Israel Matzav

The beginning of the end of Leftist domination of Israel's Foreign Ministry?

First, she’s a novice who has never held any executive branch position before, yet will now exercise de facto control over one of the cabinet’s most important ministries. Technically, she serves under Netanyahu, who retained the foreign affairs portfolio for himself. But since Netanyahu already has a full-time job as prime minister, she will largely run the ministry.

Second, she’s one of the most hawkish members of Netanyahu’s coalition and an outspoken opponent of Palestinian statehood. As The Jerusalem Post’s diplomatic correspondent, Herb Keinon, put it, “Hotovely represents the opposite of everything much of the world...wants to see in Israel.”

Third, in contrast to appointees like Miri Regev or Haim Katz, whose power bases within Likud were simply too strong for Netanyahu to ignore, Hotovely’s support inside the party is tenuous; in the last primary, she barely scraped into the 20th slot. Nor is she known as one of the premier’s own loyalists. Thus he was under no political compulsion to reward her with such a lofty post.

Finally, there were plenty of other candidates who would seemingly have been more suitable, including the one many American Jews undoubtedly hoped to see there: former ambassador to Washington and current Kulanu MK Michael Oren.

Indeed, Hotovely’s main qualification for the post – aside from being pretty, personable and reportedly speaking excellent English – would seem to be that she constitutes no threat to Netanyahu, who notoriously squelches anyone he does consider a potential political threat.

That’s why so many ambitious Likudniks eventually quit the party to run their own parties (see Moshe Kahlon, Naftali Bennett and Avigdor Liberman).

 

Gold, a former ambassador to the United Nations and currently head of the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, will be working under Deputy Foreign Minister Tzipi Hotovely, who was told about the appointment just prior to it being made public. He replaces Nissim Ben-Sheetrit, a veteran ministry employee who started out in its administrative track and then moved to the diplomatic side. 

...

[Former Foreign Minister Avigdor] Liberman commented on the appointment, saying that while it was Netanyahu’s prerogative to appoint his own man to this post, appointments at the ministry are not ways to give out favors or settle scores. He also said that “it needs to be clear that new appointments or changes are not a replacement for clear policy.”

In that regard, one government source said, Gold was the perfect candidate because he had a direct line to Netanyahu, and his interlocutors would know that when he speaks, he is speaking for Netanyahu and with authority.

“This will give him power and make him relevant,” the official said, noting that Ben-Sheetrit never enjoyed that status.

The American-born Gold is considered one of Netanyahu’s top foreign policy advisers. He served as one of his foreign policy advisers starting in 1996, during the prime minister’s first term in office, being appointed the following year as ambassador to the UN, where he served until 1999. In 2014, he became an “outside” consultant in the Prime Minister’s Office.

In recent years, Gold has accompanied Netanyahu on many of his trips to Washington and the UN, and over the years has been one of Israel’s foremost unofficial spokesmen, speaking in the media and at conferences around the world on Israeli policy. He is often sought out by journalists and diplomats because of his knowledge of the issues, and because he is considered to be close to Netanyahu, thus reflecting his thinking.

He has also been very active in lobbying policy-makers on behalf of “defensible borders” for Israel.

Hotovely spoke with Gold after the appointment and issued a statement, saying that with his rich experience in the international arena, the former UN ambassador could contribute to furthering Israel’s position in the world.

Dore Gold has done the State of Israel a great service by forcing us to focus on concrete things that we want out of the 'peace process.' Dore is fond of pointing out that when you ask a 'Palestinian' what he wants from the 'peace process,' he will tell you that he wants a 'Palestinian state' in the areas that are outside Israel's '1967 borders' (for now), whose capital is Jerusalem. If you ask an Israeli Jew what he wants from the 'peace process,' he will tell you 'peace.'

Dore is changing that paradigm. One of the things he believes that Israeli Jews can and should be demanding from the 'peace process' is defensible borders. His organization, the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, has put together a collection of essays that sets out in concrete terms what defensible borders mean. The collection is called Israel's Critical Security Needs for a Viable Peace. It's reviewed by Lee Smith in Tablet Magazine.

The book Israel’s Critical Security Needs for a Viable Peace is a collection published this year under the auspices of the JCPA with essays about security and diplomacy by leading figures in Israel’s security establishment, like Maj.-Gen. Aharon Ze’evi Farkash, former head of IDF intelligence, and Maj.-Gen. Uzi Dayan, former IDF deputy chief of staff and a former national security adviser to Prime Ministers Ehud Barak and Ariel Sharon. The volume’s findings represent a broad consensus across the Israeli political spectrum, and the fact that Lt.-Gen. Moshe Yaalon—former IDF chief of staff and currently the vice prime minister—wrote the introduction is evidence that the ideas have won approval at the highest political levels.

The book pushes three common ideas, some likely to add to the friction between Washington and Jerusalem: First, Israel, must not withdraw to the 1949 armistice lines; second, Israel needs defensible borders; third, Israel must rely on itself to defend itself and not on foreign forces as proposed by U.S. national security adviser Gen. James Jones, who has talked openly about replacing the IDF with international forces in the West Bank.

The insistence that Israel must retain the ability to defend its own borders—a basic attribute of national sovereignty—is the least controversial element of Gold’s blueprint. The issue is not merely the inglorious record of U.N. peacekeeping forces—from Sinai to Bosnia and Lebanon—but also the fact that the international community rarely sends its blue helmets into the middle of a real shooting war, which is what the West Bank would become if an IDF withdrawal left Hamas and Fatah at each other’s throats and eager to gain credit for launching terror attacks on Israel.

The concept of defensible borders is closely tied to the drawing of 1949 armistice lines, commonly and incorrectly known as the 1967 borders. As Gold explains in his contribution to the volume, successive U.S. administrations since Lyndon Johnson’s have all recognized the danger in Israel withdrawing to those borders. George Shultz, one of President Ronald Reagan’s secretaries of State, explained that “Israel will never negotiate from or return to the 1967 borders,” and the Clinton Administration reaffirmed the Reagan White House’s concept of defensible borders. However, it was during Clinton’s Camp David negotiations that then-Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak abandoned the idea of defensible borders in the hope of a radical breakthrough with Yasser Arafat. With the outbreak of the Second Intifada and peace nowhere in the offing, the George W. Bush Administration pledged not to hold the Israelis to the Clinton parameters and returned to the traditional U.S. position. “It is unrealistic to expect that the outcome of final status negotiations will be a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949,” reads an April 14, 2004 letter from Bush to then-Prime Minister Ariel Sharon.

The UJA-Federation’s top brass have been twisting the arms of Israel’s diplomatic corps to provide cover for supporting the New Israel Fund marching in the Israel Day Parade, according to emails obtained by JCCWatch.

The strategy to use the Foreign Ministry as their beard came to an uncomfortable public end last week, when the Spokesman for the Israeli Consulate in New York had to make a statement to deny what UJA-Federation CEO Eric Goldstein had told Talkline Communications radio host Zev Brenner on March 30. In an appearance on the show, Goldstein said, twice actually, that “the government of Israel, the Consul General’s office, very much, emphatically, want us to allow these groups to continue to march.”

The consulate spokesman told Arutz Sheva last week that at “no point did any of the parade’s organizers consult with the Consulate or with someone acting on its behalf regarding the New Israel Fund’s participation.” The newspaper quoted the spokesman directly as saying, “never, ever, did the Consul-General, or someone on his behalf, or any of the Consulate’s employees, say anything favoring the NIF’s participation, either explicitly or implicitly, in a hinted manner or in public, in secret or openly.”

The oddly worded distancing of the Consul-General’s office from the UJA-Federation comes as emails obtained by JCCWatch show Goldstein and former UJA-Federation president Jerry Levin, indeed, reaching out to Israeli ambassadors for exactly that kind of cover.

The email trail leading up to Goldstein’s foot-in-mouth routine, and reproduced below, casts a dark shadow on UJA-Federation leadership who were able to co-opt important Israel diplomats to publicly boost their cause of defending the New Israel Fund.

Labels: Avigdor Lieberman, Binyamin Netanyahu, defensible borders, Dore Gold, Israel's Foreign Ministry, Israeli Left, New Israel Fund, New York Jewish Federation, Salute to Israel Day Parade, Tzipi Hotovely

posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 12:46 PM 0 comments

Save this quote

Speaking from the White House, Obama said any decisions on the future of Crimea, a pro-Russian area of Ukraine, must include the country's new government.

"The proposed referendum on the future of Crimea would violate the constitution and violate international law," Obama said. "We are well beyond the days when borders can be redrawn over the heads of democratic leaders."

Labels: Barack Hussein Obama, Binyamin Netanyahu, defensible borders, Ukraine, Vladimir Putin

posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 2:16 PM 0 comments

The Jordan Valley obsession

The US's security plan involves a slow transition from IDF patrols over the region to Palestinian Authority (PA) forces, with an international presence, according to reports. IDF drones would also be deployed over the area, as a means of gathering information about any terrorist activity that could potentially develop there. 

The Israeli government has insisted that the region is of crucial importance to Israel's future, and has been critical of plans to hand over the area to the PA. Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu has insisted that in the event that Israel withdrew from Judea and Samaria, as per Kerry's plans, the Jordan Valley be kept under Israeli control.

The US's plan is based on the 1967 "Allon Plan," which received wide acclaim at the time. The plan insists that the Jordan Valley is the key to Israel's security, even in the event of a withdrawal to 1949 Armistice Lines; however, analysts have noted that the rest of Judea and Samaria is actually more crucial to Israel's security than the Jordan Valley itself.

Despite this, the Israeli government has insisted that its only "red line" would be maintaining its presence in the Valley. On Sunday, a Ministerial Cabinet approved a bill to annex the Valley on that premise. 

however, analysts have noted that the rest of Judea and Samaria is actually more crucial to Israel's security than the Jordan Valley itself.

Labels: Binyamin Netanyahu, borders and security, defensible borders, interim borders, Jordan Valley, Judea and Samaria, secure borders, temporary borders

posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 12:06 AM 3 comments

Building in Jerusalem is about Jewish rights

We've almost forgotten, but Zionism was formed in Zion. Building in Jerusalem -- the manifestation of the Jewish right to return to the homeland -- is Zionism. U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry and his European counterparts may not applaud those sentiments, but its high time we got used to that. More importantly -- Kerry has, for months, been speaking to us in one language, the language of security and security arrangements. We need to remind Kerry that Jews are living in Jerusalem and other cities and towns in Israel because of our bond and right to the land itself, not for the sake of security. We absolutely need to hold a discussion with Kerry and his counterparts about Jewish rights. That's what the Palestinians have done and that's what we need to do. Security is indeed a goal in and of itself, but it's also a means, and we tend to ignore that fact. Building in Jerusalem is the perfect reminder that we are living here in Israel not simply thanks to our might (which is extremely important), but more importantly by the might of our right.

Whether or not we release terrorists from prison, we must speed up our building in and around Jerusalem for other reasons as well. There's a struggle in the city and its environs that the public does not know about. That struggle is going to determine whether Israel could divide Jerusalem -- as the Left so desires -- or not. As Israelis and Palestinians compete to develop various parts of the city (most Palestinian development is illegal), urban contiguity is called into question. 

Take, for example, the Jewish neighborhood in Shimon Hatzadik-Sheikh Jarrah, which is only half finished. The city, under government orders, has halted construction. Once complete, the community would connect the neighborhoods of Ramot Eshkol and Maalot Dafna with Mount Scopus, where the Hadassah Medical Center and Hebrew University are located. If we don't tighten our grip on Sheikh Jarrah-Shimon Hatzadik, the Palestinians are going to do it themselves, bolstering their claims to the area as part of a final arrangement. Disconnecting Mount Scopus from the rest of Jerusalem -- before 1967 it was tiny enclave administered by the U.N. -- is one of the possible outcomes of that scenario.

The picture is similar over the hills between Jerusalem and Maaleh Adumim (inside the E1 zone). The U.S. has so far prevented Israel from building there, but the consequences of that decision are acute: Either there will be contiguous Israeli development from west to east, connecting Maaleh Adumim to Jerusalem, or contiguous Palestinian development from north to south, which would sever Maaleh Adumim from the capital. In the meantime, the Israelis have stopped building, while the Bedouin, encouraged by the Palestinians to disregard the Israeli authorities, are continuing to build. Even the fragile Israeli link between downtown Jerusalem and the string of neighborhoods Israel built up after 1967 is not secure. Between the two, there are swaths of land that, lacking Israeli development, the Palestinians will utilize. 

Housing in the capital is also a pressing matter. Some 18,000 Jews leave the city every year. Prices have skyrocketed because of the great demand and minimal supply. The Arabs also use the demographic angle to their advantage -- the Jewish majority is shrinking all the time. For these reasons and more, when Israel decides to build, it needs to be in the direction of Jerusalem.

Labels: borders and security, defensible borders, East Jerusalem, Jerusalem, Jerusalem construction, Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, John Kerry

posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 12:44 PM 1 comments

Livni and Molcho in conflict over Jerusalem, 'isolated settlements'

According to the [Israel Radio] report, Molcho asked to restrict the boundaries as much as possible, bordering on east Jerusalem, while Livni showed a more flexible stance.

Israel's opening position on the borders is the actual path of the separation barrier rather than the pre-1967 lines as demanded by the Palestinians, Israel Radio reported.

Israel wishes to retain not only the settlement blocs, but also some isolated settlements beyond the barrier, such as Psagot and Beit-El, the report added.

Israel has also stated that it will keep its hold on the Jordan Valley and its water resources, but Palestinians will be allowed to purchase water from Israel.

...

Sources at the Prime Minister's Office deny the issue concerning the borders, and added that it has been made clear to the Palestinians that Jerusalem will remain under Israeli sovereignty with its present borders.

Livni's office offered no comment, but stated that the the report was unfounded and meant to harm negotiations. The office added that Livni and Molcho were working in full collaboration.

Labels: Binyamin Netanyahu, defensible borders, East Jerusalem, Middle East peace process, security fence, Tzipi Livni, Yitzchak Molho

posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 12:56 PM 2 comments

Why accepting a 'two-state solution' delegitimizes Israel

Future historians will be baffled as to why such a manifestly disastrous, unworkable concept came to be embraced by so many prominent, allegedly well-informed pundits, politicians, and policy-makers. They will be particularly perplexed why the two-state solution was so enthusiastically endorsed not only by those who had a vested interest in feigning support for it, but by those who had a vested interest in exposing it as the duplicitous subterfuge it is. They will be mystified why – despite the fact that it proved devastating for both Arabs and Jews – it became the hallmark of enlightenment.

Recent events have brought home dramatically not only how futile it is for Israel and Israel-supporters to adhere to the two-state paradigm, but also how counterproductive it is.

For by pursuing the “vision” (read “fantasy”) of two states, they will not only fail to reap the intended benefits this policy is purported to yield, but will precipitate outcomes highly deleterious to Israel – indeed the very outcomes the two-state policy was supposed to prevent.

The latest round of rocket fire from Gaza underscored just how ill-considered it would be to relinquish more land to the Palestinians in Judea and Samaria. The recent Harvard one-state conference demonstrated how clinging to an unfeasible formula has merely generated the opportunity to promote even more menacing alternatives.

...

For whatever the final contours of a putative Palestinian state, it would entail a frontier of at least 300 kilometers – approximately six times longer than the Gaza front – much of which would be adjacent to Israel’s most populous urban centers, from the environs of Haifa in the north to Beersheba and beyond in the south. (Significantly, Beersheba is much closer to the pre-1967 border of the “West Bank” than it is to the Gaza Strip).

Moreover, unlike in Gaza, a Palestinian state in Judea and Samaria would reduce Israel’s width in its most populous areas to a minuscule 11-25 km. – roughly the distance from Beverly Hills to Malibu along Sunset Boulevard.

Even more important than geographic expanse – or the lack thereof – is topographical structure. Unlike the flat Gaza Strip, the limestone hills that comprise the “West Bank” dominate the urbanized Coastal Plain, together with much of Israel’s vital infrastructure, its only international airport, vital centers of civilian government and military command – and 80 percent of its population and commercial activity.

All of this would be in range of the weapons that forced a million Israelis into bomb shelters last weekend, now deployed along a much longer front and in far superior topographical positions.

Even given the impressive performance of the Iron Dome anti-rocket system, this would make any semblance of economic or social routine untenable.

...

The point many well-intentioned friends of Israel seem be to missing is that it is precisely “moderate supporters of the two-state solution” who have, in large measure, sown the seeds for the delegitimization of Israel.

While this contention may appear counterintuitive, the logic behind it is unassailable. Once the legitimacy of a Palestinian state is conceded, the delegitimization of Israel is inevitable.

The chain of reasoning is clear: If the legitimacy of a Palestinian state is accepted, then any measures incompatible with its viability are illegitimate. But, Israel’s minimum security requirements necessarily obviate the viability of Palestinian state. Thus, by accepting the admissibility of a Palestinian state, one necessarily admits the inadmissibility of measures required to ensure Israeli security.

Conversely, measures required to ensure Israeli security necessarily negate the viability of a Palestinian state.

For the notion of a secure Israel to regain legitimacy, the notion of a Palestinian state must be discredited and removed from the discourse as a possible means of resolving the Israeli-Arab conflict.

...

The first – and most crucial – step along this arduous road is to expose the Palestinian claim to nationhood for the hoax it is.

For the Palestinians are indeed an “invented people.” Not because Newt Gingrich deems them to be, but because they themselves declare this to be so.

The historical record is replete with proclamations from Arab and Palestinian leaders, echoing the frank admission by the late Zuheir Mohsen, former PLO Executive Council member, that a “separate Palestinian identity exists only for tactical reasons,” and that the “the establishment of a Palestinian state is a new tool to continue the fight against Israel.”

Indeed, the Palestinian National Charter (Article 12) concedes that the endeavor to “safeguard... Palestinian identity” in merely a temporary ruse.

Moreover, not only was the territory, now claimed as the age-old Palestinian homeland, under Jordanian rule for two decades prior to 1967, without even a feeble effort to establish a Palestinian state in it being made; but the Palestinians eschewed any sovereign claim to it, explicitly conceding (Article 24 of the 1964 National Charter) that it belonged to another sovereign entity – Jordan – which only in 1988 relinquished its claim to it.

It was only after these territories came under Jewish control that Palestinians began to see them as a location for their state.

Labels: Alan Dershowitz, defensible borders, two-state solution

posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 2:34 PM 1 comments

Israel makes border proposal to 'Palestinians'; 'Palestinians' call it non-starter

According to the official, Molcho did not draw a line on a map, but rather spoke in general principles about what Israel would take into consideration when drawing that line.

Israel's presentation of the principles guiding its thinking on the border issues, follows a similar presentation Israel gave the Palestinians Saturday night in Amman outlining the principles outlining its thinking on security issues.

...

In an apparent effort to preempt Palestinian claims that Israel refuses to deal with the border issue, the official said Israel "is dealing with the issues that the Quartet believes are important."

He said that both sides asked for clarification from the other regarding issues that were raised. "Israel's position remains that within the framework of a peace process moving forward, we are ready for mutual confidence measures. But the talks must be without preconditions."

One of the steps the Palestinians are asking for is a release of Fatah prisoners held in Israeli jails. Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu has made clear that one of the steps he expects from the Palestinian side is an end to incitement within the Palestinian Authority.

Palestinian officials said Friday that Israel's presentation of its ideas for border and security arrangements of a future Palestinian state at a meeting in Amman on Wednesday was a non-starter, envisaging a fenced-off territory of cantons that would preserve most Jewish settlements.

Israel's envoy to the talks, Yitzhak Molcho, outlined Wednesday night for the Palestinians the principles and parameters that will guide Israel's policy on border issues, an Israeli government official said. According to the official, Molcho did not draw a line on a map, but rather spoke in general principles about what Israel would take into consideration when drawing that line.

"He killed the two-state solution, set aside previous agreements and international law," said a Palestinian Liberation Organization source of Molcho's presentation. "Basically, the Israeli idea of a Palestinian state is made up of a wall and settlements."

An Israeli official said the presentation was in line with a framework for talks set by the Quartet -- the United States, European union, Russia and the United Nations.

Labels: defensible borders, direct talks, Middle East quartet

posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 3:46 PM 0 comments

The risks of a 'two-state solution'

Key US military officials expressed their assessments of Israel's security requirements in general and of the unique role played by the Judea & Samaria mountain ridges. For instance, Lt. General (ret.) Tom Kelly, Chief of Operations in the 1991 Gulf War: "I cannot defend this land (Israel) without that terrain (West Bank)...The West Bank mountains, and especially their 5 approaches, are the critical terrain. If an enemy secures those passes, Jerusalem and Israel become uncovered. Without the West Bank, Israel is only 8 miles wide at its narrowest point. That makes it indefensible."

...

General (ret.) Al Gray, former Commandant, US Marine Corps: “Missiles fly over any terrain feature, but they don't negate the strategic significance of territorial depth. The key threat to Israel will remain the invasion and occupation by armored forces. Military success requires more than a few hundred missiles. To defeat Israel would require the Arabs to deploy armor, infantry and artillery into Israel and destroy the IDF on the ground. That was true in 1948, 1967 and 1973, and it remains true in the era of modern missiles.”

The Judea & Samaria mountain ridges constitute the most effective tank obstacle (a 3,000ft steep slope over-towering the Jordan Valley, 40 miles away from Tel Aviv and pre-1967 Israel) and a dream platform of invasion to 9-15 miles wide pre-1967 Israel (a 2,000ft moderate slope) in the most conflict-ridden, unpredictable and treacherous neighborhood in the world. Israel's control of the Judea & Samaria mountain ridges provides Israel with the time, which is required to mobilize its active reservists (75% of the military force!) in face of a surprise offensive mounted by a few Arab countries.

The pre-1967 width of the Jewish State is equal to the distance between JFK and La Guardia airports, to distance between RFK Stadium and the Kennedy Center, the length of Dallas-Fort Worth airport, to the width of Washington, DC, San Francisco and Miami and to the distance between Wall Street and Columbia University. The pre-1967 sliver along the Mediterranean is less than the distance between downtown London and Heathrow Airport, equal to a roundtrip distance between Albert hall and the Tower of London and to the distance between Bois du Boulogne and La Place de la Bastille.

The Judea & Samaria mountain ridges constitute the "Golan Heights" of Jerusalem, Tel Aviv, Ben Gurion Airport and the entire pre-1967 coastal plain of the Jewish State, the core of its population and infrastructures.

Labels: defensible borders, Muslim dream of Israel's destruction

posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 1:18 AM 1 comments