Hanan Ashrawi: The Master Manipulator

Ms. Ashrawi is a gifted orator, but she is also a master manipulator of the facts in order to place all the blame on Israel. This further delays peace by saving the Palestinians from having to make difficult decisions.

In an interview with Foreign Policy magazine, Ashrawi makes several statements which simply are wrong. I'll address only a few here.

First, Ashrawi says "power politics" have always "played against the Palestinians." This is untrue. The UN 1947 Partition Resolution, negotiated by the world powers, offered Palestinians their state. They rejected it. In 1991, the U.S., Russia, and others came together to finally give the Palestinians a voice at the negotiating table. The U.S, Russia, and others did so again by endorsing the Oslo Process. The Palestinians squandered both opportunities. World powers have also given Palestinians billions in aid. World powers have given the Palestinians opportunities to improve their situation. Instead, Palestinian leaders have wasted them.

Ashrawi says that the "path" of bilateral negotiations with Israel has gotten Palestinians "nowhere." This is not true. Negotiations with Israel have given the Palestinians more than they have gotten from anyone, especially their Arab bretheren. Israel has given them legitimacy, elections, arms, and not least, tangible land in the West Bank and Gaza to call their own. Instead, they cannot get their act together, unify, renounce violence once and for all, and establish lasting peace with Israel. Palestinian failures are pathetic and saddening.

Finally, Ashrawi says Obama "has never really put pressure on the Israeli government." This also is not the case. Obama has pressured Israel more than any other U.S. president in recent times and, ironically, to the detriment of Palestinian interests. Early on, Obama raised the settlement issue and put pressure on Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu. Obama has been unrelenting in demanding that Israel -- not the Palestinians -- demonstrate goodwill in order to restart peace talks. Anyone who remotely follows Middle East events knows of the pressure Obama has put on Israel. This statement alone by Ashrawi exposes her as consistently disregarding the facts in order to smear Israel and avoid pressure on the Palestinians.

Obama's pressure on Israel regarding settlements is not in the Palestinians' long-term best interests. By pushing hard on settlements, Obama is actually hurting Palestinians because he is allowing them to avoid having to do anything themselves to move the peace process forward. Why is this bad? Because it further delays the achievement of their goal of statehood. The Palestinians can just sit back and wait, stalling the process, while Israel and Obama bicker over the settlement issue. This actually hurts the Palestinian masses the most, as opposed to their leaders. Their leaders benefit because they are not ready/willing to make difficult decisions anyways, and Obama is saving them from having to.

Ashrawi is a has-been who has served only to help perpetuate the conflict rather than encourage her people to compromise. She should retire to Paris with Suha.

Poor Timing for Expanded Peace Push

Iran's nuclear ambitions and sponsorship of terror should be curtailed before Israel is expected to concede territory to Syria in accordance with any future peace agreement. Otherwise, supposed peace agreements play into the Arab strategy of shrinking Israel in size while retaining the will and capability to attack.

After accompanying Secretary Clinton to the Middle East last week, U.S. special envoy to the Middle East and former Senator George Mitchell dropped in on Syrian President Bashar al-Asad in Damascus to reassure him that renewed focus on an Israel-Palestinian deal would not be to Syria's detriment.

Mitchell reportedly said, "Our effort to resolve the Palestinian-Israel conflict in no way contradicts or conflicts with our goal of comprehensive peace between Israel and Syria."

Seizing on Mitchell's remarks, Israel's left-leaning, liberal daily Ha'aretz is calling for a renewed push on Israel-Syria talks. The paper says the Israeli government should "seize the opportunity for peace currently materializing" and "achieve a peace agreement that will provide great advantages to this country."

Ha'aretz probably calculates that such an agreement, likely requiring Israel to forfeit the Golan Heights to Syria, will involve Syria 1) expelling Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, and other terrorist groups from Damascus and 2) ending material and logistical support to Hizballah in Lebanon. It's doubtful Asad would actually ever do so, regardless of what he may agree to on paper, making a peace deal with Israel extremely risky and, essentially, useless. The "great advantages" Ha'aretz envisions from a comprehensive peace between Israel and all her neighbors, then, would not materialize.

Given the extent of the Iranian threat, it is unwise to advocate further land concessions beyond what Israel might make in the context of the current peace talks with the Palestinians. Ha'aretz's big rush to shrink Israel geographically before the situation with Iran is resolved involves too much risk.

Parsing Netanyahu's Words

PajamasMedia has published my article on Netanyahu's about-face on reciprocity and demilitarization, two key indicators that his tough stance on Israeli security may be weakening.

Palestinian Negotiator Moonlights As Times Headline Editor

The following is an unpublished letter-to-the-editor of the New York Times:


September 7, 2010

Dear Editorial Page Editor:

I somehow missed the press release announcing Palestinian peace negotiator Nabil Shaath’s appointment as Times headline writer.

“Settlements in West Bank Are Clouding Peace Talks” [September 3, 2010] quotes Shaath as saying, “The climate [in recent talks between Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu and Palestinian President Abbas] was positive, but the cloud is still there. The Israelis gave absolutely no hopeful signs that they will continue the moratorium [on settlement building].”

Rather than pin the fate of the talks on Israeli policies, the larger mystery and threat is whether the Palestinians now are prepared to make conflict-ending concessions. Netanyahu adviser Zalman Shoval says the Palestinians’ refusal to recognize Israel as a Jewish nation-state “more than any other thing is the most tangible obstacle” to peace. In his memoirs released last week, Quartet envoy to the Middle East and former British Prime Minister Tony Blair writes, “If the Palestinian cause gave up violence emphatically and without ambiguity, there would be a peace agreement within a year.”

Netanyahu says Israel will go “a long way” toward achieving peace – presumably, including concessions on settlements. The real “cloud” is whether Palestinian leaders still lack the courage to prepare their people for decisions required of a final deal. According to a recent poll, only a third of Palestinians see negotiations – vice violence – as the best means to an agreement.


Sincerely,


Jess M. Sadick

US Interfering in Israeli Decision-Making

The following is an unpublished letter-to-the-editor of the Wall Street Journal:

September 2, 2010

Editorial Page Editor
Wall Street Journal


Dear Editorial Page Editor:

U.S. taxpayers should not be subsidizing commercials in which Palestinian leaders profess partnership with Israelis in hopes of winning concessions in peace talks (“Israel, Palestinians Jockey Ahead of Summit,” World News, August 31, 2010). Rather, Israelis alone must decide, based on tangible actions and not empty words, whether Palestinians, and not just their leaders, are trustworthy partners for peace.

A better and more urgent use of U.S. funds would be to enable Palestinian leaders to preach coexistence and compromise to their own people. According to recent polling by the reputable Palestinian Center for Public Opinion, more than three-quarters of Palestinians still aspire to “historic Palestine from the river to the sea,” and a large minority still supports violence. Palestinian leaders and media continue to send counterproductive messages, naming parks and summer camps after “martyred” terrorists and educating children to aspire to “return” to pre-1967 Israel. A children’s program on official Palestinian television last week reportedly described five Israeli cities as “occupied.”

Until Palestinian leaders begin educating their people differently, no peace agreement with Israel will be permanent, regardless of the firmness of their handshake.


Sincerely,


Jess M. Sadick

Fearing Negotiations, Palestinians Add a Precondition

Palestinian leaders are afraid to restart peace negotiations with Israel because they want to avoid being pressured to make concessions to Israel. That's mainly why Israel agreed to a 10-month settlement construction freeze -- because it called the Palestinians' bluff and knew they wouldn't reciprocate anyhow.

Now that Netanyahu has taken steps like the freeze, eased travel restrictions on goods and people in the West Bank, and accepted in principle a two-state solution, to avoid negotiations Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas is adding new preconditions to renewed peace talks. In a speech to the PLO Central Committee in Ramallah -- which is meeting to extend Abbas's term in office rather than hold elections in the West Bank and Gaza, where Hamas is in control and could poll well -- Abbas now says that Israel's agreeing to specific borders beforehand is a precondition of renewed negotiations, whereas before he only called for a settlement freeze.

This is obstructionism and the world community -- and especially the Obama Administration -- should call him out on it and insist that the Palestinians relent and reciproate Israel's goodwill. If they refuse, the world community ought to withhold from the Palestinian Authority legitimacy and financial support.

White House Wrong on Israeli Housing Construction

The municipal government of Jerusalem this week approved the construction of 900 new apartments in the Jewish neighborhood of Gilo. After the 1967 war in which Arab states tried again to eliminate Israel, Israel was left in control of all of Jerusalem, including the area where Gilo now sits. (Note: The Washington Post misleadingly called the apartments “homes,” which conjures up an image of a huge swath of land dotted with 900 single-family houses and white picket fences when, in fact, the Gilo construction is much more limited in its footprint.)

Unfortunate for the Arabs, they tried to defeat Israel by war and lost. Usually, to the victor go the spoils, but not, it seems, when it comes to Israel and the Middle East. Instead, Israel is expected to give away its hard-won assets for empty promises and, if it’s lucky, cold peace.

Also unfortunate for the Arabs, the Israelis now have a government that understands the illogic of this approach and has no intention of yielding, to them or to the White House, the Jewish state’s right to build apartments for Jews on land on which Jewish blood was lost while defending the state.

In the history of time, no authority over Jerusalem has ever guaranteed religious access as much as Israel has - a fact that objective observers cannot deny. Sure, once in a while, intelligence of planned unrest forces security closures. But there is no doubting that Arab authorities enjoy and exercise wide latitude in managing sites important to the Muslim faith. (In fact, unchecked Arab construction on the Temple Mount which threatens sensitive antiquities there suggests Arab authorities enjoy too much autonomy, but that’s a subject for a future article.)

The point is: sharing control over Jerusalem with the Arabs is unnecessary. They have 22 of their own Arab countries, including control of religious sites Mecca and Medina. Mentioned only as the “remote place” in their Koran, Jerusalem is of low religious significance, and Arab demands to control at least part of the city are baseless and unreasonable. The United States should join Israel in continuing to resist such demands in perpetuity.

Instead, Barak Obama’s White House has it all wrong. Spokesman Robert Gibbs said of the Jerusalem municipality’s decision to build in Gilo: “At a time when we are working to relaunch negotiations [between Israel and the Palestinians], these actions make it more difficult for our efforts to succeed.”

Israel’s actions make it “more difficult” because the White House allows them to, by giving Palestinians cover for refusing to negotiate.

Instead, Gibbs ought to have said: “Israel has announced plans to build new housing for Jews in Gilo in order to accommodate the natural growth of families who, understandably, need more space to live. Israel won the land in Gilo in a defensive war and, obviously, as a consequence, has an absolute right to build there….”

Gibbs would continue: “If the Arabs aspire to control parts of Jerusalem, they had better get their act together soon before their hoped-for piece of the pie shrinks any further. The Palestinians ought to come to the table, in good faith, ready to make substantive concessions to Israel in order to forge a lasting peace. Maybe then, Israel will voluntarily curtail construction. The Palestinians shouldn’t miss another opportunity.”

Israeli settlement and other housing construction for Jews is only a “problem” for the so-called “peace process” because the Arabs and this White House make it so. The fact of the matter is that robust Israeli construction, 1) demonstrates to the Palestinians that time is not on their side and 2) would hasten the pace of, and not obstruct, negotiations toward a final peace settlement if that really were the Palestinians’ ultimate goal.

Reward Outcome Not Effort

Ok, call me crazy, but I think that public servants should be honored and rewarded based upon the outcome of their efforts rather than those efforts in and of themselves.

Sure, merely trying hard is important and deserves recognition, but if nothing honorable comes of those efforts -- or, worse, they are a miserable failure -- then they don't merit praise.

Wouldn't you know it, I have two examples in mind.

The first is Mohamed ElBaradei, chief of the International Atomic Energy Agency, or IAEA. The Wall Street Journal recently reminded us that Mr. ElBaradei and the IAEA were awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 2005 "for their work to prevent nuclear proliferation for military uses."

Meanwhile, the Journal reports that American and European officials recently accused ElBaradei of "playing down evidence pointing toward Iranian attempts to advance its nuclear program." European and U.S. officials have been "hearing much more alarming assessments" from IAEA technical experts than what ElBaradei is publishing or stating publicly. For instance, ElBaradei said recently that the IAEA "has no concrete proof of an ongoing nuclear weapons program in Iran." The buzzwords here being "concrete" and "ongoing," which ElBaradei uses to detract from the significance of the evidence he does have but doesn't want to share.

The truth of the matter is that ElBaradei's downplaying, for whatever reason, Iran's progress on nuclear weapons is delaying either economic sanctions or military action necessary to prevent a nuclear Iran from becoming reality. The point being: honoring ElBaradei with one of the world's most preeminent prizes was premature.

A second example: Dennis Ross, President Clinton's Middle East negotiator. Occasionally, I attend an event where Mr. Ross is a guest speaker and, invariably, after Ross speaks, some Jewish attendee prefaces his or her question with a statement lavishly praising Ross for all he's done for Israel and the Jewish people.

In reality, what Mr. Ross has done is the following: During the run-up to the outbreak of Palestinian violence in September 2000, Mr. Ross and his team ignored dozens of intelligence reports I wrote sending up warning signs of the peace process' imminent collapse. These reports revealed the revolving door of Palestinian prisons, weapons smuggling activity, and cooperation between Palestinian security services and terrorist groups. They also revealed Palestinian incitement and malintent. However, instead of stopping the process, Ross pushed on and what resulted was a war in which over 1,000 Israelis, and many more Palestinians, lost their lives. By holding Arafat to account, the war might have been prevented.

Nevertheless, Mr. Ross is continuously praised. People will say, "Well, he tried" to end a seemingly intractable dispute, but trying is not enough. Both ElBaradei and Ross have little positive to show for their efforts and must shoulder some responsibility.

I think the people who we honor should have clear achievements to their name, and not just a record of trying.

No Progress is Good Progress

One problem with the leftist peace camp is that it believes it is up to Israel to deliver peace and that Israel alone is to blame for any lack of progress. Consider for example the following:

Since again becoming Prime Minister some six months ago, the “peace process” had yet to advance and already Netanyahu is being blamed. On September 13, the Israeli daily Ma’ariv opined that Netanyahu, like former Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir, “does nothing.” Another leading Israeli daily, Ha’aretz, claimed “Netanyahu has not made one significant political achievement” and is “leading us astray.”

The most difficult lesson of the Oslo period which the political left cannot seem to grasp is that an apparent lack of “progress” on the peace process is, ironically, exactly what the process needs to succeed. The longer the Palestinians go without Israeli concessions on land, settlements and other tangibles, the more likely they are to finally realize the need to make concessions of their own. (Palestinian violence may increase in the short-term but only until the masses finally realize it is useless.) The Palestinians need to understand that they must meet Israel half-way on most, if not all, issues, just as the political left needs to understand that peace is a two-way street. The political left believes that if only Israel met Palestinian demands, peace would be at hand. They're entirely wrong.

The Oslo process demonstrated that signed agreements are useless if one of the signatories has no intent to live up to them. By refusing to produce “progress” for the sake of progress alone, the Netanyahu government signals the Palestinians that the ball is in their court. The political left would best serve the cause of peace if they pressured Palestinians, not Israel, to show good faith and make tangible proposals as to how to advance peace.

Media Faults Obama on Israel Policy

Voices criticizing President Obama's policy toward Israel are increasing. Anyone interested in developments in US-Israel relations and the Israel-Palestinian issue must drop everything and read the following three referenced items:

On July 30, the Washington Post published an outstanding editorial arguing Obama's very public anti-settlement stance and general hostility toward Israel may backfire.

This followed an equally stellar piece in the Jerusalem Post by Isi Leibler calling on American Jews who voted for Obama to cash in their chits and demand a more understandable approach to Israel from the White House. (They should also, by the way, beg forgiveness from us American Jews who knew better and voted McCain.) Among Leibler's points: none other than the Zionist Organization of America was excluded from a White House meeting about Israel between Obama and American Jewish groups at which the ZOA's defense of Jewish housing in Jerusalem and the West Bank could otherwise have been heard. Shamefully, no other group reportedly presented such a perspective.

Finally, the Australian reminded anyone who needed to be reminded -- which excludes the MiddleEastContrarian -- that reformed Palestinian leadership "mature enough" to confront terrorism -- and not Jewish settlements -- is the key to Israel-Palestinian peace.

The Dilemma Facing the Israeli Left

In an interesting editorial today, the Israeli daily Yediot Achronot calls for dramatic change among Israel's two major left-wing political parties. Their quandary, it sounds, is much like that facing U.S. Republicans -- how to find a new message that resonates with the populace.

The collapse of the Labor Party and of Meretz in the recent elections is so dramatic that it must lead to a genuine shake-up in the Zionist Left...to stop devoting all resources to the Palestinian issue.

For too long, left-wing Zionists have fixated on a "peace process" with the Palestinians while completely ignoring reality. That reality -- over the last nine years, in particular -- has been that the Palestinians are unprepared to compromise on anything while demanding more of Israel, literally. Yet, left-wing Israeli Zionists still aim to forge a peace deal. Instead, they've lost all credibility, as shown in the February 10 balloting.

Former Labor party leader and current Israeli President Shimon Peres's contrition regarding his support of a Gaza withdrawal sets the right tone.

[Gaza] should have been done otherwise. I was for leaving Gaza. I consider myself as one of the persons mistaken.

Left-wing Israeli would do better to refocus their energies on other, domestic challenges facing Israel. Meanwhile, Israel's soon-to-be, right-of-center coalition government will work to ensure Israeli security until Palestinians are truly ready for a productive peace process.

Which Israeli Political Party Would You Support?

There is an interesting online survey available which helps you determine where you'd fall on Israel's political spectrum and which Israeli political party you'd support.

Apparently, the survey is designed to help undecided Israeli voters (at least 30 percent of whom reportedly remain undecided) for whom they ought to vote.

Some of the questions are very difficult, in the sense that they really make you reconsider, or at least struggle with, long-held beliefs. Others are simply poorly-written, and I suspect probably to skew the results.

For example, one question asks whether freedom of speech should be protected in Israel even for those who "speak against the state." Well, obviously, many supporters of democracy will answer "yes." But in the context of Israel, "speaking against the state" really refers to those Arab Knesset (parliament) members who travel to Lebanon and Syria to participate in anti-Israel rallies organized by Hizballah and Hamas. In this proper context, the answer to the question then ought to be a resounding "no."

Decide for yourself what, if any, other questions are equally disturbing or unfair.

Meantime, I'm proud that I ranked a solid "hawk." You'll see what I mean when you see your own results.

A Bittersweet Battle in Gaza

Israel's attack on Hamas in Gaza, which started today, is a bittersweet moment.

It's relieving to see Hamas, which has been firing rockets into southern Israel for months and still holds IDF soldier Gilat Shalit for over two years, finally feeling some pain. Hopefully, Israel will be relentless in its attacks and force upon Hamas a new reality in which it understands a price will be paid for any future instigation.

However, today's violence is, undeniably, also terribly saddening. Palestinians in Gaza could have been better off had it not been for Hamas. Israel's withdrawal from Gaza in August 2005 offered an opportunity for the Palestinians there to exercise self-rule and establish a nascent state. Hamas failed them, but Palestinians also failed themselves for electing Hamas to power. As a Ha'aretz columnist wrote, "Nothing has been more instrumental in harming the cause of Palestinian independence than Hamas."

Instead of building a state, Hamas began building an army, with dozens of new security installations, thousands of new recruits, and tens of thousands of rockets and anti-aircraft missiles smuggled via Egypt.

Hamas and Palestinian Authority leaders need to be pressured to help Palestinians along a different path toward reconciliation with Israel. Unfortunately, they won't hear that from Israel's closest Arab allies. Egypt reportedly condemned Israel's attacks today, which Jordan's King Abdullah said "targeted innocent women and children." These Arab "allies" should know better. They should put the blame squarely on Hamas, not Israel.

Instead, the relief from Hamas rule which Palestinians deserve will be delayed and will come only once Palestinians, collectively, have tired of war and rise up against their corrupt rulers demanding change. If that time comes only in a hundred or more years, so be it. For only then will a lasting peace be within reach.

Palestinian Newspaper Ads Make Demands

At least one major Israeli newspaper also has issues with those newspaper ads the Palestinian Authority has taken out in Israel and which I talked about last week.

Yediot Achronot says the ads resemble ultimatums more than they do invitations to negotiations where disputes might be resolved amicably.

I am glad to see Israeli outlets questioning the sincerity of this Palestinian tactic.

Wrong Target Market

The Jerusalem Post, citing the Associated Press, reports that Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas will begin running advertisements in Israeli newspapers calling upon Israelis to back a peace plan proposed by Arab leaders. The plan calls for a full withdrawal to pre-1967 borders and for a "just" resolution to the Palestinian refugee issue, which the Arabs mean to involve resettlement within Israel. Both would jeopardize Israeli security.

However, Abbas has it wrong. The real impediment to peace, the real people who need convincing, are the Palestinian people Abbas supposedly leads. Israelis won't, and shouldn't, agree to such farfetched concessions until they trust that Palestinians have buried their terrorist hatchets, are tired of fighting, are willing to confront the terrorists among them who kill civilians and disrupt peace efforts, and are ready for compromise.

Abbas's ads should appear in Palestinian newspapers and call upon his people to prepare themselves for a final reconciliation with Israel, for the good of their children and their children's children, etc. If it's a matter of money, I'm sure the U.S. government could foot the bill. Unfortunately, it's a matter of cowardliness and failed leadership and an underlying commitment to perpetuating the conflict and to Israel's ultimate defeat. Until Palestinians have true, responsible leaders, Israelis should resist such insincere media hoaxes.

US Should Resist Saudi Pressure

The Saudis want to play the old game with the United States and the US should dictate new rules. The US wants the Saudis to attend a planned Israel-Palestinian peace conference President Bush announced earlier this month, and now the Saudis are trying to shift conference's focus away from Palestinian reform and toward US pressure on Israel. The US should push back and resist Saudi pressure.

"We are interested in a peace conference that deals with substantive matters of peace, issues of real substance, not non-substantive issues," the Saudi foreign minister, Prince Saud al-Faisal, said at a news conference with [US Secretary of State] Rice and [US Secretary of Defense] Gates in Jiddah, Saudi Arabia. "If that does so, that becomes of great interest to Saudi Arabia. . . . We would look very closely and very hard at attending." (Washington Post, August 2, 2007)

"Substantive matters of peace" is code for Israel's withdrawal to the 1967 borders and vacating all West Bank settlements. However, as the Gaza disengagement proved, the impediments to lasting peace do not involve land and settlements but lack of a serious partner among the Palestinians ready to make compromises for peace, among them ending terrorism once and for all as a negotiating strategy and recognizing Israel's right to secure and defendable borders. In order to succeed, the conference must focus on creating a reformed, accountable Palestinian Authority that can take public support away from Hamas. Otherwise, it will fail and peace will be further delayed. That's why the US must insist to the Saudis that there's a new game in town, with new rules, and that the US has sobered up and will no longer fall for their tricks if Israeli-Palestinian peace is ever to be achieved.