Just received this by email. It came out a short while ago.
Joint Statement from Jason
Dov Greenblatt and David Friedman, Co-Chairmen of the Israel Advisory Committee
to Donald J. Trump
It has been an exhilarating
election cycle. Approximately seven months ago, we were blessed to have been
tapped by Donald J. Trump to be his top advisors with respect to the State of
Israel. We have been fortunate to work with a talented team of people and have
put together the below positions. Each of these positions have been discussed
with Mr. Trump and the Trump campaign, and most have been stated, in one
form or another, by Mr. Trump in various interviews or speeches given by him or
on his social media accounts. For those of you who are true friends of the
State of Israel, and for those of you who believe that the State of Israel and
the United States of America have an unbreakable friendship, we urge you to
read the below. We would like to express our gratitude to those individuals who
have helped us over the past few months – we truly appreciate your efforts,
friendship and guidance. We would also like to express our gratitude to our
friend, a great friend of the State of Israel, Donald J. Trump, who gave us the
tremendous opportunity to serve in this capacity. May God bless the United
States of America and the State of Israel.
·The unbreakable bond between the
United States and Israel is based upon shared values of democracy, freedom of
speech, respect for minorities, cherishing life, and the opportunity for all
citizens to pursue their dreams.
·Israel is the state of the Jewish
people, who have lived in that land for 3,500 years. The State of Israel was
founded with courage and determination by great men and women against enormous
odds and is an inspiration to people everywhere who value freedom and human
dignity.
·Israel is a staunch ally of the U.S.
and a key partner in the global war against Islamic jihadism. Military
cooperation and coordination between Israel and the U.S. must continue to grow.
·The American people value our close
friendship and alliance with Israel -- culturally, religiously, and
politically. While other nations have required U.S.
troops to defend them, Israelis have always defended their own country by
themselves and only ask for military equipment assistance and
diplomatic support to do so. The U.S. does not need to nation-build
in Israel or send troops to defend Israel.
·The Memorandum of
Understanding signed by the American and Israeli Governments is a good first
step, but there is much more to be done. A Trump Administration will ensure
that Israel receives maximum military, strategic and
tactical cooperation from the United States, and the MOU will not limit
the support that we give. Further, Congress will not be limited to give
support greater than that provided by the MOU if it chooses to do so. Israel
and the United States benefit tremendously from what each country brings
to the table – the relationship is a two way street.
·The U.S. should veto any United
Nations votes that unfairly single out Israel and will work in international
institutions and forums, including in our relations with the European Union, to
oppose efforts to delegitimize Israel, impose discriminatory double standards
against Israel, or to impose special labeling requirements on Israeli products
or boycotts on Israeli goods.
·The U.S. should cut off funds for the
UN Human Rights Council, a body dominated by countries presently run by
dictatorships that seems solely devoted to slandering the Jewish State. UNESCO’s
attempt to disconnect the State of Israel from Jerusalem is a one-sided attempt
to ignore Israel’s 3,000-year bond to its capital city, and is further evidence
of the enormous anti-Israel bias of the United Nations.
·The U.S. should view the effort to boycott,
divest from, and sanction (BDS) Israel as inherently anti-Semitic and take
strong measures, both diplomatic and legislative, to thwart actions that are
intended to limit commercial relations with Israel, or persons or entities
doing business in Israeli areas, in a discriminatory manner. The BDS movement
is just another attempt by the Palestinians to avoid having to commit to a
peaceful co-existence with Israel. The false notion that Israel is an occupier
should be rejected.
·The Trump administration will ask the
Justice Department to investigate coordinated attempts on college campuses to
intimidate students who support Israel.
·A two-state solution between Israel
and the Palestinians appears impossible as long as the Palestinians are
unwilling to renounce violence against Israel or recognize Israel’s right to
exist as a Jewish state. Additionally, the Palestinians are divided between PA
rule in the West Bank and Hamas rule in Gaza so there is not a united
Palestinian people who could control a second state. Hamas is a US-designated
terrorist organization that actively seeks Israel’s destruction. We will seek
to assist the Israelis and the Palestinians in reaching a comprehensive and
lasting peace, to be freely and fairly negotiated between those living in the
region.
·The Palestinian leadership, including
the PA, has undermined any chance for peace with Israel by raising generations
of Palestinian children on an educational program of hatred of Israel and Jews.
The larger Palestinian society is regularly taught such hatred on Palestinian
television, in the Palestinian press, in entertainment media, and in political
and religious communications. The two major Palestinian political parties –
Hamas and Fatah – regularly promote anti-Semitism and jihad.
·The U.S. cannot support the creation
of a new state where terrorism is financially incentivized, terrorists are
celebrated by political parties and government institutions, and the corrupt
diversion of foreign aid is rampant. The U.S. should not support the creation
of a state that forbids the presence of Christian or Jewish citizens, or that
discriminates against people on the basis of religion.
·The U.S. should support direct
negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians without preconditions, and
will oppose all Palestinian, European and other efforts to bypass direct
negotiations between parties in favor of an imposed settlement. Any solutions
imposed on Israel by outside parties including by the United Nations Security
Council, should be opposed. We support Israel’s right and obligation to
defend itself against terror attacks upon its people and against alternative
forms of warfare being waged upon it legally, economically, culturally, and
otherwise.
·Israel’s maintenance of defensible
borders that preserve peace and promote stability in the region is a necessity.
Pressure should not be put on Israel to withdraw to borders that make attacks
and conflict more likely.
·The U.S. will recognize Jerusalem as
the eternal and indivisible capital of the Jewish state and Mr. Trump’s
Administration will move the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem.
·Despite the Iran Nuclear deal in
2015, the U.S. State Department recently designated Iran, yet again, as the
leading state sponsor of terrorism – putting the Middle East particularly, but
the whole world at risk by financing, arming, and training terrorist groups
operating around the world including Hamas, Hezbollah, and forces loyal to
Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. The U.S. must counteract Iran’s ongoing
violations of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action regarding Iran’s quest for
nuclear weapons and their noncompliance with past and present sanctions, as well
as the agreements they signed, and implement tough, new sanctions when needed
to protect the world and Iran’s neighbors from its continuing nuclear and
non-nuclear threats.
A few observations:
1. It would be interesting to hear with what Hillary Clinton disagrees in this statement, if anything. It's a shame that no one who can will ask her, and no public statements are likely in the next week.
2. I would love to hear this directly from Donald Trump, rather than from his advisers. He should at least release this a statement saying he agrees with everything that is here.
3. To me, these are mainstream positions, certainly in Israel and probably among Republicans in the US as well. It would behoove all of us to carry these as talking points and to see who agrees with them and who does not.
An Israeli source noted that the Palestinians are claiming that Indyk
should be actively involved in talks and should be sitting at the
negotiating table. Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas,
who met with Indyk this week, asked him to be more involved. "The U.S.
role shouldn't be limited to supervision," Abbas told Indyk.
The
Israelis, on the other hand, expressed reservations about Indyk's
active involvement, claiming that these are direct, bilateral
negotiations. According to the Israeli position, the presence of an
American representative will only impede the talks and lead Palestinians
to harden their positions. Israel is willing that Indyk participate in
some of the meetings, but only if both sides consent.
Indyk's
involvement and impact in the last three rounds of talks has been
negligible. During the first round in Washington three weeks ago, Indyk
was present at some of the meetings, but was not involved in the last
two held last week in Jerusalem. On Tuesday, Indyk did not participate,
in spite of the fact that he has been in Israel for the last 10 days. He
has been spending his time in separate meetings with Israelis and
Palestinians.
No, we really don't need Indyk at the table. If the 'Palestinians' can't talk to us directly, how do they think they're going to live in peace with us?
Report: Even Obama knows that 'Abbas' doesn't want peace
A senior Israeli diplomatic official has told Israel Hayom that even President Obama recognizes that 'moderate' 'Palestinian' President Mahmoud AbbasAbu Mazen has no interest in peace.
Since Obama visited Israel in
March, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry has been trying to find a way
to renew peace negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians. Kerry's
efforts have led nowhere because neither side believes talks would
continue after an opening summit.
At this point, the peace process is stalled
because of Palestinian demands for a complete settlement freeze. In
public statements that he made in Jerusalem and Ramallah, Obama rejected
preconditions for the renewal of peace talks. Yet the Palestinians
continue to insist on a number of preconditions, including, among
others, the release of more than 100 terrorists imprisoned in Israel for
attacks they committed before the signing of the Oslo Accords in the
early 1990s.
Abbas is also demanding that Netanyahu present
a map of the final borders of a Palestinian state. The Prime Minister's
Office strongly rejects this demand, saying borders should be the last
core issue discussed. Israeli officials believe Abbas is demanding a
border map to spark internal controversy in Israel over settlements that
would not remain inside the country.
The senior diplomatic official said that the
relationship between Netanyahu and Obama was "very good." The official
said Obama "opened a new page and during his recent trip to Israel
proved that he came as a friend."
Some Israeli officials point to the upcoming
2014 U.S. Congressional elections as a reason for Obama's embrace of
Israel. According to this line of thought, Obama wants to soften
Congress so that it will not thwart his plans.
But the more dominant assessment among Israeli
officials is that the Obama administration changed its tune toward
Israel due to the consequences of the Arab Spring.
2014 is a much more likely explanation than the Arab spring. The Arab spring was in 2011 and Obama kept pressuring Israel for as long as he thought he could get away with it without ruining his reelection chances. Obama is hoping to regain a House majority, and that won't happen if he has to answer everywhere for pressuring Israel.
But the senior Israeli diplomatic official has Abu Mazen right.
The official said he believed that Abbas' policy was to "stay in place."
"Abbas saw that after the disengagement
[Israel's pullout from the Gaza Strip in 2005], despite the relative
strength he had there with 35,000 fighters against the 4,000 of Hamas,
Hamas expelled him," the official said. "In light of the events taking
place in Arab countries in the Middle East, he does not want the same
thing to happen in Judea and Samaria."
Abu Mazen is about keeping himself alive and staying in power. Always has been and always will be.
'Palestinian' chief negotiator bottle washer Saeb Erekat is claiming to be 'unaware' of what's behind Israeli media reports that Prime Minister Netanyahu will meet with 'moderate' 'Palestinian' President Mahmoud AbbasAbu Mazen is while President Obama is in the region.
Commenting on reports that Abbas and Netanyahu may meet during US
President Barak Obama's visit to the region next month, Erekat said that
the US administration still has not briefed the PA leadership on
details of Obama's schedule.
Erekat said that the talk about a possible Abbas-Netanyahu summit was
nothing but "Israeli analysis and statements." He said that the PA
leadership's demands regarding the peace process remained unchanged -
Israeli recognition of the pre-1967 lines as the borders of a
Palestinian state and a full cessation of construction in settlements.
The more things change... Obama bringing back linkage
If you thought that the Obama administration has learned anything about the Middle East in the last four years, you are dead wrong, at least if an article in Sunday's Times of London (behind a paywall) is correct. The article claims that in honor of his trip to Israel, President Hussein Obama is offering Prime Minister Netanyahu a deal: 'Progress' on the 'Palestinians' in exchange for more pressure on Iran.
According to the
report, the US promised to raise the heat on the Iran issue in return for more
open talks with the Palestinian leader even if core
issues such as Jerusalem and the issues of Palestinian refugees is not
raised.
The Times quoted Aaron David Miller, of the Woodrow Wilson
Center, an adviser on the Middle East to six US secretaries of state as saying
"Barack Obama does not want to be the American president on whose watch Iran
acquires a nuclear weapon or be accused of presiding over the demise of what’s
left of the two-state solution."
This is so wrong. If turning up the pressure on Iran is the right thing to do (which it is), then that ought to happen regardless of what happens with the 'Palestinians.' Doing it this way just tells the 'Palestinians' to keep being their intransigent selves, to force Netanyahu to bargain with himself - or with Obama - and to just sit and wait for Netanyahu to give up everything. Just like 'moderate' 'Palestinian' President Mahmoud AbbasAbu Mazentold the Washington Post's Jackson Diehl four years ago.
Yet on Wednesday afternoon, as he prepared for the White House meeting
in a suite at the Ritz-Carlton in Pentagon City, Abbas insisted that his
only role was to wait. He will wait for Hamas to capitulate to his
demand that any Palestinian unity government recognize Israel and swear
off violence. And he will wait for the Obama administration to force a
recalcitrant Netanyahu to freeze Israeli settlement construction and
publicly accept the two-state formula.
Until Israel meets his demands, the Palestinian president says, he will
refuse to begin negotiations. He won't even agree to help Obama's envoy,
George J. Mitchell, persuade Arab states to take small
confidence-building measures. "We can't talk to the Arabs until Israel
agrees to freeze settlements and recognize the two-state solution," he
insisted in an interview. "Until then we can't talk to anyone."
...
What's interesting about Abbas's hardline position, however, is what it
says about the message that Obama's first Middle East steps have sent to
Palestinians and Arab governments. From its first days the Bush
administration made it clear that the onus for change in the Middle East
was on the Palestinians: Until they put an end to terrorism,
established a democratic government and accepted the basic parameters
for a settlement, the United States was not going to expect major
concessions from Israel.
Obama, in contrast, has repeatedly and publicly stressed the need for a
West Bank settlement freeze, with no exceptions. In so doing he has
shifted the focus to Israel. He has revived a long-dormant Palestinian
fantasy: that the United States will simply force Israel to make
critical concessions, whether or not its democratic government agrees,
while Arabs passively watch and applaud. "The Americans are the leaders
of the world," Abbas told me and Post Editorial Page Editor Fred Hiatt.
"They can use their weight with anyone around the world. Two years ago
they used their weight on us. Now they should tell the Israelis, 'You
have to comply with the conditions.' "
Two of the prime minister’s aides will arrive
in Washington this week in an attempt to link the Iranian and Palestinian
issues, The Times reported. If the report over Obama's attempt to appease Netanyahu is authentic,
the White House is receptive to the link.
Here's a true flying pigs moment as I find myself agreeing with 'Palestinian' chief negotiatorbottle washer Saeb Erekat. Saeb is refusing to repeat the 'lunacy' of 'peace talks.'
“These are not Palestinian conditions, but
obligations that Israel is required to fulfill,” Erekat said. He said that there
would be no EU initiative to resume the peace talks without US
involvement.
Erekat called on the administration of US President Barack
Obama to “stop treating Israel as if it were a country above the
law.”
The Palestinians, he added, would not “repeat the lunacy of
returning to the negotiations while Israel is not fulfilling its
obligations.”
The 'obligations' to which Saeb is referring are a 'settlement freeze' and a mass release of 'Palestinian' terrorists from Israeli prisons.
Funny, but I don't recall us agreeing to that as a condition to starting 'negotiations.'
But I agree with Saeb. Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. Returning to 'peace talks' with lunatics like Saeb and Abu Bluff would be lunacy.
Israel fighting 'Palestinian' statehood bid with a cartoon
Israel is fighting the 'Palestinian' bid to have their reichlet recognized by the United Nations with cartoons.
Here's a message from the Israeli embassy in Washington that goes with each clip:
Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas has a decision to make. Directly
negotiate peace with Israel, or make a bad situation worse. Time and
time again, President Obama and other world leaders have called him to
the negotiating table. Time and time again President Abbas has chosen
the futile path.
Leadership is needed now. President Abbas must
stop the journey in the wrong direction--appealing to the United
Nations--turn away from the cliff, and return to the negotiating table.
The path to peace begins with the seven minutes between Jerusalem and
Ramallah, not on UN podiums. Going to the UN General Assembly is a
mistake.
Israel continues to seek a solution of two states for
two peoples, the Jewish state of Israel next to an Arab state of
Palestine, side by side in peace and security.
Let's go to the videotape.
Here's the second clip. Let's go to the videotape.
Someone please tell me that our government doesn't really believe that this is going to change Abu Bluff's mind.....
'Moderate' 'Palestinian' President Mahmoud AbbasAbu Mazen makes another absurd demand as a precondition to resuming 'negotiations,' and instead of just blowing him away, our foolish Prime Minister starts 'negotiating' it.
Haaretz is reporting that something which in the pre-Obama days of Middle East diplomacy was taken for granted–the willingness by Palestinians to meet for the purposes of political theater–has turned into something that requires ever more concessions. The latest is the Palestinian demand that Israel release 125 terrorists just for the pleasure of Abbas considering a meeting. Benjamin Netanyahu has supposedly accepted the offer, and issued a proposal for how to structure the deal.
There are caveats to this: it’s possible Israel was mulling the release of the prisoners at some point in the near future anyway; alternatively, as Abbas has no intention of negotiating it probably won’t happen. Nonetheless, the mere whiff of such a story going public will have negative consequences, as the following two key paragraphs of the story indicate:
The Palestinians are at this point said to be in no hurry to agree to Netanyahu’s proposal; they are concerned that after the initial stage of prisoner release Israel will find excuses not to carry out the other four. The Palestinians also say Israel’s proposal for the exchange of old weapons for new ones is “humiliating,” and does not meet their security needs.
And:
Talks between Erekat and Molho are ongoing ahead of U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s visit to Israel next Monday. This will be Clinton’s first visit to Israel since September 15, 2010, when she, Netanyahu and Abbas met at the prime minister’s residence in Jerusalem. The talks have been stalled since that meeting.
On the first: the Palestinians are actually balking at their own ridiculous demands because Israel is only agreeing to release some weapons and some murderers to them–surely a recipe for peace–but are afraid they won’t get all the murderers and all the guns and ammo they’re asking for. Translation: they made a crazy offer designed to repulse the Israelis enough to keep them away from the negotiating table. The Israelis accepted the crazy offer–something the Palestinians didn’t anticipate–and now Abbas must find a way to weasel out of it. (He’s done this before; it works.) It’s possible the Israelis are simply calling Abbas’s bluff here. If so, the peace process is no less of a cynical joke than it has been for years.
On the second excerpt from the story: Hillary Clinton is coming to the region (though she is bound to get lost on the way to Jerusalem, since she still doesn’t know what country it’s in) to do some peacemaking, and would like the publicity stunt of announcing the resumption of talks. If she is serious, the first thing she should do is reprimand the Palestinians for trying to extort this face-to-face meeting with Netanyahu. If not, she should save the trip and her breath. If what she wants is peace, she cannot in good faith bless this sort of disaster.
Bibi used to have you-know-what's. He seems to have lost them sometime between taking Ehud Barak and Shaul Mofaz into his government. 'Negotiations without preconditions' should mean 'negotiations without preconditions.' It shouldn't mean another chance to extort 'gestures.'
“The election in November between President Obama and Mitt Romney could have important consequences for the peace process,” Lauder told The Jerusalem Post. “I believe that the uncertainty over who will win the election could and perhaps should convince the Palestinians that it would be in their own best interest to restart the peace process as soon as possible.”
Lauder noted that solving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict had fallen off the international agenda, due to the increasing focus on other problems in the Middle East, such as preventing the nuclearization of Iran, the Syrian civil war and the Muslim Brotherhood’s takeover of Egypt. He said the Palestinian issue can become a top priority again if the PA agrees to restart negotiations without preconditions.
“There has never been a better time to make a peace treaty between the two peoples,” said Lauder, who recently met with Abbas in London. “If both sides can sit down, I think a deal could be made quickly. I fear that unless something happens to restart negotiations in the next several months, it could lead to another Palestinian intifada.”
Lauder said he was optimistic due to the widening of the coalition and the addition of the Kadima party to the government. Kadima’s leader, Vice Premier Shaul Mofaz, is expected to meet with Abbas on Sunday.
“The widening of the coalition helps dramatically,” Lauder said.
“With 94 seats in the coalition, if there was a deal done, I think it would pass.”
Asked why he thought the Palestinians would make a deal now after rejecting Olmert’s offer of 100 percent of the West Bank with land swaps, taking in thousands of Palestinian refugees and dividing and internationalizing Jerusalem, Lauder said that sometimes people refuse an offer for their house and later end up accepting a lower offer later on.
“Sometimes a good offer made at the wrong time does not go as well as a not as good offer made at the right time,” he said.
Why is this wrong? Let me count the ways:
1. There is no indication that the 'Palestinians' intend to come to the table without preconditions.
2. Most 'Palestinians' are quite happy with the status quo, are more interested in putting bread on their tables than in an intifada, and are leery of the prospect of living in a 'Palestinian state.'
3. It is doubtful that the 'Palestinians' will accept less than Olmert offered. It is likely that they will insist on more.
4. If Romney wins, that's good for the Jews, and if Obama - God forbid - wins, the 'Palestinians' are likely to drag out the negotiations until his second term begins.
5. It is doubtful that much of the coalition will vote with Netanyahu on a deal that even approaches the concessions made by Olmert. Much of the Likud won't. None of the parties to the right of the Likud will vote for such a deal. That leaves Ehud Barak's lame duck Atzmaut party and some or all of Kadima.
6. The 'Palestinians' are not the most urgent item on the World's agenda, and aren't even likely to become the most urgent item if Obama wins, although admittedly, they are Obama's special friends.
How's that re-set Barack? Putin praises Abu Bluff's approach to 'peace'
Pressing that re-set button with the Russians has sure done wonders to make them helpful with the 'peace process.' Tuesday saw Russian President Vladimir Putin praising the approach of 'moderate' 'Palestinian' President Mahmoud AbbasAbu Mazen to the 'peace process.' That approach has consisted of refusing nearly all negotiations for the last three and a half years.
Russian President Vladimir Putin on Tuesday met with Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, praising him for his approach to the peace process.
Speaking following the leaders' meeting in Bethlehem, Putin said that the "Palestinian leadership, and the president personally, have been behaving responsibly to achieve peace based on the two-state solution."
Putin said that the Soviet Union had recognized a Palestinian state in 1988 and Russia's view on the matter had not changed.
Abbas called for an international peace conference to take place in Moscow, according to the Bethlehem-based Ma'an News Agency.
The PA president reiterated his position that peace negotiations would not resume until Israel halted settlement activity.
According to Ma'an the two leaders also discussed efforts at Hamas-PA reconciliation.
I hope that Prime Minister Netanyahu and Foreign Minister Lieberman are happy that they built that huge monument to the Russian Red Army in Netanya. That gained them almost as much political capital with the Russians as Obama's 'reset button' gained him.
US Middle East envoy David Hale is expected to return to the region in the coming days for talks aimed at reviving the peace process, Ameen Makbul, a Fatah official in the West Bank, said Thursday.
Makbul did not say whether Hale would try to arrange a meeting between Abbas and Netanyahu.
Makbul said that Hale would brief the PA leadership on US plans to break the current stalemate in the peace process.
The Americans have told the Palestinian leadership that they have "positive ideas" to revive the peace process, Makbul said.
After Hale's visit, the PA leadership will make a final decision whether to go ahead with the statehood bid at the UN or return to the negotiating table, the Fatah official said.
The London-based Al-Quds Al-Arabi newspaper quoted a senior Palestinian official said that renewed US efforts to revive the peace talks are designed to stop the PA from pursuing its plan to seek unilateral UN recognition of a Palestinian state.
The official said that fresh US ideas include more goodwill gestures on the part of Israel, such as the release of Palestinian prisoners and freezing settlement construction.
Funny, those 'new' ideas sound remarkably like the old ones, don't they?
Last night, somebody in the US sent me an email telling me that a well-known persona in the US had suggested that now that Israel has a 'big' government, it can 'afford' to adopt a 'settlement freeze' without worrying about losing its 'extremists' in the coalition. He suggested that I run the story on my blog. I told him that I would not give the person who proposed doing this the publicity by publishing the idea on my blog, because I think that it's an idea that's been tried and failed, and that it's a stupid idea. I cited Einstein's definition of stupidity.
This morning, there was a commentary on Israel Radio that explained that more than anyone else in Israel, Prime Minister Netanyahu aims to please Defense Minister Ehud Barak, even though Barak seemingly has no political base and may not even be a part of the next Knesset. The example they cited was Netanyahu's killing a bill to increase the power of the National Security Council, which had been promoted by National Security Adviser Uzi Arad, who has been a Netanyahu confidant for many years. The bill was killed because Barak didn't like it - he didn't want to take away more power from his ministry or from the IDF. The context was that as a result of the bill being killed, the National Security Council played no significant role in planning what became the Mavi Marmara fiasco.
Netanyahu cannot adopt Ehud Barak's policies vis a vis the 'Palestinians,' which, as you may recall, involved giving the 'Palestinians' 95% or so of what they wanted. While Netanyahu may have dodged a bullet regarding the law last week that would have saved Beit El's Ulpana neighborhood, I believe that he would have a very difficult time keeping the Likud in line for a Knesset vote on a 'settlement freeze.' Let alone all those 'extremists' who would most certainly desert him.
Then again, having a coalition of 30 or so (out of 120) did not stop Ehud Barak from going to Camp David in 2000.
Netanyahu and Abu Mazen have a 'channel of communications'
Haaretz reports that even though they're not really talking, Prime Minister Netanyahu and 'moderate' 'Palestinian' President Mahmoud AbbasAbu Mazen have a 'channel of communications' open.
It is Molho and Erekat who are maintaining the line of communication between Jerusalem and Ramallah. Senior officials in Jerusalem and Western diplomats said that the two have met six or seven times in the past two months.
The talks between Erekat and Molho in recent months can't be characterized as peace talks. The Palestinians' preconditions for entering into negotiations have remained as they were – talks on the basis of the 1967 ceasefire lines and the freezing of construction in West Bank settlements. Netanyahu's announcement of the construction of 851 new housing units in the settlements is a sign that peace talks aren't expected to start anytime soon.
The line of communications between Netanyahu and Abbas has to do more with the mundane day-to-day problems between the two sides that need to be addressed at the highest levels. Erekat and Molho held four or five meetings concerning the exchange of communiqués between Netanyahu and Abbas during April and May. These meetings dealt mostly with coordinating the phrasing of the communiqués and several requests on the part of the Palestinians for gestures of good will by the Israelis.
Since Molho arrived at Ramallah on May 11 and delivered Netanyahu's communiqué to Abbas, he has had another two meetings with Erekat on the subject of the Palestinian prisoners' hunger strike, a Palestinian request for a permit to bring weapons and ammunition in from Jordan to supply the Palestinian Authority's security forces, and other issues.
In the last three weeks no meetings were held, after Erekat suffered two heart attacks and went on a prolonged vacation from which he will return on Sunday. "It's true we've been meeting regularly in the past few months as well as talking on the phone, but one shouldn't read too much into this," Erekat said Saturday. "We will continue meeting ant talking if need be, but the conditions for renewing the negotiations remain as they were."
Molho brought up the possibility of a meeting between Netanyahu and Abbas several times during his meetings with Erekat, even if these aren't characterized as renewed peace talks. The Palestinians didn't agree to this, but Abbas expressed some more openness to the idea over the weekend.
"For us to return to the negotiation table the construction in the settlements must be stopped," Abbas said in Paris on Friday. "But if Netanyahu agrees to free prisoners and allow our police force to receive a shipment of weapons, then we will sit down and talk, though this will not be peace talks. This is what he [Netanyahu] offered."
Of course, for the last three years, we didn't even have these communications. What could go wrong?
Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas Tuesday called on Israelis "not to turn your back to the prospects of peace" and cautioned that the chances to achieve peace could not remain for too long.
In a speech before the International Economic Forum in Istanbul, Turkey, Abbas said: "We say to our Israeli neighbors that we want peace, justice and freedom. Our people made big sacrifices when they agreed to the establishment of a Palestinian state on less than one-quarter of the and of historic Palestine. Don't turn your back to the the chance that is available today because it could not last for a long period."
Actually, 73% of 'historic Palestine' already belongs to 'Palestinians.' It's called JORDAN.
Abbas urged the US and other members of the UN Security Council to convince Israel to halt construction in the settlements in order to pave the way for the resumption of the peace process.
The region, he added, needs to start building bridges of cooperation, peace and dialogue and not the erection of walls and expansion of settlements.
In other words, don't hold your breath waiting for him to come to the table and negotiate with Israel. He's too busy with Hamas.
On Wednesday, I reported that Defense Minister Ehud Barak told a conference here in Israel that we should unilaterally withdraw from much of Judea and Samaria because we can't reach an agreement with the 'Palestinians.' The 'Palestinians' immediately came out against the idea, because there is no way we could give this spoiled 'people' enough to satisfy them, and they don't want to create any expectations that they might ever live in peace with us. Now, Hillary Clinton agrees with the 'Palestinians': There is no substitute for negotiations.
"We have discouraged unilateral action from both sides," said Clinton when asked about the possibility during a press conference while on trip to Denmark. "The United States believes there is no substitute for direct talks between the parties."
...
Clinton, however, said the new political environment in Israel gave some hope for movement in the peace process and that the US would be pushing for such momentum.
"This new coalition government in Israel provides the best opportunity in several years to reach such a negotiated agreement," she said.
Clinton noted that she had called both Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas to press them to take advantage of the "new opening" created by Israel's broad coalition.
"We’re going to continue to urge them to do so," she emphasized, pointing also to Israel's return of 91 bodies of Palestinian suicide bombers as another sign of potential progress.
I wonder whether Secretary Clinton also considers the 'Palestinian' celebration of the 'heroes' return to be another 'sign of potential progress.'
Let's go to the videotape. Keep in mind that each of those coffins contains a suicide bomber or other terrorist.
Netanyahu watered down response to Abu Mazen to satisfy Kadima
Prime Minister Netanyahu's response to the letter he received from 'moderate' 'Palestinian' President Mahmoud AbbasAbu Mazen was toned down considerably as a result of Kadima's inclusion in the unity government coalition. The original response had been much more 'unfriendly.' Nevertheless, Abu Bluff is angry about the response and is threatening once again to go to the United Nations.
In response to Abbas’s indictment of Israeli actions over the last 20 years, Jerusalem drew up a response in kind which was not considered “friendly.” But once the unity government with Kadima was established, the decision was made not to get into polemics with the PA, but rather to water down the response and essentially tell the Palestinians that now that there was a broad government, there was a chance to start anew with negotiations, and that this opportunity should not be missed.
The Israeli letter that was sent, the Post has learned, was one-and-a-half pages long and short on details.
Abbas’s letter outlined his conditions for returning to the negotiating table, demanding Israeli recognition of the pre- 1967 lines as the basis for future peace talks, a full cessation of construction in the settlements and east Jerusalem and the release of Palestinian prisoners.
...
Abbas, meanwhile, met with US Consul- General Daniel Rubinstein and discussed with him the latest developments surrounding efforts to resume the stalled peace talks.
Abbas, according to one of his aides, told the US diplomat that he was disappointed with Netanyahu’s reply.
The PA prime minister renewed his threat on Thursday to unilaterally seek UN recognition of a Palestinian state in response to Israel’s refusal to accept his conditions for resuming talks.
His threat was made during an interview published Thursday with the Lebanese daily An-Nahhar.
Abbas also told the paper that the exchange of letters between him and Netanyahu has reached a “deadlock.”
Abbas said that he was expecting the Americans to come forward with “new ideas” to revive the peace process.
He said that any idea should include a freeze of settlement construction and recognition of the pre-1967 lines “with some land swaps.” Otherwise, Abbas cautioned, “we will go to the UN to extract a seat for Palestine as a non-member state.”
Abbas also reiterated his refusal to recognize Israel as a Jewish state, saying the PLO, by signing the Oslo Accords, had recognized Israel.
Which Americans does he think are going to come up with 'new ideas'? And why does he think he has the right to expect that the 'new ideas' will include so many old ones?
Here's Soccer Dad's Middle East Media Sampler for Tuesday, March 13.
1) Comparative analysis - Gaza
Yesterday, Dr. Jonathan Spyer wrote Islamic Jihad attacks, Hamas’s dilemmas for PJ Media and Isabel Kershner and Fares Akram wrote As Rockets Fly, New Conditions Shape Fight in Gaza for the New York Times. Both analyses cover similar elements. It would be interesting to compare the way each covers the recent escalation by Islamic Jihad (PIJ) against Israel.
New York Times:
Hamas has been involved in a delicate balancing act, allowing the smaller militant groups like Islamic Jihad to avenge the deaths of their comrades in Israeli airstrikes but at the same time urging a restoration of calm. Islamic Jihad, the group firing most of the rockets in this round of violence, is challenging Hamas in Gaza. The chief of Islamic Jihad, which is backed by Iran, has remained in Syria. The Hamas leadership recently abandoned its base there and expressed its support for the Syrian people in their struggle against President Bashar al-Assad. Mkhaimar Abusada, a political science professor at Al-Azhar University in Gaza, said that Hamas, as the ruling power in Gaza, feels it has more responsibility than other groups and knows that any confrontation with Israel would cost it dearly. Islamic Jihad, he added, wants to demonstrate that it is not switching sides and abandoning Syria.
Jonathan Spyer:
From Hamas’ standpoint the escalation comes at an unwelcome time. The movement is in the midst of a tricky political process whereby it is seeking to extricate itself from the regional bloc led by Iran and to realign with the Sunni rulers of Egypt and Qatar. This move comes as a result of both problems and opportunities opened up by political upheavals in the Arab world — especially the largely Islamist revolution in Egypt — and by Iran’s backing for the Syrian government’s assault on the largely Sunni Arab population in the civil war there. ... Consequently, if Gaza’s rulers continue to let Islamic Jihad and the PRC escalate the situation, at a certain point an Israeli ground incursion will become inevitable. This will then potentially place the survival of the Hamas regime in jeopardy at a time when the Gaza rulers perceive a historic opportunity to achieve dominance within their movement, including control over the West Bank. Moreover, Hamas would also prefer to wait until a time when the Muslim Brotherhood has more control over Egypt and can offer it stronger backing. ... However, if Hamas appears too eager to secure a renewed ceasefire with Israel, Gaza’s leaders risk being presented by their rivals as a client regime of America and Israel in exactly the same way that Hamas has historically used to excoriate the PA. Islamic Jihad, once a marginal group, is now emerging as a major force in Gaza. This movement, unlike Hamas, has no problem working with Iran and getting money, guns, and orders from Tehran.
New York Times:
For Israel, the success of its recently deployed Iron Dome antirocket missile system has had an impact. Since the hostilities began on Friday, the missile batteries have managed to intercept 54 of the nearly 70 Palestinian rockets that were aimed at the major cities of the south, the Israeli military said. The prevention of mass casualties and damage has reduced pressure on the country’s leaders to embark on a major military operation in Gaza and given them more time to weigh their options, according to Israeli officials and experts.
Jonathan Spyer:
The dilemma from Hamas’ point of view is as follows: until now, the impressive performance of Israel’s Iron Dome system has minimized Israeli casualties and thus enabled Israel to calibrate its response accordingly. But if Israeli civilians are killed, the government may well opt for a significant ground invasion.
New York Times:
Israeli officials confirmed that Hamas had sent messages via Egypt asking to restore the informal cease-fire that had largely been in effect since the last round of fighting. Israel said it would continue to act in Gaza as long as necessary. A spokesman for Islamic Jihad implicitly criticized Hamas for running from conflict after a lull, telling reporters in Gaza on Monday that from now on, “the resistance would impose conditions for any truce.”
Jonathan Spyer:
Hamas spokesman Taher al-Nunu stated March 10 that “all Palestinian factions” wanted a renewed truce but that Israel must stop firing first. Hamas is also currently insisting that Israel commit to avoid targeted killings in Gaza in the future — a condition entirely unacceptable to Jerusalem. Islamic Jihad spokesman Daud Shihab, however, denied that the organization was involved in any contacts to end the clashes. The political game in which each group tries to claim the mantle of greater militancy against Israel is once again in play. But the words of the Hamas spokesman suggested that the stage of bargaining had begun. So this round is likely to end in the coming days — barring unforeseen developments — with a return to an uneasy de facto ceasefire.
Overall both articles cover similar ground. The difference would be one of emphasis. The New York Times emphasizes Israel's concerns more. For example:
Since the overthrow of President Hosni Mubarak of Egypt, a close ally of Israel, and the rise of Islamic political parties there, Israel has been aware that there is less tolerance in Cairo for a major Israeli offensive in Gaza. The Israel-Egypt peace treaty is already under strain. “The interim situation in Egypt is unclear,” Ehud Yaari, an Israel-based fellow of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, said in an interview. “Israel has no interest in putting the Egyptians to the test.”
Dr. Spyer though emphasizes Israel's relatively secure position:
If this happens, the Israel defense establishment will be able to register an achievement. It will have showed it can act decisively to ensure the security of Israeli citizens, and then use sophisticated techniques to minimize the damage of the response from Gaza and force a return to quiet.
He also gave some emphasis to the competition between Egypt and Iran:
It is quite possible, though one doesn’t know for sure, that Iran is involved in some way in the Islamic Jihad decision to escalate. This would constitute a shrewd message to Hamas regarding the potential cost of leaving its patronage. And it could also be taken as an Iranian response to threats from Israel, and the United States as well, about attacking Iranian nuclear facilities. The message: Iran has resources for striking back against Israel.
One more element that is in the New York Times is:
In the meantime, there remained a risk that hostilities could escalate.
Coupled with a statement at the end of the article from Ban Ki Moon, escalation itself is presented as a bad thing; how Israel protects its citizens from terrorist - I mean, militant - attacks is not a concern. So the two articles are pretty similar, but it's hard to avoid the feeling that the New York Times sees Israel and Hamas as being equally responsible for the violence.
2) Comparative Analysis - Ramallah
Alexander Joffe and Asaf Romirowsky have written the New Palestinian Realism. Joffe and Romirowsky conclude:
To judge from discussions with Israeli officials and the media, Gaza, Hamas and the continuing low level of rocket fire are the immediate security preoccupations, along with general foreboding about the darkening Arab Spring. Fayyad's sense of isolation is very real; with nearly eight thousand civilians already killed in Syria, it is clear that world attention has shifted away from the Palestinians and that, in a sense, the conflict with Israel has assumed a more realistic proportion. The Palestinians are unaccustomed to having to compete for attention, and threats to the security situation are a strong line of argument. Indeed, Fayyad stressed to us that he had made precisely the same points earlier that morning to the Swedish deputy foreign minister. As with many Palestinian warnings about violence, the danger is that there is an element of self-fulfilling prophecy at work, not from Fayyad himself in this case but from other Palestinian factions anxious to regain the spotlight by whatever means necessary.
First of all the observation that with everything else going on the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians "has assumed a more realistic proportion," is thought provoking. One factor in keeping the conflict going has been the disproportionate attention it has received. The sense that something had to be done has given the Palestinians the leverage to demand more instead of coming to an agreement with Israel. However Joffe and Romirowsky are saying that there are still elements among the Palestinians who, rather than reacting to this change rationally, seek instead to find their way back to center stage.
In the region, the Arab Spring may have increased popular attention to the Palestinian cause, freeing Egyptians and others to express anti-Israel sentiments. But that has actually made things harder on the Palestine Liberation Organization, which negotiated with Israel. Popular affection has shifted to the Islamists of Hamas. They too have difficulties, however, abandoning their political headquarters in Syria, facing reduced help from Iran and contending with their increased divisions. The result is a serial splintering of the Palestinian movement, a loss of state sponsors and paralysis for those trying to build a state next to Israel. Just six months ago, there was a moment of optimism when the Palestinian Authority presented its case for recognition to the United Nations, and later when Hamas closed a deal to free hundreds of its prisoners in exchange for the release of an Israeli soldier, Gilad Shalit. But now, as momentum for a peaceful two-state solution fades, and the effort at the United Nations remains stymied, no viable alternatives have emerged and attention has focused on other conflicts.
The New York Times portrays the marginalization of the Palestinian cause as a bad thing. The Palestinians are portrayed as victims of circumstances with no responsibility for their current predicament. Abbas's has been stubbornly refusing to negotiate with Netanyahu since the latter's election. If statehood were a priority, Abbas would try to come to an agreement. Instead he has attempted to bypass Netanyahu and while it has garnered him lots of adoring coverage, it has gained him nothing politically.
Since September, The New York Times has featured no fewer than three articles (one editorial and two news stories) underlining Israel's supposed "isolation." One was an AP report, Panetta Says Israel Is Risking Isolation:
Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta warned on Sunday that Israel was becoming increasingly isolated in the Middle East, and said Israeli leaders must restart negotiations with the Palestinians and work to restore relations with Egypt and Turkey.
The quote from Panetta places the onus on Israel to ease its own isolation. But last week's article absolves the Palestinians of any responsibility for their current plight.
And again: 'Palestinians' refuse to return to the damn table
So Abu Bluff is wearing a little bit of a Purim costume, but other than that, this is a serious post.
I don't know why anyone bothers to ask anymore, but the 'Palestinians' have said yet again that they will not return to the table until Israel gives them a 'settlement freeze.' Of course, the last time Israel did that, they waited until a month before it was up and then returned to the table to try to get it extended, but don't let that color your thinking. This time, they mean it.
Jordan's Nasser Judeh explored the possibility of resuming talks in a meeting Wednesday with Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas. In January, Jordan hosted low-level Israeli-Palestinian talks that broke down in acrimony.
Staunchly pro-Washington, Jordan has considerable sway as one of the Palestinians' most important allies.
However, Abbas believes there is no point in negotiating with Israel, arguing that there is not enough common ground to close a deal.
Abbas aide Saeb Erekat said Judeh's visit "won't be followed by negotiations unless Israel stops settlement activities" in the West Bank.
The 'Palestinians' never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity. Heh.
Netanyahu made same offer Livni made at Annapolis in '08, got same answer
Don't expect Ms. Me, Me, Me, Me, Me to admit it, but Prime Minister Netanyahu made pretty much the same offer to Abu Mazen three weeks ago that Livni made at Annapolis in 2008, and got the same result: The 'Palestinians' walked out of the 'talks.'
On January 25, a day before the date which the Palestinians threatened to walk out on the talks, the final round of talks took place between the sides. During the discussions, Molho presented Netanyahu’s proposal on the borders of the Palestinian state.
Molho presented several principles:
1. The border will be drawn in a way that will include the maximum amount of Israelis living in the West Bank, and the minimum amount of Palestinians.
2. Israel will annex the large settlement blocs, without defining what exactly is considered a ‘bloc,’ nor defining its size.
3. It is necessary to first solve the problem of borders and security in relation to Judea and Samaria, and only afterwards move to discuss the topic of Jerusalem which is far more complicated.
4. Israel will maintain a presence in the Jordan Valley for a period of time. Molho did not mention how long nor what kind of presence.
During the meeting, Erekat asked for clarification regarding the Jordan Valley. Molho referred him to Netanyahu’s speech’s to the opening session of the Knesset, as well as to that in front of Congress in May 2011. In both speeches, Netanyahu spoke of a “military presence along the Jordan River,” yet he did not demand that Israel maintain sovereignty over the valley. “And if we refuse?” Erekat asked. Molho responded: You would prefer that we annex the valley?”
Molho did not mention how size of the territory from which Israel will withdraw, but according to the principles he presented, it seems that it is similar, if not identical to that which was presented by Tzipi Livni during the negotiations that took place in 2008 after the Annapolis Conference. And although Netanyahu does not admit it, the meaning behind the principles Molho presented is a withdrawal that will cause Israel to give up 90% of its sovereignty. “The possibility of leaving the settlements in a Palestinian state also came up in Annapolis,” said a source that participated in the 2008 talks.
Erekat, who understood the principles, asked at the end of the meetings for a series of clarifications: whether Israel accepts the 1967 borders as a basic tenet upon which the two sides can negotiation, whether Israel accepts the principle of territory swaps, how many percentages of the West Bank is Israel interested in annexing, whether Israel has a map with border proposals, whether Israel is willing to evacuate settlements, etc.
“I’d be happy to answer all these questions in the next meeting,” said Molho to Erekat. But the next meeting never took place. A day later, the Palestinians said that they will not resume talks unless Israel freezes settlement building and accepts the principle of 1967 borders.
...
Israelis are now admitting that the talks have come to an end and their renewal is not expected anytime soon, especially in light of the recent reconciliation meeting between Abbas and Hamas leader Khaled Meshal in Doha. Up until two weeks ago, Netanyahu had discussed a series of goodwill gestures toward the Palestinians with Tony Blair and the Americans, in order to enable the renewal of the talks. However, the meeting between Abbas and Meshal caused the Israelis to take of the offer off the table.
In a briefing to journalists on Sunday in Jerusalem, Israeli officials blamed the freeze in the talks on Abbas. “For the past three weeks, Abbas has run away from negotiations, and has done the same regarding the talks in Amman,” said a top Israeli official. “We had the willingness to make gestures and we presented a full package, but the Palestinians simply did not want it. More and more international bodies understand that we were not the ones that thwarted the talks. You can see it from the silence on the part of the Jordanians. They did not blame Israel in any way.”
It must be noted that Netanyahu’s goodwill gesture package was much more modest han what the Palestinians and the international community had hoped for. Netanyahu proposed releasing 25 prisoners, establishing 10 new stations for the Palestinian police in Area B (where Israel is in charge of security), as well as a series of economic projects in Area C (where Israel has full control).
What now? Officials in Jerusalem are waiting to see which path Abbas will take: reconciliation with Hamas in a meeting set to take place in a week, a return to the United Nations or in a more optimistic scenario – a willingness to return to talks with Israel. “It is unclear what the Palestinians will choose, but we believe they will return to their campaign in the United Nations within a few weeks,” said the Israeli official.
The assessment in Israel is that the attempt to establish a unitary government with Hamas will not succeed. However, if the reconciliation does take shape, the Israelis clarify that it will have consequences. “We will not enter negotiations with any government that Hamas takes part in, or that its members are appointed by Hamas,” said the official. He hinted that Israel may once more freeze Palestinian taxes. “We will see what happens at the meeting in Cairo at the end of the month. The political leaders will decide what to do,” he said.
It's time for the quartet and for the rest of the 'international community' to face reality and deal with reality as it is and not as we or they wish it would be. The 'Palestinians' are not interested in a state. They are interested in destroying the Jewish state. Nothing has changed since 1948. Nothing at all.
'Palestinians' disclose contents of 'quartet' compromise plan
The 'Palestinians' have gone public with the contents of a compromise plan proposed by the Middle East peace 'quartet' designed to get 'peace talks' off the ground.
The Quartet's envoy Tony Blair relayed an outline of the package to Mahmoud Abbas during UN Chief Ban
Ki-moon's visit to Ramallah this week, but the Palestinian president said he opposed it.
The outline calls on Israel to allow public Palestinian police presence in Area B in the West Bank, which is under Israeli security control and Palestinian administrative control. In addition, the outline states that Israel will ease restrictions on Palestinian traffic in the West Bank, more working permits will be issued to Palestinians who work in Israel and Jerusalem will allow the export of goods from Gaza to the West Bank.
During the second phase of the Quartet's plan, which is scheduled for implementation in March, Israel will release Palestinian prisoners, the Palestinian Authority will be authorized to develop gas reserves off Gaza's coastline, the IDF's activity in Area A will be reduced and Israel will permit the launching of international projects in Area C.
In return, the Palestinians were asked to come back to the negotiations without demanding Israel to freeze settlement construction or recognize the 1967 borders as the foundation for the talks.
Abu-Youssef said that Abbas has opposed the UN chief's proposal, saying that the PA won't resume the talks until the aforementioned preconditions are met. The negotiator noted, however, that Abbas hasn't outright rejected the plan.
The problem with every plan like this one is that it costs Israeli lives.
'Nuff said. Abu Bluff will help us out by rejecting it anyway.
Ban Ki-Moon calls for Israel to make unilateral concessions
UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon has once again called upon Israel to bribe the 'Palestinians' to return to the negotiating table.
On the day before arriving in Israel from Jordan, UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon called on Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu to give the Palestinians some “goodwill gestures” so the low-level talks that began in Amman last month will continue.
“Of course, it will also be required that the Palestinian Authorities come to [the] dialogue table,” he said Tuesday after meeting in Amman with Jordan’s King Abdullah II and Foreign Minister Nasser Judeh.
But for once, Israel may not be willing to make the concessions one-sided.
Israeli government officials said that within the framework of negotiations, Israel would be willing to engage in reciprocal gestures with the Palestinians and that there was currently a discussion at senior echelons as to what gestures Israel would put into a package.
The Palestinian Authority is seeking the release of high-profile Fatah prisoners, but the officials said Israel was looking primarily at what steps it could take in the “economic sphere” to improve the situation in the West Bank. While they said the Palestinian economy was among the fastest growing in the world, it slowed down last year and these steps would be aimed at trying to make the economy there more dynamic.
Israel is not expected to immediately announce any gestures to the PA, but is likely to announce the approval of a number of infrastructure, education and housing projects in Gaza to coincide with Ban’s visit there on Thursday morning.
Ban is expected to view UN projects there but not to meet with any Hamas officials.
There's only one country in this region that is better off economically than the 'Palestinians' and that's Israel because - unlike the others - we work for it. But don't expect the 'Palestinians' to acknowledge that.
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
