It’s that field across the road again. We, the field and I have developed a bond. I pass it every morning just after dawn during my “constitutional” walk. Later on I watch it through the landscape window of our factory breakfast room. Even when it lies fallow for a few weeks I visually probe its dry soil examining the colour and texture. Of all the crops grown in the field wheat is my favourite. Wheat makes a statement! It provides the "staff of life" and its cultivation that started in Neolithic times impelled civilisation. Admittedly more people in the world are nourished by rice and barley competes strongly with wheat in some places, but wheat and its product bread have a special significance “and ye shall eat your bread to the full, and dwell in your land safely...” promised Leviticus. Like the fallow field the wheat field has a unique texture. Stalks, leaves and heads of grain combine to create a dense succulent growth.
On the other side of the valley a local artist commemorated the kibbutz centennial by “writing” a line from the Book of Proverbs in a wheat field “He that tilleth his land shall not lack bread…”
All day long a fleet of yellow trucks has been hauling “green chop”, freshly cut wheat to two large pits by our dairy where it will be ensiled. Our wheat crop won’t put bread on our tables. Some of it will feed our cows and the rest will be harvested for seed. One small symbolic patch will be kept for the “Cutting of the Omer” ceremony at Pesach.
In an area that stretches across the hills above Ein Harod and Tel Yosef an ancient community thrived and farmed the fields around us. The people who lived here planted vineyards and olive groves. Their wine and olive oil was sent via Beit Shean to the markets of Rome. Maybe they grew wheat in the field across the road, not for Rome but to put bread on their own tables.
North Africa was Rome’s bread basket and its vital importance was reason enough to go to war when that supply line was threatened.
At one time bread or grain was doled out free or sold at a subsidised price to Rome's poor. Bread and circuses “panem et circenses” was a political strategy.
Nineteen hundred years later botanist Aaron Aaronsohn discovered a wild strain of wheat growing near Rosh Pina. He identified it as Emmer or mother wheat the same ancient cereal first cultivated by man. Aaronsohn's discovery caused a minor sensation in the scientific world.
Ten years later in 1915 Aaron Aaronsohn his sisters and friends formed the clandestine Nili group. The ill-fated group provided the British forces with valuable intelligence information. The opportunity to spy on the Turkish forces in Palestine was bread-related. That year a devastating plague of locusts afflicted the region. The Ottoman authorities were short of grain and concerned about feeding their troops. They enlisted Aaronsohn to help fight the locusts. Aaronsohn exploited his frequent work tours to spy on Turkish army movements and relay the information to the British. The Turks discovered the espionage activity and liquidated Nili. Aaronsohn was visiting the US when members of the Nili group were arrested. He survived but was killed in a plane crash two years later.
Aaronsohn's Emmer wheat discovery helped research workers develop improved strains of wheat. Today more and more short-stemmed “dwarf” wheat is grown throughout the world. It produces more grain/bread to the acre than the older tall-stalk varieties.
Two years ago I wrote of our “Cutting of the Omer” ceremony – “Excluding a few minor changes the ceremony is much as it was when I first saw it here at Ein Harod 43 years ago. It embodies the essence of the Jewish cultural-agrarian renaissance, the revival of an ancient custom.
It also accentuates some of the changes that have taken place in the kibbutz economy. The cereal crops, cotton, citrus and livestock branches provide only a marginal profit. The bread on the tables of this kibbutz, one of the most affluent in the country, is provided mainly by its successful industrial enterprise.”
Living in a weight-watching age we eat less bread, maybe adding a modern significance to the biblical phrase - “… man doth not live by bread alone…”
The great value we place on human life especially saving life is difficult to equate with the cabinet’s decision to relocate the Barzilai Medical Centre's future emergency room further from the main building because of the ancient graves found at the original site. The possibility that Jews were buried there concerned religious groups, and Deputy Health Minister Yaakov Litzman threatened to resign unless the building site was moved.
The motion to relocate the site was approved by a majority of 11 to 10 ministers and drew furious protests, both because of the prohibitive cost of the move - NIS 135 million – and the fear that the move would leave patients vulnerable to rocket attacks from the Gaza Strip.
At the height of the Cast Lead Operation in January last year I wrote -
"The Barzilai Medical Centre in Ashkelon has been on an emergency standing since the beginning of the Gaza offensive. The emergency room staff has been treating people injured by the rocket attacks in the now extended Gaza periphery which includes Ashkelon. More recently soldiers wounded in the clashes in Gaza have been brought to the hospital.
The hospital is in dire need of an underground emergency room and surgical theatre. It has the funds to build, an official approval to go ahead with the construction but the project has stopped. The building of the new facility has been halted because an Orthodox Jewish (Haredi) activist organisation opposes the exhumation and relocation of Byzantine era bones discovered during the excavation work."
Well the Byzantine era bones, pagan, Christian or both, are still delaying the construction work.
Wherever you build in this country you run the risk of discovering a grave. Building projects are halted and highways end abruptly till some “council of sages” decides what can be done. Changes in building plans and road detours due to the unearthing of long forgotten graves bring about unnecessary delays and added costs.
The week before Pesach is the worst time for political and diplomatic crises.
Most people are busy with the holiday shopping, organising the Seder if they are the hosts and all the many details that have to be attended to.
The tiff with her majesty’s government about forging a few passports barely caused a ripple of interest here. The news media people thrashed it to death but the Israeli public remained apathetic. Our Mossad man in the UK was packed off home. It was merely a diplomatic rap over the knuckles.
The Economist dispensed with it in the following words -
“Besides, diplomatic expulsions are an old game with rules well understood by both sides. Israel may throw out a British diplomat but the row is unlikely to go much further. And the ejected Mossad man—or his replacement—may well be back at his post within a few months.” Well we didn’t expel one of their diplomats and the replacement was packing his bags by the time our “disgraced” diplomat returned home.
How the current brouhaha precipitated by the East Jerusalem (not geographically correct but loosely used to describe areas of Jerusalem occupied by Jordan prior to 1967) building programmes is serious.
There were bad omens, unmistakable signs that all was not right. Immediately after securing the healthcare reform’s approval, the US Administration’s moment of truth in its ties with Israel arrived. It was a day before Prime Minister Netanyahu arrived at the White House.
Journalist Yitzhak Benhorin gave this account of Secretary of State Clinton’s AIPAC address.” America’s top diplomat entered the lion’s den, the stronghold of Israel support in Washington, at a time of tension between the Obama Administration and Netanyahu government. She touched and softened up the 7,000 members of the audience and drew loud applause, a moment before she told Israel’s staunchest supporters what no American leader had ever said in this forum: A peace treaty premised on a return to the 1967 borders, hints of international administration of the holy sites, and demands for improved ties in the West Bank and an improved humanitarian situation in Gaza. “
Benhorin elaborates “ In fact Clinton said nothing new. Anyone who has been monitoring the conflict, with the exception of the Israelis themselves, realises that the solution will come in the form of a return to the 1967 borders with territorial tradeoffs, rejection of the Palestinian right of return, the establishment of a demilitarized Palestinian state, and the introduction of shared administration of the Holy Sites.”
In her speech, the Secretary of State mentioned “the Palestinian goal of an independent and viable state based on the ‘67 lines, with agreed swaps.” The objective here is to maintain the large settlement blocs in Israeli territory while handing over alternate land to Palestinian control.
A confident Netanyahu speaking to the same assembly said, “The Jewish people were building in Jerusalem 3,000 years ago, and the Jewish people are building Jerusalem today. Jerusalem is not a settlement. It is our capital.”
Later on at the White House the meeting with President Obama was understandably strained. The whole format of the meeting was unusual. No photographers, no statements at all. Not even a bland statement such as “a useful and productive meeting” was released to the waiting journalists.
This evening a reticent and glum Netanyahu touched down at the Ben Gurioninternational air terminal.
Maybe some day the prime minister will write his version of the White House meeting. In the meantime the best we can do is to speculate regarding the meeting’s content.
Some people argue that Netanyahu should have opted to form a more centre of the road coalition government. However he doesn’t relish the idea of power sharing with Tzipi Livni. A coalition with Labour and Kadima might pull him more to territorial compromises including accommodating a Palestinian presence in East Jerusalem. For the time being, he would rather compromise with his Orthodox partners than consider the prospect of a coalition shuffle. According to some reports the Obama Administration would prefer a more compatible Israeli coalition government. For now it remains a pipe dream.
Considering the construction imbroglio in East Jerusalem, our inability to make any progress towards a settlement with the Palestinians and the present crisis in our relations with the US I wonder where all this is leading us.
I don’t know the answer and I don’t know if anyone else does. I see “facts on the ground.”Once, the people who subscribed to the Greater Israel philosophy claimed that that Israeli peace camp was giving away the Land of Israel “piece by piece.” Now it seems we are accomplishing the Greater Israel dream “piece by piece.”
I hate concluding my letter in a dismal mood so I’ll return to the Pesach Seder..
For many years I have been in charge of the seating arrangements at our communal Seder. This is no mean task. Trying to accommodate hundreds of members and their guests requires special skills. Admittedly the computer has made my work more routine and automatic and less of a mentally trying task.
Satisfying all our members’ idiosyncrasies ranging from gammy legs to infant carriers that have to positioned strategically near an exit is indeed challenging.
Alice, her last name escapes me, was a middle-aged widow who supplemented her pension by renting out her spare back bedroom.
Roni and I had been directed to her cosy suburban home by the local tourist information office. We had just arrived in Sidney, Vancouver Island and were looking for a place to stay for a few days.
We were her first Israeli guests, so Alice though curious, phrased her questions cautiously.
After serving us breakfast on the three mornings we stayed with her Alice liked to "pull up a chair" and ask about the kibbutz, Israel and the troubled Middle East.
Obliged to satisfy her curiosity and duty-bound to explain the Israeli case we usually ended up behind schedule with our daily tour itinerary. That was five years ago when we were visiting our family in Canada and had embellished our visit with a tour westward. I hope Alice is well, still renting out that back bedroom and recalls our efforts to win her over.
I doubt if I possess special advocacy skills or have a unique aptitude to present Israel's case. Just the same, by dint of past experience I believe I know how difficult it is to explain ourselves. Admittedly Alice was friendly and receptive so her "conversion" hardly counts. In the past I have encountered less sympathetic, at times brusque even antagonistic responses to my efforts to present Israel's point of view.
In 1974 I spent more than two years in Melbourne as a youth movement emissary (shaliach). During that time I was asked by the Australian Zionist Federation to help with P.R work.In those days the Hebrew word Hasbarah
was not in vogue, propaganda had a negative ring to it, so P.R was the innocuous default term used. At least once a week, sometimes more I was called on to explain Israel's case. Talking to a Rotary Club meeting or addressing a branch of one of the local social organisations was usually chummy and uneventful.
If the members hadn't consumed too much beer my concise after dinner presentation was well received.
However addressing student groups and local branches of the Australian Labour party was more hazardous. When I first encountered the “roving hecklers” it was disorientating. The standard Israeli government guidelines for public speakers were inadequate. Soon I formulated my own guidelines drawn from personal experience. They proved to be more effective. However actions speak louder than words and no matter how hard we try some of the things we do are difficult to explain.
Later on when I worked at the Kibbutz Seminar Centre at Efal and with foreign volunteers in my kibbutz I acquired an awareness of their perception of Israel and the Palestinians. In many cases this perception is incomplete; at times naïve and in extreme instances it is distorted.
Today kibbutz volunteers are a small insignificant “curiosity.”
In the heyday of kibbutz “volunteering” more than half a million foreign volunteers, most of them non-Jews came to see Israel through the kibbutz volunteers programme.
From feedbacks we conducted when I worked at Efal it appears that their overall experience was positive. In effect they became our ambassadors of goodwill
In his article “The Hasbara Challenge”which appeared in Yediot Ahronot this weekIsraeli psychologist Irwin J. Mansdorf claims that countering anti-Israel propaganda can’t be handled effectively by volunteers. He was referring to a government sponsored campaign to enlist the help of rank and file citizens to present “our point of view.”Mansdorf who specialises in analysing the political psychology of the Israel-Arab conflict says.
“Part of the reason that Israel’s image is hard to counter is because the problems are real and the dilemmas faced are complex and multi-layered. It is naïve at best to expect the country’s teachers, dentists and bus drivers to succeed where seasoned, educated professionals have not.”
In a recent T.V panel discussion on “Hasbara” one of the speakers described our problem with the Swedes as, “a love-hate relationship. We love the Swedes and they love the Arabs.” “That’s not so,” said a friend and fellow worker (he was born in Sweden,) “the Swedes love the underdog.”
Israel has the most powerful military machine in the region. If need be it can deliver devastating blows. We are no longer the underdog we were in 1948 or before June 1967. Some regard us as the neighbourhood bully. The preemptive military actions we consider to be necessary are perceived by foreign onlookers as aggression. They fail to appreciate our existential need to strike at our enemies before they attack us.
Mansdorf's article was published at the end of "Israeli Apartheid Week " conducted on campuses and other places all over the world.
This is not a metamorphosis of older worn out Israel bashing events. It was the sixth consecutiveInternational Israeli Apartheid Week which lasted for two weeks. The organisers describe it as, "one of the most important global events in the Palestine solidarity calendar."
Palestinian American journalist Ali Abunimah hints at the organisation's goal in IAW's website,
"But as in other apartheid systems (South Africa and Northern Ireland), attempts at partition or repartition are likely only to change the parameters of the conflict rather than resolve its underlying causes. A comprehensive approach to ending apartheid in Palestine/Israel must therefore guarantee equal rights to all the people of the country, make restitution for past and present injustices, and provide constitutional guarantees that no group will ever again be victimized because of its ethno-religious identity." Unless I have misread him their goal is a one state solution.
While the uproar of the Ramat Shlomo housing project, which is not in East Jerusalem but closer to Shuafat (thank you Bryna for correcting me) has strained our relations with the Obama Administration another flare-up has made the headlines. Two weeks ago The Economist blamed both Prime Minister Netanyahu and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas for “fanning the flames.”
The paper was referring to Prime Minister Netanyahu’s announcement that the Tomb of the Patriarchs in Hebron and the Tomb of Rachel in Bethlehem would be listed among some 150 national heritage sites that his government proposes to refurbish. The two tombs weren’t included in the original list of heritage sites and were added when the Shas party leaders insisted on their inclusion. Ostensibly renovations are in order and preserving national heritage sites is a worthy project. The problem is that the word refurbishing whether it is written in English, Hebrew or Arabic can be construed as a move to de-Islamise the sites in question.
“Mahmoud Abbas put his oar in by accusing Mr Netanyahu of inciting “religious war”. This statement was seen by youngsters on the West Bank—as he must have known it would—as a signal to take to the streets. Ismail Haniyeh, Hamas’s Gaza-based prime minister, called on West Bankers to rise up in a new intifada."
In this volatile region events have a mind of their own. On Monday at the height of the clashes between the police and the Palestinian riffraff (the best term I could find) another very important event took place. The long overdue dedication ceremony for the Hurva Synagogue, located in the middle of the Jewish Quarter of Jerusalem’s OldCity, took place. I stress without any hesitation that the ceremony should not have been postponed.
This ancient synagogue twice destroyed has risen again from the rubble.
Among the baseless rumours circulating in the West Bank and Gaza, many of them generated by the Palestinians, is the obstinate claim that Israel plans to rebuild the ThirdTemple.
New York Times correspondentIsabel Kershnercommenting on the dedication ceremonysaid, -“Because of the topography, seen from certain points around the city, it rises above the Islamic shrines of the compound revered by Muslims as the Noble Sanctuary, and by Jews as the Temple Mount, including the Al Aksa Mosque.
In Damascus, Khaled Meshal, the exiled leader of the Islamic militant group Hamas, said the synagogue’s dedication signified “the destruction of the Al Aksa Mosque and the building of the temple,” according to Agence France-Presse.
The State Department said the United States was ‘deeply disturbed by statements made by several Palestinian officials mischaracterizing the event in question,’ which could heighten tensions. ‘“We call upon Palestinian officials to put an end to such incitement,’ said P. J. Crowley, the State Department spokesman. “
Today The Economist opened “A reader debate on Israel and America,” and continued with a lead article asking “Where did all the love go?” eulogising the special U.S – Israel love affair. The author offers several explanations.
“One school of thought holds that Mr Obama and Mrs Clinton escalated their reaction to the Biden insult in order to make Mr Netanyahu abandon his rightist allies and tread the American path to peace; some say the president was waiting for a chance to destabilise him to force his replacement by someone more emollient. A rival theory is that there is no plan: Ramat Shlomo simply ignited the rage that has smouldered in Mr Obama’s breast since Mr Netanyahu refused his call last year for a total freeze on settlements, forcing Mr Mitchell to waste nearly a year niggling for a temporary compromise.
Aaron David Miller, a veteran State Department negotiator now at the Woodrow Wilson International Centre for Scholars, is one of those who suspect the administration has been driven more by anger than calculation and that its war of words could misfire. “If the president backs down, round two also goes to Netanyahu,” he says. “The administration has created a problem for itself and I’m not sure how they climb down unless Bibi himself helps them.” But patching over the underlying tensions will be hard.”
Particularly worrying is the paper’s reference to General David Petraeus, “Who in a testimony to a Senate committee this week said the unsolved conflict in Palestine was fomenting anti-Americanism in the wider region. An obvious point, perhaps; but yet another reason why the love is draining out of a special relationship.”
Israeli observers claim this is a gross exaggeration and the current difference of opinion will blow over.
I doubt if any conflict over a disputed territory has generated as many proposals, drafts, plans, accords and agreements as the Arab –Israeli Conflict.
Viewed in historical perspective it appears Jews and Arabsmetto forestall a conflict of interests at a time when it was far from clear who they were representing and who could ratify and implement the agreements they reached
It has been argued that peace plans were being discussed more than ninety years before the present intractable "Conflict." Understandings and plans were drawn up long before there was a significant Jewish presence in Palestine (the region known later as Mandatory Palestine) and before the indigenous Arabs in that region realised that they constituted a separate national entity.
The Feisal - Weizmann Agreement signed in January 1919 is no more than an historical footnote. Nevertheless, it would be a mistake to overlook the exchange of letters that preceded it and the text of the agreement itself.
"The two main branches of the Semitic family, Arabs and Jews, understand one another, and I hope that as a result of interchange of ideas at the Peace Conference, which will be guided by ideals of self-determination and nationality, each nation will make definite progress towards the realisation of its aspirations."
Feisal bin al-Hussein bin Ali al-Hashemi made this observation in 1919 shortly before the Paris Peace Conference. Feisal had concluded a series of meetings with Chaim Weizmann and was seeking international support to set up a Pan-Arab nation.
Feisal's seemingly pro-Zionist sentiments were expressed in another remark he made about the same time. "The Arabs, especially the educated among us, look with the deepest sympathy on the Zionist movement."
However a letter in the British Foreign Office archives, declassified at a later date, reveals that Feisal was "coached."
British diplomat Mark Sykes had written to Feisal about the Jewish people "...this race, despised and weak, is universal and all powerful and cannot be put down." Under such circumstances, the secret British communication contended, Feisal would be well advised to cultivate the Zionist movement as a powerful ally rather than to oppose it. In the event, Weizmann and Feisal established an informal agreement under which Feisal would support dense Jewish settlement in Palestine while the Zionist movement would assist in the development of the vast Arab nation that Feisal hoped to establish.
Another version of the letter has a slightly different preamble - "We know that the Arabs despise, condemn and hate the Jews, but the Jewish race is universal, all-powerful and cannot be put down."
Weizmann first met Feisal in June 1918, during the British advance from the South against the Ottoman Empire in World War I. As leader of an impromptu "Zionist Commission", Weizmann travelled to southern Transjordan for the meeting. The intended purpose was to forge an agreement between Feisal and the Zionist Movement to support an ArabKingdom and Jewish settlement in Palestine, respectively. The wishes of the Palestinian Arabs were to be ignored, and, indeed, both men seem to have held the Palestinian Arabs in considerable disdain. Weizmann had called them "treacherous", "arrogant", "uneducated", and "greedy" and had complained to the British that the system in Palestine did "not take into account the fact that there is a fundamental qualitative difference between Jew and Arab". After the meeting Weizmann reported that Feisal was "contemptuous of the Palestinian Arabs whom he doesn't even regard as Arabs".
However, a secret British-French agreement concluded earlier left no room for Feisal's pan-Arab ambitions.
After the Paris Conference Feisal returned to Damascus and led a rebellion. against the French. He had himself crowned King of Greater Syria in March 1920. A few weeks later the French deposed him. In an effort to compensate Feisal for his loss the British offered him the Kingdom of Iraq, which he reluctantly accepted.
In July 1933, a few weeks before his death, Feisal went to London where he expressed concern regarding the situation in Palestine. In particular the Arab-Jewish conflict , increased Jewish immigration to Palestine as well as the declining Arab political, social, and economic situation. He asked the British to limit Jewish immigration and land sales, for fear that “otherwise in the near future the Arabs would either be squeezed out of Palestine or reduced to economic and social servitude.”
It seems Feisal's Zionist sympathies were short lived.
The British too had their regrets. In 2002, British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw observed "A lot of the problems we have to deal with now, I have to deal with now, are a consequence of our colonial past. The Balfour Declaration and the contradictory assurances which were given to the Palestinians in private at the same time as they were given to the Israelis (Jews) - again, an interesting history for us but not an entirely honourable one."
US special envoy to the Middle East George Mitchell's visit this week was intended to kick-start the indirect talks between Israel and the Palestinian Entity. The new round of so-called "proximity talks" was announced soon after Mitchell’s arrival. This new indirect approach hasn’t aroused much enthusiasm. In fact there is scepticism on both sides about the chances of reaching an agreement. Mitchell will shuttle between Israeli and Palestinian leaders for four months hoping to find common ground for an agreement.
Yaakov Katz is the Jerusalem Post’s military correspondent. In addition he reports for Jane’s Defence Weekly. Surveying Israel’s vigilance in the face of multiple threats Katzlisted the threats posed by Hamas, Hezbollah, Syria and Iran counterbalanced by an unprecedented level of security. Quoting a summary issued by the G.S.S (General Security Service) he said, "2009 marked the quietest year in a decade and the first in which no Palestinian suicide bombing was carried out in an Israeli city."
Israeli calculations in assessing the risk posed by Iran are also calibrated against its difficult relationship with its chief ally: the United States.
Israel is repeatedly chastened, but never disciplined for its failure to make concessions to the Palestinians, particularly with regard to constraints on settlement construction.
Vice President Joseph R. Biden fully expected his visit to Israel this week to be a flag-bedecked state occasion to offset President Barack Obama’s displeasure with the lack of progress in the Israeli-Palestinian peace process.
Addressing the prime minister the vice president spoke of “our absolute, total unvarnished commitment to Israel’s security. Bibi, you heard me say before, progress occurs in the Middle East when everyone knows there is simply no space between the US and Israel. There is no space between the US and Israel when it comes to Israel’s security.”
Maybe so, but a major chink appeared this week in relations between the two nations.
Hours after Joseph Biden's vowed unyielding American support for Israel's security our Interior Ministry announced a plan to build 1,600 new housing units for Jews in East Jerusalem. Vice President Biden condemned the move as “precisely the kind of step that undermines the trust we need right now.”
Israel's interior minister, Eli Yishai, who heads the Shas religious party in Netanyahu's coalition government, said the timing of the plan's approval was coincidental. "There was certainly no intention to provoke anyone and certainly not to insult the vice-president of the United States,” Yishai said and added that the announcement should have been made later.
Atthis juncture I should mention that US administrations and recent Israeli governments have been” at odds” with regard to building inEast Jerusalem. Prime Minister Netanyahu has stressed that the building freeze doesn’t apply to East Jerusalem. Since the U.S. has never accepted Israel’s annexation of East Jerusalem it claims the freeze should also apply to the eastern part of the city. It must be said that the building of new dwellings in East Jerusalem goes on every day (excluding Saturdays and High Holidays.) I’m sure the Americans know that, however the ill-timed announcement really annoyed Biden.He responded by leaving the prime minister "hanging" for no less than an hour and a half, as the latter, along with his wife Sara, were waiting for him for dinner.
The sole explanation for such tardiness in American diplomatic behaviour is that it was an expression of extreme displeasure.
The Economist commented as follows -” A sheepish-looking Binyamin Netanyahu, let his aides claim implausibly that he had been unaware of the building decision.”
It’s clear Netanyahu didn’t intend to embarrass his distinguished guest.
Maybe our prime minister is simply a schlemiel, an inept bungler
On the other hand It’s inconceivable that Eli Yishai didn’t realise how damaging his announcement would be. Just the same he emerges from the incident as the champion of the intransigent right wing parties, while
Netanyahu is preoccupied with “survival tactics” trying to keep his precarious coalition government together.
Netanyahu probably finds consolation knowing that incidents like the East Jerusalem building project have occurred in the past. Former Secretary of State James Baker III complained that every time he came to Israel a new settlement was built.Baker was exaggerating of course, but he wasn’t far off the mark.
An editorial in al-Quds al-Arabi, an Arabic-language daily published in London that often echoes mainstream Arab opinion, said the agreement proved that rigor mortis has set into the Arab and Muslim worlds. The Palestinians, it seems, must wait for their state for a good while yet.
While hopes for reaching an agreement with the Palestinians are ebbing away, an article that appeared in the March/April issue of Foreign Affairs was thought provoking to say the least. The only path to peace is an Armistice now claimsArab affairs analyst Ehud Yaari. A Hebrew version of the article appeared as a feature article in last Saturday’s weekend edition of Yediot Ahronot. Yaari an astute, long-standing and respected observer of this region has interviewed all the players in the Middle East,. He enjoys the advantage of many contacts, good relations with fellow journalists, politicians and analysts on the “other side”.
Mindful of the present dangerous impasse Yaari believes the best option is to seek a less ambitious agreement. He advocates an accord that transforms the situation on the ground and creates momentum for further negotiations by establishing a Palestinian state within armistice boundaries.
Such an agreement would stop short of actually resolving the final-status issues of Jerusalem, the fate of the Palestinian refugees and permanent boundaries.
He claims “giant steps generally result in deadlock.”
Ehud Yaari explains -“A small sovereign state within the pre-1967 boundaries has never been the fundamental goal of Palestinian nationalism; instead, Palestinian national consciousness has historically focused on avenging the loss of Arab lands.”
The Palestinians too have their own proposals.
One option, proposed by Abdel Mohsin al-Qattan, former chairman of the Palestine National Council, would be to maintain the territorial integrity of the land between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea and govern it through a weak, jointly run central government and two strong autonomous governments — without necessarily demarcating geographic borders between them. Another popular solution among Palestinian leaders is a unitary state that, for purely demographic reasons, would eventually be controlled by an Arab majority.
Needless to say, Israelis would never accept either scenario
"Consequently," concludes Yaari "Israel must offer the Palestinians statehood for less than peace before the Palestinians and their leaders abandon the two-state model altogether."
Furthermore "the drive towards Palestinian statehood should be accompanied by firm commitments from Israel and external bodies to pursue final-status talks once the state has been established. Both parties must abandon the old slogan of 'Nothing is agreed upon until everything is agreed upon.'This would allow the negotiators to implement agreements without making them conditional to the resolution of all the other points of contention. Just as the Arab states recognised the armistice lines with Israel in 1949 without resolving other issues, Israel could recognise a Palestinian state without immediately settling other outstanding issues.
A major component of armistice talks should be to deal with the status and rights of the 3.5 million Palestinians living in the West Bank and Gaza and only later to address the issue of the ±6 million Palestinians living in exile."
Yaari predicts that, " Hamas will surely criticise any armistice agreement for not encompassing the entire territory beyond the pre-1967 lines and will keep denying the legitimacy of the current Palestinian Authority leadership. That said, Hamas has been advocating the notion of a long-term hudna, or armistice, for many years, and the organisation is already maintaining a de facto hudna along the borders of the Gaza Strip. It is highly unlikely that Hamas would resort to military attacks against Israel to sabotage an armistice deal, and it is doubtful that it could ever mobilise popular opposition to an interim agreement that speeds the dismantling of Israeli settlements and transfers more land to the Palestinian."
With regard to Israeli support for his armistice concept Yaari says, "Because a large majority of Israelis still support a two-state solution, the Knesset would probably approve any interim agreement reached by Benjamin Netanyahu’s government and the P.A. The first step toward reaching such an agreement would be direct negotiations between Israel and the P.A. — with America’s participation — regarding the fate of both the West Bank and Gaza. Instead of concentrating on an ineffective freeze of settlement construction, diplomats should focus on reaching a deal in which those settlements within the new armistice boundaries of a Palestinian state would actually be removed."
Anticipating opposition to his ideas Yaari predicts, "Sceptics of an interim approach will argue that the official position of the P.A. has not changed: It continues to insist on a final-status agreement and rejects the concept of a Palestinian state within provisional boundaries; however, overcoming the P.A.’s long-standing rejection of any provisional agreement with Israel is not an impossible task. The promise of breaking the current stalemate through a process that produces early and tangible results, with the support of Arab states, could encourage the P.A. to reconsider its position. Besides, there are numerous incentives that can — and should — be offered to the P.A., such as guarantees to keep moving toward a final-status settlement, a Security Council Resolution calling on the parties to sign an armistice agreement, a huge aid package for the new Palestinian state and further actions to isolate Hamas."
Elaborating further Yaari states that, "in Israel, too, there is bound to be strong opposition to this approach from right-wing parties and the settler lobby. Settlements at the armistice phase would either be dismantled or stay under the authority of Israeli military commanders (depending on their location in relation to the new armistice boundaries). This would clearly signal to the settlers that their long-term prospects of remaining deep inside the West Bank are slimmer than at any time since the Oslo Accords, and would encourage non-ideological settlers to seek alternative homes within the settlement enclaves slated to become part of Israel proper. A government programme to assist them could go a long way toward reducing the number of settlers residing in Palestinian-majority areas.
If any settlements are dismantled, the Israeli right will likely take to the streets in great numbers, and the Netanyahu government could be toppled by a rebellion within the Likud party; however, it would be considerably easier to confront such opposition over a limited armistice deal than over a final-status agreement requiring the evacuation of most of the settlements. The Israeli government would be able to make a strong case that while it has not reached an “end of conflict, end of claims” agreement, it is moving cautiously toward a two-state solution without conceding Israeli sovereignty over Jerusalem, although an interim arrangement in the city is required, too."
“Signing an armistice agreement would be the greatest breakthrough in Arab-Israeli peacemaking since the 1994 peace treaty with Jordan. Instead of allowing such issues as the refugees and the status of Jerusalem to delay the establishment of a Palestinian state, it would constitute a major step toward ending the occupation, fundamentally reconfigure the conflict and make the prospects for a final-status agreement far brighter than ever before.”
So far Ehud Yaari’s armistice now proposal has raised only a ripple of interest. It’s challenging, different and requires time to assimilate.
"Israeli apples exported to Syria’s markets,” proclaimed the title of an inner page column aspiring to reach the front page. The item will remain forgotten because it’s old news. Every year for the past five years at least, apples grown on the Golan Heights have been exported to Syria. On closer inspection it appears that the apples are from the orchards of Druze farmers on the Golan Heights who still hold Syrian citizenship
Last Thursday Syrian President Bashar al Assad hosted his Iranian counterpart Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. The two leaders exchange visits periodically, so this current visit shouldn’t have aroused special interest.It wasn’t surprising that the meeting was described as “very productive further cementing the ties between the two countries.”
While he was in Damascus Mahmoud Ahmadinejad also met with Hezbollah’s Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah and the leader of the Hamas branch in exile, Khaled Meshaal.
Last Thursday's visit came after Syrian Foreign Minister Walid Muallem, said Damascus was eager to help Iran and the West engage in a "constructive" dialogue over Tehran's controversial nuclear programme.
"Sanctions are not a solution [to the problem] between Iran and the West," said Muallem.
"We are trying to engage a constructive dialogue between the two parties in order to reach a peaceful solution."
He insisted that despite Western claims "Iran does not have a nuclear military programme."
On the face of it, the meeting was a minor event and despite all the claimed achievements the firmly cemented Damascus - Teheran axis needs reaffirmation from time to time.
Walid Muallem’s proposed brokering of an Iranian US dialogue has a twofold purpose. He hopes to prevent the UN imposing sanctions on Iran and at the same time improve Syria’s regional and international standing. In the nineties Muallem spent ten years as Syria’s ambassador to the US. He is not happy with Assad’s ever increasing dependence on Iran. In fact he quietly fostered the move to bring about the renewal of full diplomatic relations with the US.
Last month President Barack Obamaappointed American diplomat Robert Ford to serve as the new U.S. Ambassador to Syria. If the appointment is approved by the Senate Ford will be the first ambassador to be sent to Damascus since 2005 when the US recalled its ambassador in the aftermath of the Hariri assassination. President Obama’s decision to renew diplomatic relations with Syria is part of his policy to further greater regional cooperation in the Middle East. Major issues being addressed include Syria's role in the reconstruction of Iraq and renewing peace talks with Israel and the Palestinian Authority.
Bashar al Assad is content to let Muallem pursue his pro-western initiative while he continues to hobnob with Ahmadinejad.
Now, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is favourably inclined toward Muallem’s brokering efforts, but obviously not so happy about the initiative to bring Syria back into the fold, namely the group of moderate Arab states. By the same measure Ahmadinejad understands Assad’s desire to retrieve the Golan Heights providing the price is right. As far as Ahmadinejad is concerned peace with Israel is unthinkable.
Jane’s Defence Weekly’s correspondent Mohammed Najib was also in Damascus recently. He was following up on the Dubai assassination.
Jane’s is a reputable publishing house and its correspondents are time-tested and well qualified. Therefore I tend to accept Najib’s report of an interview with a Hamas source in Damascus. Admittedly, unnamed sources are less reliable; however it’s obvious that Najib’s source wasn’t going to reveal his identity.
Based on the interview Najib claims that Mahmoud Mabhouh's assassination has been extremely damaging to Hamas. The assassination exposed a number of fault lines in the organisation’s links to Arab states at a time when Hamas is drawing closer to Iran.
Without elaborating, the Hamas source stated that in addition to losing their key weapons acquisitions man, documents, Mabhouh’s mobile phone and important information relating to Hamas' weapons purchases were taken by Mabhouh’s assassins. “It’s a painful loss which will have a negative impact on our armament capabilities for some time to come,” the source said.
I was determined to steer clear of the Dubai assassination this week.
Surely it's been done to death and nothing more needs to be said. However Dubai police chiefDhahi Khalfan, a hitherto undistinguished local cop, unknown outside the United Arab Emirates is reluctant to close the case and fade into obscurity. I’m sure hewill continue to add new photographs to his gallery of alleged Mossad assassins while the official Israeli comment is no comment.
As a result I have no choice but to add a few comments.
The Mossad and the men who have headed it have always been reticent. The present head of the Mossad Meir Dagan is no exception
The Irish Times reported Wednesday that the sales of Mossad-themed T-shirts have risen tenfold since the Israeli spy agency was linked to last month’s operation.
Al Jazeera'scorrespondent in Israel Sherine Tadros reported on, “The sharp increase in the agency’s popularity following the murder of Mahmoud Mabhouh, inwhich Mossad has neither confirmed or deniedits involvement.”
Tadros also mentioned the T-shirts. “They have been selling like hot cakes in Israel.” (I’ve attached two samples).
“Further,” says Tadros,” the agency's official website has reported a "soaring" number of people applying to be agents.”
The Economist still considers the assassination newsworthy, but adopted an undisguised critical attitude. It called the Mossad – “Israel's controversial intelligence service,” and asked “Does Mossad really make Israel safer?”
“In the wake of the assassination of a Hamas leader in Dubai, presumably by Mossad, the agency’s effectiveness, attitude and leadership are under scrutiny
Although they stolidly refuse to admit that their external security service had done it, Israeli officials say they are confident that in Europe and elsewhere outrage over the recent assassination in Dubai of a Hamas commander will quickly blow over. Israeli ambassadors were called in and carpeted in London, Canberra and Dublin over stolen passports and identities used by the team that killed Mahmoud al-Mabhouh and was later exposed by the Dubai police. E.U foreign ministers have “strongly condemned” the action. But the Israelis, seeking to minimise the damage, note innocently that the complaints focused on the passports rather than the actual killing—and anyway stopped short of explicitly fingering Mossad.”
Referring to a controversy regarding the agency the paper said-
“Still, the choice of Dubai, a commercial hub with friendly ties to the West, as a venue for the assassination has discomfited some Israelis in intelligence circles. They want Meir Dagan now into his eighth year as Mossad’s head, to make way for a younger man. Insiders say he has kept down potential successors, making it hard for Binyamin Netanyahu, Israel’s prime minister, to sack him.
A power struggle in Mossad would come at a bad time for Israel. The Dubai imbroglio comes just as the agency faces its hardest test in more than a decade.”
To the best of my knowledge few people in Israel have used the term “The Dubai imbroglio.” On the contrary, the mainstream opinion, both laymen and analysts concludes that the Dubai hit was a job well done.
Nevertheless, another critical comment made in The Economist article wasn’t far off the mark.
“Thoughtful Israeli critics of Mossad, of its swashbuckling director and of Mr Netanyahu, say the intelligence service has two other defects that should be tackled: arrogance and complacency. A pernicious “superiority complex”, says a former intelligence man, has taken root in both Mossad and Shin Bet, the internal security service also known by its Hebrew acronym, Shabak. The apparent success with which they have monitored and infiltrated Palestinians in the West Bank has created an attitude of condescension that inhibits peacemaking.
Only this week it was revealed, amid Israeli intelligence chuckles, that a Hamas founder’s son had been a long-serving Shin Bet agent. Why bother to negotiate with the Palestinians, some intelligence people may feel, when they can be constantly hamstrung by such trickery? Others, however, disagree. Much may depend on Mr. Dagan’s succession. “
I’m suspicious of some “former intelligence operatives.” While most retire quietly a few are over eager to share their knowledge.
The Shin Bet or Shabak is alternatively referred to as the GSS, General Security Service.The Hamas founder’s son referred to is the same Mosab Yousef who gave an exclusive interview to CNN's Christiane Amanpour. Maybe you saw it.
As far as I know the Mossad is subservient to the prime minister and is not involved in peace negotiations.
Maybe Meir Dagan (an amateur painter) would like to retire and paint more, however after Dubai( if it was our work)his tenure might be extended.
