Doc's Talk: Israelis unsure of U.S. support

Sunday, November 08, 2009

Israelis unsure of U.S. support

Obama seen by some as favoring Arabs
By Joshua Mitnick
THE WASHINGTON TIMES

TEL AVIV | Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu will be in the United States this week, but he might not see President Obama.

Ten months into the Obama administration, persistent tension with Mr. Netanyahu has eroded the president's standing among Israelis. They are giving him low grades for his initial, unsuccessful foray into Middle East peacemaking and feel slighted that he hasn't shown them as much empathy as he has shown their Arab neighbors Though Israelis still see the United States as their most important ally and many view Mr. Obama positively, the president is nonetheless faulted by both supporters and detractors for not reaching out to the Israeli public as he publicly sparred with Mr. Netanyahu over Israel's continued expansion of settlements in East Jerusalem and the West Bank.

The criticism is reflected in two recent surveys, which suggested that among Israeli Jews, only about 6 percent of respondents see Mr. Obama's Middle East policy as "pro-Israeli."

Many Israelis say that Mr. Obama is perceived as taking a harsh tone with the Jewish state while trying to appease Arab public opinion.

Though it's not too late for him to make a gesture to win over Israeli hearts and minds, time may be running out before public opinion hardens.

"My greatest fear is that Israelis are going to think that instead of [Obama] being the shoulder we can cry on, like a big sister, we're going to feel attacked by his demands, no matter how correct they are," said Tami Shroitman, a 37-year-old urban planner who voted for the left-of-center Labor Party in the last election. "They're going to stop believing in him, and it's going to be eight more years lost."

Mr. Obama's push to restart peace talks snagged on his demand for a full halt on Israeli building in the West Bank, which provoked a rare standoff with Mr. Netanyahu and prompted the Palestinians to make a settlement freeze a condition for renewing talks.

With the gaps still wide, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton a week ago began lowering expectations on negotiations and praised what Israel is prepared to do - namely, not constructing new settlements in the West Bank, but putting no limits on construction in East Jerusalem - as an "unprecedented" concession. That comment infuriated Palestinians, who refuse to resume talks while the construction continues. Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, citing the deadlock, said he would not seek another term in elections scheduled for January.

Israelis weren't necessarily impressed by Mrs. Clinton's words either, because they saw the remarks as inconsistent with previous U.S. statements.

Israeli public opinion has shifted rightward in recent years because of failed peace talks and unilateral withdrawals in Gaza and Lebanon that have resulted in increased rocket attacks on Israel and that are now perceived by many Israelis as a mistake. The previous administrations of Presidents George W. Bush and Bill Clinton did not publicly push Israeli officials to make compromises.

Still, a Hebrew University poll from August suggests that Israelis are still looking for U.S. leadership. Fifty-nine percent said they want Mr. Obama to play either the same or stronger role in the Israeli-Palestinian peace process as he is currently. The same poll found that a 37 percent plurality of Israelis believe strong involvement by Mr. Obama will bring progress, compared with 33 percent who expect the peace efforts to fail.

Israelis recoil, however, at the idea of outsiders imposing a deal. The same poll said Israelis overwhelmingly oppose U.S. pressure to accept an Arab League peace initiative, which calls for a full withdrawal from territories occupied during the 1967 Arab-Israeli war in return for full normalization of relations with Arab states.

Mr. Obama addressed Israelis on Saturday night in a video message played at the annual memorial rally in Tel Aviv for Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin, assassinated by a Jewish extremist in 1995.

In the speech, Mr. Obama paid tribute to Mr. Rabin, the key leader behind the 1993 Oslo peace accord, and pledged to keep trying to bring the Israelis and Palestinians back to the negotiating table.

"To all who seek peace, I say tonight, you will always have a partner in the United States of America and in my administration," Mr. Obama said. "That's why we've been working aggressively for our clear goal: two states living side by side in peace and security."

Mr. Netanyahu will arrive in the U.S. on Sunday to address the three-day General Assembly of the Jewish Federations of North America, which begins in Washington on Sunday. Mr. Obama is also scheduled to address the event, but so far no meeting has been slated between the two leaders.

Political analysts in Israel say Mr. Obama would do better to address Israelis face to face in the same way he addressed the Muslim world by delivering a speech at Cairo University.

"He isn't engaging us. He seems to be getting bad advice on how to talk to Israel," said Yossi Alpher, a former head of a Tel Aviv University think tank on security strategy and the co-editor of Bitterlemons.org, a Web site that promotes Arab-Israeli peace.

"He needs to come to the Knesset and give a prime-time speech and lay it out for Israelis. It's not that he has to come and put a rubber stamp on Israeli policies, but he has to bypass Netanyahu and has to bypass the American Jewish community and come and address us."

On Thursday, U.S. Ambassador to Israel James Cunningham acknowledged during a public appearance in Tel Aviv that "there is doubt" among Israelis about Mr. Obama's friendship, the Jerusalem Post reported.

Despite numerous pro-Israel statements by the U.S. president, they have failed to ease the discomfort among Israelis about Mr. Obama's perceived sympathy for Israel's rivals and his willingness to negotiate with Iran.

Some Israelis suggest that Mr. Obama must forcefully criticize a U.N. report that accuses both Israel and the militant Palestinian group Hamas of war crimes during the Israeli offensive in Gaza last winter.

"He needs to show Israelis that he understands our position," said Joseph Oppenheim, a 44-year-old real estate lawyer. "We need to feel like he's got our back."

Mr. Obama's dialogue with Iran is another sore spot. Israelis are deeply skeptical about the prospects for U.S. engagement in negotiations on Iran's nuclear program.

Middle East regimes interpret Mr. Obama's desire for negotiations with Tehran as a sign of weakness, said Arnon Hoffman, 47, a workplace-safety specialist. He said the fact that Mr. Obama's father was a Kenyan Muslim makes him less interested in Israel's side and less willing to sanction an Israeli attack on Iran.

"We could hit a couple of things that would hurt the Iranian nuclear program," Mr. Hoffman said. "But the U.S. is preventing us from doing what we know how to do."

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