We're feeling the hope and change here in Israel, but not in the direction that the Obama administration and the Euroweenies want us to go.
A new poll out Friday morning shows the merged Likud-Yisrael Beiteinu party losing seats... to the even further right Bayit Yehudi (Jewish Home) party. The poll was taken before the indictment of Avigdor Lieberman, the head of Yisrael Beiteniu, broke on Thursday. And recall that this is after the Likud's own Knesset slate shifted to the Right.
The joint Likud-Yisrael Beytenu list would win only 35 seats in the next Knesset
– seven fewer than their 42 in the outgoing parliament – according to a
Geocartography poll taken for The Jerusalem Post Group’s Hebrew daily the Israel
Post in honor of its inaugural weekend edition (Sof Hashavua), which will come
out on Friday.
The poll of 500 respondents, representing a statistical
sample of the country’s population, was taken on Wednesday, before
Attorney-General Yehuda Weinstein announced his decision about Foreign Minister
Avigdor Liberman. It was the same day that Liberman’s attacks on Europe at The
Jerusalem Post Diplomatic Conference in Herzliya dominated
headlines.
It's not just a question of numbers.
When asked whether the country’s diplomatic situation had
improved or worsened over the past four years, 54.1 percent of respondents said
it had worsened, 15.4% said it had improved, and 23.6% said there had been no
change.
The poll, which has a 4.2-percentage point margin of
error, found
that mandates from the Likud and Yisrael Beytenu would not shift to
Center-Left
parties, but to Bayit Yehudi, further to the Right, which would rise
from
three seats in the current Knesset to 16. The Tzipi Livni Party, which
formed to attract votes from the Right by highlighting the diplomatic
issue, would win
only seven seats, according to the poll.
Labor would win 17 seats, Yesh
Atid 12, Shas 10, United Torah Judaism and Meretz six each, Hadash and United
Arab List four apiece, and Balad three.
Kadima, Am Shalem, Strong Israel
and Green Leaf would not pass the 2-percent electoral threshold.
And here's an indication of how much the country has had it with the 'Palestinians.'
Asked if they believed Balad MK Haneen Zoabi should be permitted
to run for Knesset, 69.4% said no, and only 13.4% said yes.
Zoabi, as you might recall, is the inflammatory 'Israeli Arab' MK who hitched a ride on the Mavi Marmara.
But there's something weird about this poll. Compare it to the Smith poll:
The Smith
poll predicted 29 seats for Likud Beytenu, up two mandates from Smith’s last
poll two weeks ago. Labor would win 19, Bayit Yehudi and Shas 10, Lapid’s
and Livni’s parties nine each, UTJ six, Meretz, Hadash and Balad four each, and
Am Shalem and UAL-Ta’al three apiece.
Kadima and Strong Israel would not
pass the threshold.
Someone want to tell me how a party can have 16 seats in one poll and 10 in another. That's quite a difference.
If the Geocartography poll is correct and votes are shifting from Likud to Bayit Yehudi, it means that Netanyahu will find it difficult to impossible to bring back Meridor and Begin, his more 'centrist' ministers who lost in the primaries, whom he wanted to bring back in some capacity. It means that the Likud - Yisrael Beiteinu merger was a huge mistake (which it seems to have been anyway - who needs Yisrael Beiteinu without Lieberman and without Ayalon - but Netanyahu probably did that to moderate his own party like so many other moves he's made). And it means that the Obama administration and the Europeans may soon be longing for the days that they were dealing with Netanyahu and Barak rather than Netanyahu, Bennett and Feiglin.
Arutz Sheva's Hebrew side is reporting that according to 'political sources' Prime Minister Netanyahu will make 'adjustments' to 'balance' the Likud slate elected in Sunday's and Monday's primary so as to include some of his key confidantes who were shut out, and to make the list less hawkish.
The link is in Hebrew, the translation of part of it below is mine.
According to the sources, "anyone who knows Netanyahu and his pattern of behavior understands that he is not comfortable with the new composition, especially in light of the fact that Ministers Begin and Meridor were pushed out. Netanyahu will try to find them a place in the next government.
Netanyahu himself hinted as such last night at the end of the primaries evening. Netanyahu hinted that he would appoint the big losers, Ministers Benny Begin and Dan Meridor to positions in his next government as well. "I want you by my side" Netanyahu called to the candidates who were pushed off the party's Knesset list.
Ministers Dan Meridor, Avi Dicther and Michael Eitan did not succeed in attaining a realistic spot [on the list]. Minister Benny Begin reached 21st place, but in light of the merger with Yisrael Beiteinu, and promises for representatives of women, minorities and regional lists, he was pushed out of the top 40.
For those who have forgotten Bibi's 'adjustments' in the last election, go here and here.
Both Intelligence Minister Dan Meridor and Deputy Prime Minister Sylvan Shalom attempted to downplay reports of a rift between Israel and the United States over Iran.
Intelligence Agencies Minister Dan Meridor said he does not sense any rupture in Israel's ties with the United States and stressed that it is very important to maintain Washington's support, as well as that of the American public, in an interview with Israel Radio on Monday.
...
In his interview, Meridor denounced the public speculation regarding a possible preemptive strike on Iran's nuclear facilities as unnecessary and perhaps even beneficial to the Iranians.
He said further that the international effort against Iran was taking its toll on the Iranians, who may now fear enriching uranium to a higher, bomb-grade level because of the knowledge they will encounter very strong resistance if they cross the line towards acquiring a nuclear bomb.
He concluded by saying that the international community needed to increase the pressure on Iran by strengthening the sanctions against it.
Meanwhile, Vice Premier Silvan Shalom on Monday rejected a report that senior US officials had intimated to Iran that they would not stand by Israel if it were to strike the Islamic Republic.
"The sole disagreement between Israel and the US is in regard to timing," Shalom said in an interview with Army Radio. "The US is obligated to the existential and security interests of Israel. We are much closer than people think."
Let's just say I believe that the descriptions in the media are closer to the truth than what Meridor and Shalom are describing.
Maybe the White House doesn't want to be 'complicit' in an Israeli attack on Iran either?
You will recall that at the end of last week, Martin Dempsey, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told a news conference in London that he did not want to be 'complicit' in an Israeli attack on Iran, a remark for which the Wall Street Journal slammed President Obama on Friday night.
A senior government official on Saturday characterized as “strange” a recent statement by US military chief Gen. Martin Dempsey that he would not want to be “complicit” in an Israeli attack on Iran.
“Dempsey’s comments are strange in that they would seem to contradict the continual statements from the White House that the security and defense cooperation between Israel and the US has never been as close,” the senior official said.
...
“These comments are also a bit strange, because they were said in a week when the IAEA [International Atomic Energy Agency] released a report that seemed to confirm all of Israel’s concerns, and during a week where the international effort to isolate Iran and subject it to international pressure took a severe blow with the Non-Aligned Movement conference in Tehran,” the senior government official said.
Reading the whole thing might lead you to the conclusion that the 'senior government official' is Intelligence Minister, Dan Meridor, who is the most Leftist member of Israel's cabinet.
We need to stop fooling ourselves and take seriously the possibility - indeed the likelihood - that the Obama administration will do nothing about Iran, either before or after the elections, and that Dempsey's position is Obama's position. That should certainly be the case unless and until Obama explicitly disavows Dempsey's comments. So far, that has not happened.
White House spokesman Jay Carney – responding to comments made by US presidential candidate Mitt Romney at the Republican National Convention in Florida on Thursday evening about Obama’s ineffectiveness in dealing with Iran – said that under Obama, “cooperation with Israel between our military and intelligence communities has never been closer, assistance provided to Israel by the United States has never been greater.”
Speaking on Channel 2 television's Meet the Press, Meridor said: "The Iranians are not breaking through toward [nuclear] weapons because they are afraid of the international campaign that [Prime Minister Binyamin] Netanyahu is leading."
In reference to U.S. President Barack Obama's statement that the U.S. would not be content with containing the Iranian nuclear weapon threat, Meridor said: "If I were [Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah] Khamenei, I'd be worried by that statement."
"We have not achieved the goal of stopping the Iranian program," he admitted, "but the pressure continues."
"Sanctions have not done what they were supposed to but they did prevent the surge forward [by Iran]," he opined. "The Iranians are afraid of the possibility that there will be a grave reaction by the world – sanctions and war."
No.... Iran has refrained from building a nuclear weapon because they haven't succeeded in moving everything underground yet. But at the rate they are going they should be there in another three months.
A private bill to impose Israeli law on all Jewish settlements in the West Bank was brought to a vote at the Ministerial Committee on Legislative Affairs on Sunday but was eventually withdrawn after Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's intervention.
In practice, the bill means that military rule will not be applied in settlements. Imposing Israeli law on Jewish settlements is de facto annexation of the West Bank. [I think that should say, 'military rule will be applied in settlements. CiJ]
Proposed by MK Miri Regev, the bill was brought to a vote at the Ministerial Committee – a prelude to a Knesset vote.
Five ministers initially voted in favor, including Likud ministers Gideon Sa'ar and Limor Livnat. Minister Benny Begin protested and said, "The government is being forced into a decision which must be left to a specially-designated cabinet meeting."
Justice Minister Yaakov Ne'eman, who chairs the Ministerial Committee, wished to postpone the vote by 15 minutes to consult with the prime minister. Upon his return he said, "I wish to postpone the vote by a month and coordinate the matter with the government and the prime minister. This is a political bill and cannot be passed without such coordination."
...
After the ministers realized that Netanyahu wants to postpone the vote and take it off the agenda, nine of them opposed the bill, including Sa'ar and Livnat who said they had originally thought they were voting for a delay in the vote. Five abstained and one – Stas Misezhnikov - voted in favor.
When and where will this country's 'leadership' find courage? Instead, we keep listening to wimps like Dan Meridor.
Sorry about last night - I am swamped with work and exhausted. Nothing a Sabbath won't help.
Deputy Prime Minister Dan Meridor shot his mouth off yesterday, proposing a freeze on 'settlement construction' outside the 'security fence' as if the 'Palestinians' would ever accept it and as if proposing it does not damage Israel's position. You see, in a return to 2005, Meridor wants to do this unilaterally. He calls it a policy.
In an acknowledged stark departure from government policy, and a remarkable one for so senior a minister, Meridor said the current relative calm in relations with the Palestinians, and the sharp decline in terrorism, might be producing “an illusion” among Israelis “that this is sustainable in the long term. It is not. It is an anomaly. We need to change it.”
This should be done, he said in an extensive interview, by freezing further settlement “across the line of the blocs or the fence or whatever you call it.”
Meridor, a veteran Likud leader who is also the minister responsible for Intelligence and Atomic Energy, made clear that he was not advocating a full settlement freeze everywhere beyond the pre-1967 “Green Line.”
“Don’t freeze it in Jerusalem or Ma’aleh Adumim or other places like this,” he said in the interview, conducted at the Prime Minister’s Office in Jerusalem. “But don’t build all over the place, because this is the most damaging of all the things that we are doing to ourselves in the world. Because people say: ‘You offer the Palestinians a state. But if you build there in every place, you don’t really mean it.’”
Rather than untrammeled construction, Meridor said, government policy should be focused on widening international support for the expansion of Israeli sovereignty to encompass the major settlement blocs. “We need to use all our efforts, our energies, our resources, to try to add the blocs to Israel,” he said.
“I think we are at the beginning of being able to do it. Because President Obama spoke of swaps, not of [an Israel withdrawn to the lines of] ’67… And Bush spoke of it… So we already see a basic understanding of the paradigm. The state won’t be along the ’67 lines. No way. It will be different, with some compensation. But if we build all over the place, we lose. Even if we don’t have an agreement [with the Palestinians], we need to have a rational policy.”
But Obama doesn't have a 'swap' like this in mind. He's thinking in terms of a swap of already-built neighborhoods in Jerusalem for 'safe passage' for 'Palestinians' between Gaza and Judea and Samaria. Only with the 'Palestinians' consent of course. And that won't ever happen even for the smallest 'swap.'
What's most disturbing about this is that Prime Minister Netanyahu has not and will not take him to task for publicly making a proposal that will weaken our position. In fact, I suspect strongly that Meridor was a trial balloon for Netanyahu (who recruited Meridor back to the Likud and insisted on making him a minister despite his relatively low rank on the Likud's Knesset list), and to date, there has been very little reaction. Well, count one reaction here.
Why did he talk to al-Jazeera and why wasn't he more careful?
And this is a guy our Prime Minister chased after to be in his party and in his cabinet.
Minister of Intelligence and Atomic Energy Dan Meridor told Al Jazeera that Iran never vowed to "wipe Israel off the map," as Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has repeatedly claimed.
Speaking to the Arab network, Meridor, who also serves as deputy PM, said Iran's leaders "all come basically ideologically, religiously with the statement that Israel is an unnatural creature, it will not survive." However, he added, "They didn't say 'we'll wipe it out,' but (rather) 'it will not survive, it is a cancerous tumor, it should be removed'. They repeatedly said 'Israel is not legitimate, it should not exist'."
In 2005 Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was quoted as saying that Israel should be "wiped off the map," but it was later revealed that the translation of his remarks, published by media outlets around the world, was incorrect. Ahmadinejad was actually quoting the leader of the 1979 Islamic revolution: "The Imam said this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time."
Let's go to the videotape.
My first reaction was that Meridor (a) made harmful comments, (b) to al-Jazeera (and not to YNet or Haaretz - why is any Israeli government official talking to al-Jazeera?), (c) could best be described as playing semantics if he were right, and (d) is wrong.
I don't see a whole lot of difference between saying Israel 'will not survive,' 'is a cancerous tumor,' 'should be removed,' or 'is not legitimate, it should not exist' and saying that one will 'wipe it off the map.' The first four statements are made by someone who does not believe that they have the capability of wiping us out, while the last one is made by someone who believes that they have - or will have - the capability of God forbid wiping us out. And I don't think that Meridor sees much difference either. But he was foolish to go on al-Jazeera and even more foolish to give them a headline like that, which he knows is wrong.
But if Meridor believes that Ahmadinejad did not threaten to wipe out Israel, he is also factually incorrect. Ahmadinejad did threaten to wipe out Israel, although he's been coy about admitting it since. This is from a Der Spiegel interview with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad that I posted three years ago:
SPIEGEL: …and you too would have to recognize Israel, a country that you have said, in the past, you would like to "wipe off the map." Please tell us exactly what you said and what you meant by it.
Ahmadinejad: Let me put it this way, facetiously: Why did the Germans cause so much trouble back then, allowing these problems to arise in the first place? The Zionist regime is the result of World War II. What does any of this have to do with the Palestinian people? Or with the Middle East region? I believe that we must get to the root of the problem. If one doesn't consider the causes, there can be no solution.
SPIEGEL: Does getting to the root of the problem mean wiping out Israel?
Ahmadinejad: It means claiming the rights of the Palestinian people. I believe that this is to everyone's benefit, to that of America, Europe and Germany. But didn't we want to discuss Germany and German-Iranian relations?
Here are more of Ahmadinejad's own words. Let's go to the videotape.
By the way, the video above is NOT the one that Juan Cole and other anti-Israel Leftists claim that MEMRI mistranslated. That video dates from 2005. Here's a discussion of that video by Michael Rubin:
Today, the National Iranian American Council–a lobby group advocating the normalization of ties between the United States and the Islamic Republic–published this analysis, which ends:
The proper translation of Ahmadinejad’s quotes has been the subject of some debate. Kucinich argued that the translations used in the bill were either misquoted or out of context, offering alternative translations from the New York Times to convey his point.
It’s a line which originated with Juan Cole, a University of Michigan professor, has peddled. Indeed, Cole wrote:
I have a suggestion for my readers. Every time you see a newspaper article that alleges that Ahmadinejad said that Israel should be wiped off the face of the map, please write the editor. Say that this idiom does not exist in Persian, and that what Ahmadinejad actually said was, “This occupation regime over Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time.” And you can cite me.
Perhaps one can quibble over how to render a translation. Here, the Islamic Republic provides its own clarification. In its official translations, it headlined Ahmadinejad’s call to “wipe Israel off the map.”
'If Egypt changes the treaty, there may not be any more'
Dan Meridor, the most left-leaning member of Prime Minister Netanyahu's inner circle, told a press conference sponsored by The Israel Project on Monday night that if Egypt unilaterally changes the Camp David Treaty, Israel will question whether other treaties should be signed in the future with Arab countries.
While it's not clear from the article whether Meridor was stating fact or advocating such a position, my sense is that he was stating fact. If Cairo unilaterally decides to alter the peace treaty with Jerusalem, Israel will ask why sign agreements with other neighbors if these accords are not kept, Intelligence Agencies Minister Dan Meridor said Monday.
Meridor, speaking at a press conference organized by The Israel Project, said that "objectively" there is no reason for either Israel or Egypt to change the peace agreement that has served both sides for more than 30 years.
"If people are rational and act for the good of their country, both Israel and Egypt should keep the agreement," Meridor said. Meridor added that Israel has had no contact with Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood, the party that won the recent parliamentary elections there.
Well, no kidding. But the problem is that if that happens, Israel has already given back all the land it had liberated from Egypt in 1967 and 1973. The Egyptians may not even care.
Dan Meridor, the most left-leaning member of Prime Minister Netanyahu's government, is threatening to quit if the Supreme Court's chokehold on the country is harmed. And Prime Minister Netanyahu is vowing not to let it happen.
Speaking on Channel 2’s Meet the Press program, Meridor singled out a bill that would require candidates to serve on the High Court to face hearings in the Knesset Law Committee as well as Likud MK Danny Danon’s bill to limit the ability of foreign governments to fund High Court petitions filed by nongovernmental organizations.
Danon’s bill is set to be voted on by the Ministerial Committee on Legislation on Sunday.
“One of the reasons I returned to politics was to stop the attacks on the High Court of Justice that started in the last [Knesset] term,” Meridor said.
“There has been a wave of attacks aimed at making Israel different – less liberal and more nationalist. I think we’re fighting for the spirit of our country, for its existence, our freedom, our liberty, freedom of expression, freedom to protest, and for human dignity.”
Danon’s bill would “set Israel decades backward,” he said.
“I returned to the government in order to stop such bills,” Meridor reiterated.
“There is no doubt that I won’t be part of a government that advances such bills, and I don’t think [this government] will.”
In other words, Meridor is threatening to quit if anyone harms the lifetime appointments of Supreme Court justices, who are selected by the court itself and not by the country's elected representatives. What's got Meridor all riled up is the prospect that candidates for the Supreme Court might have to face a Knesset hearing at which they would be asked for their views about the issues facing the country. What's worse, the Knesset might even say no to a candidate whose views are too far outside the mainstream. Funny, the US has lived with that system for more than 200 years, and for the most part no one has complained that its Supreme Court Justices are unqualified.
Why Netanyahu is buying into the Leftist sloganeering espoused by Meridor is a different issue. But Danon is right. The court is supposed to be a coequal branch of government and like the Knesset and the Prime Minister, it must be accountable to the people at least in some way. I'm not advocating holding judicial elections - that gives too much of an incentive for judges to become politicians. But if we cannot trust the Knesset to hold dignified hearings and to act reasonably, then we need to reconsider our entire system of government and not just how Supreme Court Justices are chosen.
Will Israel apologize to Turkey or is it wishful thinking?
Defenseless defense minister Ehud Barak was in Washington this past week, where he was subjected to a full-court press by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and new Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta to apologize to Turkey for allowing the IDF to defend itself during the Mavi Marmara incident last year. Barak, who was inclined to apologize in the first place, told a news conference in Washington that Israel is 'mulling' an apology. Turkey's Daily Hurriyet has gone to the bank with that (Hat Tip: Joshua I).
Particularly since last Sunday the Israeli inner-cabinet, or the so-called “group of eight” met several times on the issue and according to Israeli sources has finally decided five to three to make an “apology” and pay compensation to the relatives of the victims. Israel, however, is still unable to deliver the apology much-demanded by Turkey’s Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, because of its worries in regards to the “legal responsibility” of the soldiers – to be more precise, officers – involved in the deadly high sea piracy on Mavi Marmara. If Israel does not apologize, Turkey’s “plan B” in this year-long standoff includes allowing relatives of victims of the Israeli’s attack on the Turkish ship to seek justice at international court. Yet, there is no guarantee that after a formal apology of any sort by the Israeli state the issue will not be referred by the relatives of the victims to international jurisprudence.
According to Israeli sources, though the apology decision was made several days ago, the international jurisprudence concerns have so far marred Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, walking that unprecedented road. Yes, in whatever form it might come, it would be the first-ever for the state of Israel to apologize to another country, or individuals, for a military operation undertaken by its armed forces, and to pay – even though through a foundation – compensation of any sort. It will of course be painful for Israel, as much as it would be a revolutionary move.
Israeli apology may come as early as today, or tomorrow, if Erdoğan does not deliver yet another explosive remark. Erdoğan, talking to a gathering of Palestinian ambassadors had upped Turkey’s demands for normalization of relations with Israel, introducing “ending the Gaza blockade” condition to the apology and compensation conditions declared earlier. Israel has so far preferred to totally ignore that new third condition spelled out by the Turkish premier, but will Ankara agree to that? We shall see it in days ahead.
JPost is telling the story a little bit differently.
Defense Minister Ehud Barak on Thursday said that Israel was "willing to consider apologizing" for problems that occurred during last year's raid of the Turkish flotilla ship the Mavi Marmara in which nine Turks were killed by IDF commandos.
...
"Defense Ministry and IDF legal advisers recommend that we come to an understanding with Turkey in order to protect commanders and soldiers from legal action," Barak stated.
"We are not apologizing for the blockade and we are not apologizing for using force," he said. "We are willing to consider apologizing for problems that occurred during the Marmara operation, if indeed their were such problems...I don't like it, but that is the choice that must be made," Barak added.
...
Barak has come out as the key advocate in Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu’s inner forum urging Israel to take steps necessary to bring about a normalization of ties with Turkey.
There has been talk here for months that we would pay compensation. What's new here is the 'apology,' and although the Turks would undoubtedly spin it as a total capitulation, it's quite limited and if the Turks actually read it they will not be satisfied with it.
I also have my doubts about the 5-3 in favor. I think it's 6-2 against. Here are the eight inner cabinet members: Barak and Dan Meridor are undoubtedly in favor of apologizing. Boogie Yaalon, Benny Begin, and Avigdor Lieberman are opposed. Netanyahu and Yishai are opposed but pliable. Yishai could even just stay away from the vote - that's completely in character for him. Yuval Steinitz? Against, but he's getting killed by all the demonstrations dealing with our economy right now, and there have been rumors about Netanyahu cutting him loose. Would he vote in favor to keep his seat? It wouldn't be the first time in this country.
So that would leave 4-3 in favor of a very limited apology with no taking down the blockade and on condition that we would get assurances that the soldiers won't be hauled into court.
I come back to Turkey not being satisfied with any apology Israel would give and not being able to give assurances that our soldiers won't be sued anyway. I think it will fall on those grounds.
After J Street tried to convince the Obama administration not to veto a resolution presented to the UN Security Council by the 'Palestinians,' which would have condemned Jewish construction in 'east' Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria as an 'obstacle to peace,' it seemed that the Israeli government had finally decided to boycott the putative 'pro-Israel pro-peace' organization.
So why is J Street now claiming that Deputy Prime Minister Dan Meridor will be meeting with them during an upcoming mission to Israel?
I leave tomorrow with a delegation of J Street leaders for an 8-day visit to the region. We are scheduled to meet with top Israeli and Palestinian officials including President Peres and President Abbas, Prime Minister Fayyad, Deputy Prime Minister Meridor and others across the ideological spectrum.
Peres isn't part of the government, so he cannot be stopped from meeting with J Street, but Meridor is part of the government. Is someone asleep at the wheel?
Israel halts strategic dialogue with Britain over 'universal jurisdiction'
On Tuesday, I reported that Minister Dan Meridor had canceled a trip to London out of fear of arrest under Britain's 'universal jurisdiction' law. The law remains unchanged despite promises from Prime Minister David Cameron's government that it would be changed immediately upon their taking office. Finally, the Israeli government has decided to fight back: It has halted its 'strategic dialogue' with Britain until the law is changed.
Israel has canceled its special strategic dialogue with London to protest a law that enables Britain to arrest visiting Israeli officials for alleged war crimes, officials in Jerusalem said Wednesday.
The move was announced during British Foreign Secretary William Hague's two-day visit to the region.
"The strategic dialogue has indeed been postponed," Foreign Ministry spokesman Yigal Palmor told AFP. "The visit by Foreign Minister Hague is an important phase in the ongoing exchange between the countries and the question of Israeli officials being unable to travel to Britain will be on the top of the agenda as far as we are concerned."
Britain is one of the European pioneers of universal jurisdiction, a broad legal concept that empowers judges to issue arrest warrants for nearly any visitor accused of committing war crimes anywhere in the world.
Pro-Palestinian activists have sought to use this concept to press charges against Israelis involved in military operations in Palestinian territories, particularly since last year's Israeli offensive in the Gaza Strip. British officials have vowed to change the law.
The British embassy in Tel Aviv says that Foreign Secretary William Hague wants the law changed. But guess how Hague spent his day in Israel on Wednesday. I think it's pretty clear whose side he's on, and it's not ours.
I am an Orthodox Jew - some would even call me 'ultra-Orthodox.' Born in Boston, I was a corporate and securities attorney in New York City for seven years before making aliya to Israel in 1991 (I don't look it but I really am that old :-). I have been happily married to the same woman for thirty-five years, and we have eight children (bli ayin hara) ranging in age from 13 to 33 years and nine grandchildren. Four of our children are married! Before I started blogging I was a heavy contributor on a number of email lists and ran an email list called the Matzav from 2000-2004. You can contact me at: IsraelMatzav at gmail dot com
