#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.
Here's Soccer Dad's Middle East Media Sampler for Wednesday, February 15.
1) New NYT Jerusalem Bureau chief
Ethan Bronner in an e-mail to Politico explains why he's leaving his post as the New York Times bureau chief in Israel:
My son, who is 22, not 21, left the Israeli army a year ago. And I have not been reassigned. I asked to return. It has been 4 years, my parents are in their 90s and I originally promised to stay only three years, both my sons are there, my wife wants to return to her psychoanalytic practice. So we are coming home. I told the paper I wanted to keep writing. The national legal beat was suggested. I happily agreed.
The reason Bronner had to write the e-mail is because this is how the reporter, Dylan Byers originally framed the change:
Bronner's 22-year-old son was* a member of the Israeli Defense Forces, a conflict of interest first raised by the website Electronic Intifada. Shortly thereafter, former public editor Clark Hoyt looked into the matter and found that, despite the 'unerring sense of fairness' mentioned above, Bronner's son's assignment put the bureau chief in a problematic position. "Bronner is a superb reporter... But, stepping back, this is what I see: The Times sent a reporter overseas to provide disinterested coverage of one of the world’s most intense and potentially explosive conflicts, and now his son has taken up arms for one side," he wrote last February. "Even the most sympathetic reader could reasonably wonder how that would affect the father, especially if shooting broke out." "I have enormous respect for Bronner and his work, and he has done nothing wrong," he continued. "But this is not about punishment; it is simply a difficult reality. I would find a plum assignment for him somewhere else, at least for the duration of his son’s service in the I.D.F." Despite Hoyt's recommendation, the paper did not reassign Bronner.
Byers strongly implied - with no proof - that Bronner was being re-assigned on account of his son. By doing so he kept alive the calumny that Bronner was biased on account of his son.
Clark Hoyt, then the public editor of the New York Times was fully complicit in taking the charge of an anti-Israel activist and giving it legitimacy. Byers quoted from the column, Too close to home, Hoyt wrote two years ago.
But human rights groups say that the military’s criminal proceedings are insufficient and that Israeli troops carried out a number of atrocities that require outside investigation. The United Nations Human Rights Council commissioned a South African jurist, Richard Goldstone, to lead an inquiry into the war’s conduct. His report, issued a year ago, said there was compelling evidence of war crimes by both sides. It said that Israel had waged war on Gaza’s civilians and civilian infrastructure in an act of inexcusable collective punishment. ... The Goldstone report cited four episodes in which Israeli soldiers were said to have used Palestinians as shields, but those were all adults in other parts of Gaza.
The implication here is that despite the convictions, the IDF could or should have done more to investigate reported wrongdoings of its soldiers. Could this, in any way, be construed as favored treatment on account of his son? Absolutely not. Rather than defending the reporter (as opposed to then executive editor Bill Keller who, to his credit, defended Bronner ) Hoyt gave credence to the complaint of an anti-Israel activist, with no evidence to back it up. Hoyt's disgraceful performance showed the anti-Israel crowd that they could effectively challenge the credibility of any reporter.
Jodi Rudoren (nee Wilgoren), Bronner's soon to be successor, responded with:
@AliAbunimah Hey there. Would love to chat sometime. About things other than the house. My friend Kareem Fahim says good things
While Rudoren pushes back on the subject of the house, the rest of her response seems like she's ingratiating herself to Abunimah. In general Rudoren's tweets so far show a preference for critics of Israel.
It's also worthwhile noting that the deference given Abunimah, contrasts with an observation made by Neil Lewis:
At The Times, a mention of CAMERA frequently induces eye-rolling or shrugs. Editors have clearly lost patience with the group.
This would demonstrate that undocumented charges of anti-Israel activists (who are usually much less civil than CAMERA) carry greater weight with the management of the New York Times than careful critiques of pro-Israel groups.
When I first heard that Ethan Bronner would be the new Israel correspondent for the New York Times four years ago, I had misgivings. Barry Rubin e-mailed me that Bronner would be a huge improvement over the incumbent, Steven Erlanger. Still Prof. Rubin predicted that Bronner would sometimes "bend over backwards" to show that he wasn't too pro-Israel. That would be a pretty good description of Bronner's tenure in Israel. He has been better than most American correspondents in recent years, however he has often reported Israel's critics and enemies much too uncritically.
Bronner was an improvement over Erlanger. Given the intimidation by the anti-Israel crowd and Rudoren's apparent leanings, I have no confidence that she will be an improvement over Bronner.
The problem with Cohen's column is that it is based on Peter Beinart's recent book and that, as Shmuel Rosner shows, Beinart's central premise is mistaken.
There are a lot of details in this new study, and a lot to chew on, but the bottom line is what most readers care about, and it is quite clear: “In all four pairs of surveys under analysis, the overall level of emotional attachment to Israel increased between Time 1 (a survey conducted in the 1990s) and Time 2 (a survey conducted in the 2000s)”. It didn’t decrease – that’s what one would expect if there’s “distancing” – but rather increased. The authors state it plainly: “there is no evidence of declining attachment across the generations” as “the available evidence suggests increased attachment between the early 1990s and mid-2000s for the American Jewish population as a whole and increased attachment over the lifecycle for individual American Jews (in particular as they aged into mid-life). The evidence does not show decline from the older to the younger generations during the period 1990-2005”.
While I don't agree with everything he writes, Rabbi David Wolpe takes issue with Beinart's self-importance:
Beinart’s email represents what is wrong with the debate: It is smug in its dismissal of Israel’s leadership and grandiose in presenting one view as the sole salvation of that beleaguered nation’s honor. Peter Beinart raises crucial, abiding issues. Then he compares those who take a different view to racist destroyers of democracy. This is not debate. This is not dialogue. This is demagoguery. He is better than this and we must be too. In Pirke Avoth, Avtalion warns sages to be careful with their words. The warning applies to those who are not sages, as well.
But to return to the question of what the West or world should do: Listen to the democratic opposition. It wants two things, obviously taken from the Iraqi case: a no-fly zone for Syrian military aircraft and the creation of a safe zone — presumably near the Turkish border — for refugees, fugitives, and the Free Syrian Army. When I mention the “no-fly” zone to people they ask, “But the Syrian air force isn’t bombing the rebels, right? So what good is this?” The answer is that we’re not talking about fighters or bombers but about helicopter gunships and transport planes. With Syria rushing troops around the country to counter the uprisings, the point is to make it harder for them to do so. If any plan is going to be considered for intervention this one seems to be the best starting point. Its virtues and shortcomings should be thoroughly discussed so as to decide whether this is a good thing to do. This would be preferable to the current debate that lurches between total passivity and adventurous intervention.
(Soner Cagaptay made a similar argument, but based on Bosnia.)
In the new online publication Times of Israel (h/t Avraham F), edited by former Jerusalem Post editor, David Horovitz, Ehud Ya'ari makes some suggestions for Israel, Taking Sides:
Israel should — and it is definitely not impossible — establish quiet channels to some different factions and personae amongst the fragmented opposition groupings. Having maintained for years contacts with quite a few of them, I have reached the conclusion that unlike Egypt or Tunisia, Syria is not necessarily destined to fall under a Moslem Brotherhood regime, although Islamists are certainly key players in the current uprising.
Using its long-standing contacts to the Druze community, Israel could try to encourage the inhabitants of Suweida Province (The Druze Mountain) in Southern Syria to throw their lot against Assad. So far the Druze have been hesitant to pick sides, but once they do, it will have an enormous impact on the attitude of other important minorities — Christians, Kurds, Ismailis, Circassians.
Israeli intelligence agencies possess huge amounts of detailed quality data on the Assad killing machine — they know who gives orders to whom and how; they know what the instructions are and how are they carried out. This is information that is highly incriminating and embarrassing to Assad. Some of these treasures can be leaked without risking valuable intelligence assets. Remember the famous telephone conversation between President Nasser of Egypt and King Hussein of Jordan which was made public by the IDF during the 1967 war? There are many buyers for good stuff — let us start unclassifying a few samples and passing them to the proper non-Israeli media outlets!
I don’t know what is sufficient to persuade Assad to cede power to a national unity government, but I know what is necessary: He has to lose the two most important props holding up his regime. One is the support of China, Iran and Russia. There, the U.N., the European Union and Arab and Muslim countries need to keep calling out Moscow, Beijing and Iran for supporting Assad’s mass killing of unarmed civilians. China, Iran and Russia don’t care about U.S. condemnation, but they might care about the rest of the world’s. The other prop, though, can only be removed by Syrians. The still-fractious Syrian opposition has to find a way to unify itself and also reach out to the Alawites, as well as Syria’s Christian and Sunni merchants, and guarantee that their interests will be secure in a new Syria so they give up on Assad. Without that, nothing good will come of any of this. The more the Syrian opposition demonstrates to itself, to all Syrians and to the world that it is about creating a pluralistic Syria — where everyone is treated as an equal citizen — the weaker Assad will be and the more likely that a post-Assad Syria will have chance at stability and decency. The more the Syrian opposition remains fractured, the stronger Assad will be, the more some Syrians will cling to him out of fear of chaos and the more he will get away with Hama Rules.
Compared to the other suggestions, Friedman's seems generic rather than informed. Friedman also ignores any military intervention placing his full faith in diplomacy.
I note with satisfaction David Horovitz's return to the media. While Soccer Dad was comparing correspondents at the Times, he might also have favorably compared Horovitz - who was a fair and balanced editor in chief at the JerusalemPost - to Horovitz's successor, Steve Linde, who has made some questionable decisions in his thus-far-brief tenure.
JPost editor in chief Steve Linde told an audience at the Women's Zionist Conference in Tel Aviv on Wednesday that Israel's two biggest enemies are the New York Times and Haaretz.
Steve Linde, addressing a conference in Tel Aviv of the Women's International Zionist Organization, said Wednesday that Netanyahu made the remark to him about the newspapers at a private meeting "a couple of weeks ago" at the prime minister’s office in Tel Aviv.
“He said, ‘You know, Steve, we have two main enemies,’ ” Linde said, according to a recording of the WIZO speech provided to JTA. “And I thought he was going to talk about, you know, Iran, maybe Hamas. He said, ‘It’s The New York Times and Haaretz.’ He said, ‘They set the agenda for an anti-Israel campaign all over the world. Journalists read them every morning and base their news stories … on what they read in The New York Times and Haaretz.’ ”
Linde said he and other participants at the meeting asked Netanyahu whether he really thought that the media had that strong a role in shaping world opinion on Israel, and the prime minister replied, “Absolutely.”
The Prime Minister’s Office could not be reached immediately for comment.
I believe Netanyahu said that, and I believe he's largely correct (okay, Iran and Hamas and Hezbullah and the 'Palestinian Authority' do the dirty work, among others). It's one of the reasons blogs like this one exist - to create a source for people to find the truth.
The real question here is whether Netanyahu was fooled into thinking that Linde could keep a secret, or whether he said that knowing that Linde would shoot off his mouth and hoping that it would get out to the public. I suspect we won't get an answer to that question.
UPDATE 4:41 PM
Army Radio reports that Prime Minister Netanyahu has denied saying what Linde attributed to him (link in Hebrew).
What will Steve Linde say to families of future terror victims?
With apologies to Caroline Glick (whose writings I now read on her blog), I am happy that I canceled my hard copy subscription to the JPost. Once again, the new editor, Steve Linde, proves that he's a moron.
There are undoubtedly those in Israel, especially some victims of terror, who will strongly oppose the release of Palestinian terrorists, and even murderers.
This is understandable, and their voices should be heard and not judged.
But the overriding principle must not be forgotten: Israel and the IDF cannot abandon Israeli soldiers, citizens and prisoners, wherever they are.
Excuse me? How many Israelis will - God forbid - die in terror attacks so that Gilad can return to Mitzpe Hila, Mr. Linde? And what will you - as someone who promoted this 'deal' say to them? How many of them deserve to die to free one IDF soldier?
The deal that Netanyahu has agreed to is signed with the blood of the past victims and future victims of the terrorists he is letting go. No amount of rationalization by Netanyahu, his cheerleaders in the demented mass media, and by the defeatist, apparently incompetent heads of the Shin Bet, Mossad and IDF can dent the facts.
IT IS a statistical certainty that the release of 1,027 terrorists for Schalit will lead to the murder of untold numbers of Israelis. It has happened every single time that these blood ransoms have been paid. It will happen now.
Untold numbers of Israelis who are now sitting in their succas and celebrating Jewish freedom, who are driving in their cars, who are standing on line at the bank, who are sitting in their nursery school classrooms painting pictures of Torah scrolls for Simhat Torah will be killed for being Jewish while in Israel because Netanyahu has made this deal. The unrelenting pain of their families, left to cope with their absence, will be unimaginable.
This is a simple fact and it is beyond dispute.
It is also beyond dispute that untold numbers of IDF soldiers and officers will be abducted and held hostage. Soldiers now training for war or scrubbing the floors of their barracks, or sitting at a pub with their friends on holiday leave will one day find themselves in a dungeon in Gaza or Sinai or Lebanon undergoing unspeakable mental and physical torture for years. Their families will suffer inhuman agony.
The only thing we don't know about these future victims is their names. But we know what will become of them as surely as we know that night follows day.
Netanyahu has proven once again that taking IDF soldiers hostage is a sure bet for our Palestinian neighbors. They can murder the next batch of Sinais and Gals, Noas and Ruths. They can kill thousands of them. And they can do so knowing all along that all they need to do to win immunity for their killers is kidnap a single IDF soldier.
There is no downside to this situation for those who believe all Jews should die.
Caroline explains that while there is no rational reason for Netanyahu to have made this deal, there is plenty of rationale for Hamas: Netanyahu has granted them safe passage to Egypt (Israel Radio has reported that the Hamas headquarters is likely moving from Syria to Egypt, but has not reported that Netanyahu granted them safe passage).
According to Channel 2, in exchange for Schalit, beyond releasing a thousand murderers, Netanyahu agreed to give safe passage to Hamas's leaders decamping to Egypt.
What this means is that this deal is even worse for Israel than it looks on the surface.
Not only is Israel guaranteeing a reinvigoration of the Palestinian terror war against its civilians by freeing the most experienced terrorists in Palestinian society, and doing so at a time when the terror war itself is gradually escalating. Israel is squandering the opportunity to either decapitate Hamas by killing its leaders in transit, or to weaken the group by forcing its leaders to go down with Assad in Syria.
At best, Netanyahu comes out of this deal looking like a weak leader who is manipulated by and beholden to Israel's radical, surrender-crazed media. To their eternal shame, the media have been waging a five-year campaign to force Israel's leaders to capitulate to Hamas.
At worst, this deal exposes Netanyahu as a morally challenged, strategically irresponsible and foolish, opportunistic politician.
The picture at the top of this post is my daughter's friend Nava Applebaum HY"D and her father Dr. David Applebaum HY"D (May God Avenge their blood). The night before Nava's wedding, Nava and David were murdered by a suicide bomber, Ramez Sali Abu Salim, who had been released in a previous deal.
The murderer, Ramez Sali Abu Salim, from Rantis, northwest of Ramallah, had been freed from an Israeli prison in 2002. He was rearrested a few months later, but was freed again on February 20, 2003. Seven months later he was sent by the Hamas command in Ramallah to commit a terror attack in the heart of Jerusalem.
Here's Soccer Dad's Middle East Media Sampler for Friday, September 2:
1) Darth Friedman
Lando: Lord Vader, what about Leia and the Wookiee?
Darth Vader : They must never again leave this city.
Lando : [outraged] That was never a condition of our agreement, nor was giving Han to this bounty hunter!
Darth Vader : Perhaps you think you're being treated unfairly?
Lando : [after a pause; nervous tone] No.
Darth Vader : Good. You know it would be unfortunate if I had to leave a garrison here.
Lando : [to himself] This deal is getting worse all the time!
Darth Vader: Calrissian. Take the princess and the Wookie to my ship.
Lando: You said they'd be left at the city under my supervision!
Darth Vader: I am altering the deal. Pray I don't alter it any further
For the last 30 years, Israel enjoyed peace with Egypt wholesale — by having peace with just one man, Hosni Mubarak. That sale is over. Today, post-Mubarak, to sustain the peace treaty with Egypt in any kind of stable manner, Israel is going to have to pay retail. It is going to have to make peace with 85 million Egyptians. The days in which one phone call by Israel to Mubarak could shut down any crisis in relations are over.
It was an outrageous judgment then; the recent terror attacks from Egypt exposed the perniciousness of this viewpoint. Just as Darth Vader expected Lando Calrissian to accept his changing circumstances with equanimity, so does Thomas Friedman expect Israel to act. By Friedman's logic, Israel must keep Egypt happy, but Egypt need not reciprocate.
While Israel paid with hard, irreversible currency when it handed over land to the Arab side, the Arabs paid with soft, completely reversible currency - that is, words and agreements. Now we are hearing claims that these deals were made with the regimes rather than with the “people”; that is, they lack any legitimacy.
In Egypt there are many voices, including among presidential candidates, declaring that the Camp David Accord with Israel must be annulled or at least changed. That is, change the aspects that pertain to “peace” with Israel. Yet if the Egyptians wish to annul the Camp David Accord, will they return the Sinai desert to Israel? After all, they received this territory through the peace treaty between the two states, after failing to secure it through war. Yet for some reason, this is unthinkable for them.
Why is Israel responsible to make everyone else happy for there to be peace?
Syria will be his real test. The arguments for supporting Syrian protesters are easily as strong as those mustered to save the people of Benghazi. After months facing the regime snipers’ machine guns, tanks and torture, demonstrators are openly calling for foreign intervention. And the regime’s strategic sins against the United States are far greater than those committed by the Libyan Nero. Iran and the Lebanese Hezbollah — the two terrorist powerhouses of the Middle East — are Damascus’s closest friends. Almost every Arab terrorist group, spawned in the hothouses of Islamic militancy and Arab nationalism, has had a presence in Damascus. The ruling Assad family has been the great enabler of terrorism against the United States — from the 1983 Beirut bombings to the 1996 attack on Khobar Towers, and quite possibly to Sept. 11 via the operational carte blanche given to Imad Mughniya and Hezbollah. Mughniya, Iran’s dark Arab prince who served as Tehran’s liaison with Arab terrorists, and Hezbollah likely aided al-Qaeda in the 1990s. More so than any Sunni-led Arab state, the Assad regime has reveled in its “front-line” hostility toward Israel.
For decades foreign policy “realists” dreamed of severing the Assads and Syria’s ruling Shiite Alawite clan from Iran and marrying them to the peace process. This delusional aspiration — it ignored the sectarian and religious reality of Syrian politics — appears dead. Addicted to viewing the region through a Palestinian-Israeli lens, Obama may finally look strategically at Syria.
Gerecht clearly believes that the United States needs to get involved because the Syrian government isn't just turning its guns against its own people but has been an enemy in war to the United States and its allies.
After six weeks of tent encampments and rallies featuring popular singers that drew as many as 300,000 people into the streets on the first Saturday in August, the Sept. 3 rally has been described by its promoters as a million-person march.
But for now the movement is in a kind of hiatus, with nagging questions about where it will go. The mid-August attack by Palestinian militants that killed eight Israelis near the southern city of Eilat, close to the Egyptian border, followed by Israeli airstrikes on Gaza and Palestinian rocket attacks from Gaza, proved to be a major interruption, abruptly changing the public discourse back to the more familiar mode of Israeli security in hostile surroundings.
In addition, disagreements have emerged among the groups that make up the leadership of the protest movement, along with increasing grumbling about some of the higher-profile leaders themselves. The giddy festival atmosphere that first enveloped the social protest has dissipated. The rows of tents at the flagship encampment lining Rothschild Boulevard in Tel Aviv are gradually emptying.
I wish that Kershner had provided more details about the dissatisfaction with the leadership of the protests. Of course the emptying of the tents may just be a sign that summer's over and that protesters no longer have the time.
Despite Kershner's generally positive portrayal of the protests, Challah Hu Akbar pointed out that a feeder demonstration did not go well.
Some 20 activists from southern Israel marched to Jerusalem from the south and are protesting against the cost of living in front of the prime minister's residence.
The new editor of the Jerusalem Post, Steven Linde defends his decision to fire Larry Derfner:
By trying to rationalize the murder of his fellow Jews by terrorists, Derfner – who has always been the consummate journalist for the Post – went beyond the pale. Consequently we terminated his employment.
The move, I stress, had nothing to do with threats to cancel subscriptions or advertisements; it was an editorial decision taken on moral grounds. While politically independent, the Post is a quintessentially Zionist newspaper priding itself on its patriotism and credibility, as well as its balanced reporting and diverse commentaries.
If I'm understanding Linde he's arguing that Derfner's post was similar to yelling "fire" in crowded movie theater. So he, in turn said, "you're fired." A rabbi was recently arrested for incitement, so I wonder if there may have been a legal concern too.
5) Followup
Yesterday I wrote that Ehud Olmert was Netanyahu's successor, which is technically correct, since Netanyahu served as PM from 1996-1999 (I didn't write "immediate"), given the context, I meant "predecessor." Thank to Carl for pointing it out!
In Friday's JPost, editor Steven Linde discusses the decision to fire Larry Derfner.
When Derfner asked that we run the piece in the Post, we rejected it and dissociated ourselves completely from his comments, to which we object in the strongest possible terms.
Even though his column did not appear in the paper, we came to the conclusion that we could no longer provide a stage to someone who openly promulgates such venomous views.
Derfner later wrote an apology that we chose not to run. In it, he expresses deep regret for his blog post, saying: “My intention was to shock people into recognition, but I ended up shocking many of them into revulsion, and twisting what I wanted to say into something I didn’t and don’t mean at all.
“I regret what I wrote [last] Sunday. I apologize to everyone who was offended by it, and I apologize to my countrymen. The post is no longer on my blog; I’ve taken it down.”
The substance of Derfner’s apology itself was not convincing. He used ludicrous logic to defend his position, repeating the same obscene sentiments that made many readers sick to their stomachs in the first place.
He had meant, he said, “to shock Israelis and friends of Israel into seeing how badly we’re hurting the Palestinians by denying them independence: It’s so bad that it’s helping drive them to try to kill us.”
If you saw Oren Kessler’s article in the paper this week about the anti-Israel coverage in the Arab media following the attacks on the southern border, you may have noticed that their commentaries were not significantly different from Derfner’s.
Abdel Bari Atwan, editor-inchief of the London-based pan- Arab daily Al-Quds Al-Arabi, wrote that Israel bore direct responsibility for the terrorist attack on its soil.
“This attack put the spotlight back on the most important struggle – that for the honor of the Arab and Islamic nation,” Atwan argued. “Resistance is a legitimate right as long as land is occupied and the people and holy places are humiliated.”
Derfner’s blog later appeared on a Hamas website, giving succor to Israel’s enemies.
...
The move, I stress, had nothing to do with threats to cancel subscriptions or advertisements; it was an editorial decision taken on moral grounds. While politically independent, the Post is a quintessentially Zionist newspaper priding itself on its patriotism and credibility, as well as its balanced reporting and diverse commentaries.
We are certainly not silencing the Left, and will continue to feature columnists of all political stripes. Freedom of speech has its limits, however, and Derfner clearly overstepped them.
I'm amazed that Derfner even tried to get the Post to run that piece. At least they had the common sense not to run it.
But then we all knew who Derfner was long before this incident. We just never had our faces rubbed in it quite the same way before.
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
