A black hole

Some people regard Yossi Sarid as a political has-been. Maybe he’s washed- up, an occasionally remembered Knesset retiree, but not altogether forgotten. After thirty two years in the Knesset including two ministerial tenures Sarid despaired of effecting any significant change in Israel's political system and stepped down. Now he writes and comments on Israeli politics and our ongoing regional conflict.

Sarid like many people in Israel wonders what Special Envoy George Mitchell hoped to achieve on his recent visit to the Middle East.

"Mitchell could have sat on the banks of the Potomac River and lamented the bad memories from the Middle East while taking comfort in the good memories from Northern Ireland," wrote Sarid in Haaretz this week.

He urged Senator Mitchell not to come here unless he has a plan in his briefcase.

"What did he think would come of the latest of his who-knows-how-many trips? One in which he arrives with empty hands and a diplomatic mask that conceals the revulsion on his face. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a black hole that swallows up goodwill ambassadors, none have returned alive. Tony Blair is just the latest example of the lost and the despaired. Where is he today?"
"That's why Mitchell should not bother making his next visit without carrying a detailed American plan with him, one marked by boldness and determination. Ambassador Mitchell should put this plan on the table in Jerusalem and Ramallah and then leave. Either take it or shoot yourselves in the head. If there is no such plan, Mitchell might as well stay home and play with his grandchildren."

New York Times op-ed columnist Roger Cohen was here on Independence Day.

He wrote of Israel's "unassailable might and unyielding angst." ….:

"A nation whose army and arsenal are without rival in the Middle East becomes one facing daily existential threat. A nation whose power has grown steadily over decades relative to its scattered enemies becomes one whose future is somehow less secure than ever."

Like Yossi Sarid, Roger Cohen despairs of achieving an amicable solution.

"So here we are, 62 years on, negotiating about negotiations whose prospects of leading anywhere seem fantastically remote" … Our reluctance to take risks really irked Roger Cohen.

He concludes in an ironical vein, "Israelis look more risk-averse than I’ve ever seen them. Life’s not bad in affluent, barrier-bordered Israel even if threats loom."

A Bank of Israel statement published last week certainly supports Cohen's

summing up. The Bank has revised its forecast for the country's annual economic growth estimate in order to accommodate positive first quarter figures.

Apparently Yossi Sarid's "black hole" prediction affected Roger Cohen. Soon after touchdown in the US after his visit here he revised his appraisal.

"Don’t give up just yet even if history, and Hamas, say peace is a pipe dream and Mitchell is next in line for that 'black hole'.”

The major stumbling block preventing the renewal of the negotiations is the Israeli government's refusal to comply with a building freeze in east Jerusalem.

In an interview with Israel Channel 2 last Thursday, Prime Minister Netanyahu said that he would not freeze building in Jerusalem. "Our policy in Jerusalem will not change. It's not just my policy, and it's been our policy since the Six Day War. There won't be a freeze in Jerusalem."

What are we building in Jerusalem? "Not much," claims Hagai Segal, a columnist who writes for the Jerusalem Post. Segal is quite emphatic about the current "down tools" situation and says that despite his lofty rhetoric, the prime minister is averse to building anything in Jerusalem.

A report in Haaretz quoting an Associated Press source supported Segal's claim. "Jerusalem officials said on Monday that Israel has frozen new construction in the city's disputed eastern sector - despite Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's declarations to the contrary."

A member of the Jerusalem city council claims the order to freeze building projects in east Jerusalem came directly from the prime minister's bureau.

Another councilman, who sits on the Interior Ministry committee that approves building plans, said his panel which usually meets once a week has not been convened since the Biden visit.
When government spokesman Mark Regev was asked to comment on the de facto building freeze he replied: "Following the Biden visit and the 'mishap', the prime minister asked that a mechanism be put in place to prevent a recurrence of this kind of debacle."
Regev was reluctant to admit that the mechanism was an order to freeze.
However, Efrat Orbach, a spokeswoman for the Interior Ministry, said this mechanism explained why planning committee meetings were being delayed, because now multiple ministries had to be involved in the coordination.
"There is no freeze, there is bureaucracy," Orbach said

Apparently BBC Online is unaware of the de facto construction freeze because its Jerusalem based staff writer Ilene R. Prusher, asks "Is Israel willing to freeze East Jerusalem construction?" Just the same Ms. Prusher quotes a report in Ma'ariv, claiming that the spiritual leader of the Shas party, Rabbi Ovadiah Yosef, believes that Israel can afford to suspend construction in Jerusalem if it would help preserve the US-Israel relationship.

Well Rabbi Yosef's ruling almost equal in weight to a papal bull is significant because the Shas party is one of Netanyahu's key coalition partners, and Shas ministers in Netanyahu's cabinet have been the most insistent about continuing to build in east Jerusalem.

Despite that, Bar-Ilan University political analyst Shmuel Sandler says it is unlikely that Netanyahu will attempt to spend the political capital necessary to declare a freeze in Jerusalem. Beyond Shas, other heavyweights in his cabinet – such as Foreign Minster Avigdor Lieberman – also oppose a compromise on building in Jerusalem.

"If Netanyahu declares a freeze in Jerusalem, it's the end of him," says Prof. Sandler. "It was surprising, what Ovadiah Yosef said, but perhaps it comes from a motivation of not being seen as the one who's stopping Netanyahu from making a deal."

If you find this difficult to follow you are in good company. I'm not sure I've grasped it myself.

Maybe the key to understanding this slightly convoluted series of statements and counter-statements lies in another remark Professor Sandler made,

"I don't think he can do more than he's done: he's already declared a West Bank settlement freeze that expires in September. And that means time for Obama to get the sides to reach a deal is limited, because after September there will be US Congressional elections, and at that time, he won't be able to pressure Israel too much."

An editorial in The Guardian this week expressed a similar opinion, "So what will the proximity talks be about if they go ahead? It will not be the first time that Mr. Netanyahu has miscalculated US politics, but he could be thinking that if only he strings this out to November when he hopes the Republicans will gain control of the House of Representatives, then the pressure will be off him. He will have defanged the Democratic president"

The Guardian continues with an overwhelming conclusion, "President Obama could be clearing away any last hope in the viability of the peace process, before coming up with his own plan. That would be based on the guidelines for a permanent status agreement which were offered by Bill Clinton in 2000, known as the Clinton Parameters. It would then be endorsed by the EU, UN and Russia, who would then have to implement it. Having declared the solution of the conflict vital to US interests, Mr Obama can hardly walk away. Mr Netanyahu would kick and scream against an imposed plan, but that is the consequence of rejecting lesser demands now."

The Guardian editorial refers to the agreement that was almost reached,

"Hints at how close Mahmoud Abbas and Ehud Olmert had got, the last time there were direct talks between the two sides, left the impression that the solution is there to be grasped and the script already written, if only the actors could be found to speak the words. The row over building in East Jerusalem has dispelled that illusion. The solution is not there. After 17 years of intermittent negotiation but continuous settlement in the West Bank, there is zero trust between the two sides."

"Former true believers in the peace process are renouncing their faith." Says The Guardian, "Aaron Miller, an adviser on Arab-Israeli negotiations who served six US secretaries of state,is on of them. Arguing against many of the memos he penned to past political masters (after the Wye River accords which were never implemented, he declared the move toward peace was irreversible), Mr. Miller now questions whether the conflict is capable of a negotiated solution and if it isn't, whether it should continue to be regarded as central to the stability of the region. There are ample grounds for thinking that neither Mr. Netanyahu nor Mr. Abbas can negotiate a solution, one because he won't and the other because he can't."

Christian Science Monitor Staff writer Howard LaFranchi, gleans opinions from a few US veteran diplomats “Some US experts in the decades-old conflict now say that minimal interim measures on Jerusalem will be necessary for talks to resume. This reverses long-held thinking that Jerusalem is such a charged and emotional issue that its status would be taken up only as part of “final” negotiations.” He says and quotes Martin Indyk, a former US ambassador to Israel, “We can’t resolve Jerusalem now, but we can’t ignore it either, we have to find a way to get Jerusalem into talks.”

“Successive American administrations, when confronted with the complexities rolled up in the city, have concluded no good can come from focusing on Jerusalem,” says Martin Indyk, who is now director of foreign policy at the Brookings Institution in Washington. “ However,” continues Indyk,” the current state of President Obama’s push for peace demonstrates how that approach can no longer work, it has come down to Jerusalem."

That conclusion is seconded by another former US ambassador to Israel, Sam Lewis. “The idea you can defer Jerusalem to the end of formal peace talks is an idea whose time has come and gone,” he says. “We have to find a way to bring it in now.”

At the end of the week some observers claimed that there good chances of starting proximity talks between the two sides. In a lead article in this week’s print edition of The Economist referring to the “process” the author asks “Is it really back on track? ”Israeli officials say they still suspect the Palestinians intend to let the proximity talks run into the ground and then demand that the Americans ‘impose’ a settlement. Mr Obama has assured Israel that he wants no such thing. But he has also assured Mr Abbas that, in the event of a deadlock in the proximity talks, American influence will be brought to bear. The Israelis say they fear that if the talks founder they will be blamed.”

“Furthermore,” concludes The Economist, “whatever assurances the Americans may have given Mr Netanyahu, it is likely, if the proximity talks stall again, that they will bring their own bridging proposals to the table—or even launch a full-blooded plan of their own. That is a prospect that disturbs Mr Netanyahu.”

Another lead article in the paper was even more emphatic echoing Yossi Sarid. ” Get your plan ready,” Mr Obama, and under the heading,

”As talks look set to resume, Barack Obama must prepare a big plan of his own,” the author explains

“Even by the gloomy standards of the misnamed Middle East peace process, the prospect of a lasting deal between Jews and Arabs in that little strip of land between the Jordan river and the Mediterranean has seemed remoter than ever. Yet the latest news offers a rare glimmer of hope. After more than a year of sullen stalemate, indirect talks between the two sides look set to resume. Sadly they are likely to flounder unless the Americans do more than just nudge them along.”

Have a good weekend

Beni 29^th of April, 2010.

Remembrance and celebration

Two years ago while planning a visit to the Black Forest region I chanced on a series of battlefield tours.

A not to-be-missed offer proposed visiting the WW1 battlefields in Flanders and France. We chose to stick to the Schwarzwald, but just the same I followed a link in the advertisement to an article in The Sunday Times bearing the title

“In search of Wilfred Owen”. The author Chris Haslam told of his battlefield tour.

“Sunset on the Somme and a sepia mist shrouds the Serre road like mustard gas. The scattered trees stand like silent, frozen explosions and but for the bark of distant shotguns, all is quiet on the western front.

The landmarks of butchery are scattered along a 15-mile strip from Gommecourt in the north to Maricourt in the south, like the attractions in Death’s own theme park.

There’s Luke Copse, where the Accrington Pals were wiped out. Over the road is Hawthorn Ridge, where 19,000lb of ammonal was detonated beneath a German redoubt; and a short stroll away is Newfoundland Park, a delightful-sounding spot where hundreds fell under fire from just five German machineguns. Halsam was looking for the place where a distant relative died.

“Nobody has visited him before, so I’m planting a rose of Picardy to atone for 90 years of neglect.”

Further on he finds the place Owen described in “Spring Offensive”

“But many there stood still
To face the stark, blank sky beyond the ridge,
Knowing their feet had come to the end of the world.”

Two months ago I read that the last surviving WW1 soldier had faded away.

I’m sure they will find another survivor who lied about his age and managed to fight at Ypres or Gallipoli.

Like the battlefield tours in Flanders and France there are Gallipoli tours as well .

I don't know how many people attend the ANZAC dawn parades in Australia and New Zealand. No grieving parents, widows or orphaned children are left to weep for their men who fell at ANZAC cove and other hopeless footholds in the Dardanelles. During the eight month disastrous Gallipoli campaign 2,721 New Zealanders and 8,597 Australians lost their lives.

The following year the battles on the Western Front were even bloodier.

The British forces suffered more than 60,000 casualties in one day at the battle of the Somme.

The Remembrance Day for Israel’s war dead took place on Monday this week. Twenty four hours before the Independence Day celebrations we honoured the memory of 22,684 soldiers killed in the line of duty and 2,431 civilian terror victims. Sixty two years of independence have produced a haven for Jews fleeing persecution as well as Jews who chose to live here.

The price paid for independence has been high, but the alternative of not having a Jewish state is far worse.

Our remembrance days differ from the assemblies at Arlington, Whitehall, the Arc de Triomphe and elsewhere. What’s more, as our Remembrance Day ends it intermeshes with our Independence Day celebrations. Our grief gives way to festivity.

After sixty two years we are still debating the essence of Jewish sovereignty , where we should demarcate our borders, what place should religion have in this entity and how we should regard our minority citizens.

Arab affairs analyst Dr. Guy Bechor, head of Middle East Studies at the Interdisciplinary Centre in Herzliya, says it’s time to say goodbye, not to the state of course but to East Jerusalem.

In and article entitled “It’s time to say goodbye,” published last week in Yediot Ahronot Dr Bechor brings no startling new revelation, he merely reminds us that the world doesn’t recognise Israel's sovereignty in east Jerusalem.

Keeping Jerusalem’s Arab neighbourhoods comes with a price.

It’s not recognised as having rights in the city’s Arab sections, yet at the same time it financially supports the residents of these areas.

“We offer welfare payments, allowances, medical services, pension plans, education, infrastructure, and all the other social benefits accorded by law to 250,000 Palestinians, most of whom reject Israel and view themselves as Palestinians, citizens of a future Palestinian state, should one be established.”

Furthermore says Dr. Bechor, “Since we applied Israeli law to these areas, the Arabs who live there enjoy resident status and are entitled to an Israeli ID card.”...”We are dealing with thousands of people who have no attachment or connection to Israel, and whose inclusion within Israel was a historical mistake.

The time has come to correct it; this absurd situation cannot go on any longer. Fortunately, these people boycott the local elections in Jerusalem, which they do not recognise. Had they participated in the vote, they could have taken over city hall.

While Israel continues to financially support the Palestinians living in Jerusalem, they move there en masse. Many people enter marriages of convenience with east Jerusalem residents, entitling them to the same economic advantages as well as the coveted Israeli ID card.

For some reason, there is no difference between the ID cards granted to citizens and to residents. And for some reason, Israel’s Central Bureau of Statistics insists – for motives that should be looked into – to count these 250,000 residents among the Arab Israeli population.”

Dr. Bechor’s solution is problematic. He doesn’t advocate annulling the annexation of all of east Jerusalem. The exception of course is the Old City and its environs. He simply wants to disfranchise the 250,000 Palestinians living in east Jerusalem, stop the benefit payments they receive and cancel their Israeli ID cards. As a result we will lose 250,000 citizens and Israel’s Muslim population will automatically drop to 1,250,000

Government ministers never tire of declaring Jerusalem Israel’s indivisible capital. In reality it has always been divided. The annexation process didn’t really change facts on the ground.

On April 15, Elie Wiesel took out full page ads in the New York Times, Washington Post and elsewhere, in which, amongst other things, while emphasising Jewish rights to the city, he denied Muslim connection to Jerusalem, citing the fact that there are zero mentions of Jerusalem in the Koran. He said that: "For me, the Jew that I am, Jerusalem is above politics. It is mentioned more than six hundred times in Scripture -- and not a single time in the Koran." He also claimed that Muslims can settle anywhere in Jerusalem His position has been criticised by the Americans for Peace Now in an open letter to him who said that "Jerusalem is not just a Jewish symbol. It is also a holy city to billions of Christians and Muslims worldwide. It is Israel's capital, but it is also a focal point of Palestinian national aspirations." They also claimed that equal residential rights do not exist in the city.. Wiesel has also been criticised in Israel. Haaretz published an article by Yossi Sarid which accused him of being out of touch with the realities of life in Jerusalem.

In the final assessment with the Palestinians, if we ever reach it, facts on the ground will count a lot. Certainly not every maverick hilltop outpost will count, however the main settlement blocs will be difficult if not impossible to move

I thought the following letter published in the letters to the editor section of The Economist worth quoting

“SIR –You claim that if Binyamin Netanyahu is serious about peace he should trade his current coalition partners from the right for Tzipi Livni’s centrist Kadima party (“Stop the bungling”, March 20th). Yet when Ms Livni was serving under Ehud Olmert as foreign minister in 2007, Mahmoud Abbas was offered a Palestinian state on all of the West Bank, a shared sovereignty in Jerusalem and an Israeli gesture on Palestinian refugees. He rejected the offer.

The Economist has been claiming for years that this is what Israel should offer in order to achieve peace with the Palestinians. Were Ms Livni to recover her previous job, this time under Mr Netanyahu, she might be able to resubmit Mr Olmert’s offer, and Mr Abbas would probably reject it once again.

Am I missing something in your argument, or is it just that you have become dogmatic about blaming Israel and absolving the Palestinians for the absence of peace?

Emmanuel Navon
Abba Eban graduate programme for diplomacy studies
Tel-Aviv University

Obviously Netanyahu prefers the present lack of initiative and inaction to engagement with the Palestinians to work out a step by step or final stage solution to the Conflict. So far Tzipi Livni hasn’t filled the role of an aggressive leader of the opposition. Largely ignored by the news media she is out of the public eye and mind. The Labour party is both in and out of the coalition government.

Maybe this state of inaction is about to end. US special envoy to the Middle East George Mitchell arrived in Israel for his first visit in six weeks. Prime Minister Netanyahu stressed that Israel still disagrees with the Obama Administration regarding the building freeze in east Jerusalem. Commentators believe Mitchell will tone down the demands for a building freeze and try to convince the Palestinians to “climb down” and make an effort to sit down with the Israelis. In return Israel will be expected to make some kind of face-saving gesture to the Palestinians.

King Abdullah of Jordan said this week that Hezbollah's activities in Lebanon and the stalled peace process with the Palestinians might lead to war. "In recent years, without progress, we've witnessed two wars in a short period of time.

"There are sources in Lebanon that feel that war is inevitable. The threat of war exists. If we do not bring the Palestinians and Israelis to the negotiations table and if we cross the July deadline – there is a high chance of confrontation. I wouldn't want to meet with you in six or seven months and say I told you so," said Abdullah in a conversation with the Chicago Tribune's editorial board.

Admittedly the present impasse heightens tension in the region but neither Hezbollah nor Hamas are eager for a military confrontation with Israel. Despite the inaction and the frustration it causes, another Intifada is not likely to break out in the near future.

Have a good weekend

Beni 22^nd of April, 2010.

Ein Kerem

Ein Kerem recognised by the Christian world as the birthplace of John the Baptist attracts large numbers of tourists, both followers of Jesus and others Although it is officially incorporated in Greater Jerusalem the village still retains much of its pastoral character. My visit there last Friday was timed to coincide with Easter mainly for the experience of seeing Ein Kerem packed with pilgrims. A choice only a masochist would make unless he wanted to feel the pulse of the place and see the winding processions making their way from one holy site to another. By the Church of the Visitation we passed a large group of Spanish pilgrims led by their priest. Chanting the "Magnificat" in unison as they filed along the road to Mary's Spring.

This village with its liberal sprinkling of churches, monasteries and one holy spring has a charm of its own. There's also a mosque by Mary's spring, a late 19^th century afterthought commemorating the Caliph Omar's stop there on his way to conquer Jerusalem.

Watching the Spanish pilgrims chanting while bells chimed from a church belfry nearby I could not but admire their fervour.

General Charles Gordon too was charmed by Ein Kerem. He lived here for three months in 1883. Gordon a great admirer of John the Baptist shared the religious fervour and the same fate as the forerunner of Jesus of Nazareth. Two years after he stayed in Ein Kerem he was beheaded in Khatoum in an act of religious fervour by the Mahdi's soldiers. A mulberry tree planted by the general in the courtyard of the sheikh's house near the present day music centre is a living link with his stay in Ein Kerem.

The following hyperlink opens a video I made of the visit to Ein Kerem:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QRtaVgUqpqI

This week the prime minister ruled to reverse an earlier cabinet decision to relocate the planned construction of a reinforced emergency room at Ashkelon’s Barzilai Medical Centre. On two occasions I've mentioned the incident of the "Byzantine bones" found at the site of the planned ER. Initially the decision to relocate the emergency room would have caused great inconvenience and unnecessary expense. The prime minister's righting of this wrong made amends for his earlier yielding to pressure from extreme Orthodox groups, notably the "Eda Hardit."

Although an Antiquities Authority announcement determined that the graves were “unequivocally pagan,” a spokesperson for the Eda Haredit stressed that some of the archaeological evidence upon which the statement was based did not necessarily lead to the conclusion that the graves were solely pagan.
"Further digs at other parts of the site," the spokesperson said, "could theoretically uncover Jewish bones." Consequently this religious alignment which is more attuned to the Dark Ages than our times plans to block main road arteries in protest of Netanyahu’s change of mind. I would like to block a few of their arteries!

In this country there’s a rule of thumb worthwhile bearing in mind. Be careful when you dig in areas where the top soil is shallow. Under the surface layers of soft rock- limestone etc., may have been used to excavate burial caves.

Faced with the ever growing threat of a nuclear armed Iran Israel is developing effective “defence shields” and deterrents. Our defence industries had very humble beginnings.

Between 1946 and 1948 towards the end of the British Mandate the "Haganah" built and operated a large clandestine munitions factory under a “fake” kibbutz. Above ground what appeared to be a kibbutz hid the “Ayalon Institute” eight metres below the surface. During the two years it operated the “Institute “produced 2,500,000 9mm bullets mostly for Sten guns

The modern defence industry in Israel was set in motion in the early 1920s. Faced by an increasingly hostile Arab population, the Jewish community began to manufacture homemade hand grenades and explosives. Israel Military Industries (IMI) was founded in 1933, as a secret small-arms plant. After the establishment of the State in 1948, it was operated by the Ministry of Defence, developing and manufacturing assault weapons - from the classic Uzi sub-machine gun to the Tavor assault rifle - heavy ammunition, aircraft and rocket systems, armoured vehicles like the Merkava tank

The major catalyst for Israel's metamorphosis from a small-arms manufacturer to a producer of sophisticated military systems came after the Six Day War . During the war, France imposed an embargo on arms sales to Israel

Today there are more than 150 defence related industries in Israel, with combined annual revenues of an estimated $3.5 billion. The three largest entities are the government-owned IAI, IMI and the Rafael Arms Development Authority, all of which produce a wide range of conventional arms and advanced defence electronics. The medium-sized privately owned companies include Elbit Systems and the Tadiran Group, which focus mainly on defence electronics. The smaller firms produce a narrower range of products. In all, the industry employs close to 50,000 people, all of whom share a commitment to high levels of research and development and the ability to make use of the IDF's combat experience.

Christian Science Monitor correspondent Sarah Birke reported on threats closer to home when she referred to a radio interview given by President Shimon Peres following the main Yad Vashem Holocaust memorial commemoration on Monday. "Syria claims it wants peace while at the same time it delivers Scud [missiles] to Hezbollah, whose only goal is to threaten the state of Israel,” said President Peres. The president’s’ accusation was substantiated by a report in the Kuwaiti newspaper Al-Rai al-Aam .

While the report did not specify which type of Scud missiles were sent, even the shorter-range ones can reach targets in most of Israel.

Syria's alleged arming of Hezbollah may be an attempt to force the US to make good on its promises of renewing diplomatic ties after a four-year hiatus. In a broader Obama administration push for a comprehensive Middle East peace deal, the US had announced last summer that it would send an ambassador to Syria. But Ambassador Robert Ford, picked for the post, has yet to be approved by the Senate.

Joshua M. Landis, Director of the Center for Middle East Studies and Associate Professor of Middle Eastern Studies at the University of Oklahoma proffered the following analysis - “I would assume Syria is transferring weapons to Hezbollah and doing so now because it is a critical moment in which the US is facing a choice. Washington is starting to engage with Syria and having to reconsider its relationship with Israel in the light of recent insults by Israel. Given this, Syria is ramping up the ante to show it is not weak and cannot be ignored. “Hezbollah has been the only real challenge to Israel in the Middle East. It is Syria’s only card because it has been stopped from equipping its own army,” said Landis who is openly sympathetic to Syria especially when he has to go home to his Syrian wife.
Sarah Birke proposed another possibility, “Syria may also be testing the US to see whether it will withstand Israeli opposition to its attempt to woo Syria away from Iran. Damascus is afraid that if it does not apply pressure, the US will focus on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and ignore the return of the Golan. The border with Syria has long been Israel’s least troublesome boundary

Ayman Abdel Nour, a Syrian political analyst says “Arming Hezbollah is in the interests of national security [Syrian] as Israel ramps up pressure on the US to step back from engagement with Syria. Though I have no evidence of the current allegations, it is no secret that when Syrian troops left Lebanon they gave arms to Hezbollah and it supports them in the media and politically.”

Birke adds, “By most accounts, Hezbollah has successfully rearmed since the 2006 war with Israel. The group not only has more rockets today than it did on the eve of that war, but has extended their range.”

Syrian officials denied the Israeli allegation and said the timing of today’s statement was a cynical attempt by Israel to take the focus away from other fronts and thwart US engagement.

“These reports are part of a campaign to demonize Syria at a time when a super power like the US is trying to engage with Syria positively to achieve peace in the Middle East,” said a Syrian diplomat in London who asked not to be identified.

Reflecting on the visit to Ein Kerem, the Holocaust Day commemoration and the existentialist threats we face, our reluctance to accept guarantees for our national security is understandable. We cannot afford to turn the other cheek.

When we doubt promises to back and support this enclave of democracy in the Middle East our critics rebuke us – “Why are ye fearful, O ye of little faith?”

After the Holocaust we have good reason not to place our trust in princes, even in the promises of the major powers, western and others.

The Arabs complain that they too are victims of the Holocaust . Historians argue whether the Holocaust was a deciding factor in the creation of the state of Israel.

“The Holocaust won't protect Israel forever, “says journalist Nehemia Shtrasler. “The world feels guilty because the murder of Europe's Jews was unprecedented in the annals of humankind. There has been no shortage of atrocities throughout history, but a pre-planned liquidation according to a well-thought-out programme aimed at wiping an entire nation off the earth - that had not yet occurred.
The countries of the West also feel guilty because they did not agree to open their gates to refugees from Germany and Austria before World War II. They also refrained from intervening in 1942, when the acts of annihilation were already known. They did not bomb, even once, the railroad lines leading to the gas chambers and crematoria or the death camp itself, although there were thousands of air raids and tens of thousands of bombs dropped near Auschwitz while the Nazi death machine was killing and burning the bodies of 12,000 Jews every day.
The cruel truth is that no one really cared. Hundreds of years of anti-Jewish propaganda, persecution, pogroms and expulsions prepared the ground for the hatred. “

Nehemia Shtrasler warns, “It's true that it was not the 6 million victims who established the state, but they have supplied it with a flak jacket over the years. That flak jacket has worn thin.”

Beni 15^th of April, 2010.

No strings attached

Three years ago journalist/author and former New York Times ME bureau chief Chris Hedges published an article bearing the provocative title "A Declaration of Independence from Israel." Originally the article formed the core of a lecture he gave at the Nassau Club in Princeton. Since then the article has been "replayed" several times.

Hedges' opening remark - "Israel, without the United States, would probably not exist," overstates Israel's dependence on American aid. After rereading the article I 'm convinced that Hedges has a very big axe to grind with Israel. The US aid programme to Israel is his main target in a many-tiered critique advocating its termination.

"Furthermore," he claims, "Israel came perilously close to extinction during the Yom Kippur War in 1973."

Hedges intimates that in retrospect the US airlift of military hardware to Israel carried out at a critical stage in that war was a mistake! "The intervention (airlift), enraged the Arab world, triggered the OPEC oil embargo and for a time wreaked havoc on Western economies. This was perhaps the most dramatic example of the sustained life-support system the United States has provided to the Jewish state."

Reviewing US aid to Israel Hedges complains that, "Israel has reaped tremendous rewards from this alliance. It has been given more than $140 billion in U.S. direct economic and military assistance. It receives about $3 billion in direct assistance annually; roughly one-fifth of the U.S. Foreign aid budget."

Further lamenting the situation he was one of the first to use the "apartheid state" epithet. "Israel is reaping economic as well as political rewards from its lock-down apartheid state. In the 'gated community' market it has begun to sell systems and techniques that allow the nation to cope with terrorism. Israel, in 2006, exported $3.4 billion in defense products -- well over a billion dollars more than it received in American military aid. Israel has grown into the fourth largest arms dealer in the world. Most of this growth has come in the so-called homeland security sector."

Well maybe the arms dealer vocation has some negative connotations, but homeland security supplier is certainly a worthy calling.

Israel is one of the most innovative weapons and defence systems producers in the world.

I've borrowed a verse from Rudyard Kipling with my own interpretation to explain Israeli innovation:

It is not learning, grace nor gear,
Nor easy meat and drink,
But bitter pinch of pain and fear
That makes creation think.

However, as Hedges implies there would be less need for homeland security if it weren't for Israel's dependency on the US, "the US has a terrorism problem in good part because it is so closely allied with Israel, not the other way around."

Chris Hedges presents a very selective one sided picture of US – Israel relations.
American foreign policy analyst Mitchell Bard provides a completer accounting of US aid to Israel.

"Soon after Israel's war of independence President Truman approved a $135 million Export-Import Bank loan and the sale of surplus commodities to Israel.

At that time and today too U.S. aid was seen as a means of promoting peace.

In 1951, Congress voted to help Israel cope with the economic burdens imposed by the influx of Jewish refugees from the displaced persons camps in Europe and from the ghettos of the Arab countries. Arabs then complained the U.S. was neglecting them, though they had no interest in or use for American aid then.

In 1951, Syria rejected offers of U.S. aid. Oil-rich Iraq and Saudi Arabia did not need U.S. economic assistance, and Jordan was, until the late 1950s, the ward of Great Britain. After 1957, when the United States assumed responsibility for supporting Jordan and resumed economic aid to Egypt, assistance to the Arab states soared. Also, the United States was by far the biggest contributor of aid to the Palestinians through UNRWA, a status that continues to the present.

U.S. economic grants to Israel ended in 1959. U.S. aid to Israel from then until 1985 consisted largely of loans, which Israel repaid, and surplus commodities, which Israel bought. Israel began buying arms from the United States in 1962, but did not receive any grant military assistance until after the1973 Yom Kippur War. As a result, Israel had to go deeply into debt to finance its economic development and arms procurement. The decision to convert military aid to grants that year was based on the prevailing view in Congress that without a strong Israel, war in the Middle East was more likely, and that the U.S. would face higher direct expenditures in such an eventuality. "

Bard points out that Israel received more direct aid from the United States since World War II than any other country, but the amounts for the first half of this period were relatively small. "Between 1949 and 1973, the U.S. provided Israel with an average of about $122 million a year, a total of $3.1 billion (and actually more than $1 billion of that was loans for military equipment in 1971-73). Prior to 1971, Israel received a total of only $277 million in military aid, all in the form of loans as credit sales. The bulk of the economic aid was also lent to Israel. By comparison, the Arab states received nearly three times as much aid before 1971, $4.4 billion, or $170 million per year. Moreover, unlike Israel, which receives nearly all its aid from the United States, Arab nations got assistance from Asia, Eastern Europe, the Soviet Union and the European Community.

Since 1974, Israel has received nearly $100 billion in assistance, including three special aid packages. The first followed the signing of the Israel-Egypt peace treaty and Israel's withdrawal from the Sinai. The redeployment of Israeli forces and rebuilding of air bases in the Negev cost $5 billion. To partially compensate for this sacrifice, Israel received $3 billion ($2.2 billion of which was in the form of high-interest loans) in U.S. aid in 1979.

The second special package was approved in 1985, following a severe economic crisis in Israel, which sent inflation rates soaring as high as 445 percent. The $1.5 billion in emergency assistance-disbursed in two installments, in 1985 and 1986-was provided as part of Israel's economic stabilization program, which was implemented under the guidance of the U.S.-Israel Joint Economic Development Group (JEDG).

An extraordinary package was approved in 1996 to help Israel fight terrorism. A total of $100 million, divided equally between fiscal years 1996 and 1997.

Israel's economic aid changed from the Commodity Import Program (CIP), which provides funds to foreign nations for the purchase of U.S. commodities, to a direct cash transfer in 1979. In return, Israel provided the Agency for International Development with assurances that the dollar level of Israel's non-defense imports from the U.S. would exceed the level of economic assistance granted Israel in any given year. Thus, Israel guaranteed that U.S. suppliers would not be disadvantaged by the termination of Israel's CIP Program.

Starting with fiscal year 1987, Israel received annually $1.2 billion in all grant economic aid and $1.8 billion in all grant military assistance. In 1998, Israel offered to voluntarily reduce its dependence on U.S. economic aid. According to an agreement reached with the Clinton Administration and Congress, the $1.2 billion economic aid package will be reduced by $120 million each year so that it will be phased out in ten years. Half of the annual savings in economic assistance each year ($60 million) will be added to Israel's military aid package in recognition of its increased security needs. In 2005, Israel received $360 million in economic aid and $2.22 billion in military aid. In 2006, economic aid was reduced to $240 million and military aid was increased to $2.28 billion."

Bard concludes, "Since 1949, Israel has received more than $106 billion in assistance. …Though the totals are impressive, the value of assistance to Israel has been eroded by inflation. While aid levels remained constant in total dollars from 1987 until 1999, the real value steadily declined."

Deuteronomy instructs - "Give generously to him and do so without a grudging heart …" Just the same gifts, grants and loans often have strings attached.

Right now when our government is eager to enjoy US benevolence without the imposed restraints journalist Avi Strenger tells Tom Friedman "Take your money back." I don't think he meant the total accrued sum to date, but more in the vein of – 'we can manage without your conditionally tied gifts.'

In particular Strenger was angered by the remarks Friedman made in a recent interview, "Friedman accused Israel of misusing American money precisely when the US needs it more than ever to boost US employment. Many foreign journalists believe that the Jewish People exists here only because of America’s money. When they are told that the Israeli economy’s scope is hundreds of billions of dollars a year and that US aid constitutes a miniscule portion of it, they refuse to believe it.

Of the $3 billion handed over by the US annually, only $690 million are transferred to Israel in practice. The rest – 75% of the aid – remains in the US and constitutes an indirect government subsidy to US arms manufacturers – Boeing, Lockheed, McDonnell Douglas etc. – thereby enhancing US employment. "

"Furthermore," stresses Strenger, "Israel’s acquisitions in the US are far greater than the American grant."

So what does he want us to give back? "I suggest," says Strenger, "that Israel renounce the small portion (25%) of US aid that flows directly to Israel, ensuring that all of the aid will be used for acquisitions at American plants and remain in the US to support American jobs."

I'm not sure if by voluntarily forgoing the direct aid we will manage to get rid of those awkward strings.

These restraints are more like subtle allusions than blatant threats. The current building freeze in the settlements and East Jerusalem demanded by President Obama doesn't have a forfeit corollary, nevertheless there are unmentioned implications.

David R. Francis who writes a weekly column in the Christian Science Monitor

claims the US can raise the pressure on Israel without cutting aid

Legally, US loan guarantees of up to $10 billion to Israel can't be used to finance Israeli settlement building there. In the mid-1990s and again in 2003, the US did shrink those guarantees a bit because of settlement building, presumably raising Israel's cost of borrowing.

Francis quotes from an interview with Eugene Bird, president of the Council for the National Interest, a group advocating a "more balanced" approach to Middle East affairs,

"US money does in effect finance settlements in the West Bank that house 400,000 settlers," says Bird, "though I never will be able to prove it," he confesses.

"So if President Obama wants to pressure Israel to stop expanding settlements, what can he do?" asks Francis, "He should not engage in a public fight,” says Stephen Walt, a Harvard University professor of international relations and coauthor of a book on the Israel lobby. “Rather,” he says, “Mr. Obama should use the bully pulpit to express displeasure, maybe calling the settlements ‘illegal.’

He should take diplomatic steps, such as voting for a United Nations resolution condemning the 42-year-old occupation; slow down or trim US purchases of Israeli military products (worth perhaps half a billion dollars a year); and limit loan guarantees.

One advantage of these measures: Congress would not need to be involved.” notes Stephan Walt."

Maybe, but I doubt if he will resort to the steps Walt mentions, especially if he wants a second term in the White House.

The US has a vested interest in Israel. It needs a foothold in the Middle East and Israel is by far the best option it has. Despite its impossible electoral system Israel is a stable democracy. It has a thriving economy and its army is the strongest military force in the region. The only shortcoming is that our neighbours don't like us and one of them who really doesn't qualify as a neighbour (Iran) continually threatens to annihilate us. Some analysts claim that this minor flaw can be rectified. All we have to do is end the Israel-Palestinian Conflict. This will pave the way for a general end of conflict status with all our neighbours enabling everyone to toe the line in dealing with the bad guy on the block (Iran). Of course this is easier said that done.

Reviewing US aid to Israel in Businessweek Celestine Bohlen says

"The problem with this kind of largess is that it muddies the picture, both for Israel and the U.S. The best thing for the relationship would be for the U.S. to cut Israel’s allowance.

Under that scenario, Israel could pay less heed to U.S. pressure and do what it thinks it must for its own national security. Many would argue that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is doing that anyway. The difference would be that the U.S. wouldn’t be there to help pay for it.

Housing blocks for Jews in East Jerusalem? Pursuit of terrorists in the Gaza Strip, even in southern Lebanon? A security fence that rings the whole country? If this strategy makes Israel feel more secure, maybe it should just pursue it and not complain about “restraints” imposed by the U.S.

Then Israel could start thinking seriously about what its defensible borders should look like, perhaps even question the logic and the cost of tying up its military protecting unsustainable settlements in the West Bank.

Once freed from its reputation as a stalking horse for the U.S., Israel could explore deeper relations with more moderate Arab states as a counterweight to Iran.

The advantages for the U.S. are obvious: It would save money at a time when the federal debt is zooming out of sight. The sums aren’t great -- a drop compared with the $1.4 trillion budget deficit in fiscal 2009 -- but it would take some of the sting out of Israel’s stubborn opposition to U.S. policies.

Severing the financial links could also correct the perception that the U.S., as Israel’s patron, can’t be an honest broker in the Middle East.

Earler this week economist Sever Plocker surveyed Israel’s current economic boom in Yediot Ahronot -
"Without you realising it, Israel is approaching yet another milestone en route to turning into a highly developed economy – our per capita GDP will reach the $30,000 mark this year, likely at the beginning of the summer. The overall gross domestic product, which is the economic value of all the goods and services produced in Israel, will reach roughly $230 billion. “

Considering all these bewildering billions a small chorus of Israelis is politely advocating a voluntary reduction in the US aid package. Maybe we can manage without it, however the US remains our main supplier of weapons and armaments. No matter how we procure them our preference for better weapons gives us an advantage over our enemies, but this dependency also has strings attached.

Have a good weekend.

Beni 8^th of April, 2010. .