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.

Palestinians to Abbas: Stay Put

The Palestinians' problems at times seem insurmountable. Their justice system is in shambles. Extrajudicial killings are common. A terrorist group, Hamas, rival to the ruling Fatah party, delivers most social services. The Palestinians were promised peace, but their leaders have yet to deliver. Palestinian society remains largely dependent on foreign aid. One would think the Palestinian President would be too preoccupied solving issues to have time for anything else, much less travel.

Not the case.

Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas this week heads to Latin America -- Argentina, Brazil, Columbia, and Mexico, specifically. He aims to rally international support for a push at the United Nations for a unilateral declaration of statehood, which would contravene the Oslo Accords' prohibition on any step prejudging the outcome of final-status negotiations.

Abbas travels a lot, especially for a leader with tons of unresolved problems at home. Last December, he visited Chechnya and Russia. And the August before that, Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, and Egypt. In October 2008, it was Syria and, in July, Tunisia. Since assuming the presidency in 2004, Abbas also has visited Chile, Mauritania, India, Sri Lanka, China, Japan, New Zealand, Pakistan, Senegal, Malta, Indonesia, Malaysia, Mali, Brunei, and more than a dozen European countries, not to mention the U.S.

Despite all this international travel, guess where Abbas had never set foot as President as of late last year -- the Palestinian cities of Hebron, Janin, Qalqiliya, and Tulkarem. Local leaders of his own Fatah party complain that he hasn't visited their districts and addressed the people there. Palestinian commentator Hani al-Masri says Abbas has "little to show" for his time as President and prefers to travel in order to avoid dealing with difficult domestic issues.

Abbas' defenders say international travel is key to winning broad support for the Palestinian cause. They are probably right, and it may help explain why the UN is so partial to Palestinian political positions.

Despite his jet-setting and criticism from his own people, Abbas remains the U.S. State Department's favorite child. Department spokesman Ian Kelly, on November 6, said of Abbas after his threatened resignation:

We have tremendous respect for him and we think he's an important player in the process, a voice of moderation, and we look forward to continuing to work with him.

"Tremendous" respect? Does he really deserve that? Besides win friends abroad, what has he done to help resolve his people's day-to-day problems or advance the peace process one bit? Rather, this statement reveals the desperation at the State Department to grab onto anything it can to resuscitate the peace process. It's pathetic and, more importantly, counter-productive.

By embracing a man who has done little to prepare his people for concessions necessary to bring peace or to resolve the domestic issues confronting his people, the State Department condemns the Palestinians to poor and ineffective leadership. The media are equally to blame. Point out one article in the press, ever, discussing Abbas's role in proposing or approving legislation addressing any Palestinian domestic issue or one article discussing Abbas's leadership style or how he governs or brokers solutions to domestic issues. Such responsibilities are not expected of the man, so the media doesn't cover it.

If Abbas continues to get a free ride -- and all indications are that he will -- then the Palestinians will continue to be cheated of responsible, effective leadership expected of democracies worldwide, and the Palestinians will never be able to develop the institutions necessary for self-governance and needed to help reassure Israelis that any further concessions would really bring peace.

Where Lives Are Expendable

Why is it that in populous, second-world nations human life seems to have diminished value? And why do the governments of such nations just seem to care less about their people? Is it because there are so many people that the loss of a relative few is tolerable? Or, is the answer simply that, in many cases, these governments are run by unaccountable dictators who couldn't care less? Either way, I don't think it's that simple.

Egypt provides the most recent example, after reports tonight that a train collision killed 25. The accident is only the most recent of several that needlessly took the lives of many, many people. I have a hunch that if these countries had bureaucracies where people were held to account for their inadequacies and mistakes, more accidents would be prevented. At least that's a more hopeful answer than thinking that countries with hugely-populated metropolitan areas simply view people as expendable.

Israel: Over-Experienced, Under-Appreciated

In grade school, there were students who had all the answers and volunteered them in class, saving all the others the embarrassment of being called upon to supply an answer they did not have. Despite being helpful, the students with the answers were ridiculed for being "too" smart and shown no appreciation or respect.

Israel is today's school know-it-all and no more respected.

Early this year, Israel fought Hamas in Gaza. Known for dozens of deadly suicide bombings in Israel earlier this decade, Hamas this time had been shooting rockets into southern Israeli cities. Israel was forced to act. Still, a United Nations report accused Israel of war crimes. This type of criticism, unfortunately, has become the norm.

The irony is that the world has so much to learn from Israel's experience. Yet, that experience is constantly and consistently under attack.

Today, the Wall Street Journal reported that a dual U.S.-Egyptian citizen living near Boston had planned to attack shopping malls. A mall representative acknowledged, "it is difficult to prevent someone from carrying out an act if they do not care about dying in that act." True, but vigiliant Israeli security has foiled many an attack on Israeli malls, and the Israeli experience could be instructive here.

Similarly, NBC News reported tonight that U.S. authorities on the Arizona-Mexico border have discovered 18 underground drug-smuggling tunnels this year. One tunnel passed beneath a church playground, reminiscent of Hamas weapons-smuggling tunnels in Gaza some with entrances and exits in Palestinian childrens' bedrooms. Like those dug by Hamas, drug tunnels found were elaborate, with wood frames and ventilation systems. (Are Mexican drug-smugglers taking a lesson or two from Hamas?) U.S. authorities say it is a "daily struggle, a cat-and-mouse game" to disrupt the tunnels, and they admit the border is "not secure." U.S. and Israeli military forces are training together in the U.S. on new techniques to locate and destroy underground tunnels. Again, we can and are learning from Israel's experience.

Israel is also routinely criticized for its policy of demolishing homes of terrorists and their families as a deterrent. However, other countries now facing terrorism inside their own borders are adopting the same technique. The Wall Street Journal reported today that Pakistani troops are "facing stiff resistance" with militants "fighting for every space" in that country's stepped-up campaign against the Taliban. Sounds a lot like Israel's battle against Palestinian terrorists in the West Bank city of Janin in 2002, during which Israel was falsely accused of massacring civilians. Interestingly, the Journal reports that Pakistani troops "demolished the houses" of a Taliban leader and a "main trainer of [Taliban] suicide bombers." Pakistan has taken a page from Israel's counterterrorism playbook.

The next time countries like Pakistan are called upon at the UN to condemn Israeli actions against terrorists, they would be well-advised to recall their own actions. Unfortunately, Israel has a lot to teach the world about successfully fighting terrorism. It's about time the world show some gratitude and respect.

(A few days after I wrote this entry, the Israeli daily Yisrael Hayom essentially made the same points, suggesting that the UN learn from Israel's experience and "adapt the acceptable laws of war to the situation of countries -- and Israel is not the only one -- that are fighting terrorist organizations. It would be better to ask how they would have us act next time that terrorists shell us.... so that perhaps [Israel might receive] a little respect.")

It's Business As Usual in South Lebanon

In the summer of 2006, Israel and the Lebanese terrorist group Hizballah fought a war. Hizballah shot rockets into northern Israel, and Israel re-occupied parts of South Lebanon and bombed areas of Beirut to try to get the Lebanese goverment to reign in Hizballah.

United Nations Security Council Resolution 1701 stopped the fighting. Among its requirements was that Hizballah retain no military presence in South Lebanon. Predictably, UNSCR 1701 has proven worthless.

Last week, a weapons cache exploded in a building within a civilian area of a Southern Lebanon town. Hizballah operatives immediately sealed the area, preventing UN monitors and Lebanese military forces from entering and investigating what had happened. Hizballah then emptied the site of stored weapons and transferred them elsewhere for safe-keeping. The Israelis got it all on videotape, which is accessible within this report the Israelis issued.

The whole episode, similar to one earlier this year, demonstrates the following:

1. Hizballah is in flagrant violation of UNSCR 1701 and is operating in South Lebanon as it pleases;
2. Hizballah conducts military activity, including storing weapons, in civilian areas with no regard for potential harm to civilians;
3. Hizballah is rebuilding its weapons inventory in South Lebanon, including according to Israeli estimates some 20,000 rockets that can travel 25 miles and other rockets capable of reaching 125 miles; and
4. UNIFIL, the UN force charged with monitoring Hizballah activities in South Lebanon and preventing the group from rearming, is a scared bunch of intimidated cowards who won't lift a finger to Hizballah, and the Lebanese army -- which provided Hizballah political cover for the cache explosion -- is no better.

What's to be learned from it all? More people should second-guess the efficacy of a UN-broked solution to any future conflict and allow Israel to finish the job. Of course, that also requires an Israeli government to make the necessary decisions to do so.

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.

Prisoner Release Unnecessary

Israel's security cabinet reportedly has approved the release of 20 female Palestinian prisoners in exchange for videotaped proof that captured IDF soldier Gilad Schalit is alive and well. After the names of the 20 prisoners are published online, the public will have 48 hours to appeal the decision.

The prisoner release is risky. It once again sends the message that terrorism works. It also may be unnecessary. A German mediator, we are told, has already seen the tape. He has a moral obligation to reveal the nature of its contents and this alone could suffice as prove of Schalit's condition.

I understand the Schalit's family, as well as others, would prefer to see the tape themselves, but it is simply not worth the release of security prisoners, even ones without Israeli blood directly on their hands. (Some were indirectly involved in attacks on Israelis, but did not commit murder themselves.)

It is hard to understand why the Israeli government would release prisoners in this case when the information it seeks about the soldier is already known. The German could tell them. Considering that the Red Cross or anyone else has been denied any access to Schalit and that his capture was an act of terrorism, the German has no duty -- and, in fact, has a responsibility -- to report his condition.