Netanyahu wins 73.2% of vote; has Feiglin barred from hall
Likud leader Binyamin Netanyahu won the Likud primary with 73.2% of the vote. Afterward, he shifted his victory speech to an alternate location to the one that had been announced and had bouncers prevent Moshe Feiglin - who won 23.5% of the vote - from entering the hall.
A last-minute drama ensued when Netanyahu decided to hold his victory speech in a room adjacent to the one originally agreed upon, a decision that prompted media and reporters to refuse to cover the speech.
Reporters said they agreed to boycott the speech to protest Netanyahu's decision, which, they said, was in contradiction with their agreement with him from earlier that evening.
Concurrently, a radio journalist who wished to speak to Feiglin outside the Tel Aviv premises was informed by a Likud security guard that he would be allowed out the building, but not back in. The reporter said on air that he could see Feiglin outside, and that security guards were withholding Feiglin from entering the building.
Netanyahu later told an Israel Radio reporter that he did not give any instructions to bar Feiglin from entering the building.
...
Netanyahu's associates expressed satisfaction with the turnout and said he would now turn his attention to defeating Olmert and Labor chairman Ehud Barak in the next general election. The Likud chief's associates also said he would continue fighting Feiglin, possibly petitioning the High Court of Justice to expel him and his supporters from the party. Netanyahu will also try to draft moderates into the party's leadership from the business sector, academia and former IDF generals, they said.
"We ended the small battle, and now we are starting the big war," a Netanyahu associate said. "Tomorrow we start working to topple the government and return to power."
I should probably expand on this since I was a bit rushed when I wrote it and many of you probably do not understand the underlying nuances.
The Bibi of Why Why Wye? is the Bibi who tries to portray himself as a 'centrist' and a 'moderate' thinking that's the only way to be elected. It's the Bibi who lies about our security, who is ready to do anything to show that he too can make a deal with the 'Palestinians.' It's a slicker and possibly less corrupt (possibly) version of Olmert. It's no change in substance from Olmert.
The Bibi of "If they give they will receive and if they don't give..." is the Bibi who plays tough with the 'Palestinians,' makes them fulfill their obligations under existing agreements even if it means that no new ones will be concluded, fights terror first and worries about 'Palestinian' rights later (if at all), and generally acts like a slightly right of center politician. That would be a significant improvement over Olmert, Livni and Barak, and something that Feiglin's supporters are likely to stand behind.
The fact that Bibi wants to fight Feiglin and try to throw him out of the party instead of trying to co-opt him and his supporters and work with them says that Bibi is going to do something that he knows Feiglin's people will never support. That's the Bibi of Why Why Wye? Further evidence that we are getting the Bibi of Why Why Wye? is that he wants to recruit "moderates into the party's leadership from the business sector, academia and former IDF generals." Where are those 'moderates' from the 'business sector, academia and former IDF generals' going to come from? Hint: It's not from Labor (that would be too drastic) and it's not from National Union - NRP (whom the Bibi of Why Why Wye? would not consider 'moderate).'
He's talking about bringing people who abandoned the Likud for KadimaAchora back into the party. He's talking about people like Shaul Mofaz, who zealously commanded the expulsion of the Jews from Gaza two years ago, and Bibi's old buddy Tzachi Hanegbi who has never seen a bribe that looked too criminal to take, and who has been under 'investigation' nearly as many times as Olmert. Bibi's not talking about former generals like Effie Eitam, who was beaten by police at Amona, or Moshe (Boogie) Yaalon, who was fired as Chief of Staff of the IDF because he opposed the Gaza expulsion. (Yaalon is already a member of the Likud, but if Bibi brings Mofaz back, you can bet that it is Mofaz who will be defense minister and not Yaalon).
While Israel Radio just raised the possibility that President Shimon Peres will try to pressure Binyamin Netanyahu to enter a national unity government with Kadima and Tzipi Livni out of 'national responsibility,' I want to look at what seems the most likely possibility: a Right-wing coalition led by Netanyahu and how it would get along with Washington.
There are a few points we need to keep in mind. First, the biggest issue on the table is not the 'Palestinians,' it's Iran. Everyone in this country understands that if the US does not do something about Iran, sometime before it actually develops nuclear weapons, Israel will have to do something about it. There's wall-to-wall support for that, and from Israel's perspective, the question isn't whether but how. Make no mistake: Israel will go it alone if we need to and Netanyahu and any other Prime Minister would have wall-to-wall support (except for the Arabs - maybe) for doing so.
Second, both Binyamin Netanyahu and Avigdor Lieberman have accepted the notion that there will have to be a 'Palestinian' statereichlet. In Netanyahu's first term, he signed the Why Why Wye agreement under pressure from Bill Clinton, in which he gave away the high ground overlooking Hebron, and he went to Shepardstown where he nearly gave the Golan away to the Syrians. Netanyahu is nowhere near as 'hard right' as his depiction in the media here. We all know why the media here hate Netanyahu and it doesn't make him any more of a right winger. And given that Netanyahu and Lieberman control 43 seats between them, most of the coalition is probably willing to create a 'Palestinian' reichlet.
Third, Netanyahu will likely readopt his theme from the late 90's, when terrorism was virtually non-existent during his first term (1996-99). The theme was "if they give, they will receive, if they don't give...." In plain English: reciprocity. And this time, with all that has happened since 1999, Netanyahu is likely to get less resistance from Washington when he insists on reciprocity.
In November, I blogged this article by Shmuel Rosner that discusses how Bibi would get along with Obama. I still believe Rosner's analysis is correct. While Rosner assumes a 'centrist' coalition, and the media here will try to claim that Bibi and Lieberman are not a 'centrist' coalition, the media are wrong. If acceptance of a 'Palestinian' state is the litmus test, Netanyahu and Lieberman are 'centrist.'
Here are a couple of reasons why Netanyahu and Obama should be able to work it out:
1. Obama will not want to be seen as someone looking for a fight with the Israeli government. It would give a lot of people an opportunity to say “we told you so.”
2. Netanyahu learned a lesson in 1999, when the Clinton administration helped bring about the end of his government. He will try to avoid similar mistakes.
3. Clinton of 2008 is not the Clinton of 2000. The collapse of Camp David and the second Intifada have taught her (and most other people) that one can’t force a peace by fiat.
4. Rhetoric aside, the differences between Netanyahu, Livni, and Barak are not hugely significant. Netanyahu himself won’t be nearly as important as the coalition he forms. And a centrist coalition headed by Netanyahu can do just fine.
Having said all that, bad feelings and old animosities could still hurt Netanyahu, both in the administration and even more so in Congress (Netanyahu was very close with Newt Gingrich, something Congressional Democrats are unlikely to forget). There are also many Jewish leaders who don’t like the idea of Netanyahu as Prime Minister.
The bottom line? ... Netanyahu–if he manages to win, as polls predict–will have one challenge to overcome rather quickly. But then, so will the Obama administration.
Having said all that, will there be a 'Palestinian' reichlet in the next four years? It's unlikely, but not because Netanyahu won't give them one. It's unlikely because the 'Palestinians' won't fulfill the requirements Netanyahu will impose on them. And if there is a 'Palestinian' reichlet in the next four years, it's more likely to involve a territorial compromise than a return to the pre-1967 borders. We could have had much worse results last night.
As I was typing this, Israel Radio raised another possibility. They claim that Lieberman is 'unstable' (it is correct that no one here understands why he propped up Olmert after the Lebanon War and why he stayed in Olmert's coalition for so long) and that Netanyahu will not want to be dependent on him. And therefore - you guessed it - he'd be better off with Livni.
Sorry, but that's more wishful thinking from our leftist media. Given that Livni tried to undermine Olmert from within Kadima, why would Olmert want her as the number 2 in his coalition?
Israel Election Update # 2 - Much Ado About Nothing
Since yesterday's update dealt mostly with Labor's positions on the issues, and since Bibi Netanyahu made a major speech last night, I thought today would be a good day to look at the Likud.
Likud leader Bibi Netanyahu spoke last night at the Herzliya Conference and offered 'concessions' to the 'Palestinians.' Why an Israeli leader running for elected office needs to pander to the 'Palestinians' is a separate issue, which goes far beyond the elections. What's important to realize is that Netanyahu's 'concessions' are much ado about nothing. Let's see why:
Netanyahu said that he would begin by removing settlement outposts and then gradually remove IDF checkpoints to allow unhindered Palestinian travel. He said that a Likud-led government would not be in favor of reoccupying or annexing Palestinian populated areas of Judea and Samaria.
If Netanyahu and the Likud were to win the elections, whether Netanyahu would actually remove 'settlement outposts' depends on who is in the government with him. In any event, it appears a small price to pay compared with Kadima and Labor, both of which would remove actual 'settlements.'
Removing IDF checkpoints is unlikely to happen unless the 'Palestinians' make a real effort to curb terrorism. Although Netanyahu did sign the Why Why Wye Agreement in 1998, I think he learned his lesson from the 'Palestinians'' failure to fulfill their obligations under that agreement. Moreover, and most importantly, one must read between the lines of what Netanyahu says and realize that he is (and knows he is) the furthest to the right of the electable candidates for Prime Minister. Netanyahu knows that when the time comes to form a coalition, the right's choice is going to be to go with Netanyahu or to be in the opposition. Those to his left, on the other hand, could go to Kadima and keep Netanyahu from forming a coalition at all. That's why Netanyahu makes statements about removing 'outposts' and roadblocks - he is trying to win back some of the Likud defectors to Kadima.
'Re-occupying or re-annexing' 'Palestinian' populated areas of Judea and Samaria is only going to happen if there is an all-out war. And even then, we're a long way from putting civilians back into places like Sa-Nur and Homesh. Those on the ideological right have to recognize that reality. Take what you can get now.
"In the frameworks of a peace agreement, a government under my leadership would agree to make real territorial concessions but will not compromise our security borders," Netanyahu said. "We want there to be less friction. We want to remove outposts to help the Palestinian population. We will not reoccupy the Palestinian population."
With whom does anyone think Netanyahu is going to make a peace agreement? Abu Mazen? Hamas? Let's be serious folks. If Netanyahu were the leader of Kadima or Labor, you'd see talk of a unilateral withdrawal here. It's in the next paragraph. However....
Netanyahu outlined five points that will be the guidelines in the Likud's platform on diplomatic and security issues: "Yes to compromises within a peace agreement, yes to security borders, no to a unilateral withdrawal, yes to moving the security fence and yes to decreasing the friction with the Palestinians."
Given that Netanyahu needs to attract voters from Kadima to have a chance of being the largest party and the one invited by the President to form the next government, I think this is the best we can expect from him before the elections.
The Likud's "security borders" include the Jordan Valley, the Golan Heights, Judean desert, an undivided Jerusalem, settlement blocs in Judea and Samaria, and the hilltops overlooking Ben-Gurion Airport, the Gush Dan region and Road 443.
This is just about all of Samaria and most of Judea on my map (especially if you consider that Netanyahu's 'settlement blocs' may include the Beit El - Ofra - Shilo block in Samaria), while Olmert's and Peretz's clearly won't. Look at a map and see for yourselves.
Netanyahu said that he would be willing to negotiate a permanent-status accord with a responsible Palestinian leadershipwhile sticking to those borders on the basis of reciprocity. Any agreement reached with the Palestinians would then be brought to a vote among the Israeli people in a national referendum.
Let's keep some things in mind: There is no 'responsible Palestinian leadership' and Wednesday's 'Palestinian election' is likely to make sure that there won't be one for the foreseeable future. Second, even if there were to be a 'responsible Palestinian leadership,' the chances of it being able to sell an agreement having the borders that Netanyahu is demanding is highly unlikely. Third, the chances of the 'Palestinians' fulfilling any sort of reciprocity - assuming Netanyahu has the spine to stick to it - are somewhere between slim and none. And fourth, Netanyahu is committing now to the referendum that Sharon avoided.
Regarding a 'referendum' it's important to keep in mind that Ehud Olmert is right about one thing:
We are tired of fighting, we are tired of being courageous, we are tired of winning, we are tired of defeating our enemies, we want that we will be able to live in an entirely different environment of relations with our enemies.
But Israelis are also victims of the Not In My Backyard (NIMBY) syndrome. The reason that surveys show things like 60% of Israelis would give up parts of Jerusalem in a 'peace settlement' is because people in Haifa and Tel Aviv and Ashdod who have been afraid to come to Jerusalem for the last five years have no clue what that means for Jerusalem. In Jerusalem, I would bet that the Jewish population will be 80-90% against those kinds of concessions. If a referendum is a package deal, it will affect most of the country's backyard. I'm not convinced that the vote will be so overwhelmingly in favor. And a Netanyahu-led government is much more likely than an Olmert-led government to include a supermajority requirement in a referendum that will ensure that the Arab vote will not tip the balance. I'm not convinced it will pass so easily.
There's one caveat to this analysis: As I pointed out yesterday, Netanyahu and all Israeli politicians are not always truthful (and that's being kind to them). Could Netanyahu do what Sharon and Rabin did on the security issue? Absolutely. But we already know that Olmert and Peretz will make dangerous unilateral concessions. Netanyahu is the only one of the three leaders with a chance to be Prime Minister who might not make them. Those Israelis who worry about Israel's security must keep that in mind when they go to the polls on March 28.
Is Marwan the Moron about to be released in exchange for Jonathan Pollard? That's what the Jerusalem Post claims is about to happen. This is just in:
Officials in Jerusalem claimed on Saturday that the US would release imprisoned Israeli spy Jonathan Pollard in exchanged for Israel releasing jailed Fatah leader Marwan Barghouti.
According to Army Radio, Israel is set to offer the proposed prisoner swap deal in the next few months, and it follows the unfolding anarchy in the Palestinian Authority. Seemingly, Israel intends to use Barghouti's release to strengthen the Fatah movement following the much criticized rule of the new Hamas-led Palestinian government.
In 2004 Israel suggested a similar move but it was rejected by the US government. Jerusalem officials predicted that on this occasion the White House would accept the proposal.
Pollard, a former Mossad agent, was convicted of selling US military secrets to Israel, while he worked at the Defense Department's Pentagon headquarters. He was arrested in 1985 and pleaded guilty to the espionage charges. He was sentenced to life in prison, and has been incarcerated for the past 21 years.
While I see how releasing Barghouti would help Fatah, I don't see how it would help Israel, and I think it weakens our deterrent capability in the future by showing that any terrorist will eventually be released. For Israel, releasing Barghouti makes a farce of our taking 'prisoners.' It tells the terrorists: do what you want and don't fear arrest - we will release you eventually. Of course, we do that anyway... and that also doesn't help....
I have a few more thoughts for you on this. First of all, who would want this deal and why. The US wants Barghouti released because it will strengthen Fatah. Whether they want him released badly enough to release Pollard is less clear. Suffice it to say that in 1998, Bill Clinton may or may not have committed to release Pollard in payment for the Wye (Why, Why, Wye?) Accords and then did not do so. The US also turned down an exchange for Barghouti in 2004. Will the third time be the charm? With Casper Weinberger gone just a couple of weeks ago, it seems more possible than before.
The new Olmert government wants Barghouti released because it wants a 'partner' on the 'Palestinian' side. Olmert knows that he cannot talk to Hamas and that Israelis will eventually oppose a unilateral withdrawal expulsion of Jews from Judea and Samaria that leaves another 80,00-100,000 people homeless. A pullback that is the result of an agreement with a 'Palestinian' other will be a lot more palatable to many Israelis.
Fatah wants Barghouti released because Mahmud Abbas Abu Mazen is weak and inept and unpopular and Fatah is still seen as corrupt on the 'Palestinian street.' Replacing Mazen with Barghouti brings in 'young blood' (Barghouti is in his 40's) that is seen as 'clean.' The bonus for Fatah is that Barghouti is a folk hero of the 'intifadeh' having been sent to jail for only a fraction of the terror attacks in which he was involved.
Who doesn't want Barghouti released? Hamas, which views him as a threat. And Israelis with a strong sense of justice and a fear that releasing Barghouti sends a message to the 'Palestinians' that it's okay to commit acts of terror, because ultimately they will be released from jail anyway.
Who wants Pollard released? At this point, I think that both the United States and Israel want Pollard released. That Israel should want Pollard released should be no surprise to anyone. Israel behaved shamefully for the first thirteen years that Pollard was behind bars (1985-98), first claiming that it knew nothing of the affair, and then refusing to raise the Pollard issue at several opportune times to do so. To his credit, Bibi Netanyahu went to the wall for Pollard in 1998 (although I still believe that signing the Wye Accords was a mistake) and by his actions embarassed each of his successors into raising Pollard at every opportunity.
At this point, I think the United States also has an interest in releasing Pollard. His punishment is disproportionate to any other spy affair in American history, whether they were caught spying for friend or foe. Rumors have circulated recently that Pollard was framed by convicted spy Aldrich Ames - the worst spy in American history. Pollard is not Aldrich Ames or Robert Hanssen. It's an embarassment to the United States that they have been holding a man who spied for their most loyal ally for twenty-one years. Pollard is a stain on US - Israel relations. He can be released, deported to Israel (which has granted him citizenship) and barred from re-entering the United States. He would never be heard from again. He is not like Israeli nuclear spy Mordechai Vanunu, who has an interest in exacting revenge against the country of his birth (and who has been released but not allowed to leave Israel). With Casper Weinberger gone, the United States' interest in releasing Pollard may come to the fore.
The 'Palestinians' should be indifferent to Pollard's fate.
My personal feeling: I would like to see Pollard released. I think that he has more than paid his debt to American society. But I think that releasing Barghouti would be a mistake on Israel's part. We have made far too many 'prisoner exchanges' over the years. The one 'prisoner' we have never released is Samir Kantar because his acts were too heinous. I think that the same can be said about Barghouti. Releasing Barghouti would be morally reprehensible.
If the Knesset had any conscience, it would be ashamed of what it did this evening. Unfortunately, as a collective, the Knesset has no conscience. Many of its members have no conscience either.
Tonight, the Knesset voted down a bill that would establish a plan to bring about the release of convicted spy Jonathan Pollard by a 43-32 vote. The government opposed the bill.
Pollard was a US Navy analyst who was convicted of spying on Israel's behalf in 1986. He entered into a plea bargain with the United States government, in which he waived his right to a trial in return for restrictions on sentencing. At the urging of a number of government officials - principally then Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger - Pollard's guilty plea was accepted but his plea bargain was thrown out and Pollard was sentenced to life in prison. Weinberger died in March 2006.
Israel did not acknowledge that Pollard spied on its behalf until 1998, at which time then-Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu attempted to have Pollard freed as part of the Why Why Wye agreement. Then-President Bill Clinton agreed to free Pollard, but reneged on the agreement when then-CIA director George Tenet threatened to resign. Pollard has been in jail in the US since 1986.
"Kadima and Olmert are not interested in endangering the security of Israel, but also that of Jonathan Pollard," said MK Gilad Erdan (Likud), who initiated the bill. "Olmert is unable to do what it takes and issue a strong request to return [Pollard]."
...
Earlier this week, MK Zevulen Orlev (NU-NRP) requested that State Comptroller Micha Lindenstrauss investigate the Pollard case and consider intervening on Pollard's behalf. Orlev said that the State Comptroller Committee, which he heads, would vote on an official resolution asking Lindenstrauss to prepare a report on why Israel has not managed to secure Pollard's release.
MK Estherina Tartman (Israel Beiteinu) also raised the issue of Pollard's release earlier this week, arguing that instead of releasing Palestinian prisoners, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert should consider focusing his efforts on Israeli citizens.
I realize that some of my American readers may be unhappy with my defense of Pollard. I will state my position as simply as possible:
1. Pollard committed a crime for which he was punished and for which he has spent twenty-two years in prison.
2. Pollard's sentence for spying on the US on behalf of a friendly nation was far in excess of the sentences other spies have received for spying on the US on behalf of much less friendly nations.
3. Pollard's Israeli handlers were kept out of the United States and continue to disgrace us by serving in high positions in the Israeli government. Pollard has taken the fall for everyone for twenty-two years.
4. It is wrong for the US to continue to hold Pollard. It is even more wrong for the Israeli government to use Pollard and then throw him away like a used rag. Shame on the Knesset!
Update 7:30 AM
Over at LGF, Thanos was kind enough to post a list of other people caught spying on the US for foreign governments in the time since Pollard was arrested, and the sentences they received:
MICHAEL WALKER, part of the infamous WALKER SPY RING, was arrested in 1985, the same year as Jonathan Pollard. The spy ring he belonged to operated for 17 years, selling sensitive US military secrets to the Soviet Union, causing what authorities described as extensive damage to national security. He was sentenced to 25 years. WALKER IS A FREE MAN TODAY.
CLAYTON LONETREE, a marine sergeant guarding the US Embassy in Moscow, spied for the KGB and was sentenced in 1987 to 30 years. He gave the Russians the floor plans of the US Embassies in Moscow and Vienna, endangering the lives of all who worked there. His sentence was reduced 3 times. LONETREE IS A FREE MAN TODAY.
RICHARD MILLER is the first FBI agent ever tried for espionage. He turned over secrets, including a counter-intelligence manual, to the Soviets. He was sentenced to 20 years. MILLER IS A FREE MAN TODAY.
ABDELKADER HELMY, a missile researcher, was sentenced in 1989 for selling technology related to the Condor Missile project to Egypt which found its way to Iraq. He got 48 months and served considerably less. HELMY IS A FREE MAN TODAY.
SAMUEL MORISON, a Navy analyst, removed scores of confidential material, including photos he sold that were printed in Jane's Defense Weekly. The Photos were classified SCI; exposing such sensitive material carries a mandatory life sentence. The grandson of an illustrious Navy Historian, his family ties are the only way to explain why in 1985 he was sentenced to only 2 years, and served only 3 months. What is more, in spite of extreme opposition by the CIA to clemency, Morison received a full pardon from former President Clinton in January 2001. MORISON IS A FREE MAN TODAY.
RONALD MONTAPERTO For over a decade, Ronald Montaperto, a former pentagon analyst gave highly classified information to the Chinese which seriously damaged US National Security by hampering US efforts to track China's covert arms sales to nation sponsors of terrorism such as Iran, Syria and Pakistan. Montaperto was recently sentenced to 3 months in prison! Montaperto's miniscule sentence is nearly completed and by the time you read this you can be sure that MONTAPERTO IS A FREE MAN TODAY
And that doesn't begin to tell the story of why Israel has abandoned Pollard.... Shame, shame, shame....
I really feel like slamming some of the chickens**t American Jews who regularly comment - both on this blog and on Twitter and Facebook - that Jonathan Pollard should rot in jail because what he did was so terriblethey're afraid of being accused of having 'dual loyalties' if they actually question Pollard's life sentence. Much of the infamous Cap Weinberger memo (that Pollard's lawyers were never allowed to see) has been declassified, and it shows that much of the US government argument for keeping Pollard imprisoned is based on lies and mischaracterizes what Weinberger (an anti-Semite in his own right) wrote (Hat Tip: NY Nana).
Key portions of a critical classified document on which the US
government has cited as justification for keeping Jonathan Pollard in
jail have been declassified – and his lawyers say the government has
been "dishonest" in "hiding behind the mask of 'classified information'
to materially mischaracterize the nature and extent of the harm caused
by Mr. Pollard."
Lawyers Eliot Lauer and Jacques Semmelman, who have represented
Pollard for 15 years pro-bono, say the newly disclosed material shows
that any harm possibly caused by Pollard was only "in the form of
short-term disruption in foreign relations between the United States and
certain Arab countries."
"That is not at all the same thing as harm to U.S. national security," they write in a World Net Daily op-ed, "and it was dishonest for the government to pretend that it is."
The government position for 30 years has been that Pollard must
remain in prison because a secret note from then-Secretary of State
Caspar Weinberger stated that Pollard caused greater harm to U.S.
national security than had ever occurred previously.
"The government has been able to present this harsh characterization
of the Weinberger declaration without fear of contradiction," Semmelman
and Lauer write, because "no one representing Mr. Pollard [was ever]
allowed to see the Weinberger declaration since the day Mr. Pollard was
sentenced" – until now.
...
The lawyers state that the U.S. government's "deception had its most
blatant and prejudicial impact at Mr. Pollard's parole hearing held in
July 2014, during which the government invoked the Weinberger
declaration and - without showing it to the parole commission - urged
the commission to accept its representation that the document
substantiated more harm to the national security of the United States
than had ever occurred previously."
"In its decision denying parole, the commission took the government
at its word and essentially parroted the government's characterization
of the Weinberger declaration when it wrote that Mr. Pollard had caused
'the greatest compromise of U.S. security to that date,'" noted the
lawyers.
"That is an outright falsehood," the lawyers write, "and the recent
revelations prove it... [It] is now revealed that Mr. Pollard provided
Israel with information concerning the 'political-economic affairs of
Middle Eastern nations,' various 'Middle Eastern orders of battle,' and
the 'technology of Soviet weapons and radar systems' used by various
Arab governments."
"The potential consequence [thereof] is described by Mr. Weinberger
as 'a high probability of harm to the foreign relations of the U.S.
with friendly Arab nations'" – and nothing more than that.
The op-ed details the type of information Pollard gave Israel, and the modest and temporary damage it caused to U.S. relations with some countries – but not to U.S. security.
Hang your heads in shame chickens**t American Jews. Maybe you should worry more about why your government has been holding an American Jew imprisoned for 30 years for a crime that normally carries a 2-4-year sentence than you worry about accusations that you hold dual loyalties (as if any of you holds any loyalty to the Jewish state).
So why did then-CIA director George Tenet threaten to resign if Bill Clinton released Pollard (as he promised to do) in exchange for Israel signing the Why Why Wye agreement? Probably because Tenet knew that if what was really in the Weinberger document was made public (and there would have been no more reason to keep it classified 17 years ago had Pollard been released), he and other government officials who had lied about its contents would have found their butts in a sling. Now, they're all dead or retired.
Bill Clinton holds a grudge, blames Netanyahu for 'peace process' failure
Bill Clinton hasn't forgotten how he railroaded Binyamin Netanyahu into signing the Why Why Wye agreement that gave more much of Hebron to the 'Palestinians.' Clinton was never happy with that agreement because much of it was never implemented. Now, he's going after Binyamin Netanyahu blaming him for - what else - killing the 'peace process' (Hat Tip: Shy Guy via Hot Air).
Clinton, in a roundtable with bloggers today on the sidelines of the Clinton Global Initiative in New York, gave an extensive recounting of the deterioration in the Middle East peace process since he pressed both parties to agree to a final settlement at Camp David in 2000. He said there are two main reasons for the lack of a comprehensive peace today: the reluctance of the Netanyahu administration to accept the terms of the Camp David deal and a demographic shift in Israel that is making the Israeli public less amenable to peace.
"The two great tragedies in modern Middle Eastern politics, which make you wonder if God wants Middle East peace or not, were [Yitzhak] Rabin's assassination and [Ariel] Sharon's stroke," Clinton said.
Sharon had decided he needed to build a new centrist coalition, so he created the Kadima party and gained the support of leaders like Tzipi Livni and Ehud Olmert. He was working toward a consensus for a peace deal before he fell ill, Clinton said. But that effort was scuttled when the Likud party returned to power.
"The Israelis always wanted two things that once it turned out they had, it didn't seem so appealing to Mr. Netanyahu. They wanted to believe they had a partner for peace in a Palestinian government, and there's no question -- and the Netanyahu government has said -- that this is the finest Palestinian government they've ever had in the West Bank," Clinton said.
"[Palestinian leaders] have explicitly said on more than one occasion that if [Netanyahu] put up the deal that was offered to them before -- my deal -- that they would take it," Clinton said, referring to the 2000 Camp David deal that Yasser Arafat rejected.
This is so wrong. Sharon's 'peace effort' wasn't scuttled when the Likud returned to power. It was scuttled when the 'Palestinians' refused to deal with Olmert because of Operation Cast Lead. That happened before Netanyahu and the Likud took power.
I have not heard Netanyahu say that the current 'Palestinian' government is the finest peace partner we have ever had. And even if he did, I would treat it with great skepticism. He has to do something to ease up on all that American pressure.
Third, even if the 'Palestinians' would accept 'Clinton's deal' today (which they turned down in 2000), why should it be offered to them again? Why do we have to keep offering these people the same deal that they turned down over and over again. Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result.
And finally, if the 'Palestinians' would accept 'Clinton's deal' today, that's a tribute to Netanyahu for pushing them into a corner where the 'Palestinians' feel that they must accept Clinton's deal. After all, Abu Mazen told Jackson Diehl in May 2009 that a deal that was much more generous to the 'Palestinians' than Clinton's deal was not enough.
I do not understand, for the life of me, the lack of will in the Israeli people. I can not understand why they are not taking to the streets and storming the Knesset. How have they not overthrown that political hack Olmert and his motley crew? They are selling Israel down the river. Iran is a hair's breath away from going nuclear and these dangerous schmucks are circle jerking to a "peace" process. Iran has been plotting Israel's demise for decades. And Abu Dana has UNIFIL guranteeing Israel's security? How many Jews have to die?
Israelis' lack of will comes from a number of factors:
1. We are not convinced anyone else will be any better.
2. Given the political system here, it may not be possible to bring down the government. Since we vote for parties and not for individuals, no individual will be held accountable for keeping this government in power, and therefore no individual in a position to bring down the government is likely to take the lead to bring it down.
3. We are divided among ourselves. With Avigdor Lieberman's sellout, and Labor's being purchased on the cheap, and Olmert trying to bring United Torah Judaism into the government, we have a wall-to-wall coalition that stands for nothing but includes everyone - except the Likud and National Union-NRP. The former is led by Netanyahu, whom no one really trusts anymore (he blew it when he signed the Why, Why Wye Agreement), and the latter has no leadership that is capable of running the country, nor does it have a large enough power base. Don't forget - Olmert was elected seven months ago.
4. You can't just throw the bums out here. You make the government fall by a no confidence motion in which 61 MK's vote for someone else to be Prime Minister, or you propose a bill to hold new elections. Getting 61 MK's to agree on the time of day here is difficult. And if your bill for new elections fails, you cannot raise the question again for six months. So you aren't going to present it unless you think it can win. And it has to win three readings if it isn't buried in a committee.
5. Demonstrating against the government here is a risky business. Here's an example of where civil disobedience can leave you. Most Israelis don't want to risk six months in administrative detention (sitting at home or in jail for six months without trial) to lead anti-government demonstrations.
The current predicament is the culmination of a lot of rot that has been present in Israeli politics for decades. We briefly had direct election of the Prime Minister (which would be a step forward) but it was killed because the big parties were losing Knesset seats.
It will take at least another year to get the government out. And if Olmert is forced to resign because of the corruption charges against him, the same government under Tzippi Livni would last longer than he will. She has somehow escaped the taint of last summer's failure. I believe that I am one of the few people - even in the blogosphere - who refers to the Olmert-Peretz-Livni government. Most people blame Olmert and Peretz, or Olmert, Peretz and Halutz.
Much of this is difficult to explain in a (relatively) short blog post. Most of the world - especially the Jewish world - has no clue how rotten and corrupt the Israeli government really is, how corrupt Israeli politics is, and how depressed its people are as a result. A few weeks ago, I raised some questions about the Rabin assassination on this blog. Next week is the anniversary of the assassination and you will hear much about Rabin's legacy. But the questions about the assassination were too much even for most of my readers to handle. They were ignored. And that's exactly what our corrupt politicians want.
The Jerusalem Post is reporting this morning that all nine members of the 'security cabinet' are opposed to exchangingprisonersterrorists held in Israeli jails for kidnapped Israeli corporal Gilad Shalit. The Post notes that although there have been reports that ministers were upset that they were not told in advance about the arrests of Hamas politicians, and although there is opposition to Olmert's decision not to bring ground forces into northern Gaza, Olmert has managed to prevent most public opposition to his policies by ministers in the security cabinet.
In the meantime, both HaAretz and Arutz Sheva are reporting this morning that the IDF would be willing to release some 'prisoners' but not those with 'blood on their hands,' with the number of such prisoners not being important. The IDF would support the release of terrorists who have been incarcerated as a preventative measure, or those not responsible for violent acts of terror. According to HaAretz, this would includeindividuals who are being held under the Prevention of Terrorism Ordinance, such as Hamas ministers and members of the Palestinian Legislative Council, as well as security prisoners jailed for relatively minor offenses, such as belonging to terrorist organizations. HaAretz also notes that there are no plans to free ordinary Palestinian criminals as Binyamin Netanyahu did to meet the required quota of prisoner releases under the 1998 Why Why Wye Accords.
HaAretz also has the parameters of what it says is a deal that would be tolerable to the IDF. However, it says that military officials do not think the sides are close to reaching such a deal, and that the crisis over Shalit's abduction is liable to last "days, weeks, months and even years." As of Sunday night, the most updated information available to security officials indicated that Shalit was alive and that his captors planned to keep him healthy as long as they don't think the army is planning a military operation to secure his release. The military officials do not say why they consider that information to be reliable, given that they admitted last night that they have no idea where he is being held.
The conditions for an operation to free Shalit are far from ready, according to senior military officials. They said that the negotiations for Shalit's release will require a lot of patience. Patience is also likely to characterize the IDF approach to ground operations in Gaza, which are not planned for the short term. Of course, this contradicts Defense MinisterComrade Peretz's statement last night that the IDF would only be keeping its forces in Gaza for a 'short period of time.' But then, I think we all suspected from the outset that no one was going to really let Comrade Peretz run the army.
The IDF's parameters are meant to show the Olmert government what the army considers the limits tolerable Israeli concessions. The IDF believes that more significant concessions to Shalit's captors and to Hamas generally would encourage extremist Arab and Muslim groups. No surprises there.
Defense officials have also warned against ending the crisis in a way that would show 'Palestinians' and others in the region that Hamas and other extremist groups have succeeded where 'moderates' have failed.
The draft deal also calls for a total halt to the firing of 'steep-trajectory weapons' (i.e. Kassams and other rockets), whether by Hamas or other organizations; a halt to attacks on Israeli citizens and IDF troops, wherever they are located; and a ban on abductions. There were four abductions and attempted abductions over the last month, three of them in Judea and Samaria. (Eliyahu Asheri HY"D, the two teenage girls from Rechelim who escaped and Benjamin Bright-Fishbein, who was released when the 'Palestinians' discovered he was an American tourist).
In exchange for a Palestinian commitment to stop these activities, the IDF would stop operating in Gaza, while reserving the right of defense and the right to foil terror attacks. The IDF also wants a "sleep balance" between Sderot and Gaza: If Sderot's children cannot sleep due to fear of Qassam rockets, Israel will disrupt Gaza's children's sleep. It should be obvious to all of you that none of these parameters are going to be accepted by the 'Palestinians' anytime soon.
According to HaAretz, the IDF believes that Hamas leaders in Gaza recognize that their rule would be seriously threatened if an attack on the Negev leads to a harsh Israeli reprisal. That may be true, but it seems to me that the Hamas leaders don't see any attack for which a truly harsh reprisal would be forthcoming. So far, the response to last Sunday's attack has the IDF sitting and cooling its heels in Dhahaniyeh, while the air force attacks empty buildings and fields, and the Israeli government continues to supply electricity and fuel to the 'Palestinians.' The army also claims that buzzing President Bashar Assad's summer palace undercut Khaled Meshaal's position in Damascus. It's not clear to me how or why. The army buzzed the chinless wonder himself over something Hezbullah did a couple of years ago (and even bombed a Hezbullah training camp in Syria) and nothing came of it.
Senior IDF officials in charge of Gaza think Palestinian Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh will choose to maintain power, at the cost of suspending terrorism. I disagree. I believe that Haniyeh will maintain at least a low level of terrorism and will still maintain power. I believe that the 'Palestinians' want the terrorism to continue. Every survey taken indicates that, and the 'Palestinians' elected Hamas knowing that Hamas would support terrorism. The question is, how long are Israelis willing to tolerate Kassams being shot several times a day at Sderot and Ashkelon. The answer to that is "so long as the effects are NotInMyBackYard."
A 'Palestinian' official interviewed by YNet on Tuesday told the web site that the 'peace process' has 'died' because Israelis have chosen to give power to the Right.
"Given the government that is going to lead Israel, it's clear that there won't be any serious process and that, at the most, it will be a process for appearances' sake only that is intended to quiet the international community and primarily to let the Palestinians know that the option of peace still exists," he said.
According to the official, the Palestinians understand that the Oslo process no longer exists. Those close to Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas don't think there is any way to salvage it.
If the 'peace process' is dead - and as far as I and many Israelis are concerned, it has been dead (if it ever was truly alive) since Yasser Arafat declared war on us in September 2000 - the 'Palestinians' need to ask themselves why it is dead.
"People are thinking of how to prevent the PA from humiliating itself in a process that is not serious and will not bring peace. More and more voices are saying that the Palestinian Authority and Abbas must strike preemptively and dismantle the Palestinian Authority," he said.
Here's one reason the 'peace process' is dead. The 'Palestinians' view political bargaining as a game of honor in which the winners set off fireworks and shoot AK-47's in the air, and the losers go home humiliated. From the opening bell of the 'peace process,' the 'Palestinians' main concern has been how not to be 'humiliated' by accepting anything less than 100% of their demands - and how to humiliate Israel by getting it to agree to a 'Palestinian' statereichlet AND to allow hundreds of thousands of 'Palestinians' to 'return' to Israel and vote the Jewish state out of existence.
But negotiations - real negotiations - are not about winners and losers and humiliating one side at the expense of the other. Negotiations are about two sides finding common ground and reaching the best solution for both sides, which by definition will never be 100% of what one side or the other wants. Consider the following framework for a negotiated solution from Professor Roger Fisher of Harvard (yes, I took his crash course on the subject).
You will note that Professor Fisher's process has no mention of winners and losers. But it does mention other things that the 'peace process' has never had. In the fifteen plus years since the Oslo Declaration of Principles, the 'Palestinians' have never conceded a single point and have never upheld a single agreement or commitment. They have never allowed for a solution that would satisfy Israel's interests anywhere close to 'acceptably.' They have never allowed more than one option - the option of a 'Palestinian' reichlet with a 'right of return' to what's left of Israel for the 'refugees' - to be discussed. They have never accepted the legitimacy of the Jewish state and they have never viewed the 'peace process' as anything other than a way for the Jewish state to be 'taken.' In the 'Palestinians' minds, the 'peace process' has never had anything other than the 'obvious solution' (the one they want). Therefore, the 'peace process' has never included a true negotiation. Instead, Israelis have negotiated against themselves for fifteen years, while the 'Palestinians' have said nothing but "no." Is it any wonder that so many Israelis have tired of the 'peace process'?
The official added that Abbas' advisors, including those who truly believe in peace and in the diplomatic process, understand that this process is over and there is no chance of a political agreement in the near future that will result in a Palestinian state.
Are there any Abbas advisers who 'truly believe in peace and in the diplomatic process? Who are they and where have they been - at least since Arafat died in 2004?
Wherever those advisers have been, believing in the 'peace process' is not enough. You also have to have the ability to execute and fulfill your commitments. Abu Mazen has no ability to execute - he has no support for peace from his 'people.' The 'Palestinian people' don't support peace because they have been conditioned by Abu Mazen - and by Arafat before him - to believe that the 'peace process' is only going to lead to the first 'phase' of the 'phased solution' to vitiating Israel's existence. The 'Palestinian people' don't support peace because they have been conditioned by Abu Mazen - and by Arafat before him - to believe that if they don't get what they want at the negotiating table, they will get it by means of the 'military alternative.' They have been conditioned to believe by the media controlled by Abu Mazen - and by Arafat before him - that Jews are the subhuman sons of apes and pigs, that a reichlet is just a way station on the way to 'Palestine from the River to the Sea' and that terrorists are 'shaheeds' (martyrs). Is it any wonder that Abu Mazen has no support for executing any commitments for peace? Is it any wonder that the 'peace process' is dead?
Even during the last administration Palestinians didn't believe an agreement could be reached, he said, "but at least we could believe in the concept of a political process." Now, however, "even this has ceased."
What point is there to a 'process' if it is a concept devoid of content? What point is there to a 'process' in which one side does nothing but give and the other does nothing but receive, and the most the giving party can give while remaining alive is less than the receiving party is content to receive? How much longer should such a farcical process be allowed to waste time and resources?
"This is an extremist government that, in the best case, won't go crazy building settlements and won't escalate the security situation but will not bring about political progress during the upcoming period. That is why we need to prepare ourselves to mitigate the damages so that the idea of a two-state solution won't sustain a fatal blow in comparison to the approach of 'all or nothing' or the concept of a binational state," he added.
Given that Netanyahu entered into the Why Why Wye agreement during his first term in office, the 'Palestinians' are awfully pessimistic. And they should be. But not because of Netanyahu (who sees them for what they are) or because of who else might be in the government. The 'Palestinians' should be pessimistic because of what the election results show about Israelis' thinking. The 'Palestinians' should ask themselves - but probably won't - why Israelis now think the way they do.
While I have always been cynical about the 'peace process,' many other Israelis believed in it for far longer than I did. In this election, 65 seats went to the Right. If we make the reasonable assumption that the eleven seats that went to Arab parties were exclusively the result of Arab votes, we discover that among Israeli Jews the Right (the people who wanted an 'extremist government') won 65 seats, while the Left won 44. That means that just shy of 60% of Israeli Jews voted for an 'extremist government.' That's considered an overwhelming majority in just about any national election (Barack Obama had far less than 60% of the popular vote in the US). Are we fools? No, we're not fools and we knew exactly what we were doing. We were clenching our fists. This is part of what Herb Keinon of the JPost wrote the day before election day:
Palestinian actions over the last 15 years have transformed Israeli society, and the country has gone from believing in the 1990s that it had reached safe shores and had been accepted in the region, to believing in 2009 that no matter what it does - be it negotiating a peace deal based on ceding some 95 percent of the territories, or unilaterally evacuating settlements - it will not be accepted in the region.
While the pundits were warning about the radicalization of Palestinian society and overlooking what the Palestinians were doing to Israeli society, they were also calling unceasingly for Israeli confidence-building measures - steps they calculated were needed to shore up Palestinians' confidence that Israel was indeed genuine about wanting a peace deal, as if the withdrawal from Gaza and evacuation of more than 9,000 Jews was not enough of an indication.
But how about the confidence of Israelis? What were the Palestinians doing to build that up? Suicide bombing attacks, homemade rockets, and tunnels meant to kidnap soldiers don't exactly do the trick.
So as a result, we are facing a situation where regardless of whether it is Likud or Kadima that wins Tuesday's elections by a seat or two, the right-wing bloc will most likely be strengthened considerably, as the Left is simply melting away.
If the 'peace process' is truly dead, and the 'Palestinians' want to bring it back to life or start a new one, they must start by growing up and finding the national maturity to acknowledge their own role in killing it. Don't hold your breath waiting for that to happen: The Arabs and Muslims have a long history of blaming their problems on others rather than examining themselves. That history goes back to the 8th century.
The 'peace process' - if it ever existed - is now dead. The 'Palestinians' killed it.
Sorry about the last couple posts and the rather long break. I had a splitting headache and there was no choice.
Jonathan Tobin claims that Prime Minister Netanyahu's choice to play along with the Obama administration on the 'settlement freeze' extension is the lesser of two evils.
Netanyahu must live with a situation where his only ally-state is led by a man who is still uncomfortable with Israel and unwilling to abandon his hubristic belief that he can succeed in making peace where all who have gone before him have failed. Obama has another two years left in his current term and 12 months or so before the requirements of his quest for re-election may serve to deter him from further putting the screws to Israel. During this period, Netanyahu may face a decision about whether Israel will strike at Iran’s nuclear project. Another war with Hezbollah in Lebanon or Hamas in Gaza may also be forced upon the Jewish state during this time frame.
There are no guarantees that this concession, like all those made by Israel before this, will strengthen Israel’s hand in gaining support for its right of self-defense, but doing so will surely make it easier for Israel to make its case before the American people, especially at a time when the White House must be considered essentially unfriendly to Jerusalem. Under the circumstances, Netanyahu cannot be blamed for deciding that giving in on the freeze — when it is obvious that the Palestinians will not take advantage of the opening — is the lesser of two evils.
I disagree. I believe that we gain nothing by acceding to Obama's request. We don't take the Security Council out of the 'Palestinians' hands as a weapon. We don't force Obama to openly and publicly commit to our long-term security - that wasn't even on the table. We don't gain the release of Jonathan Pollard - possibly the only justification for this kind of move (I would have done Pollard for the three-month extension as a straight-up trade).
Instead, we have done many things that will hurt our long-term interests. We are endorsing the 'Palestinian' view that the issue is 'settlements' when they are not and never were the issue. We have reframed the negotiations to negotiate borders - an issue on which we can only give and not receive - as the first and only issue on the table for the next three months. We have placed an expiration date on Obama's commitment to our security. We have shown that we won't keep our word and that we can be forced into making more and more concessions even after we have reached our 'red lines.' We have endorsed the salami method. We have proven that actions (by the 'Palestinians' at least) have no consequences.
Remember those first few days after the Why Why Wye summit in 1998, when it seemed like Netanyahu had no idea what he had signed and why he had signed it? That's what this seems like.
And at the end of the day, the 'Palestinians' don't seek a final status agreement with us. They seek a 'state' - from the River to the Sea.
Did Hillary Clinton seduce Prime Minister Netanyahu last Thursday?
If not, how did she get everything she wanted out of him?
Prime Minister Netanyahu addressed Congress on Tuesday. One Senator didn't show up. But everyone else stood and applauded.
Let's go to the videotape.
A few thoughts (I'm sitting with my Dad in a nursing home, so I'm not really concentrating on this as much as I should).
He put Iran front and center, and he's right that no one else is doing that.
"The more Iran believes that all options are on the table, the less the chance for confrontation." But not everyone seemed to stand and applaud that one.
I note that there was much more applause when he said that the Jews are not occupiers than when he said that the 'Palestinians' deserve their own state. Maybe it's time to stop pushing that 'Palestinian' line? At least let them fight their own battles?
And it's definitely time for Abu Bluff to stand before his people and say he will accept a Jewish state of Israel. But he won't and Netanyahu knows it.
Everyone stood up and cheered when he said that Israel will not return to the indefensible boundaries of 1967.
And note all the applause when he said that Jerusalem must remain the united capital of Israel.
So was it the speech of his life as some have said? I don't know. There's a part of me that says that Netanyahu knows that peace isn't going to happen and talk is cheap so why not say what everyone wants to hear and be done with it - which is largely what he did. But there's also a part of me that says that Netanyahu has a history of weakness (Why Why Wye?) and that the warm words he had for a 'Palestinian state' here could yet come back to haunt us.
Poor Tzipi Livni. How is she going to spin all that applause in Congress? Heh.
UPDATE 4:04 PM (BOSTON TIME)
For the record, ABC News is reporting that Netanyahu got 29 standing ovations during his speech - four more than Obama got during the 2011 State of the Union (Hat Tip: Memeorandum).
The sources, who spoke as U.S.
Secretary of State John Kerry prepared to meet Israeli and Palestinian
leaders, said under the proposed arrangement that Jonathan Pollard, a
former U.S. Navy analyst caught spying for Israel in the 1980s, could be
released by mid-April.
In
addition, Israel would go ahead with a promised release of a fourth
group of Palestinians, among the 104 it pledged to free in a deal that
led to the renewal of peace talks last July. Another group of jailed
Palestinians would also go free - and the peace talks would be extended
beyond an April 29 deadline, the sources said.
As you read what I'm about to say, please keep in mind that I think Jonathan Pollard should have been released a long time ago.
First, there is NO WAY I would agree to a deal where Obama says 'release the terrorists now and I'll release Pollard in two weeks.' Why would Netanyahu agree to such a deal? He was already screwed by Clinton 15 years ago when Clinton promised him that Pollard would be released if Netanyahu signed the Why Why Wye deal. After Netanyahu signed, Clinton reneged. Many American Jews considered Clinton a great friend of Israel. Does anyone consider Obama a great friend of Israel?
Second. what is the 'another group of 'Palestinians''? Whom does that include? How many? Will Netanyahu's cabinet (which would have to approve any release of more than the 104 terrorists to which Netanyahu agreed in July and which would have to approve any release of 'Israeli Arabs') approve that 'other group'? Will it approve the release of 'Israeli Arabs'?
Third, will Pollard himself agree to such a deal? Pollard has said time and time again that he will not agree to be released in exchange for terrorists. Has anyone asked him whether he changed his mind?
Finally, as much as this deal smells rotten, it's very typical Obama. Every President since Bill Clinton has held onto Jonathan Pollard as a bargaining chip to make Israel give up something big (like land) in exchange for Pollard. Leave it to Obama (and I say this as someone who would love to see Pollard released) to release Pollard in exchange for six more months of meaningless negotiations.
Bottom line: No, I don't believe this is going to happen.
Here's one from a writer with whom I rarely agree. The Washington Post's Jackson Diehl highlights the striking parallels between the mad rush to diplomacy being conducted by President Bush and Secretary of State Rice with those conducted by President Clinton and Secretary of State Albright eight years ago. The comparison is not very pretty.
The Rice offensive bears more than a passing resemblance to a record the Bush team once ridiculed -- the mad dash for Israeli-Palestinian peace and North Korean disarmament by the Clinton administration in its final months. In the summer of 2000 President Bill Clinton astonished many in and outside of the Middle East by abruptly convening a summit at Camp David in an attempt to leap to a two-state settlement. Not long afterward, his secretary of state, Madeleine Albright, flew to Pyongyang for an unprecedented meeting with Kim -- drawn by the prospect that North Korea would give up its program of long-range missiles.
Then as now, there were warnings from regional experts that the Palestinians were nowhere near ready for a final settlement and that deteriorating conditions in the West Bank and Gaza made the attempt particularly risky. More than a few Republicans claimed that Albright was being taken in by Kim, who, they said, would pocket the propaganda value of her visit but never deliver his missiles.
The naysayers turned out to be right. Yasser Arafat wasn't ready to conclude a deal, even on the generous terms that Israel then offered (and Olmert now rejects). And Kim was fooling: His negotiators never offered the Clinton administration a serious proposal on missiles. When time ran out, the Bush administration inherited a war between Israelis and Palestinians and an impasse with North Korea.
Is an administration hungry for redemption once again chasing diplomatic mirages? Hill seems convinced that the North Koreans are serious this time, though he worries that Kim will demand more in exchange for his arsenal than the United States will be prepared to give. Abbas and his prime minister, unlike Arafat, have said publicly they are ready to make a two-state deal -- but they don't speak for Hamas, which controls the Gaza Strip and has the ability to trigger another war there or in the West Bank.
The real question is why and how Israel keeps having delusional governments in place that keep playing along with this show. Then again, except for a couple of years when Netanyahu actually refused to move unless the 'Palestinians' lived up to their obligations (1996-98 - up to the Why Why Wye? accord), every Israeli government since 1992 has played along with the charade called the 'peace process.' The Olmert-Barak-Livni government certainly won't be the one to change that precedent.
Prime Minister Netanyahu heads to Washington on Tuesday night, where he will have dinner on Wednesday night with President Obama, 'moderate' 'Palestinian' President Mahmoud AbbasAbu Mazen, Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, Jordanian King Abdullah and others. On Thursday, Netanyahu will attend the first negotiating session of the new round of direct talks, along with Secretary of State Clinton and Abu Mazen.
Credit has to be given where it is due. Except for the lapse of the 'settlement freeze,' which is due to expire in 26 days, Netanyahu has given nothing in these talks. He has refused to commit to extending the freeze, he has refused to accept the 1949 armistice lines as any kind of basis for negotiation, and he has refused to commit to expelling any more Jews from their homes. He has continued to repeat the mantra "negotiations without preconditions," until that mantra became reality. He has refused again and again to return to the disastrous terms agreed to by Ehud Olmert.
So why are we all so nervous here? There are three reasons. First, Netanyahu has also not told Israelis were he stands. Is he going to make real concessions to the 'Palestinians' or is he planning to call their bluff? On Wednesday, MK Danny Danon (Likud) submitted five questions about Netanyahu's red lines. They weren't answered (at least in public) and won't be. I'd like to believe Netanyahu's playing a chess game in which he's going to be patient and wait for Abu Mazen to make the wrong move. But is that really what's going to happen? Netanyahu is known for talking tough, but he is also known for caving in at the end and making sudden mistakes (why, why Wye?). Will that happen again?
Second, in Barack Obama, the US has a President who is far more committed to bringing peacethe 'Palestinian' cause than any of his predecessors. The silver lining in that cloud is that until November 2 when the midterm elections take place, Obama will pay a high political price for pressuring Israel. That will likely let Israel get away with not fully renewing the freeze. But what then? After November 2 until January, Obama will have a lame duck Democratic Congress that may be willing to do whatever he wants. After January, Obama will likely face a Republican-controlled Congress that will severely restrict his ability to push any sort of domestic agenda. Will he turn to foreign policy - and specifically Israel - instead? Will he give up on a second term altogether and seek a legacy as a 'peacemaker' by going all out to pressure Israel? Will he pressure the 'Palestinians' at all? (Rumor has it that he has pressured them in private, but I doubt that it's any more than Clinton pressured Arafat, which was pretty much not at all).
Third, we sit in the middle of several potential explosions. Iran seeks nuclear weapons to destroy us. Hezbullah has thousands of rockets ready to rain down upon us and has de facto control over Lebanon. Hamas has suicide bombers and missiles ready for us as well (Israel Radio reported this morning that Hamas now has rockets with an 80-kilometer range - enough to hit the Sharon region). What will set any of them off? Will the failure of these talks lead to war?
Based on where we stand now, here's what I see happening:
1. The freeze will be extended in time (whether for a whole year or in smaller chunks remains to be seen). It will not apply to 'east' Jerusalem and the 'settlement blocs,' although there may be restrictions on the construction of private homes unofficially (in Jerusalem) and officially (in the 'settlement blocs'). Netanyahu may feel he has to do this to ensure that he is not blamed if Abu Mazen walks out. But this will be enough so that Abu Mazen will not walk out.
2. Obama will place enormous pressure on Netanyahu after November 2 if Abu Mazen doesn't walk out before then. Obama's promise to pressure Netanyahu will keep Abu Mazen at the table. Netanyahu's fallback is his coalition. The coalition and the Israeli public have to keep voicing opposition to what's going on in Washington because that will give Netanyahu the ability to tell Obama that his hands are tied because Israelis aren't willing to do what it will take to seemingly satisfy the 'Palestinians.' If Netanyahu is greeted by massive demonstrations every time he returns from Washington (which hopefully won't be Friday afternoon every time as it will be this week), he can point to those demonstrations and use them to resist pressure from Obama.
3. Netanyahu will eventually call Abu Mazen's bluff over the 'refugees,' an issue with respect to which Abu Mazen has no wiggle room. Netanyahu may even offer to let some small number of 'refugees' return. But it will be an absolute number and it will come with an end of conflict declaration and Abu Mazen will say no.
4. Netanyahu will stick to his guns on the 'settlement blocs' and on Jerusalem. He will continue to insist on controlling the Jordan Valley. I can't promise you he'll stick to his guns on other points, but in the end it won't matter. If everything isn't agreed, nothing is agreed. And Abu Mazen will not agree to an Israeli presence on the Jordanian border, nor will he agree to a demilitarized state.
5. The 'Palestinians' will not be the cause of another war here right now. That will be left to Iran, and will lead to Hezbullah, Hamas, Lebanon, Syria and the 'Palestinians' joining in. Hopefully that will happen before Iran becomes a nuclear power.
Columnist George Will is visiting Jerusalem this week. Will has apparently paid a visit to the Kirya (the government office complex on the outskirts of downtown), where he visited with Prime Minister Netanyahu.
Two photographs adorn the office of Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu. Together they illuminate a portentous fact: No two leaders of democracies are less alike -- in life experiences, temperaments and political philosophies -- than Netanyahu, the former commando and fierce nationalist, and Barack Obama, the former professor and post-nationalist.
One photograph is of Theodor Herzl, born 150 years ago. Dismayed by the eruption of anti-Semitism in France during the Dreyfus Affair at the end of the 19th century, Herzl became Zionism's founding father. Long before the Holocaust, he concluded that Jews could find safety only in a national homeland.
The other photograph is of Winston Churchill, who considered himself "one of the authors" of Britain's embrace of Zionism.
After reminding us that one of Obama's first acts in office was to return to Britain a bust of Churchill that George W. Bush had kept in the White House's oval office, Will goes on to explain why he believes President Obama will not be able to ply Netanyahu around to his positions.
Arguably the most left-wing administration in American history is trying to knead and soften the most right-wing coalition in Israel's history. The former shows no understanding of the latter, which thinks it understands the former all too well.
The prime minister honors Churchill, who spoke of "the confirmed unteachability of mankind." Nevertheless, a display case in Netanyahu's office could teach the Obama administration something about this leader. It contains a small signet stone that was part of a ring found near the Western Wall. It is about 2,800 years old -- 200 years younger than Jerusalem's role as the Jewish people's capital. The ring was the seal of a Jewish official, whose name is inscribed on it: Netanyahu.
No one is less a transnational progressive, less a post-nationalist, than Binyamin Netanyahu, whose first name is that of a son of Jacob, who lived perhaps 4,000 years ago. Netanyahu, whom no one ever called cuddly, once said to a U.S. diplomat 10 words that should warn U.S. policymakers who hope to make Netanyahu malleable: "You live in Chevy Chase. Don't play with our future."
Will is right about the coalition, but Netanyahu's reputation here is that he is one of the most pliable politicians that this country has. From the Why Why Wye agreement of his first term, in which he gave up most of Hebron, to the current 'settlement freeze' in Judea and Samaria, which includes a de facto freeze in Jerusalem, most Israelis would tell Will that while Netanyahu's heart seems to be in the right place, his policies tend to reflect the last and strongest pressure that is placed upon him. Jeffrey Goldberg's magnum opus on Iran has a view of Netanyahu that is far more familiar to most Israelis:
BEN-ZION NETANYAHU—his first name means “son of Zion”—is the world’s foremost historian of the Spanish Inquisition and a onetime secretary to Vladimir Jabotinsky, the founder of the intractable, “revisionist” branch of Zionism. He is father to a tragic Israeli hero, Yonatan Netanyahu, who died while freeing the Jewish hostages at Entebbe in 1976; and also father to Benjamin, who strives for greatness in his father’s eyes but has, on occasion, disappointed him, notably when he acquiesced, in his first term as prime minister in the late 1990s, to American pressure and withdrew Israeli forces from much of the West Bank city of Hebron, Judaism’s second-holiest city. Benjamin Netanyahu is not known in most quarters for his pliability on matters concerning Palestinians, though he has been trying lately to meet at least some of Barack Obama’s demands that he move the peace process forward.
“Always in the back of Bibi’s mind is Ben-Zion,” one of the prime minister’s friends told me. “He worries that his father will think he is weak.”
...
Many people in Likud Party circles have told me that those who discount Ben-Zion’s influence on his son do so at their peril. “This was the father giving his son history’s marching orders,” one of the attendees told me. “I watched Bibi while his father spoke. He was completely absorbed.” (One of Netanyahu’s Knesset allies told me, indelicately, though perhaps not inaccurately, that the chance for movement toward the creation of an independent Palestinian state will come only after Ben-Zion’s death. “Bibi could not withdraw from more of Judea and Samaria”—the biblical names for the West Bank—“and still look into his father’s eyes.”)
That Knesset ally got it right. Will has mistaken Bibi for Yitzchak Shamir.
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
Likud leader Binyamin Netanyahu won the Likud primary with 73.2% of the vote. Afterward, he shifted his victory speech to an alternate location to the one that had been announced and had bouncers prevent Moshe Feiglin - who won 23.5% of the vote - from entering the hall. 
