Love of the Land: It Is Not A Capital Offense For Israel To Disagree With An American Administration Regarding Policy

It Is Not A Capital Offense For Israel To Disagree With An American Administration Regarding Policy

Dr. Aaron Lerner
IMRA
Commentary
28 March '10

It is not a capital offence for Israel to disagree with an American administration regarding policy.

I can appreciate that President Obama thinks that our leaving the Golan, dividing Jerusalem, etc. will bring us utopian peace and that not taking his advice may even have a negative impact on America in the Moslem world, thus he has every reason to use "tough love" to force us to do what is in our own best interest - and that he has an Amen chorus of Jews supporting this view.

However, it is not a capital offense for a democratically elected Israeli government to reject American policy recommendations.

President Obama has a broad range of instruments available to promote his views other than giving our enemies the impression that if we don't march to his drum that America may opt to turn its back on us at a time of crisis.

That such ideas are being allowed to float around without being explicitly and clearly denied and denounced by President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton could very well invite disaster.

Claims from the White House that the Obama-Netanyahu meetings were not insulting do not address this critical point. In particular since the entire policy dictat (it is not a discussion or debate because the Obama team is unwilling to even entertain the possibility that they could be wrong) is presented as an American initiative to force Israel to do what "we all know" is in Israel's best interest.

(Read full post)

Love of the Land: It Is Not A Capital Offense For Israel To Disagree With An American Administration Regarding Policy

Love of the Land: Israel Won’t Be Bullied by Obama, But Bibi’s Tactic Could Fail as Well

Israel Won’t Be Bullied by Obama, But Bibi’s Tactic Could Fail as Well

Israel is thoroughly united against Obama, but Netanyahu's willingness to categorize parts of Israel as having less status than Jerusalem is dangerous.


Moshe Dann
Pajamamedia.com
27 March '10

Harsh condemnations of Israel for building in areas of Jerusalem acquired after the Six Day War in 1967 have backfired. If President Obama thought that he would move negotiations ahead and force Israel to make more concessions, he caused the exact opposite situation. Israelis have united in support of Prime Minister Netanyahu, while Arab Palestinian leaders have, on cue, stepped back.

Equating the issue of where and when Jewish communities can be built within the land of Israel with the issue of “settlements” was a mistake — it gave Israel an easy position to defend, especially domestically. Opposing the right of Jews to live in all parts of Jerusalem is not a change in the American position; Obama has made U.S. policy on Jerusalem consistent with that in Judea, Samaria and Gaza, and the Golan Heights. In so doing, however, he has rallied Israelis, Jews, and Zionists around the world.

The premise of Obama’s demand that Israel stop all construction in all areas conquered by Israel in 1967 is logical: if Israel has violated international law by “illegally occupying Palestinian land,” then there are no differences between one area and another. But PM Netanyahu distinguishes between Jerusalem and the rest of Judea and Samaria, hinting that he’s open to more withdrawals.

(Read full article)

Love of the Land: Israel Won’t Be Bullied by Obama, But Bibi’s Tactic Could Fail as Well

Love of the Land: Words, words, words

Words, words, words

Moshe Arens
Haaretz
09 February '10

(It strikes me as a good summation of what's been said in recent weeks and conclusions to be drawn. Y.)

One might be inclined to brush off the recent verbal exchanges between Ehud Barak, Walid Moallem and Avigdor Lieberman as no more than Hamlet's "words, words, words" that have little meaningful content. Nevertheless, they are an indication of the thoughts running through the minds of Israel's defense and foreign minister and Syria's foreign minister. So just what are these thoughts?

Let's start with our defense minister. Barak is saying that if Israel does not negotiate a peace agreement with Syria - one that would lead to the return of the Golan Heights to Syrian control - Israel is risking a war with Syria; that after such a war, we would simply return to the present situation and the need to negotiate a peace agreement with Syria and give up the Golan.

Really? Does that mean that in his opinion Israel's deterrent capability against Syria that has existed since the Yom Kippur War and was reinforced during the first Lebanon war has worn thin over the years and, in effect, no longer exists? Does that mean that after a war initiated by Syria, Syria's situation would essentially be no different than before it attacked Israel, that it would continue to remain a threat so that Israel would be forced to concede the Golan Heights? Well, that would be good news for Syrian President Bashar Assad, and if taken seriously by him might even put adventurous thoughts in his mind.

Except that Assad knows better than that. He knows that a war with Israel would probably damage Syria severely and leave him with little chance to continue to make demands on Israel; that is, unless he places great reliance on the thousands of ballistic missiles he has accumulated over the years. Moallem hinted at their use. "Israel should know that a war will move to Israel's cities," he said. So maybe in fear of the destruction of its cities by Syrian missiles, Israel would prefer to concede the Golan Heights to Syria to prevent such a war. Is that really the balance of terror that now exists between Israel and Syria?

(Read full article)

Love of the Land: Words, words, words

Love of the Land: [Logic haitus?]: DM Barak: Israel should make deal with Syria to leave Golan because Syria will attack if thinks can destroy Israel?

[Logic haitus?]: DM Barak: Israel should make deal with Syria to leave Golan because Syria will attack if thinks can destroy Israel?

Dr. Aaron Lerner
IMRA
02 February '10

So here is the logic of DM Ehud Barak - the military genius who opposed buying submarines that could launch Jericho missiles because he didn't think Israel needed a second strike capability:

#1. "If the other side believes it is possible to bring down Israel...it will prefer to do so"

#2. "Just like the familiar reality in the Middle East, we will immediately sit down [with Syria] after such a war and negotiate on the exact same issues we have been discussing with them for the past 15 years."

Questions:

#1. And if, thanks to an Israeli withdrawal from the Golan, Syria "believes it is possible to bring down Israel" then what?

#2. And if Israel sits down with Syria after a war, why conclude that there would be any greater logic to make a dangerous concession of leaving the Golan just because there was a war? The Egyptian Sinai model, with a huge peninsula available for different levels of demilitarization - far away from Cairo, is hardly comparable to the tiny Golan that puts Damascus within easy striking range - and the move was premised on the assertion that somehow the outcome of the Yom Kippur War of 1973 convinced Egypt that Israel could not be beaten (I appreciate that this logic is hard to follow - since by the same token the message of the Yom Kippur War could have just as easily been for Egypt that they should switch to American weapons before trying to destroy the Jewish State but that's not the popular narrative).

#3. Here's a novel suggestion for the people drawing salaries in the Israeli defense field: how about coming up with some ideas so that should Syria indeed decide to attack the Jewish State in the coming years, that the consequences for Damascus be so serious that at the end of the exchange they are the ones telling their citizens that the task of restoring the Golan will have ton be assigned to a future generation?

(Click here for full post w/Barak: War with Syria won't solve diplomatic issues)

Love of the Land: [Logic haitus?]: DM Barak: Israel should make deal with Syria to leave Golan because Syria will attack if thinks can destroy Israel?

Love of the Land: Thinking About Israel’s Appeasement Option

Thinking About Israel’s Appeasement Option

Dr. Aaron Lerner
IMRA
Weekly Commentary
28 January '10

IDF brass recently re-launched a campaign with Israeli journalists promoting
withdrawal from the Golan in order to avoid the casualties the Jewish State
could expect to suffer should Syria attack.

Granted, there are people in the IDF who religiously believe (that’s
“believe” rather than “think” – because this is a matter of “faith” rather
than “logic”) that withdrawing from the Golan in and of itself would secure
Israel’s northern border since Syria would never attack if it had the Golan
back.

But is there a logic to withdrawal even if you recognize that there are
countless conceivable scenarios under which Syria would opt to strike Israel
even after a beautifully moving signing ceremony on the White House lawn
followed by a complete Israeli withdrawal from every last centimeter of the
Golan?

Here are some explanations:

There are gizmos on the drawing boards that would significantly reduce
Israel’s casualties in the event of a conflict with Syria. So it is best to
postpone conflict until the gizmos are deployed by leaving the Golan.

Israel would be in a considerably better diplomatic situation being attacked
by Syria after signing a peace agreement and handing over the Golan than if
Syria attacked in order to “liberate” the Golan.

Postponement of conflict in and of itself is worthwhile.

But there are problems with these arguments.

(Read full post)

Love of the Land: Thinking About Israel’s Appeasement Option

Love of the Land: The Greeks had a word for it: hypocrisy

The Greeks had a word for it: hypocrisy

Fresnozionism
22 January '10

News item: (The news item link now states "Article content no longer available" which has led to some speculation as to the accuracy of the source. However the original source is Theodoros Pangalos's website and is still available in the Dec. '08 archives of his site. This link is the Google translation of the specific letter in question. Pretty straightforward. Y.)

The deputy prime minister of Greece has sent back to the Israeli Embassy in Athens three bottles of wine given to him as a gift, because they were produced in the Golan, which “belongs to Syria” and is “illegally occupied.” [apparently this occurred in December 2008 - ed.]

The embassy had given the wine to Theodoros Pangalos — MP for the socialist party PASOK and responsible also for co-ordination of the foreign policy and defense committee in the Greek government — as a gift for the Christmas holidays with the wishes of Israel’s ambassador to Greece, Ali Yihiye…

“I have been taught since I was very young not to steal and not to accept products of theft,” [Pangalos] wrote. “So I cannot possibly accept this gift and I must return it back to you.

“As you know, your country occupies illegally the Golan Heights who belong to Syria, according to the international law and numerous decisions of the international community,” Pangalos added.

Referring to atrocities that occurred during the Second World War and the Balkan War, the socialist MP said: “Actions such as those of these days of the Israel military in Gaza remind the Greek people of holocausts such as in Kalavrita or Doxato or Distomo and certainly in the ghetto of Warsaw.”

Was he also taught not to murder or allow others to do so? Perhaps not:

(Read full post)

Love of the Land: The Greeks had a word for it: hypocrisy

Love of the Land: Don’t give up Golan for a promise

Don’t give up Golan for a promise

Fresnozionism
20 January '10

Yossi Alpher, a well-known analyst of the Israeli-Arab conflict and, despite his left-wing orientation, someone who should know better, wrote this:

[R]enewal of the peace process between Israel and Syria deserves more and better attention from the US and the moderate Arab states. Unlike in the Palestinian arena, here the parameters of a process are clear, most of the negotiating has already been done and Syrian President Bashar Assad is able to deliver. Obviously, success in the Israeli-Syrian arena is not guaranteed. But if achieved it would reduce Iran’s regional influence and weaken Hamas, thereby improving the chances for fruitful Israeli-Palestinian negotiations – when circumstances are more favorable than today.

Alpher correctly understands that while Hamas controls Gaza and while PA President Mahmoud Abbas is committed — by ideology and by fear of his constituency — to maximal demands on borders, refugees, Jerusalem, etc., there can be no secure peace agreement with the Palestinians. So, maybe for lack of anything else to do, he thinks Israel should pursue an agreement with Syria.

(Read full post)

Love of the Land: Don’t give up Golan for a promise

Love of the Land: Why Israel Is Free to Set Its Own Borders

Why Israel Is Free to Set Its Own Borders

Michael I. Krauss/J. Peter Pham
Commentary Magazine
July/August 2006

(I've introduced this article from the 4th paragraph, as this is relevant to the discussion of what may constitute the rightful borders of Israel in international law. Excellent article, worth reading in whole. Y.)

.... Other elements of the international community, however, have wasted no time in decrying Israel's effort formally to incorporate small parts of the West Bank. Speaking to the European Parliament in April, Javier Solana, the European Union's top foreign-policy official, lamented the “lack of dialogue with the Palestinian people in determining Israel's borders.” Not to be outdone, former President Jimmy Carter, writing in USA Today, condemned Kadima's program as a naked “land grab,” a violation of international law that no “objective member of the international community could accept.” On May 25, the New York Times chimed in, denouncing the idea of Israel's setting its own borders and lumping together Hamas, the government of Israel, and Bush as “two culprits and an enabler.”

In the view of Solana, Carter, the Times editorial board, and many other “objective” observers, the boundary between Israel and its Arab neighbors that prevailed between 1949 and 1967 is not just a historical baseline; it is a legitimate and well-established international border, one that the Jewish state has now ignored for nearly four decades. Such borders cannot be altered by force. As these critics see it, the Six-Day war of 1967 resulted in Israel's “occupation” of the West Bank (as well as of the Gaza Strip, Golan Heights, and East Jerusalem). Much as that action might have been required by the exigencies of the time, it gives Israel no ongoing title to those lands. Indeed, in the view of the critics, it makes Israel's long-term presence there nothing less than an ongoing crime.

But are these claims supported by the history of Israel's conflict with its Arab neighbors, to say nothing of the standards of international law? In the West Bank, is Israel, in fact, an “occupier”?

(Read full article)

Love of the Land: Why Israel Is Free to Set Its Own Borders

Love of the Land: [Confused identity] COS Ashkenazi support deal with Assad - appears to trust him

[Confused identity] COS Ashkenazi support deal with Assad - appears to trust him

Dr. Aaron Lerner
IMRA
15 November 09

Dr. Aaron Lerner - IMRA

Pop quiz: Who is Gabi Ashkenazi?

(1) A Kadima back bencher in the Knesset who previously served in a high position in the IDF?

(2) An analyst in the Foreign Ministry?

(3) Israel Defense Forces Chief of Staff

Let's look at the argument Gabi Ashkenazi raises for making a deal with Assad:

"We should not be disheartened by Assad," he said during private conversations. The defense establishment has been steadily in favor of resuming talks with Syria. A source present in meetings where Ashkenazi spoke said that the chief of staff explained that "Israel has a strategic interest in disassociating Syria from the extremist axis that Iran is leading."

"Syria is not lost," Ashkenazi declared. "Assad is western educated and is not a religious man. He can still join a moderate grouping."

Is this military analysis?

No.

It's at best the kind of pop-psychology that might be acceptable in the working paper of some junior analyst at the Foreign Ministry.

But it has absolutely nothing to do with his area of expertise.

And so here is the real question to lose sleep over: Will the fact that Israel Defense Forces Chief of Staff Gabi Ashkenazi apparently thinks that handing over the Golan to Assad will make him a "moderate" and not consider attacking Israel ever in the future, influence the analysis that he actually is being paid to do: analyze the efficacy of security arrangements being considered in the course of diplomatic discussions regarding the Golan?

Because if when Israel Defense Forces Chief of Staff Gabi Ashkenazi prepares the analysis he is thinking at the same time that Syria will never attack if we would hand over the Golan he might be tempted to tinker with the analysis in order to insure that Israeli security demands don't get in the way of "peace in our time."

Impossible?

Hardly.

Consider all the brass who signed off on absurd security arrangements under Oslo.]

Love of the Land: [Confused identity] COS Ashkenazi support deal with Assad - appears to trust him

Love of the Land: Dr. Aaron Lerner follow up to his response to Peace Now "Excuse me, your bias is showing..."

Dr. Aaron Lerner follow up to his response to Peace Now "Excuse me, your bias is showing..."

Dr. Aaron Lerner
IMRA
11 November 09

(The original posting was "Dr. Aaron Lerner responds to Peace Now "Excuse me, your bias is showing...". Click here to read.)

So far from the responses it is clear that withdrawal proponents are unable to address the underlying observation that there is a defect in the democratic system if politicians can take a move that permanently changes the situation in a profound way that is in gross contradiction of a specific and explicit campaign promise and that a device is required to address this problem.

[To argue that the fact that Israel retook land in a war hardly serves as comforting evidence that withdrawals are reversible should the Israeli public object to a withdrawal that Israeli politicians agreed to in defiance of their mandate.

As for the impact of settlement activity - it didn't stop PM Olmert from negotiating and presenting a radically generous offer to Mahmoud Abbas - Abbas was the problem. And by the same token it can be argued that settlement activity puts pressure on the Palestinians to talk because time is not necessarily on their side. But, again, the underlying observation is that settlement construction is not subject to the same reversibility issue as withdrawals in diplomatic agreements.]

The question is not the merits of withdrawal or the fruits of withdrawal.

The question is if the citizens of Israel should have the right to express their view and have it honored.

This tremendous fear of a national referendum on the part of withdrawal proponents only serves to indicate that they lack confidence in their ability to convince the public to support their program.

That's their problem.

I would note, by the way, that the Palestinians say that they will present any deal for approval in a national referendum.

As for the charge that I hide my agenda behind an appeal to democratic principles. I resent the attempt to avoid my point by somehow stripping me of my right to argue for my democratic rights.

I live in Israel for many reasons (I live in Raanana which is a fantastic place so you won't find me claiming it is a sacrifice - though it certainly is the case that our family has sacrificed many years in army service) and one of them is to actively participate in the history of the country. And one the key ways that I participate in the history of the country is by voting in elections. Sometimes I "win" in the elections and sometimes I "lose". But that's the way democracy works. Adding a national referendum is a device to insure I have a say when politicians decide to defy their mandate.

And if I lose?

I won't pack my bags.

We don't rent. We own.

Back when PM Sharon, certain he would win a Likud referendum on the retreat from Gaza (he argued that there wasn't time for a national referendum), approved the vote, I was - as many others - on record that we would accept the outcome, regardless of which way it fell.

I participated in what was an exciting exercise in democracy, with people going door-to-door arguing their case.

And to PM Sharon's shock, he lost the referendum.

And he then ignored the outcome and continued on his way.

A low point for Israeli democracy.

Again. I understand and appreciate that it is hardly a foregone conclusion that my position will win the day at the ballot box.

And I accept that.

But as a voting Israeli citizen I want my fair chance to participate.

[PS: It turns out that Noam Shelef sent me a note via Twitter to alert me to his comment. While I send material out via Twitter I don't check it myself, hence the incorrect comment that he did not alert me to his comment.]

Love of the Land: Dr. Aaron Lerner follow up to his response to Peace Now "Excuse me, your bias is showing..."

Love of the Land: Dr. Aaron Lerner responds to Peace Now "Excuse me, your bias is showing..."

Dr. Aaron Lerner responds to Peace Now "Excuse me, your bias is showing..."

Dr. Aaron Lerner
IMRA
07 November 09

Noam Shelef issued an offer to me on the Peace Now website that I endorse requiring a national referendum to approve settlement construction as well as agreements that involve territorial concessions.

[He offered it on the website (click here) - but didn't actually send me a message with the offer - but thanks to Google Alert I received the item in my e-mail mailbox. But that's not the point of this note.]

There is a fundamental difference between settlement construction and territorial concessions Israel makes in diplomatic agreements and implements.

Reversibility.

As was well illustrated in the retreat from Gaza and destruction of settlements in northern Samaria under the Sharon Administration, settlements can be unilaterally removed by Israel without requiring either the cooperation or approval of third parties..

In sharp contrast, Israel cannot unilaterally retake territory it ceded to another country without profound diplomatic and other consequences.

So a politician who betrayed his constituents by promising them to, for example, keep the Golan, in order to get elected and then cut a deal to hand it over to Syria might very well get the boot come election time - but the Syrian would still have the Golan.

This fundamental difference was recognized in the Oslo agreements. Changing the status of territory was banned - not settlement construction.

Article XXXI Paragraph 7 of the Interim Agreement: "Neither side shall initiate or take any step that will change the status of the West Bank and Gaza Strip pending the outcome of the permanent status negotiations."The meaning of "status" means "legal status". A violation of the agreement would take place if Israel annexed part of the West Bank or Gaza Strip orthe PA declared an independent state in the area before the negotiations were concluded. Israeli settlement activity is no more a violation of theAgreement than Palestinian construction.

This is not just an Israeli interpretation.

"the Oslo agreement was not clear in the need to stop the settlement machine"

That's straight from "The political agenda of the national liberation movement Palestinian "Fatah" Submitted to the Sixth Conference of the Movement " June 28, 2009 Draft. www.fatehconf.ps/pdfs/fatehpolitical.pdf

Related: Powerful Need for National Referendums

Love of the Land: Dr. Aaron Lerner responds to Peace Now "Excuse me, your bias is showing..."

Love of the Land: Having One's Enemy And Eating It Too

Having One's Enemy And Eating It Too

Surveying today's myopic Middle East on the eighth anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks

Caroline Glick

JewishWorldReview.com

09 September 09

There has been much talk in recent months about the prospect of Syria bolting the Iranian axis and becoming magically transformed into an ally of the West. Although Syria's President-for-life Bashar Assad's daily demonstrations of fealty to his murderous friends has exposed this talk as nothing more than fantasy, it continues to dominate the international discourse on Syria.

In the meantime, Syria's ongoing real transformation from a more or less functioning state into an impoverished wasteland has been ignored.

Today Syria faces the greatest economic catastrophe in its history. The crisis is causing massive malnutrition and displacement for hundreds of thousands of Syrians. These Syrians - some 250,000 mainly Kurdish farmers - have been forced off their farms over the past two years because their lands were reclaimed by the desert.

Today shantytowns have sprung up around major cities like Damascus. They are filled with internally displaced refugees. Due to a cataclysmic combination of irrational agricultural policies embraced by the Baa'thist Assad dynasty for the past 45 years which have eroded the soil, and massive digging of some 420 thousand unauthorized wells which have dried out the ground water aquifiers, Syria's regime has done everything in its power to dry up the country. The effects of these demented policies have been exacerbated in recent years by Turkey's diversion of Syria's main water source, the Euphrates River, through the construction of dams upstream, and by two years of unrelenting drought. Today, much of Syria's previously fertile farmland has become wasteland. Former farmers are now destitute day laborers with few prospects for economic recovery.

Imagine if in his country's moment of peril, instead of clinging to his alliance with Iran, Hizbullah, al Qaida, and Hamas, Assad were to turn to Israel to help him out of this crisis?

Israel is a world leader in water desalination and recycling. The largest desalination plant in the world is located in Ashkelon. Israeli technology and engineers could help Syria rebuild its water supply.

Israel could also help Syria use whatever water it still has, or is able to produce through desalination and recycling more wisely through drip irrigation - which was invented in Israel. Israel today supplies fifty percent of the international market for drip irrigation. In places like Syria and southern Iraq which are now being dried out by the Turkish dams, irrigation is primitive — often involving nothing more than water trucks pumping water out of the Euphrates and driving it over to fields that are often less than a kilometer away.

Then there are Syria's dwindling oil reserves. No doubt, Israeli engineers and seismologists would be able to increase the efficiency and productivity of existing wells and so increase their output. It is certainly not beyond the realm of possibility that Israeli scientists and engineers could even discover new untapped oil reserves.

But of course, Syria isn't interested in Israel's help. Syria wants to have its enemy and eat it too. As Assad has made clear repeatedly, what he wants is to receive the Golan Heights - and through it Israel's fresh water supply - for nothing. He wants Israel to surrender the Golan Heights, plus some Israeli land Syria illegally occupied between 1948 and1967, in exchange for a meaningless piece of paper. In this demand, Assad is supported by none other than Turkish Prime Minister Recip Erdogan whose country is drying Syria out. It is Erdogan after all, who mediated talks aimed at convincing then Prime Minister Ehud Olmert to give up the Golan Heights for nothing and it is Erdogan today who is encouraging the Obama administration to pressure Israel to surrender its water to Syria for nothing.

Read All at :

Love of the Land: Having One's Enemy And Eating It Too

Love of the Land: Success: Golan Facebookers Ain't Syrian

Success: Golan Facebookers Ain't Syrian

Backspin/Honest Reporting
07 September 09

Little more than a week ago, HonestReporting launched the Facebook group,Facebook, Golan Residents Live in Israel, not Syria.

This was in response to Facebook settings that only allowed Golan residents to chooseSyria as their home country. But our members got Facebook's attention: last night, we discovered that Facebook changed the settings. The heights are no longer exclusively "Syrian" now. Facebookers in communities like Ramat Magshimim, Geshur, and Had Nes aren't forced to "select" Syria in the dropdown box.

Screen grab before, with Syria as the only option:




Screen grab after, now includes Israel

Credit Facebook for simply making the change without getting dragged into an acrimonious and embarrassing political debate. And credit our 2,490 members for getting involved and getting results.

Be sure to join the ongoing discussion at HonestReporting's Facebook page.

Love of the Land: Success: Golan Facebookers Ain't Syrian

Israel Matzav: More 'good news': Obama to force Israel down from the Golan

More 'good news': Obama to force Israel down from the Golan

Israel Radio reports this morning that when Obama envoys Jeffrey Feltman and Daniel Shapiro visit Damascus for the second time in two months later today, they will be bearing a gift for Syrian President Bashar al-Assad: Feltman and Shapiro will promise Assad that the US will bring Israel to the table to 'negotiate' over the Golan at the same time as it is 'negotiating' with the 'Palestinians' over Judea and Samaria.

Read All at :

Israel Matzav: More 'good news': Obama to force Israel down from the Golan