The original Article this post responds to.

Jerusalem at night

Interesting to note how the international media (and especially the bias BBC) criticizes Israel’s reasonable claims such as those to Jerusalem and to a demilitarized Palestinian state. Yet is totally willing to accept completely unreal a pipe-dream-esque Arab claims to swamp Israel with millions of “refugees” to form in a capital in parts of Jerusalem where Arabs are still a minority. It is as if the international community is pushing Israel into a corner where it will behave more like the Arab negotiating team.

If Israel was to make extreme claims, such as for Arabs to be transferred or Hebron to be totally under Israeli control - then maybe the international community might actually be accepting of Israel’s reasonable and justified demands, to limited parts of the west bank and a unified Jerusalem as its capital. These methods, of raising the sakes into the land of the absurd, are what prevent real progress. Israel has also been doing all the ‘leg work’ trying to appease the Palestinians. The Arab side sits there with its arms folded like a metaphorical child refusing to budge from positions which defy reality.

The Arab world is still deeply politically retarded. It has not developed the strands of democracy, liberalism or accountability which would allow for it to be engaged with on an equal footing. Netanyahu’s speech lays out what is realistic, and what the Arab world must accept. The reality is that by continuing this unlimited hostility to Israel the Arab world has a smoke screen to avoid significant criticism and to enable horrifically corrupt leaders to continue to drive the Arab world economically, culturally, socially and politically into the ground.

a 90 degree turn away from the other photo, Jerusalem.

Netanyahu’s speech is a long overdue statement of a concrete argument from the Israeli right wing. With the complex divisions in the current government [stretching from those who oppose any other state within the land of Israel, to those (such as Liberman’s Israel betaiunu) who favour giving away significant chunks of land to form an Arab state] a clear view has been hard to find or predict. This speech also marks a significant change in the set of assumptions which are used in the conception of possible peace settlements.

For far too long Israel and the international community has been acting as if it were the underdog dealing with a superior Palestinian force, but showing a great deal of flexibility towards the desires and aspirations – or dictates of the PA. As a result one views time and again a PLO spokesperson laying down conditions in a dictatorial fashion. It is an undisputed reality that the PA/PLO have nothing to bring to the bargaining table. They were unable and unwilling to stop terrorism, so Israel unilaterally took steps to end it. They are unable to have any influence on larger powers such as Iran and Syria, which oppose Israel mainly for the sake of the survival of their own horrific and corrupt regimes – and although are happy to utilize Palestinian issues for the sake of Propaganda – they would not be impacted by any call from the PA to desist their hostile activities (even if such a call would ever be made). As for the last card they claim, “the recognition of Israel”, they have demonstrated for the sake of their own legitimacy they are utterly unable to give Israel recognition as a Jewish state. Something which seems utterly contrary to the very nature of the over used slogan “two states for two peoples”.

Politics is the realm of the pragmatic and the practical. The constant attempts to write and rewrite history in order to influence notions of ‘fairness’ in negotiations is futile. Each side can sponsor academics to produce counter arguments and the circle will continue. What should be considered above all else are political realities and what will genuinely stabilize this conflicted region. Issues such as Jerusalem are excuses used by the Arab side to avoid negotiation, rather than attempts to engage in it. On Jerusalem in particular – it has and it has always had a Jewish majority. It also has a significant established Arab cultural and demographic minority. As someone who has spent time in the city, I cannot fathom how the few chaotic badly build Arab villages making up the Arab part of “East Jerusalem” could constitute a city, let alone a capital. That is ignoring the Jewish majority in the Eastern part of the city, and large areas such as Mount Scopus which are “internationally recognised” as part of Israel, disconnected in this ivory tower map drawing from the “rest” of “west Jerusalem”.

Put simply Palestinians are likely to do very well in any negotiations given the lack of any bargaining card. I expect no matter what they get they will still hold to the “oppressed” and hard done by identity – which is really the only common factor in the Palestinian Identity. Palestinians will certainly not gain more from protracted negotiations; the offer made by Barak at Camp David will certainly stand as much more generous than what they will get out of any foreseeable future government. The attempts to use outrageous and unwarranted claims about Jerusalem, Refugees, Israel as a Jewish state, are a simple market traders logic in which if you ask for 100 shekels, then the final price will be about 50, whereas if you ask for a 1000 shekels then 500 will be the final settlement. This has no place in sincere political processes – and I applaud Netanyahu for effectively cutting through these sheer pipe dreams and flights of fancy.

On the whole nature of two-states for two peoples and the refusal to recognise Israel as a Jewish state - It seems what the PA desires is one Arab “Palestinian” state and one state which has no particular affiliation to either Jew or Arab. That would appear currently to be one and a half states for the arab and half a state for the Jews, leading to an eventual take over by the Arabs in the latter state according to Arafat’s policy of “war of the wombs” – in which Israeli Arabs and Palestinians were to simply have as many children as possible, and therefore commit an effective cultural genocide on the Jews in two-three generations.

The paradigm which this two-state solution should be seen through is that of a state formation for the Arabs. The first step of which is founding a functioning Palestinian Arab state, and the second part is the annexation of the parts of Israel which are entirely populated by self titled “Palestinian Arabs” to this Arab state. This is the truest and most accurate interpretation of two states for two peoples. This allows for a vast more prosperous Arab state and a much more internally secure and long lasting Jewish state. The alternative is civil war as the Arab population in Israel begins to narrow the margins on the Jewish one. This is a pattern repeated in many ethnic conflict situations. There will always be exceptions and this is certainly not 100% Arab and 100% Jewish “pure” nation states. It is about forming states which are genuinely secure in their identity and as a result will be much less likely to descend into civil conflict. Without this division, civil war is a complete certainty. The result from this will be two congruent peaceful states actual capable of co-existence. Any solution which leaves the issue of stability of identity unanswered is fanning the flames of insecurity which lead to violence in all ethnic conflicts.

Baraks move is bewildering given his statements only a week or so ago stating there is no basis for his Labor party to join with the Likud. It doesn’t seem hard to determine Barak’s motivations in joining, as he has lead the party to its smallest number of seats in the parliament since the state began. This is despite a constant, overly visible advertising campaign - where Barak claimed not to be a “nice guy”. Now rather than fading to the mists where failed former prime ministers go, (Who knew Yitzak Shamir is still alive?) by joining the colilition he is able to retain the defense ministry - which in Israeli terms is considered the second highest role after prime minister, for gaining only 13 seats!. This shows both Bibi’s desperation, and the success of a ‘hard to get strategy’ by Barak.

Given that Bibi is now embracing a very Olmert approach to leadership. By Olmert-like approach I mean complete flexibility in any ideological considerations, seemingly only interested in his political survival and making a complete break from his hawkish Likud beginnings. As much as being devoid of any obvious ideology might sound like an insult, it makes for the only leadership possible in a complex democratic system. I am yet to find any system as diverse and entrenched as what is found in the Knesset.

Now the proverbial unmissable land mammal is that how can you have a government made up of Extreme religious right in its Mizrakhi form with Shas, and its Ashkenazi form with Jewish Home and the Torah Judaism Party, WITH a Nationalist pro-secular party which has its main support base in the not particularly Jewish Russian community Israel Our Home party? Not to mention the influence of the generally pro-peace, secular, left leaning Labor.

The situation is more confounded by Netenyahu’s seeming lack of a direction of his own Likud party, supposedly the largest in the coalition. Likud MKs are in a complex position, apparently right where Bibi wants them. One the one hand, the Likud has won the election and yet Bibi is giving away ministerial posts to everyone apart from them, however on the other they cant voice these complains as Bibi is still in the process of selecting ministerial candidates. They are getting even more frustrated over Bibi’s apparent generosity to Barak.

Whereas before the government would have only a majority of 1 seat, with the addition of Labor this rises up to 18 (however not every Labor member is likely to join the Government)- making any effective opposition headed by Livni far less threatening. However, given the very essential differences of opinion it is highly possible that in adverse conditions Israel Our Home and Labor could break away from the Coalition and thus lead to a possible 50 MKs left in the government, and Livni would then be able to muster a coalition of Kadima, Labor and Israel our home leading to 56 mandates. Although that would not be a majority the opposition she would face would be extreme religious Jewish right, and the extreme left and Arab parties - thus giving her comfortable control. This would have been the most likely outcome of the election results, as Kadima won one more seat than Likud. However, the king-maker was Avigdor Liberman who had seemingly arranged prior to the elections (unbeknown to its supporters) to sink the Kadima ship and instead prop up a Likud one.

Why Liberman chose to join in a coalition of Likud and the religious parties is baffaling. Given what he wants to acomplish - civil marriage, a two state solution with Israeli Arab cities near the green line to be passed to the control of the PA and promotion of immigration to Israel - he would have been far more able to do this in a Kadima/Labor government. The religious parties will block any real attempt at either secular marriage, eased conversion process for non-Jewish immigrants and will be up-in-arms at any attempt to give away part of ‘the land of Israel’, albeit land containing 100,000s of hostile Arab residents. I can give no answer for his actions based on normal realist political thinking and only suggest that there are agreements to which the public is not aware.

The further point is that a final status agreement with the PA is the number one issue being currently dealt with, and this government will shoot down any attempt which would finalize the land needed to be ‘evacuated’ for this to happen. The Likud also seems a rather strange choice for peace maker. My prediction for this government is certainly that it will not survive its term (not that any Israeli government ever seems to), and that it will address none of the crucial domestic issues Israel needs addressing because of the chronic religious-secular divide, nor any of the international peace agreements needed with the PA and Syria. It has the potential to also undo any of the diplomatic progress made under Kadima, while damaging Israel’s very fragile international image in friendly western nations. The best that can be hoped for is that it doesn’t last, or that somehow Kadima can join and massively limit the influence of the religious parties.

by Dominic Lawson

Those who claim the IDF also deliberately targets civilians don’t have to believe the official spokesman’s denials: they could speak to someone such as Colonel Richard Kemp, who commanded British Army campaigns in Afghanistan and Northern Ireland, and was most recently senior military adviser to the Cabinet Office. Kemp told me that “Hamas deploys suicide attackers including women and children, and rigs up schools and houses with booby-trap explosives. Its leaders knew as a matter of certainty this would lead to civilian casualties if there was a ground battle. Virtually every aspect of its operations is illegal under international humanitarian law – ‘war crimes’ in the emotive language usually reserved for the Israelis”.

Or possibly "Self-help" something Jews have become acustomed to

Colonel Kemp points out that if the IDF had no regard for civilian lives it would never have leafleted and telephoned residents in Gaza, warning them when it was about to attack their area: after all, that also gives Hamas notice – hardly the act of an army devoted to military victory at all costs. Similarly, the IDF’s unilateral commitment to a daily three-hour ceasefire to permit the evacuation (to Israel) of casualties, and for the passage of “humanitarian aid”, also allows Hamas time to regroup and redeploy for future attacks.

Of course, none of these arguments can penetrate the brains of the superannuated Stalinists, vicarious jihadists and attention-seeking actors and pop stars who think it’s cool to go on marches chanting, “We are all Hamas now”. Even if these luvvies might not be aware that on Christmas Eve Hamas legalised crucifixion as a punishment for those who “weaken the spirit of the people”, and have been shooting such political enemies in the head when they find them in hospitals conveniently injured by Israeli bombing raids, they still deserve to be dismissed as useful idiots for a depraved death cult.

Israel’s Gaza offensive also confronts Iran

Con Coughlin

In December a high-ranking delegation of Revolutionary Guard officers visited the headquarters of exiled Hamas leaders in the Syrian capital Damascus, where they held several days of discussions with the organisation’s hardline leader Khaled Meshaal. As a result of these meetings new consignments of military equipment were smuggled into Gaza, including the longer-range Grad missiles which are now being used by Hamas to strike Israeli cities such as Ashkelon, Ashdod, Gedera and Beersheva.

Previously Hamas had to rely on primitive, home-made Qassam rockets, which only have a range of a few miles, to attack Israeli residential neighbours located on the other side of the Gaza border. But the Grad rockets provided by Iran mean that Hamas now has the capability to hit targets deep within Israel’s heartland, a development that precipitated the Israeli government’s decision to launch the current offensive in Gaza.

At the very least Israel will not curb its Gaza offensive until it is sure that it has destroyed the supply lines Iran has used to fund and equip Hamas.

When Israel signed up to United Nations resolution 1701 which set out the conditions for a ceasefire in Lebanon in 2006, it did so on the understanding that the French-led international peacekeeping force would curb the threat Hizbollah posed to northern Israel.

But the UN force has proved powerless to prevent Iran re-arming Hizbollah, which has more rockets today than it had in 2006. Israel is not about to repeat the mistake it made in Lebanon in Gaza.

Fort from the Yom Kippur War looking into Syria

Monument to Trumpledor at Tel-Hai, whose famous last words were 'It is good to die for your country'

Sympathy would be marked by, at least sometimes, giving Israel the benefit of the doubt, or at least occasionally assuming it doesn’t possess the most abhorrent of intentions. If there is one way in which the bias of educated groups against Israel can be explained it would be by an inconsistent application of sympathies. The British media and academics are marked out by a lack of any empathy with Israel at all. Yet all coverage of Israel’s various misadventures is characterized as being based solely on empathy with other groups. It is a long ar gument which I have set out else where - that Israel if contrasted with any other country involved in conflict comes out as far far from the worst of the bunch, indeed it is normally towards the top end.

I write as someone who served loyally in the Israeli army in the mid-1960s and who has never questioned the legitimacy of the state of Israel within its pre-1967 borders

To the world, Sharon presented the withdrawal from Gaza as a contribution to peace based on a two-state solution. But in the year after, another 12,000 Israelis settled on the West Bank, further reducing the scope for an independent Palestinian state. The real purpose behind the move was to redraw unilaterally the borders of Greater Israel by incorporating the main settlement blocs on the West Bank to the state of Israel. Withdrawal from Gaza was thus not a prelude to a peace deal with the Palestinian Authority but a prelude to further Zionist expansion on the West Bank.  Anchored in a fundamental rejection of the Palestinian national identity, the withdrawal from Gaza was part of a long-term effort to deny the Palestinian people any independent political existence on their land.

Aircraft refueling in mid-air during a military display on Tel-Aviv beach

By his own figures the Gaza pull-out led to an increase of 12,000 settlers in West Bank settlements, although this could be disputed, lets assume it is correct. The main problem here is that much of the Jerusalem metro area is considered by writers like Shlaim to be “settlements” and these are cities with tens of thousands of Jews and it is a well established fact that these will remain part of any future State of Israel. I fail to see a connection between this relatively insignificant number of people moving mainly to already established and entrenched cities, in any way effects the on going peace negotiations. Given that Israel’s starting point for negotiations was to offer the PA 93% of the West Bank, and that the ruling Kadima party was elected with the policy of  a withdrawal from the West Bank, any assumption that the Gaza withdrawal was the only concession Israel would make is just counter-factual.

Israel’s settlers were withdrawn but Israeli soldiers continued to control all access to the Gaza Strip by land, sea and air. Gaza was converted overnight into an open-air prison.

A lot of time could and should be spent on this, as it seems to underlie a lot of consensus about Gaza. To be brief - it was not occupied. Israel maintained heavy watch over its own borders with a territory that was over-taken by an extremely hostile radical group, which would class as an enemy in any definition of that word. Gaza has a large, significant and fully-functional boarder with Egypt - which should be their natural border for trade and crossing, as Egypt is a fellow Arab state, not targeted for destruction by Hamas’ charter. The fact Hamas cannot even sustain relations with other Arab countries is not something to blame Israel for. Despite Gaza being no part of Israel, despite it being controlled by an enemy group AND despite it being a launching pad for rockets and other terror attacks against Israel - Israel supplies them with electricity, water and many other goods. This supply is without payment, and despite the attacks carried out against Israeli personnel supplying these utilities. As regards Sea - Israel does not in anyway control the Sea border between Gaza and Egypt. And Air is insignificant as there is not one operational aircraft or landingstrip in Gaza - the nearest one being in Sinai.

Israel has a long history of secret collaboration with reactionary Arab regimes to suppress Palestinian nationalism …. Aggressive American neoconservatives participated in the sinister plot to instigate a Palestinian civil war. Their meddling was a major factor in the collapse of the national unity government and in driving Hamas to seize power in Gaza in June 2007 to preempt a Fatah coup.

These unproven theories are believed only by the naive and those with compulsions to find any excuse for Arab difficulties other than their own incompetence. They are nice ideas but no objective prove exists and they appear to be wishful thinking on the behalf of those who come up with them. Every country in the world has secret intelligence and is involved in actions and negotiations away from the public eye, yet it seems they only become secret plots when it comes to Israel or the Americans meddling in the middle-east. What a seemingly racist statement, that the ‘poor Arabs’ are so naive that Israel and the US just leads them ‘around the garden path’. Given current Geo-political situations many arab groups, especially the Palestinians have had to live off their wits and with the almost free media they enjoy - saying a bunch of red-neck republicans jumped off the plane from Texas and started effectively convincing Palestinians to kill one-another - sounds like a rather absurd situation does it? I suppose with you write books of “history” with no citations the desire to back up statements diminishes.

The brutality of Israel’s soldiers is fully matched by the mendacity of its spokesmen. Israel’s spin doctors have been remarkably successful in getting this message across. But, in essence, their propaganda is a pack of lies.

Part of a monument to the Israeli army at a military cemetary in Tel-Aviv

]]> http://yonatanmusgrave.com/?feed=rss2&p=178 http://yonatanmusgrave.com/?p=41 http://yonatanmusgrave.com/?p=41#comments Thu, 08 Jan 2009 23:02:06 +0000 admin http://yonatanmusgrave.com/?p=41 Sitting here in Tel-Aviv, with rockets and mortars pounding cities in the north and the south it feels like I am no longer living in the centre of Zionism. Despite having suffered more than its fair share of suicide bombings, Tel-Aviv has missed out on Hizballah’s Katushas and now two years later on Hamas’ Kassams. The city was the heart of the movement to bring self-determination to the Jewish people, and now it sits as prime example of beogeous obliviuosness. Life here goes on, only aware of the trouble and danger other cities face by media reports; almost as if we in Tel-Aviv are merely reading about Israel’s war like the rest of the world.

Jerusalem also hasn’t been hit by rockets from north or south. But has suffered to brunt of what we can call these new unplanned “Gonzo” terrorist attacks.  The make-shift shootings and driving attacks committed by Israeli-ID card holding Arabs. Jerusalem also feels like the frontier of Israel and whatever is happening in the west bank area, with a tension inside the city from its divided population of religious, ultra-religious, Arabs and zealous new “olim”.

Given these conditions it seems understandable that the general political climate which issues forth from Tel-Aviv is one of idealistic, “why-cant-we-all-get-along”, aloof, judgmental detached liberalism. This was best represented by the protest here the other day.

It seems odd that Tel-Aviv being the center of Israeli capitalism and economic success finds a rally by a communist party so attractive. I think that communism to these people represents only some rebellion against the main stream. Given communism’s almost consistent association with the most extreme human rights abuses I find it hard to think of this as the vehicle through which to manifest “humanitarian” desires - as were professed at this “anti-war” march. Then again the only successful adoption of communism with any real degree of success was the kibbutz movement here in Israel, the same movement which gave Israel most of its strongest generals and political leaders.  But the people at the protest seemed unaware of this irony from history.

There was a counter protest. It was in support of the Gaza War, and in reaction to the high court and Police’s decision to let protesters carry Palestinian Flags. The feeling in the counter-protest was one of betrayed by fellow-Israelis deliberately supporting an enemy in a time of war. It is one thing to have a different view about how Israel should fight wars or simply deal with terrorism - but the waving flags felt to many as a support for the very group Israel is engaged in life-endangering conflict with.

The counter protest -

Tel-Aviv Demonstration supporting Israel's Gaza Action Dec 08 - Jan 09