Doc's Talk: Diplomacy: 'Good, very good' vs. 'frank and productive'

Saturday, September 26, 2009

Diplomacy: 'Good, very good' vs. 'frank and productive'

Herb Keinon , THE JERUSALEM POST

Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu was very much in his element here this week, speaking from the UN podium, giving interviews to the US electronic media and addressing Jewish organizational leaders. Between his first meeting with US President Barack Obama on Tuesday and his last meeting with Jewish leaders Thursday evening, he gave interview after interview to the electronic media: CNN, ABC, Fox News, NBC and finally Charlie Rose at PBS.

Netanyahu was transferred back some 25 years, to a simpler time - at least for him - a time when he was younger, when he was fresher, when he was the country's whiz kid diplomat, the articulate defender of Israel as it's envoy to the UN. And he visibly enjoyed going back.

At first unsure whether he wanted to give television interviews, Netanyahu changed his mind with a vengeance following the tripartite meeting with Obama and Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas on Tuesday, a meeting he thought went especially well. Following those talks the prime minister felt confident enough of the situation to go to the US media and convey Israel's message: The settlements are not what is holding up peace talks, Palestinian preconditions are; Iran is the world's problem, not only Israel's; and the Goldstone Commission report that accused Israel of war crimes in Gaza was - as he said on CNN - "preposterous."

Indeed, Netanyahu was having such a good time after he did CNN, ABC, Fox and NBC, that he called Defense Minister Ehud Barak and asked if he would move to the side and vacate a slot reserved for him on the Charlie Rose show, so he could sit in the seat across from the PBS's interviewer. Barak obliged, saying this week was Netanyahu's show.

A funny thing, however, happened on the way to explaining Israel's position to the American public: Netanyahu overlooked - or took for granted - the Israeli media. As a result, the bilateral and trilateral meetings he held Tuesday were painted in underwhelming tones in the Israeli press on Wednesday.

"There has never been such a hollow ceremony," Yediot Aharonot's Nahum Barnea, wrote of the meetings, which took place in a gilded, brown motifed room in New York's Waldorf Astoria Hotel, biblical-looking figures painted - Michelangelo-like - on the ceiling and looking down on the proceedings. Barnea added that while Netanyahu might feel as if he scored a victory in New York, he should keep in mind the lesson the Middle East gives all its winners: "In this region, the short-term winner loses in the long-term."

Talk about raining on a guy's parade. Here Netanyahu scored what he obviously felt was a not inconsiderable achievement, and all the Israeli press could do was paint it in the negative. So Netanyahu decided to devote time to the Israeli press.

As a result, between Charles Wilson on ABC and Charlie Rose on PBS, Netanyahu granted brief interviews with key Israeli media outlets including The Jerusalem Post, for as important as a good interview on NBC might be, Netanyahu's bread is buttered in Israel, and it is there that he felt the need to hone the message.

And it is clear that what Netanyahu felt the Israeli press missed was that his meeting with Obama alone, and then together with Abbas, went well. In fact, while Obama characterized the talks as "frank and productive," Netanyahu termed them "good, very good." Both men were at the same talks, and the difference in the adjectives selected to describe them speaks volumes about each leader's different perspective.

FOR OBAMA, the talks were indeed "frank" - diplomatese for "tough and testy" - as the president, according to US sources, impatiently urged the sides to get on with it. Obama couldn't characterize the talks as good, because they fell way short of his expectations.

He had wanted a dramatic declaration of a renewal of negotiations, a declaration that was to be made possible by an announcement of an Israeli settlement freeze and by normalization gestures from the Arab world. Neither materialized, though a settlement moratorium is proving easier for him then getting the Saudis to ante up any gestures.

Obama had wanted to place a framework for negotiations before the world leaders gathered in New York, and to be able to articulate the principles that would guide those negotiations.

He got none of that. Instead, as The Washington Post editorialized, he got a glorified photo opportunity. His dreams of pushing a 100-year old conflict to a quick resolution by the force of his personality and rhetorical skills crashed on the jagged rocks of Middle Eastern reality. His ideas might look good on paper - the Israelis give a little, the Arab world gives a little and everybody lives happily ever after - but the reality is just that much more difficult to finesse.

What if the Saudis - a key if there is to be peace with the Arab world - are ideologically unable to give anything until Israel gives everything? And what if Israel - tempered by the harsh reality of the 16 years since Oslo - is not exactly in a giving mood anymore? Then the result is "frank and productive talks," not "good, very good" ones.

But not for Netanyahu. No, for him these talks were indeed good. Just how good was made clear by what he said in a press briefing held immediately after the trilateral meeting on Tuesday.

"I don't think there were any winners or losers here," he said, a clear sign he felt the victor, because victors are generally the ones able to make so gracious a statement after a contest. "This gathering in the wake of a renewal of negotiations is good for everyone: good for us, good for the US and good for the Palestinians." "Especially good for me," he very well could have added. To understand this, consider where things stood in May, and where they are today.

In May, Obama ambushed a newly elected Netanyahu with a demand for a total settlement freeze. Not a settlement slowdown, not restraint, not building only for natural growth, but a complete halt everywhere, including in Jerusalem.

Or, as Secretary of State Hillary Clinton - the great articulator of this policy and denier of any understandings on the matter with the Bush administration - said just two weeks after the maiden Obama-Netanyahu meeting, "With respect to settlements, the president was very clear when Prime Minister Netanyahu was here. He wants to see a stop to settlements - not some settlements, not outposts, not natural growth exceptions.

"We think it is in the best interests of the effort that we are engaged in that settlement expansion cease. That is our position. That is what we have communicated very clearly, not only to the Israelis but to the Palestinians and others. And we intend to press that point."

That was then. On Tuesday Obama backed down, talking not of a complete settlement freeze, but rather of "steps to restrain settlement activity." Even during his speech to the UN on Wednesday, Obama - while reiterating the position that "we continue to emphasize that America does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements" - stopped short of calling again for a settlement construction halt.

And it was not only Obama who changed his tune, so did Abbas. Netanyahu had to be pleased that Abbas - who said he would not meet him until all settlement construction ended - did indeed meet him in New York. Netanyahu was also pleased that Obama stressed the need for the negotiations to start immediately, placing the onus on Abbas, since while Netanyahu has said consistently he was willing to sit down and talk tomorrow, it was Abbas who placed a condition on the talks that he had never placed before: an absolute settlement construction freeze.

And the third reason why Netanyahu could characterize the talks as "good, very good" was because he survived them with his coalition intact. Not only that, but the heads of his two main coalition parties - Avigdor Lieberman from Israel Beiteinu and Ehud Barak from Labor - were actually in the talks, sitting in the room.

As a result, Lieberman cannot now accuse Netanyahu of giving away too much, nor can Barak accuse him of giving too little. They both know what was discussed, where things stand and where they are headed. And they both sat next to Netanyahu in his press briefing, listened to him characterize the talks as "good, very good," and articulated no reservations - something that makes the good and very good for Netanyahu even better.
This article can also be read at http://www.jpost.com /servlet/Satellite?cid=1253804297790&pagename=JPArticle%2FShowFull

No comments:

The IDF’s Minorities in Numbers and Pictures

In honor of IDF Diversity Week, we present diversity through numbers and pictures. Each year, more and more Muslims, Christians, Druze, Bedouin and immigrants from around the world take on the responsibility of defending Israel.

MUSLIMS:

Muslim Arab Israelis are not required to draft in the IDF, but there are many who volunteer. In 2013, there were over 200 Muslims serving in the IDF and over 300 in the reserves.

Bedouins:

Bedouins are nomadic Muslims who were in Israel when modern borders were set in place and are now considered Israeli citizens. They are not required to draft but a growing number choose to enlist. In 2012, there were over 1,400 Bedouin Muslim soldiers doing regular IDF service and almost 1,500 in the reserves.

Read more:http://www.idfblog.com/2014/02/27/truth-idf-numbers-pictures/#more-34027

Are you aware that in 2013, Middle class taxes go up-significantly?

In January of next year, the federal income tax rate for middle-class taxpayers is scheduled to rise from 25 percent to 28 percent, and the payroll tax is scheduled to rise from 13.3 percent to 15.3 percent… This drives the marginal tax rate based on the aforementioned three taxes to 48.12 percent. Add in state and local property, corporate, excise, and other state and local taxes, and the percentage of each additional dollar that is taxed hovers around 50 percent… When half of each additional dollar earned is taxed away, taxpayers experience a disincentive to start businesses or expand existing ones. This leads to fewer jobs being created.

Why is HAMAS Inside Tampa Schools?

Clare Lopez

Kelly Miliziano, who teaches history classes at Steinbrenner High School in the Tampa, Florida area apparently thinks it’s perfectly OK to invite a senior official of a HAMAS-affiliated organization into her classroom to discuss Islam with her students. According to local media reports, not only has this been going on for years, but in spite of the civil and criminal proceedings that could result from such reckless negligence, the Hillsborough County school superintendent, Mary Ellen Elia, and the chairman of the school board, Candy Olson, also expressed approval for students under their responsibility to be exposed repeatedly to guest speaker, Hassan Shibly, who is the Executive Director for the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) in the Tampa area.
More...

Did You Know... Ignoring the Call to Islam will Bring Jihad

‘Conquest through Da’wa [proselytizing] that is what we hope for. We will conquer Europe, we will conquer America! Not through sword but through Da’wa.’
-- Yousef al-Qaradawi , Muslim Brotherhood spiritual leader The Arabic word ‘Da’wa’ means the “call to Islam.” But do not think that Da’wa is the same thing as an invitation to an optional holiday event. The classical Islamic doctrine of jihad mandates that enemies must be given the opportunity to convert to Islam or pay the jizya tax before it is permissible to attack them.
Clare M. Lopez

Who is being discriminated-facts tell the truth

Religious bias

Hate crimes motivated by religious bias accounted for 1,409 offenses reported by law enforcement. A breakdown of the bias motivation of religious-bias offenses showed:

65.4 percent were anti-Jewish.
13.2 percent were anti-Islamic.
9.5 percent were anti-other religion, i.e., those not specified.
4.3 percent were anti-Catholic.
3.8 percent were anti-multiple religions, group.
3.3 percent were anti-Protestant.
0.5 percent were anti-Atheism/Agnosticism/etc.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/hate-crime/2010/narratives/hate-crime-2010-incidents-and-offenses.

On March 31, 1977, the Dutch newspaper Trouw published an interview

with PLO executive committee member Zahir Muhsein. Here's what he said:

"The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct "Palestinian people" to oppose Zionism.

For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan."

In March 1977, Zahir Muhsein, a PLO executive, said:

"The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct Palestinian people to oppose Zionism."

"For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan."

The Arab Apartheid

Ben-Dror Yemini
In 1948, the Arab countries refused to accept the UN partition proposal and they launched a war of annihilation against the State of Israel which had barely been established. All precedents in this matter showed that the party that starts the war - and with a declaration of annihilation, yet - pays a price for it. Between 550,000 and 710,000 Arabs fled because of the war and a larger number of 850,000 Jews were expelled or fled from Arab countries (the "Jewish nakba").
Population exchanges and expulsions were the norm at that time, occurring in dozens of other conflict points and affecting about 52 million people. In all the population exchange precedents that occurred during or at the end of an armed conflict, there was no return of refugees to the previous region, which had turned into a new national state.
Only the Arab states acted completely differently from the rest of the world. Instead of assimilating the refugees, they crushed them despite the fact that they were their coreligionists and members of the Arab nation - instituting a regime of apartheid. So the "nakba" was not caused by the actual dispossession, which had also been experienced by tens of millions of others. The "nakba" is the story of the apartheid, oppression, abuse and denial of rights suffered by the Arab refugees at the hands of the Arab countries. (Maariv)

International Law and Military Operations in Practice - Col. Richard Kemp

"Islamist fighting groups study the international laws of armed conflict carefully and they understand it well. They know that a British or Israeli commander and his men are bound by international law and the rules of engagement that flow from it. They then do their utmost to exploit what they view as one of their enemy's main weaknesses. Their very modus operandi is built on the correct assumption that Western armies will normally abide by the rules, while these insurgents employ a deliberate policy of operating consistently outside international law. "

Lost Historical Moments

What Rabin’s last Knesset speech really said:repudiation of a Palestinian state

Rabin ruled out a fully sovereign Palestinian state :

“We view the permanent solution in the framework of State of Israel which will include most of the area of the Land of Israel as it was under the rule of the British Mandate, and alongside it a Palestinian entity which will be a home to most of the Palestinian residents living in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. We would like this to be an entity which is less than a state, and which will independently run the lives of the Palestinians under its authority.”

Rabin ruled out a total withdrawal from Judea and Samaria and thus a return to the pre-June 1967 borders :

“The borders of the State of Israel, during the permanent solution, will be beyond the lines which existed before the Six Day War. We will not return to the 4 June 1967 lines.”

Rabin ruled out withdrawing form the Jordan Valley:

“The security border of the State of Israel will be located in the Jordan Valley, in the broadest meaning of that term.”

Rabin ruled out uprooting settlement blocs, like the Gush Katif bloc in Gaza (which was subsequently uprooted by former Prime Minister Ariel Sharon):

“The establishment of blocs of settlements in Judea and Samaria, like the one in Gush Katif.

AND

Rabin ruled out removing any settlement before coming to a full peace agreement with the Palestinians:

“I want to remind you: we committed ourselves, that is, we came to an agreement, and committed ourselves before the Knesset, not to uproot a single settlement in the framework of the interim agreement, and not to hinder building for natural growth.”

Rabin insisted on Israel retaining full security control of the borders with Egypt and Jordan, contrary to Israel’s relinquishment of the Philadelphia Corridor on the border with Egypt:

“The responsibility for external security along the borders with Egypt and Jordan, as well as control over the airspace above all of the territories and Gaza Strip maritime zone, remains in our hands.”

Correcting Oslo Myths-Part 2

3) Kuttab laments that the post-1993 Oslo process resulted in a Palestinian Authority "whose ministers and legislators are not guaranteed passage between Gaza and the West Bank ...."

Before free passage or other perquisites, PA leaders were obligated, among other things, to eliminate the terrorist infrastructure in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, end anti-Israeli, antisemitic incitement in schools, mosques, and communications media, and resolve all outstanding issues through peaceful negotiations. They met none of these commitments, sometimes bolstering terrorism and greatly increasing incitement.

4) Kuttab complains that under Oslo the PA got "lightly armed police ---- but no real sovereignty over the land or contiguity between our communities in Gaza and the West Bank."

Oslo agreements repeatedly were revised, regardless of Palestinian non-compliance, until the authorized number of police grew from 8,000 to 40,000. Though they were to be the only armed forces in the territories, Israeli estimates early in the second intifada put the number of gunmen - police, "security services," terrorists, and armed gangs - at 85,000. Their armament reportedly included not only heavy machine guns and rocket-propelled grenades, but also anti-tank and anti-aircraft missiles.

Sovereignty was to be negotiated in the envisioned 1998 "final status" talks - after a five-year period of confidence-building. Palestinian leadership chronically undermined the process. Palestinian terrorism made the 1993 - 1998 Oslo period more deadly for Israelis than the 15 years preceding it.

The United States doesn't have contiguity between the lower 48 states and Alaska and Hawaii; territorial contiguity between the West Bank and Gaza Strip - that is, through the 20 miles of Israeli territory between them - was never promised and would destroy Israeli contiguity.

5) "Palestinians have been made to endure hundreds of checkpoints in the West Bank, an eight-foot wall deep in our territories, and tight Israeli control over borders."

The security barrier is not "deep in Palestinian territories," but rather encompasses less than 8 percent of Judea and Samaria, and is mostly a fence, rarely a wall; the land in question is not "our [Palestinian] territories" but disputed territory to which, according to the authors of U.N. Security Council Resolution 242, Jews as well as Arabs have claims; and there are no international borders, only the 1949 armistice lines with Jordan. Under 242, borders remain to be negotiated. As for checkpoints - like the security barrier and "tight Israeli control" - Palestinian Arabs precipitated these measures themselves. No terrorism and there would be no fence or tight Israeli control and few checkpoints - like before the first intifada.

Correcting Some Oslo Myths

1) In Oslo "Israeli, Palestinian and other world leaders promised that ... Palestinian sovereignty would be solidified."

No, they didn't. The 1993 Declaration of Principles and subsequent Oslo agreements outlined a process by which final status negotiations about the West Bank and Gaza Strip would be reached. The process required an end to anti-Israel terrorism and incitement and a commitment to peaceful negotiations. The PA, Fatah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, and other terrorist groups, sabotaged the process from the start.

2) "The reality is that, in defiance of U.N. Security Council Resolution 242, which states that it is inadmissible to occupy land by force, Palestinian territories are still under foreign military occupation."
Wrong again. Resolution 242 (1967) does note "the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war." It also affirms the right of every state in the area "to live in peace with secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force." There were no "Palestinian territories." Jordan occupied the West Bank, Egypt controlled Gaza. Israel did not have "secure and recognized boundaries," so retention of some of those territories was possible under 242. Israel is not a "foreign" military occupier in the West Bank but, pending final negotiations, the lawful military administrator as a result of a successful war of self-defense.

Doc's Talk