opposite the prime minister's office brought to mind visions of Qin Shi Huang's "Terra Cotta Warriors."Dozens of life-size photo images of Gilad Shalit pasted on card backings covered the square in motionless array. The ranks and files of cloned Gilads formed a meek backdrop behind the Shalit family friends and supporters, keeping a round-the-clock vigil by Binyamin Netanyahu's bureau.
A few days ago the ball was in our court. For two tense nerve-racking days seven senior cabinet ministers deliberated whether or not this would be the last volley.
For the past three and a half years the negotiations to secure Gilad Shalit's release mediated by Egyptian and German mediators have produced little more than a monotonous lobbing back and forth of proposals and counterproposals.
Admittedly, on occasions it seemed the intercessor (an unnamed German mediator) had managed to bridge the gap between the demands made by Hamas and Israel. However, apart from the intercessor, the separate Hamas and Israeli negotiating teams and the leaders on both sides, nobody really knows what Hamas has demanded in return for the release of Gilad Shalit. Both the local and foreign news media have made wild speculations, supporting them vaguely as "based on reports" or "according to reliable sources."
Israel is demanding the release of one captured soldier, Gilad Shalit.
To a casual observer the Hamas wheeling and dealing to exchange a large number of Palestinian prisoners for Gilad Shalit's release must appear to be very unbalanced. From Hamas' point of view the quid pro quo principle is inconceivable.
The current negotiations are weighted by precedents entrenched in previous prisoner exchanges. Mindful of the price paid in previous deals it's doubtful if a one-for-one barter was ever considered. The pivotal negotiating precedent was fixed twenty five years ago with the conclusion of the "Jibril deal" when three Israeli soldiers held captive in Lebanon were exchanged for 1,150 Palestinian prisoners.
Among the prisoners released, 386 had been sentenced to life imprisonment for killing Israelis.
Six years ago Israel released 435 Arab prisoners and the bodies of 60 Lebanese soldiers in exchange for Israeli businessman Elchanan Tannenbaum and the bodies of three Israeli soldiers captured by Hezbollah on the border between Israel and Lebanon.
In July last year the bodies of Eldad Regev and Ehud Goldwasser were returned to Israel in exchange for four Hezbollah prisoners,Samir Kuntar a brutal Palestinian terrorist and the bodies of 200 Lebanese and Palestinian terrorists.
According to rumours Hamas is demanding the release of more than 1000 Palestinian prisoners in exchange for Gilad Shalit. This number is more or less in line with previous exchange rates.
From the start of the negotiations Israel has tried to prevent the release of Palestinian prisoners "with blood on their hands," a term which covers both perpetrators and planners of terrorist attacks in which Israelis were murdered. Since a complete exclusion of this category isn't feasible the Israeli negotiators have tried to restrict their inclusion in the exchange list to almost end-of-term prisoners and a variety of terrorists loosely termed "more likely to be rehabilitated."
The “exile clause” inserted by Israel in the proposed prisoner exchange agreement is intended to make sure the Palestinian terrorists most likely to take up arms again are distanced from Israeli targets.
It is assumed most will be exiled to Gaza and some to other places.
The number of prisoners earmarked for exile is thought to be between 100 and 130.
The seven ministers inner cabinet forum headed by the prime minister decided not to accept the Hamas demands and the ball is now in the opposite court.
The German mediator presented the Israeli counter demands to the Hamas leadership in Gaza before flying home for Christmas. A delegation from Gaza has flown to Damascus to consult with the Hamas in exile leadership there.
Apparently there was no consensus in the inner cabinet.Minister of Defence Barak, Interior Minister Eli Yishai and Intelligence Services Minister Dan Meridor reportedly supported the deal, while Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman, Strategic Affairs Minister Moshe Ya'alon and Minister-without-Portfolio Bennie Begin expressed grave reservations over the possibility that terrorists "with blood on their hands" would be released back into Palestinian territory.
Some observers claim the prime minister was vacillating while others claimed he was more inclined towards accepting the deal but feared his opponents would say that Barak is leading him again.
Somewhere in Gaza Gilad Shalit waits and wonders when will he go home.
His family determinedly continues the struggle for his release.
Three months ago I wrote, “The Shalit family's quiet subdued manner, their almost apologetic appeal for help evokes admiration. Noam and Aviva Shalit have stoically accepted many rebuffs and faced repeated disappointments. They are truly the ‘salt of the earth’."
In a statement to the press made at the end of the inner cabinet’s marathon meeting Ehud Barak repeated his “not at any price” axiom. This time he linked it to a widely accepted demand for a change in the principles guiding prisoner exchanges.
Barak traced” the dangerous decline down a slippery slope since the 1985 Jibril deal.” He and others have hinted that the IDF’s code of ethics needs revising in order to establish guidelines for prisoner exchange negotiators in the future.
During breaks in the inner cabinet meetings and perhaps earlier Prime Minister Netanyahu was busy undermining the opposition Kadima party.
Earlier today Kadima’s chairwoman Tzipi Livni accused Netanyahu of trying to split Kadima, currently embroiled in a leadership struggle. Shaul Mofaz a former contender to the post of party chairman continues to rally opposition to Livni from both the Knesset faction and the broader party base. Netanyahu has been trying to woo potential dissidents from Kadima to his Likud party.
However later today in what was supposed to be an overdue routine meeting between the prime minister and the leader of Knesset opposition Netanyahu once again offered Kadima a place in the government coalition. He offered the opposition party a preferred place in the government but he didn't offer ministerial portfolios. Obviously he would be hard put to offer ministerial posts in his already top-heavy cabinet. Just the same, broadening the government would tend to weaken its more radical right wing partners.
it’s reasonable to suppose that Barak would welcome Livni’s “centre party” alongside his Labour party. At this juncture there is plenty of room for speculation most of which is probably wishful thinking. In the meantime Tzipi Livni has promised give the prime minister’s offer serious consideration.
A Talmudic precept instructs, "When facing an enemy determined to kill you, rise early and kill him first." Maybe thesages who phrased this injunction had existential threat situations in mind, however I doubt if they could have envisaged the dilemma Israel is facing today.
A number of think-tanks, strategic analysts and Middle East observers have been discussing how best to prevent Iran reaching nuclear capability.
The fact that Iran is rapidly approaching that threshold and has adopted a belligerent attitude to Israel, more pointedly expressed in Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's threatsto wipe Israel off the face of the map,has added an aspect of urgency to these deliberations.
Among the options discussed, the possibility of precluding an Iranian nuclear capability by means of a preemptive attack has been well assessed.
Other options, namely; adopting more stringent sanctions, the proposed "engagement" and even acquiescing and simply learning to live with the reality of a nuclear armed Iran, have been considered too.
Before examining these options let's consider the last no-action alternative.
A few weeks ago political scientist John Mueller published an article in Foreign Policy Magazine entitled "The Rise of Nuclear Alarmism."
Mueller who has a reputation for downplaying military threats asserts that the atomic bomb's impact on substantive historical developments has been minimal. "Things would likely have turned out much the same if it had never been developed. The only real effect of nuclear weapons is humanity's unhealthy obsession with them, a preoccupation that has inspired some seriously bad policy decisions."
Mueller points out that since the end of WW2 the possessors of nuclear weapons haven't found use for them in actual armed conflicts. "They were of no help to the United States in Korea, Vietnam, or Iraq; to the Soviet Union in Afghanistan; to France in Algeria; to Britain in the Falklands; to Israel in Lebanon and Gaza; or to China in dealing with its once-impudent neighbor Vietnam."
"There is even more hysteria about Iran, which has repeatedly insisted that it has no intention of developing the weapons. If that regime changes its mind or is
lying, it is likely to find that, except for stoking the national ego for a while, the bombs are substantially valueless, a very considerable waste of money and effort." Well that is certainly reassuring. However before we "beat our swords into ploughshares," I prefer to consider other options and not rely on Iranian magnanimity.
Alastair Crooke, a co-director of the London-based Conflicts Forum, like many other people, senses that time is running out. ."Beware the winds of December"he advised recently in a piece he wrote for- Asia Times
"The US administration knows that any sanctions on Iran over its nuclear programme ultimately will fail. They will fail not only because Russia and China will not play ball but precisely because the much touted 'moderate alliance of pro-Western Arab states' is looking increasingly to be a paper tiger: the 'moderates' are not seriously going to confront Iran and its allies."
Crooke argues that if sanctions on Iran are widely acknowledged - at least in private within the US administration - as destined to fail, this must be provoking some interesting self-questioning within the White House: The US is in the process now of withdrawal from Iraq, it is looking for the exit in Afghanistan and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is getting messier. None of these events seems likely to become particularly glorious episodes for the administration.
"It is not hard to imagine White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emmanuel and White House senior adviser David Axelrod asking themselves, ‘why the president should want to risk another perceived failure’ - as sanctions on Iran surely will be.” "Why", they may ask, "impose sanctions and open ourselves to persistent Republican jeering at their inevitable failure and then ultimately force us to have to ask ... well, what do we do next, Mr. President"?
The "engagement" proposal has been rejected, so what do we have left?
Before we go in with all guns blazing let's consider a few opinions regarding this option.
Earlier this year Louis Rene Beres professor of international law at PurdueUniversity considered the "anticipatory self-defence." option in a different light.
In an article published in Ha’aretz he mentioned howU.S. Vice President Joe Biden boldly asserted that Israel, "as a sovereign nation," has the right to protect itself against a nuclear threat. As we remember a White House spokesperson rushed to qualify that Biden's comments shouldn't be misconstrued as a "green light" for any preemptive action.
Nevertheless, Beres considers the preemptive option a possible "big stick."
"Here is the key issue: As long as Israel can reasonably assume that any expected Iranian leadership will remain rational, Prime Minister Netanyahu could focus on 'living with a nuclear Iran.' Such a 'coexistence' policy would represent a regrettable, but largely unavoidable, position, one that would need to be backed up with a selectively partial end to Israel's ‘nuclear ambiguity’ (the so-called ‘bomb in the basement’), and with genuinely credible threats of Israeli nuclear reprisals for nuclear aggressions. More precisely, these deterrent threats would have to include aptly explicit references to Israel's nuclear targeting doctrine (‘counter-city’ or ‘counter-value,’ never ‘counter-force’), as well as compelling evidence of both the survivability and penetration capability of Israel's deterrent nuclear forces."
So far there is every indication that our government isn't placing much trust in
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's rational behaviour.
Some journalists have hinted that the temporary "construction freeze" is somehow related to a preemptive attack against Iran.
The not so reliable DEBKA files website reported "In a showdown with settlement leaders on Thursday, Dec. 2, Netanyahu assured them that the building suspension across the Green Line (not applied in Jerusalem) was essential in the broad light of Israel's overall interests."
DEBKA files continues "The vague impression he and defence minister Ehud Barak generate that Israel is about to launch an attack on Iran remains to be borne out. But no one honestly believes that a halt in the construction of 100 extra rooms in Alon Moreh or a dozen apartments for newly-weds in Maale Adummim will make any difference to decisions in Washington, Tehran or even Jerusalem."
"The fact is," claims DEBKA files," that the Obama administration like its predecessor is flat against an Israeli military initiative - even if it means letting Iran go ahead and develop a bomb - for fear that Iran will send its retaliatory missiles flying against Israel and American interests in the Persian Gulf and the Middle East and drag the US inexorably into the conflict. "
Micah Zenko, a fellow of the Center for Preventive Action at the Council on Foreign Relations asserts that if diplomacy fails, the world should be prepared for an Israeli attack on Iran's suspected nuclear weapons facilities
Although he made this assessment three months ago it is still relevant.
"Israel Has Iran in its Sights," he claims. Zenko further develops this scenario,
"If Israel attempts such a high-risk and destabilizing strike against Iran, President Obama will probably learn of the operation from CNN rather than the CIA. History shows that although Washington seeks influence over Israel's military operations, Israel would rather explain later than ask for approval in advance of launching preventive or preemptive attacks."
Zenko cites a number of precedents; In 1956 at the time of the "Suez Campaign," during the Six-Day War in 1967, andin 1981 when Israeli fighter-bombers destroyed the Iraqi nuclear reactor at Osiraq shortly before it was to be fuelled to develop the capacity to make nuclear weapons-grade plutonium.
On all these occasions Washington was not informed in advance.
President Reagan condemned the Osiraq attack and "thought that there were other options that might have been considered."
A few days later, Prime Minister Menachem Begin told CBS News: "This attack will be a precedent for every future government in Israel. ... Every future Israeli prime minister will act, in similar circumstances, in the same way."
A few weeks ago I quoted from Micah Zenko's article with reference to an Israeli attack on a Syrian nuclear facility.
"Begin's prediction proved true on Sept. 6, 2007, when Israeli aircraft destroyed what was believed to be a North Korean-supplied plutonium reactor in Al Kibar, Syria. Four months earlier, Israeli intelligence officials had provided damning evidence to the Bush administration about the reactor, and the Pentagon drew up plans to attack it. Ironically, according to New York Times reporter David Sanger, President Bush ultimately decided the U.S. could not bomb another country for allegedly possessing weapons of mass destruction. An administration official noted that Israel's attack went forward "without a green light from us. None was asked for, none was given."
Zenko concludes,
"These episodes demonstrate that if Israel decides that Iranian nuclear weapons are an existential threat, it will be deaf to entreaties from U.S. officials to refrain from using military force. Soon after the operation, Washington will express concern to Tel Aviv publicly and privately. The long-standing U.S.-Israeli relationship will remain as strong as ever with continued close diplomatic, economic, intelligence and military cooperation."
Nevertheless the dilemma remains and was aptly phrased by The Economist last week
"An Iranian nuclear bomb, or the bombing of Iran?"
It is a US dilemma as well. The Economist quotes from a bipartisan American report drawn up by two ex-senators and a former air-force general, which recommends the United States plan overtly for military action, if only to strengthen diplomacy. General Charles Wald, (retired) says, "The Iranians frankly don’t believe that we would do anything against them”… The Economist concludes, "America is trying to woo the Muslim world, draw down in Iraq and build up in Afghanistan. As Admiral Mike Mullen, the chairman of America’s joint chiefs of staff, said on November 4th: 'The last thing in the world that I need right now is a third conflict—as we’re trying to work our way through these other two.'
Israel’s threats of military action might be more credible than America’s"
Let's not panic intimates The Economist, "Iran may yet choose to stop 'one turn of the screwdriver' short of a bomb." In the meantime it proceeds with caution ever mindful of the possibility of an Israeli preemptive attack."Iran has learned from Israel’s previous actions. It has dispersed and buried its nuclear facilities to make them harder to strike. In contrast with the 'Two Minutes over Baghdad' of Israel’s raid on Osiraq, there is no easy shot. If anything, it has become harder to hobble Iran as time has passed."
A report last month by the Council on Foreign Relations, a New York think-tank, suggests that Israel could limit itself to three targets:Isfahan, Arak and Natanz. But to strike the centrifuges at Natanz, buried under 23 metres of soil and cement, it would have to use several bunker-busting bombs in “burrowing” mode: dropping bombs repeatedly on the same crater to dig down to the protected centrifuges. The report estimates that three bombs per “aim point” would give a 70% chance of success.
The Economistwarns, "Still, the repeated sorties and loitering time needed to achieve this would probably require suppressing Iran’s air defences, which would require more sorties, perhaps hundreds. Israel would be operating at the limit of its range, even with air-to-air refuelling, and would probably have to cross the air space of other countries. It might not be able to sustain such an operation."
Arriving at the real dilemma the paper asks, " Would attacking a few sites really crimp Iran’s nuclear programme, or merely drive it entirely out of sight?"
Quoting again from the US feasibility report, The Economist continues "General Wald, for one, suggests that Israeli action may be little more than a 'pinprick'. This may be galling for Israelis, but few would contest that the American air force, with planes deployed closer to Iran and the ability to bring in aircraft carriers, could do a much more thorough job. America is unlikely to escape blame for Israeli military action, so it might as well join in, say some. A bigger American operation could go after more nuclear sites and take out some of Iran’s means of retaliation: missile sites and naval bases. It might even want to strike a blow against the Revolutionary Guards. This scenario starts to look like a major air war; closer to two months over Iran than two minutes. "
Maybe Iran could retaliate and cause a lot of damage.
"Many Muslims would regard a military strike on Iran as another war against Islam. Iran could stoke anti-American insurgencies across its borders in Iraq and Afghanistan. It could also prod its Lebanese proxy, Hezbollah, and the Palestinian Hamas movement to resume their missile war against Israel."
Weighing up all the options The Economist sums up, "So which will it be: a war with Iran, or a nuclear-armed Iran? Short of a revolution that sweeps away the Iranian regime—ushering in one that agrees, like post-apartheid South Africa, to give up its nuclear technology—sanctions may offer the only hope of avoiding the awful choice. "
The very bleak attack scenario outlined in The Economist article is definitely not the last word. I'm inclined to think other alternatives exist.
The New York think-tank scenario quoted in The Economist assumes that Israel will attack with fighter bombers. It ignores Israel’s indigenous Jericho II and the improved Jericho III missiles capable of carrying conventional and nuclear warheads to any place in Iran
The Israeli navy has five Dolphin-class submarines . Various reports indicate that these submarines are equipped with cruise missiles with a range of (1500-2400 km) that can deliver conventional or nuclear warheads with extremely high accuracy.
In the event of a conflict with Iran these Dolphin-class submarines could serve as either a first or a second-strike platform. In order to bring them within striking range the quickest route would be to send them through the Suez Canal.
A few months ago two submarines made a much-publicised test cruise through the canal.
The very presence of even a small number Israeli Dolphin-class submarines within striking range of Iran is a not-to-be ignored deterrent.
Of course an Israeli preemptive attack requires good military intelligence. Since on the ground information is hard to come by, it seems our "eyes in the sky", the four Israeli satellites in orbit weren’t sent there to photograph for Google Earth.
It seems that Christmas cheer is hard to come by in Bethlehem.
The tourist industry, which was hard hit during the Intifada years, suffered a further setback following the recent recession.
However according to a Bethlehem tourist industry spokesman the real reason for the decline is (you guessed right) Israel's security barrier.
Christian tourists who do manage to visit the Church of the Nativity are probably unaware of another blight that afflicts the site.
Earlier this year journalist Abigail Tucker reporting for the Smithsonian magazine, told of an age-old dispute. "Feuding monks at the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem don't just cast the first stone—they stockpile rocks in anticipation of future altercations. Several holy men landed in the hospital two Christmases ago after a fight broke out over the dusting of church chandeliers."
The problem has been worsening for decades, but the resident clerics—from the Greek Orthodox and Armenian Orthodox churches and the Franciscan order of the Roman Catholic Church—are jealous of each other's claims of custody and have been unable to reach an amicable solution.
There's some sort of verbalstatus quo which stems back to Ottoman times, which mandates that things be done as they were always done. Anyone who has previously walked in a procession down a certain aisle, used a particular cupboard or hung a given tapestry has exclusive rights to that task or item.
However, if priests of another denomination manage by guile, subterfuge or other foul means to do the job first, then that particular chore, use or care for an object or ownership, passes to them.
Tucker elaborates "The highly publicized fight at Christmas two years ago was essentially a territorial dispute. The Greeks were cleaning an Armenian-controlled part of the church, and custom dictated that they could dust the chandeliers by standing on a ladder set up in an appointed place. But the Greeks tried to move their ladder, encroaching on Armenian turf."
The Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem, another shared holy site is also the scene of petty disputes over brooms and who sweeps what and where.
I don't delight in these holy woes, but mention them to add some local colour to the Christmas narrative. After all we have plenty of our own internecine feuding.
Sadly the Church of the Nativity is badly in need of urgent repairs which are held up byChristian interfaith bickering.
Reading this you probably think I'm doing my Christmas shopping a bit early this year. Well I've started with Christmas in order to arrive at Hanukah which we celebrate on Friday night.
Before lighting our first Hanukah candle I want to deal with a matter at hand which also has a bearing on the festive season.
While the German intermediary tries one more time to bridge the gap between the demands made by Israel and Hamas in the negotiations for the release of Gilad Shalit, the “not at any price” opinion is gaining ground.
Nevertheless, the possibility/likelihood of releasing a large number of unrepentant terrorists requires an imaginative approach in order to bring Shalit home and at the same time safeguard the lives of all Israelis.
The option of exiling terrorists has been considered again. Obviously Gaza is a close and convenient possibility. The security fence surrounding the “Strip” is effective in preventing infiltrators reaching Israel. Other more distant places have been suggested. In the past Italy, Spain and Ireland have accepted a few released terrorists, now this option is being considered again.
Our T.V. channel 2 sent one of its Arabic speaking investigative reporters to Ireland to interview two Palestinians that have been languishing there for the past seven years.
Jihad Jaara, a former Bethlehem commander of the Al Aksa Martyrs Brigades and one of his lieutenants Rami Kamel are lonely, bored, and more recently, they have become two very frightened men .
The two have been interviewed on a number of occasions by Joshua Hammer the author of “A Season in Bethlehem: Unholy War in a Sacred Place.”
A few months ago Hammer wrote a particularly revealing article in the New York Times recounting his encounters with the two exiles since the siege at the Church of the Nativity,
In April 2002 Israel embarked on Operation Defensive Shield , the Israel Defence Forces occupied Bethlehem and tried to capture wanted Palestinian terrorists. Dozens of them fled into the Church of the Nativity and sought refuge there. After 39 days, an agreement was reached, whereby the terrorists surrendered and were exiled to Europe and the Gaza Strip .
A few weeks before the siege, Hammer who was Newsweek'sJerusalem bureau chief at the time, met both Jaara and Kamel in Bethlehem. He was gathering material on the murder of Avi Boaz.
In mid-January 2002 Avi Boaz, a 71-year-old New York-born émigré to Israel who had never given up his American citizenship, was stopped at a checkpoint inside Palestinian-controlled territory near Bethlehem. Palestinian gunmen climbed into Boaz’s car, drove him around the city, then took him to a deserted soccer field. There, as he sat behind the wheel of his car, they shot him.
Later on when Joshua Hammer interviewed Jihad Jaara in Dublin he implicated himself in the murder of Avi Boaz. Palestinians murdering Israelis don't really concern the F.B.I, however when the Bureau realised that one of the victims was an American citizen its agents started to take an active interest in Jihad Jaara.
Jaara and Kamel have been plagued by bad luck. Early in 2002 Rami Kamel miscalculated while throwing a hand grenade and blew his arm off. Later during the fighting that preceded the church siege. JihadJaara was accidentally shot in the leg by one of his own men. The wounded Jaara was carried by his men into the Church of the Nativity. Jaara, Kamel and about 200 others took refuge inside the 1,700-year-old basilica’s walls, living off macaroni and cans of meat and tuna stockpiled by priests.
Following their surrender Jaara and Kamel were sent to Dublin. Throughout most of their exile in Ireland they have tried to maintain a low profile.
However, in August of last year, Jaara gave a plaintive interview to a Dublin journalist, lashing out at the Irish government for refusing to provide him with a job and for not trying hard enough to send him back to the West Bank.
Jaara, who is 37, said he was lonely, living in limbo, unable to see his family (including his youngest son, born the day he was dispatched to Ireland) and bored. Along with the boredom there are moments of terror: In 2005 The Irish Evening Herald reported that the Irish police intercepted a Mossad team that was trying to kill Jaara. Last summer, reports surfaced on Middle Eastern Web sites that shots were fired at him in a Dublin street and that Jaara’s car was forced off the road into a ditch, leaving him slightly injured. The Israeli government, the Irish police and the Palestinian Authority all called these reports baseless. Hammer quoted a senior IDF officer who said it was unlikely that Israel was hunting Jaara, “but if he’s worried, let him be worried,” he said.
Following the publication of his book and his articles about the exiles in Ireland, Hammer was asked to appear before a Grand Jury in Washington and give evidence concerning Jaara’s involvement in Avi Boaz’s murder.
Since then the investigation has dragged on but is still active.
A few months ago Hammer managed to track down Jaara and Kamel in a hideout near Dublin. Jaara knew aboutthe ongoing investigation and had heard the rumours about the Mossad
“They want to kill me.” Jaara told Hammer.
“I looked at him,” Hammer recalls ”sweating, sucking on a Marlboro, eyes wide with fear. I supposed he spent most of his exile holed up like this, watching bad movies and smoking Marlboros, waiting for the day when the Mossad or the C.I.A. will burst through the door.”
What can I say; it couldn't happen to a nicer person.
Back to Manger Square, Bethlehem not to watch the preparations for Christmas but to consider whether the Nativity mentioned in some of the Gospels refers to this Bethlehem.
Many archaeologists and theological scholars believe Jesus was actually born in either Nazareth or Bethlehem in Galilee, a town just outside Nazareth, Aviram Oshri, a senior archaeologist with the Israeli Antiquities Authority, says, “There is surprisingly no archaeological evidence that ties Bethlehem in Judea to the period when Jesus was born.
“If the historical Jesus was born in Bethlehem,” claims Oshri, “it was most likely the Bethlehem in Galilee." The archaeological evidence certainly seems to support this claim." Bethlehem in Galilee was a busy centre just a few miles from the home of Joseph and Mary, as opposed to an unpopulated spot almost a hundred miles from their home in Nazareth. In the Galilee Bethlehem, Oshri and his team have uncovered the remains of a later monastery and a large Byzantine church, which raises the question of why such a huge house of Christian worship was built in the heart of a Jewish area. Oshri believes it’s because early Christians revered Bethlehem of Galilee as the birthplace of Jesus. “There is impressive and important evidence that a strong Christian community existed in the northern Bethlehem a short time after Jesus’ death,” he says. Oshri, however, doubts that Bethlehem of Galilee will be recognised as the birthplace of Jesus any time soon. “Business interests are too important,” he says. “After all this time, the churches do not have a strong interest in changing the Nativity story.”
Episcopal priest and professor of theology Bruce Chilton also has doubts.
"The question isn't whether Jesus was born in Bethlehem, but rather which Bethlehem."
While I'm in an iconoclastic mood I might as well tackle Hanukah.
I mention this every year, so this year too I won't let the oil mongers off the hook. The Hanukah theme "A great miracle happened there/here," as we know refers to that miraculous cruse of oil which was normally enough to light a temple lamp for one day and managedto last for eight days.
The story is a later Interpolation first mentioned in the Talmud. It seems the authors of the Books of Maccabees forget to mention it. Contemporary and later writers found no reason to praise the miraculous cruse of oil. Hundreds of years after the rededication of the Temple a brief mention in the Babylonian Talmud added a whole new dimension to Hanukah. Now it's too late to correct the narrative even if we were to consider this "mission impossible," we would have to forfeit all those fattening gastronomic delights and the "Feast of Lights" would be a dimmer, poorer festival.
The heroes of Hanukah- the Maccabees, founders of the Hasmonean dynasty were short lived heroic figures. The second generation were a pack of cutthroat intriguers, who murdered their brothers and mothers in their relentless quest for power. Nevertheless, we continue to sing their praises and join sports and social clubs called Maccabeans.
This year, the much toned down US presidential Hanukah celebrations are compensated for by Senator Orrin Hatch's addition to our rich repertoire of Hanukah songs. Although Hatch's lyrics leave a lot to be desired the tune is catchy. If you are brave enough, try accessing it at http://vimeo.com/7971216
I refer to them collectively, lumping them together indiscriminately in a quasi-xenophobic way. Furthermore, I tend to place them beyond the pale, over the divide which was once demarcated by an imaginary green line and is now, for much of its length, a very tangible barrier, part fence, part wall.
However, these extraterritorial beings are everywhere! Not only there, but here too. Look and you will find them in Israel proper, in towns and cities throughout the country, in my kibbutz, even in my family.They come in several varieties, religious and secular, some are intransigent unwilling to compromise on principles, whereas others have mellowed with the passage of time and have become more pragmatic and flexible.
I suppose every Jew living "beyond the divide" could be called a settler;
However, not all the Jews living in the West Bank settled there for ideological reasons.
Therefore, I'm wrong when I refer to them as one homogeneous group.
Measured by every ideological yardstick Elayakim Haetzni is a settler!
He is the firebrand variety, identifiedwith the settlement project from its very inception.
I've tried hard to be objective, but my efforts to regard him dispassionately have failed, I simply don't like the man. The mere mention of his name or the sound of his voice brings me out in a rash. Whenever I see his name in print, I turn the page and dismiss him out of hand.
However, last week when I saw his article entitled "Peace is not a must," published in Yediot Ahronot curiosity got the better of me, so I read on and found myself agreeing with some of the things he wrote. Haetzni quotes from Thomas Friedman's op-ed piece in The New York Times entitled, “Call White House, Ask for Barack” in which he surveys the sorry state of the Israeli-Palestinian peace process. "Friedman" states Haetzni "came up with the insight that neither the Israelis nor the Palestinians are interested in a peace process, and that American pressure on both sides merely hinders them from getting along on their own for lack of any other choice.
Well, welcome to the club. After all, this is what the rightist camp has been warning of all along."
While Friedman despairs of the peace process Haetzni has rejected it.
Tom Friedman maintains, "The only thing driving the peace process today is inertia and diplomatic habit. Yes, the Israeli-Palestinian peace process has left the realm of diplomacy. It is now more of a calisthenic, like weight-lifting or sit-ups, something diplomats do to stay in shape, but not because they believe anything is going to happen." I quoted similar remarks from the same article three weeks ago.
Why should I bother quoting the conclusions of one despairing American journalist?
Professor Zaki Shalom a research worker at the Institute for National Security Studies (INSS), an independent Israeli think tank, believes Friedman's conclusions are significant, mainly because of his close ties with leading figures in the American administration, especially with Secretary of State Clinton. It's reasonable to suppose that Friedman's column reflects the current administration's prevailing mood.
"As a veteran columnist well versed in the intricacies of Middle Eastern and American arenas, Friedman knows full well that an American withdrawal from the Israeli-Palestinian peace process is not realistic. American internal considerations, pressures from the Arab world, the European states, international organizations, and various peace movements obligate American involvement. The administration does not have a real option to withdraw, even if it wanted to. Friedman’s call to the administration to withdraw from the process, therefore, indicates rage and frustration among administration members in light of the present situation rather than a genuine proposal."
Zaki Shalom believes the public's lack of in interest in the peace process stems from the fact that since the security fence was erected Palestinian suicide bombings and other forms of terrorism, are a rare occurrence. In the past they motivated public interest in the peace process. Many people believe it's possible to suppress terrorist organisations without a political settlement.
In addition Israel has succeeded in creating a balance of deterrence vis-à-vis Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza. Over the past year the West Bank economy has improved, and it seems unlikely that the Palestinians will risk jeopardising this prosperity by embarking on another Intifada whose outcome, from their point of view, is liable to be disastrous.
Tony Blair often cites the Irish conflict as a case in point when he claims aPalestinian-Israeli peace settlement is attainable. Over the past nine years negotiating teams have come tantalisingly close to reaching an agreement only to withdraw at the last moment. The Israeli parallel negotiating teams led by Ehud Olmert and Tzipi Livni were said to have been “only a hair's breadth" away from initialling an agreement. Well a miss is as good as a mile.
Elyakim Haetzni explains this near miss as an intrinsic Arab failing, namely the repeated inability to compromise on territory and the refugee question “Any Arab leader who attempts to do this will forfeit his life."
“I’ve grown so pessimistic about Israel-Palestine that I find myself agreeing with Israel’s hard-line foreign minister, Avigdor Lieberman:” complains Roger Cohen in his article ‘A Mideast Truce’ published two weeks ago in The New York Times. Cohen quotes Lieberman “Anyone who says that within the next few years an agreement can be reached ending the conflict simply doesn’t understand the situation and spreads delusions.”
Cohen adds “Israelis have walled themselves off from Palestinians. They are less interested than ever in a deal with people they hardly see.”……
“The United States condoned the construction of this settlement-reinforcing barrier. It cannot be unmade — not for the foreseeable future. Peace and walls do not go together. But a truce and walls just may. And that, I must reluctantly conclude, is the best that can be hoped for.”
Roger Cohen advises President Obama “ratchet expectations downward. Stop talking about peace. Banish the word. Start talking about détente. That’s what Lieberman wants; that’s what Hamas says it wants; that’s the end point of Netanyahu’s evasions. It’s not what Abbas wants but he’s powerless.” Cohen quotes political scientist Shlomo Avineri, “A nonviolent status quo is far from satisfactory but it’s not bad. Cyprus is not bad.”
Cohen adds wistfully “I recall my friend Shlomo dreaming of peace. That’s over. The last decade destroyed the last illusions: hence the fence. The courageous have departed the Middle East. A peace of the brave must yield to a truce of the mediocre — at best.”
This week Prime Minister Netanyahu has been trying to enforce his construction freeze in the West Bank settlements. The settlement leadership is determined to oppose the freeze even if it means clashing with the government building inspectors serving the infringement notices.
Knowing that the settlement leadership doesn’t subscribe to the “Two State Solution,” observers beg the question – What do they want? The answer is simple and concise – “A One State Solution!”
A few weeks Carlo Strenger a psychology professor at TelAvivUniversity, and a member of the Permanent Monitoring Panel on Terrorism of the World Federation of Scientists noted that. “The continued failure of the Mideast peace process and the escalation of violence from the second intifada to the Gaza war have led many to think that the two-state solution is pedestrian, unimaginative and inhuman. Many Palestinians and a small but vocal group of Jews back Edward Said's claim that a one-state solution with full right of return for all Palestinians must be endorsed. This, they say, would finally lead to absolute and full justice.”
Strenger quoted veteran Palestinian negotiatorSaeb Erekat who recently recycled Said’s one state solution.
”The Palestinians should give up seeking an independent state and pursue a single country in which they would enjoy equal rights with Israelis.”
Even the late Edward Said couldn’t claim patent rights for the idea of one state for two peoples.
The one state bogey doesn’t scare the settlers or anyone else who subscribes to the Greater Israel concept. They too support a one state solution citing the peaceful coexistence of Jews and Arabs in Israel, and propose something similar in the West Bank. Of course they don’t want the Palestinian refugees, but who does?
In the meantime the argument is no more than an intellectual exercise. And until something better comes along we will continue to maintain a “ nonviolent status quo.”
