murder victim Shelly Dadon that Israel must not release murderers, NRG reported in Hebrew.
A List of Canada’s Fallen in Afghanistan: Globe & Mail, May 8, 2014
Contents:
Visit CIJR’s Bi-Weekly Webzine: Israzine.
CIJR’s ISRANET Daily Briefing is available by e-mail.
Please urge colleagues, friends, and family to visit our website for more information on our ISRANET series.
To join our distribution list, or to unsubscribe, visit us at https://isranet.org/.
The ISRANET Daily Briefing is a service of CIJR. We hope that you find it useful and that you will support it and our pro-Israel educational work by forwarding a minimum $90.00 tax-deductible contribution [please send a cheque or VISA/MasterCard information to CIJR (see cover page for address)]. All donations include a membership-subscription to our respected quarterly ISRAFAX print magazine, which will be mailed to your home.
CIJR’s ISRANET Daily Briefing attempts to convey a wide variety of opinions on Israel, the Middle East and the Jewish world for its readers’ educational and research purposes. Reprinted articles and documents express the opinions of their authors, and do not necessarily reflect the viewpoint of the Canadian Institute for Jewish Research.
Rob Coles, Publications Chairman, Canadian Institute for Jewish Research/ L'institut Canadien de recherches sur le Judaïsme, www.isranet.org
Tel: (514) 486-5544 – Fax:(514) 486-8284 ; ber@isranet.wpsitie.com
