More and more it seems, the nations
of the world are arrayed against us: Israel is criticized for not
accepting a Fatah-Hamas unity government, for building in Judea and Samaria,
etc. etc. But there is one turn-around that, while modest, is significant.
The government
of Australian Prime Minister “Tony” Abbott (pictured) “has ruled out using the
term ‘occupied’ when describing Israeli settlements in East Jerusalem, prompting
suggestions about a shift in Australia's foreign policy.”
Credit: Getty
“The government
on Thursday delivered a statement to clarify its stand on the controversial
question of the legality of settlements after the issued flared up at a
[Australian] Senate hearing the night before.
"’The
description of East Jerusalem (sic) as “occupied” East Jerusalem is a term
freighted with pejorative implications which is neither appropriate nor useful,’
[Attorney General George] Brandis told a Senate estimates hearing [speaking for
Foreign Minister Julie Bishop].
"’It should not
and will not be the practice of the Australian government to describe areas of
negotiation in such judgmental language.’"
~~~~~~~~~~
This does not mean that Australian
policy now considers Judea and Samaria irrefutably Israeli, but, rather, that it
acknowledges that Israel may have a legitimate claim, which must be resolved in
negotiations. And it’s a giant step in terms of fairness.
The shift in attitude began with Julie
Bishop, who on a visit here in January famously said:
“I would like
to see which international law has declared them [the settlements]
illegal.”
In light of
this apparent shift in policy, the Australian foreign ministry has taken hits
from a host of countries that are “shocked” that anyone could fail to see
eastern Jerusalem (there is no such place as “East Jerusalem”) and Judea and
Samaria as anything but “occupied.” This goes, by the way, for some
members of Australia’s Senate as well.
And the Palestinian Arabs, who are
considerably threatened by such a position? Saeb Erekat, the PLO chief
negotiator, wrote that “diplomatic recognition of the situation created by the
attempted annexation of our capital is a flagrant violation of international
law.”
Sigh... they rarely make a statement
without evoking a non-existent “international law.”
~~~~~~~~~~
What this shift does is provide a
bit of hope. If only some other foreign ministries were to take
note. Many, I recognize, are lost causes. But not all.
It provides a signal lesson as well:
Where there is even a modicum of open-mindedness and willingness to learn on the
part of diplomats, attitudes can be changed as facts are presented.
It is unlikely that it is a
coincidence that in recent weeks there have been meetings between Israelis –
presenting the case for Israel’s rights – and representatives of the Australian
government. Most significant was a meeting between Minister of Housing Uri
Ariel (Habayit Hayehudi) and Australia’s ambassador to
Israel, Dave Sharma. This was held in – shock! – eastern Jerusalem, where
Minister Ariel has his office. And there was also a meeting held in Tel Aviv
between Australian Embassy political attaché Bill
Rhee, and Ari Briggs, Director of International Affairs forh Regavim (and
originally from Australia himself), Elie Pieprz
from the Yesha Council foreign desk, and Jeff Daube, head of ZOA in Israel and
my Legal Grounds co-chair.
We – all of us! – have to continue
to make the case for Israel.
~~~~~~~~~~
Another ray of light: Ruby
(Reuven) Rivlin of Likud has just been elected by the Knesset to be the
10th president of Israel.
He won in a run-off vote against
Meir Sheetrit of Hatenua, 63-53, after neither candidate, in a crowded field of
would-be presidents, secured a majority the first time around. I had
scrupulously avoided reporting on the presidential campaign, as it was hardly
one to do Israel proud. The accompanying scandals and accusations, and
political jockeying were not the sort of issues I choose to write about in the
limited space of my postings.
From where I sit, Rivlin – who leans
right and is opposed to a Palestinian state - is by far the best of the
candidates. A lawyer and member of a family whose roots in Jerusalem go
back for several generations, he has served twice as speaker of the
Knesset. He wrote, before being elected, that:
’'”...the position [of
president] is shaped primarily by the character of its incumbent and his
cultural, historical, personal, and human identity. The president’s agenda is
determined mainly by the goals he sets for himself.
“...I believe that the
president, as Israel’s representative to the world at large, must also give
thought to Israel’s role on the international stage. Against the
background of the criticism of Israel, it sometimes seems that we are neglecting
our aspiration to be a ‘light to the nations’ in favor of the vital and
unavoidable task of trying to explain ourselves and to fend off the efforts to
eat away at the legitimacy of the State of Israel. Israel’s strength lies
in its human capital. It can and must serve as a key player that
contributes some of its cumulative experience and capacities to the rest of the
world...
”The presidency is a sort of
social compass whose nonpartisan character is its raison
d’être. The ability of the president to be perceived as someone with whom
all Israelis can identify depends on his ability to avoid being a party to
debate...”
~~~~~~~~~~
I say amen to this last: may he
honor it throughout his presidency. He began with the right tone,
immediately after his election, by saying he was going to be a “man of the
nation.” The disparate elements of our nation badly need a figure who can
tie us together. We shall see...
It is with no regret that I bid
goodbye to outgoing president Shimon Peres who maddeningly overstepped the
bounds of his office time and again by making highly politicized and
inappropriate statements that reflected a position far to the left of that of
the government. Although I will mention an enormous unease that exists in
some quarters that Peres, out of office, will utilize his prestige to undermine
the government and do even more damage.
Should Rivlin step out of his
“man of the nation” role and espouse a public political position as president,
at least we know he won’t go in the direction that Peres went. And we won’t hear
him refer to Abbas as a “man of peace.”
~~~~~~~~~~
Also semi-encouraging is the
announcement last week by Housing Minister Uri Ariel (Habayit Hayehudi) that
tenders have been published for building 1,500 new units in eastern Jerusalem,
with 400 units in Ramat Shlomo, and in Judea and Samaria, with 700 units in the
Gush Etzion towns of Efrat and Beitar Ilit, and smaller numbers of apartments in
Ariel, Alfei Menashe, and Givat Ze’ev.
Building is good. Why this is
only semi-encouraging is because the announcement was said to be a response to
the PA involvement in the unity government. What should be our right, and
declared as such, is demeaned what it is presented as “retaliation.”
Needless to say, US Ambassador
to Israel wasted no time in condemning this announcement of building.
~~~~~~~~~~
With the items above, I think
we’ve covered the major “rays of light” at present. It would be foolish to
expect too much at one time.
I alluded above to tensions
within disparate parts of our nation, and we are seeing this in particular right
now with the disputes within the governing coalition as to what should come
next, now that the “negotiations” have fallen apart. Some of the
statements we’ve been exposed to are patently ridiculous.
I refer in
particular to what Finance Minister Yair Lapid (Yesh Atid) has now
proposed: “Israel should halt settlement
construction deep inside the West Bank and in any case withdraw from areas that
it does not expect to keep under a peace agreement. He said such moves would
clear the way for a final agreement and negotiated borders with the
Palestinians.”
How far removed from reality can
he be? A final agreement with Fatah, which is in a unity arrangement with
Hamas? Does he not realize how quickly Hamas would move into areas we
withdrew from?
Netanyahu, for his part,
responded that Lapid is demonstrating lack of experience – that proposing
concessions without the promise of a return is foolish. He’s correct of
course. Not that our prime minister, for his part, has seriously grappled with
the current situation or avoided statements that are troubling.
~~~~~~~~~~
Economy Minister Naftali Bennett
(Habayit Hayehudi) is probably only a bit more realistic than Lapid at this
point in suggesting that annexation of Area C begin.
I go on record here, as I have
in the past, as totally supporting Israeli sovereignty over Judea and Samaria.
But I recognize that – unfortunately - neither the nation nor the government is
ready to stand behind this move. Not yet. Which is why I co-chair
the Legal Grounds Campaign: to promote the concept of Israel’s legal rights, and
to continue to promote it until there has been a shift in the paradigm of
thinking.
If any part of Bennett’s
proposal possibly makes sense right now, it is the annexation of Gush Etzion, as
a starting point. This bloc just south east of Jerusalem that is home to 20
Jewish communities has a long history of Jewish settlement and sacrifice that
pre-dates the State. See: http://www.gush-etzion.org.il/history.asp
To make the case for the Gush as
intrinsically part of Israel is not difficult.
~~~~~~~~~~
The prediction here at the
moment is for continuing tensions amongst various factions of the
coalition.
~~~~~~~~~~
And what of the unity government?
At the Cabinet meeting on Sunday, Netanyahu
said:
“Whoever hoped that the
Palestinian unity between Fatah and Hamas would moderate Hamas is mistaken.
Instead of the Palestinian Authority taking over Gaza, the signs are being more
and more seen that the complete opposite is taking place, i.e., that Hamas is
increasing its control in the Palestinian Authority areas in Judea and
Samaria.”
This was entirely
predictable. It is what I’ve observed over the years: in shared ventures,
Hamas always gains the upper hand over Fatah and further radicalizes
Fatah.
~~~~~~~~~~
The prime minister also noted
that Hamas is reiterating its intention to destroy Israel. This is clearly
the case, with Hamas retaining its “resistance” policy and its separate
“resistance” forces in Gaza.
He then called upon the
international community to “apply pressure” on Abbas to break with Hamas. And
here is where he also departed from reality. For the international
community has already done their “hear no evil, see no evil” routine and agreed
to support that unity government. At this point, his calls constitute no
more than “blowing in the wind.” They will change nothing.
Netanyahu condemned support for
the unity government at the beginning.
Would that he had simply said
now that it is greatly regrettable that the international community will not
apply pressure upon Abbas, that failing to do so is a moral as well as
diplomatic error, and that the community cannot expect Israel to adopt similar
policies in this matter. Period.
~~~~~~~~~~
©
Arlene Kushner.
This
material is produced by Arlene Kushner, functioning as an independent
journalist. Permission is granted for it to be reproduced
only
with
proper attribution.
If it is reproduced and emphasis
is added, the fact that it has been added must be
noted.
This material is transmitted by Arlene only to
persons who have requested it or agreed to receive it. If you are on the
list and wish to be removed, contact Arlene and include your name in the text of
the message.
No comments:
Post a Comment