#Tomorrow13 Should we initiate or should we wait until the Middle East sorts itself out?
Anyone who has read this blog for a day or more knows my position on this.... Steve Linde moderating.
I walked into
this session as Itamar Rabinovich was speaking and now Dore Gold is up. Gold says that before we talk about what we should do, we have to recognize what has happened and where we stand. He says that we don't have an option for a permanent status agreement with the 'Palestinians' and lots of weapons on our borders and therefore we have to adopt the position of dispensable borders. Leaving the Jordan Valley would be a national disaster.
Dore Gold says that Hassan Rohani is a master of taqiyya and is the star of the first chapter of Gold's book on the Iranian nuclear threat. Rohani bragged in 2004 about how they completed their nuclear program because of his negotiations. Rohani is not a dove but a fox.
Dan Kurtzer now speaking. Kurtzer wants to talk about the ostrich and the eagle. Kurtzer says that ostrich exposes a certain part of its anatomy that might be
exposed to shrapnel by burying its head in the ground. Israel has limited ability to influence change in Arab world, and is mostly affected by what Israel says and not by what it does. Response to Arab spring so far has been enlightened.
Kurtzer found out over the last few days that he's a solutionist and he believes that there's a solution to our dispute with the 'Palestinians.' Gap has been narrowed significantly but no final settlement has been reached. He thinks Israeli initiative which shows it understands that fire in its own house must be put out would be smart. That must include secure, recognized and defensible borders. Both peace treaties with Arab neighbors have provided us with security because they gave us peace partners who were responsible to implement the treaty just like we were. He says borders have to be negotiated. Starting with defined borders may be a way back into the 'peace process.'
Kurtzer says there's a major debate in the US over intervention in Syria. Israelis know better than anyone that conflict fatigue has affected the US - troops on the ground here for the last 12 years. To what degree are concrete achievable American needs at stake? American people aren't sure. Is a devil we know better than what will emerge from the outcome?
Meir Dagan up next. Says he's not a prophet. Says we should not fear worst case scenario. Says our interest and those of the Gulf countries, Egypt and maybe even the 'Palestinians' all have the same interest. All of us fear the open conflict between Shiite and Sunni, and that this creates opportunities for Israel to create different alliances.
Says Saudi plan a starting point and vital for us to discuss it even though he doesn't like all of it either. There are things for which we need the support of other Arab countries to reach an arrangement with the 'Palestinians.' Problems are complicated. Lists other issues in Iran aside from nuclear issue.
If Assad doesn't win in Syria, we can shut down Hezbullah. There are more opportunities here and we should take initiative with Arab world. Says the Muslim Brotherhood took over in Egypt because they were very well organized. New regimes in Tunisia and Libya may not survive - they are criticized daily. The same is true in Egypt. Morsy trying his best not to touch agreement with Israel because he is dependent on money he receives from the United States. King Abdullah has been ruling Jordan longer than any Prime Minister of Israel or any President of the United States. We took a risk with Jordan and it paid off. We have to prepare ourselves for the worst but take every opportunity and chance that we get.
20 minutes of panel debate and then short questions.
Sima Shine says she agrees with Dagan because he was her boss.... She wants to talk about the Iranian election. Where is Iran really going? She doesn't have an answer yet. Rohani is only becoming President in August. What does it mean that he was elected with more than 50% in the first round? She says that the public in Iran sees Rohani as stepping into Moussavi's shoes from 2009. Have to look at his internal agenda - is talking about lifting censorship and giving women more freedom. But the economy is terrible. In July there will be more sanctions. You cannot disconnect the economy from sanctions and the nuclear project and therefore he cannot improve the economy without coming to terms over the nuclear program. The Iranians want sanctions removed which is impossible.
She says that there is no doubt that Israel must initiate. The question is whether Israel has a good answer to all its problems and are they all connected. Will doing something about the 'Palestinians' change the situations in Syria and Iran? She says yes (I say no).
Itamar Rabinovich says that the problem is that no Israeli leader will put Olmert's 2008 proposal on the table, but that Abu Mazen won't accept anything else. So how to find a way to move forward? Offering them $4 billion as a bribe is not the best way forward. Saudi plan (now known as Arab peace initiative) may not be the best way forward. It talks about return to 1967 borders. That includes Syria and obviously no one is going to do that today. So need to open a dialogue with the Saudis but cannot put five lines on the table and say 'take it or leave it.'
Dore Gold says he agrees with Rabinovich that time is not ripe for a full final status agreement. He says that he also agrees with much of what Dagan said. In the '90's the entire approach was economic. The Middle East we have today has two common threats - the Iranians and the Muslim Brotherhood. That should help us to build dialogue with some Sunni Arab countries, but that dialogue has to be quiet.
Rabinovich says that 'two-state solution' is not dead and criticizes senior Israeli officials for saying that it's dead. For a senior minister in the cabinet to say that the 'two-state solution' is dead is damaging.
Kurtzer asks why isn't this the time to try for a final status agreement. He thinks this is a time to try for it. He says that we cannot look at the Arab peace initiative through its details but we have to understand the context and that it represents a victory for Zionism because it shows that the Arab world has given up on trying to destroy Israel. In 2002, Arab world threw up its hands and said that Israel is here to stay (if only... CiJ).
Kurtzer says that if we don't agree with him, we shouldn't keep digging the hole deeper with 'settlements.' He says it's just exacerbating the problem every day. People are moving into these houses with no expectation of being a bargaining chip and complicating the agreement that Israel says its seeks with the Arab world. Says people are looking at details instead of looking at eagle's perspective. Dagan pointed out unexpected benefits of Morsy government which has done more to stop Hamas tunnels than anyone else. Egypt working with Israel on strategic issues. Kurtzer says it's time for final status agreement but at least don't make the situation worse.
Dore Gold says that the problem with the Arab peace initiative is that it's 'take it or leave it.' You can't even keep the 'refugees' in Lebanon. It's not a basis for sitting down to talk. Unfortunately, it's take it or leave it.
Meir Dagan disagrees. He says that Israel has to start a serious dialogue with the 'Palestinians.' Saying that there's no way to reach an agreement is damaging to Israel. He knows we cannot reach a final agreement with the 'Palestinians' now but we have to talk to them seriously. He says that we have to take seriously the Arab League's willingness to accept the existence of the State of Israel.
Dagan says he agrees with Kurtzer. Asks rhetorically if we should wait for Hamas to take over in the 'West Bank.' At least the 'Palestinian Authority' has a goal of establishing a 'Palestinian state.' Says Hamas would win election and that is worst case scenario for Israel.
Now taking questions from the audience. First questioner asks Dore Gold why Israel doesn't just call the 'Palestinians' bluff by offering six-month 'settlement freeze.' (Because we did already - CiJ). Gold says just what I said. We did this. It may not have been perfect but the US recognized it was a real freeze. Maybe Mahmoud Abbas doesn't want a negotiation right now. Mubarak would help him in the old days but now Hamas' sponsors are in control in Cairo. Gold says that in a NY Times interview a few years ago, Abbas said that 'settlements' constitute 1.2% of 'West Bank' and Abbas offered 1.9% swap. Arafat signed Oslo without a 'settlement freeze.' There are far more important issues.
Itamar Rabinovich talks about 'settlement products' in Europe. Says Europeans ask why we don't want them to take a more active role. He says just think of what happened a few weeks ago and how the Austrians ran away from the Golan Heights (remember EUBAM? CiJ). BDS gaining in Europe. Rabinovich says don't expand 'settlements.' Improve our hasbara (public relations). Put 20 spokesmen on networks and it won't help if a minister gets up and says that Bibi doesn't want a 'two-state solution.'
Next questioner asks Dan Kurtzer what we're going to do about the Russians holding all the cards in Syria. Kurtzer says that you have to be careful what you say publicly (implies that Obama spoke too quickly on Syrian use of chemical weapons). US trying to weigh all factors carefully. What happens if Assad stays in power? Who will come to power if he leaves? If US believed that there would be a liberal democratic regime in Syria, there would be US bombers in Syria today. But that's not going to happen and the civil war is likely to continue even if Assad leaves. Russia has significant interests in that context. US and Russia trying to align their interests in a way that provides for a reasonable transition in Syria. It hasn't happened yet.
Meir Dagan disagrees with Dore Gold - says that the IDF can protect Israel from any border that the government decides. Withdrawing from Jordan Valley not a disaster according to Dagan. In 1967 we were on different borders and we prevailed militarily. Using security for political issues is a mistake according to Dagan.
Dore Gold cites Yitzchak Rabin's last speech to the Knesset in which he said that Israel had to retain the Jordan Valley in the widest sense possible. Ariel Sharon said the same and so did Gold when he prepared the IDF's interest map for Prime Minister Netanyahu. Gold and Dagan are going back and forth on this.
Dagan claims that Jordan Valley was only important until 1991. Iraq, Syria and Jordan were a threat until 1991 - called Eastern front. Claims it's no longer an issue (Really? Weapons smuggling to 'Palestinians' in Judea and Samaria? CiJ) because Iraq has no military and Abdullah won't join an eastern front. Says have to prevent terrorists from coming in but don't need direct military presence to do that if you have good cooperation with the Jordanians. Says he's not presenting a political approach. IDF can protect Israel from different borders.
Sima Shine agrees with Dagan (again - why is she on this panel?) about the Arab peace initiative even though we don't like the details and even though we don't know who will rule Syria. You have to take into account that the Arab peace initiative now is mostly Saudi Arabia, the Persian Gulf and maybe Syria.
End of session.
Labels: Dan Kurtzer, Dore Gold, Hassan Rohani, Iranian nuclear threat, Itamar Rabinovich, President's Conference, Steve Linde, Tomorrow Conference
Liveblog: Israel and America: Has the love cooled?
Here's the session I'm at now. My battery is running out and I'm having trouble charging it.
Elliott Abrams says that Obama does not have the view of Israel that Clinton and Bush had. No great love for Israel, but deeper question is relationship between the two societies where there has been remarkably little change.
America has Christians and Europe has former Christians and that's the difference between them. That's who supports Israel. Jewish community keeps getting smaller. Fewer young Jews are Jewish in any meaningful sense.
Democrats much less enthusiastic about Israel but that pre-dates Obama and Netanyahu. Not personal. The left around the world hates Israel.
Ethan Bronner asked Abrams if he's offended by the term 1967 lines. Abrams said that it's only offensive if it's not Israel's policy and it's being imposed on it. That drew some applause.
Martin Indyk says that tension has existed in US-Israel relationship since time immemorial.
By the way, I am now on the other side of the room and I am plugged in.
Indyk describes Obama's speech as James Baker done over - claims it's nothing new. He says that whether the two sides can find a way to get back to the table is going to be tested now. He refers to September as a train wreck. Israelis have never considered UN cause for concern so why are they panicking now? (Because no one is sure Obama will actually veto). Indyk claims that Obama doesn't want negotiations either because he doesn't believe anything will come of them. Obama afraid he will have to veto, putting him on the wrong side in the Middle East. Indyk thinks that US and Israel will find partnership to relaunch negotiations but not likely they will produce anything.
Itamar Rabinovich is next. He thinks there is a personality conflict between Obama and Netanyahu, which he calls a train wreck. He says that change in the Middle East may not be worse for Israel but it is more difficult. Depends what Israel does with it.
Rabinovich raises linkage issue and infamous Petraeus speech. Does Petraeus believe it or is it what the White House wanted him to say?
Obama himself said linkage to Tom Brokaw during campaign and that is a negative in and of itself.
Rabinovich talks about base of support for Israel. He doesn't like what he sees on US campuses - specifically mentions Jewish faculty and students. He says it's a function of where and when Obama went to school.
Robert Wexler is next - you know how much I like him.... Wexler says love is still present in US-Israel relationship. He says it's a passionate love affair. He takes issue with Abrams claim that President Obama does not have in his heart the requisite love for Israel. Wexler says he doesn't know what love any President had for Israel, but can judge them on statement, deeds and actions.
Wexler touts security relationship with US-Israel and says that can't happen despite the President of the US.
Wexler says that Obama got Israel into OECD - called every country voting to make sure they would vote for Israel. He thinks that's a fair amount of love.
Regarding last 3-4 weeks - Obama spent his time trying to convince Germany, France and UK not to support unilateral resolution of 'statehood.' As a result, French Foreign Minister wanted peace conference. Abu Mazen said yes, Netanyahu said give me a week, Israel asked US to throw cold water on idea and US did.
Wexler says African-Americans over age 45 have warm feeling for Israel but younger African Americans don't because of different set of formative events. Same with Latino community. Says we have to work on that.
Says young Americans (including Jews) aren't liberal - they're progressive. Gay rights, abortion, etc. are givens. There's a degree of liberal thought that's a given among American Jews that has not necessarily been reflected in Israeli society.
Ruth Yaron is next. She says that Israel wants to feel the love. Says that it's not enough to tell me that you're giving me more aid. We want the rest of the world to know. If we don't feel secure with US support we won't take risks. We need to feel we have support (we being Israeli public). That's a huge difference on what we do with the 'Palestinians.'
Where was Obama's love during the Cairo speech? Where was sign of affection? Living in an era where the whole Middle East is changing (and not the way Peres envisioned 15-20 years ago), if there is a gap between Israel and US radical forces could sneak in and this will undermine Israeli public's willingness to make compromises necessary for peace.
This seems to have eluded Barack Obama. He has to make sure that the love is seen (I think it's too late for that). Any gap is dangerous for the State of Israel. She draws lots of applause.
Ethan Bronner to ask questions and then let audience ask questions. Bronner said Gazans were concerned that Netanyahu got so much applause. So why doesn't Israel feel the love (he asks Yaron)? Gazans said that US run by Netanyahu and not just leaders - average 'Palestinian' said that. Yaron responds by saying that Obama has to speak to Israeli public and come here. Gets lots of applause. I doubt Obama will take that chance before the elections.
Bronner asks Wexler about Petraeus idea. Wexler says he's uncomfortable with notion that American blood being spilled because of Israel. Bronner says that was a misquote. Wexler says it's unwise. Bronner asks if it's untrue. Wexler says that you can't says that there is no effect. Wexler says that Yaron asks them to show us some love, while Prince Turki says that America is an unabashed Israel lover. How can Turki say what he said and Ruth said what she said and both feel as they do?
Rabinovich picks up point and says Turki was angry at passage in Obama speech that criticized Bahrain. Rabinovich says take out love and introduce intimacy. Rabinovich says there's a way to say yes, US a close friend to Israel, let's see how we can make it to the Palestinians advantage. Rabinovich says that Israelis are nervous because they see how the US treated Egypt.
He says that Netanyahu needs to lay out to Obama what he is willing to do, which is what Sharon and Rabin and others did. Obama has to have Israeli partner who levels with him. (I think the problem is that anything that Netanyahu could give would not be enough).
Rabinovich said that what happened in Congress is good. Arabs think time is on their side. The message of the Netanyahu speech and Congress' reaction is that time is not on the Arabs' side.
Bronner asks if problem is policy gaps or if there is something at the core that is troubled. Abrams says that for some people it's both. He says to forget the Europeans but as far as the Democrats are concerned, if Israel only country criticized that has nothing to do with Netanyahu. In Europe there's a fundamental issue of anti-Semitism. But is Democrat problem existence of State of Israel? No, but it goes too far to say that the problem is just the policies.
Abrams said that when Bibi said that we would only keep the blocs - which no Likud Prime Minister has ever said - Obama didn't give him any credit. That's where we're missing the love. Obama attitude is sooner we get rid of Bibi and Likud the better - you can do no right.
Indyk addresses Abrams' point about Bibi Knesset speech about only keeping blocs. Says that Bibi's coalition makes it sound like his concessions aren't concessions. Bibi may have made important statements but they were cloaked in other language that made it sound like he wasn't making concessions at all. Bibi heads coalition that does not support two-state solution. That is not Obama's fault.
Indyk agrees that Obama should have come to Israel and addressed Knesset and said we can't get explanation from anyone who works for him why he won't come. Obama has ignored Israeli public opinion and Israelis can't stand it. Especially since he's chasing the other woman (Palestinians).
The only relationship Obama seems to have that's intimate and close is Russian President. He's not warm and cuddly. No drama. He says Israelis should get over it and that Yaron is describing a neurotic nation (lots of laughs). Israel is already 60 years old and it's time to grow up. Get over whether he loves me or he loves me not. Israel has to find solution to problem with 'Palestinians.' Not acceptable to continue 'occupation.' When Israel solves this problem, it will have the love of President Obama.
Abrams agrees that Obama doesn't have this relationship with anyone else but that doesn't matter because no one is trying to kill or eliminate anyone else. The reason Obama has not come to Israel is that he does not want to come to Israel.
Ruth Yaron says that there is a solid majority of 70% in Israel that supports two-state solution but tapping that majority is difficult because of political system. Says Israeli public is not shifting to the right and that Obama could tap into reservoir by speaking to the public.
Surprise: Wexler agrees with Indyk and not with Abrams. Says Obama agreed to Israeli military presence in Jordan Valley and don't have to leave until demonstrated that 'Palestinians' are doing what they are supposed to be doing. Where's the applause from the Knesset?
Audience question: No one has addressed the questions of Obama putting us in corner by settlement freeze and 1967 line surprises. Does anyone disagree that the President cornered Israel and therefore people believe he doesn't love them.
Rabinovich says that settlement focus was a mistake and that Netanyahu should have made Bar Ilan speech earlier. Indyk asks whether Biden was cornered with the Ramat Shlomo story (no).
Labels: Elliott Abrams, Itamar Rabinovich, Keith Bronner, Martin Indyk, Robert Wexler, Ruth Yaron
US spied on Israel's embassy in Washington?
I guess this is the week for disclosures even outside the framework of Wikileaks. No, this one did not come from Wikileaks.
Former Israeli ambassador to the US Itamar Rabinovich (pictured with Bill Clinton and Ariel Sharon) told Army Radio on Monday that the United States
tapped the phone lines at the Israeli embassy in Washington for many years.
Rabinovich did not say exactly when the code was broken and when Israel found out about it, but it was understood from his remarks that the tap started after his 1993-1996 tenure in the U.S. capital and was discovered only years later.
The former envoy said that every staffer at the Israeli Embassy in Washington is warned about possible leaks of conversations held in the building and on ordinary phone lines, but also on the secure phone line.
After the Americans broke the code, Israel's deepest policy secrets were apparently exposed.
"Every 'juicy' telegram was in danger of being leaked," Rabinovich told Army Radio's Razi Barkai. "We sent very few of them. Sometimes I came to Israel to deliver reports orally. The Americans were certainly tapping the regular phone lines, and it became clear that in later years they were also listening to the secure line."
...
As far as is known, American spies have not been caught by Israel's intelligence services, although there have been instances when U.S. intelligence operatives contacted Israeli citizens and explored the possibility of recruiting them.
The Americans have also used their military attaches to gather information.
Israel believes that over the years, U.S. intelligence services have been listening - or at least attempting to listen - to conversations between key people in Israel and staff at its missions around the world.
For that reason, diplomats going abroad are instructed by the Shin Bet security service to treat every conversation as if it is being tapped and to make sure not to reveal secret information.
However, the assumption was still that the secure phone line could not being tapped.
And Pollard still languishes in jail?
Labels: Israeli embassy, Itamar Rabinovich, Jonathan Pollard, wiretaps
