Let's go the extra mile

.

Mahmoud Abbas, a grey unremarkable figure concluding an unremarkable extended tenure as chairman/president of the Palestinian Authority has undergone a profound metamorphosis. The man described by many observers as a political has-been, a mere footnote in the annals of the

The Jezreel Valley and wooded slopes of Mt. Gilboa. . Some of the fish ponds fields and citrus groves belong to Ein Harod.

Palestinian struggle for independence, has now become the champion of that struggle.

However a number of dissenters, notable among them journalist Khaled Abu Toameh claim that Abbas is motivated by self-interest.
"He wants to go down in history as a leader who defied Israel, the US and many EU countries by asking the United Nations to recognize a Palestinian state. He wants to be remembered as a leader who made a historic achievement for his people." Wrote Abu Toameh in an article published by the Hudson Institute think-tank - New York.

He says Abbas has ignored the warnings of legal experts who told him that UN recognition of a Palestinian state would nullify the PLO's status as the "sole and legitimate" representative of the Palestinian people.

Consequently, the Palestinian Liberation Organisation, which would be replaced by the state of Palestine, would no longer be able to claim that it represents the Palestinian refugees. Furthermore, the PLO would no longer be able to demand the "right of return.

"Abbas was warned," says Abu Toameh, "That the Palestinian-Israeli Conflict could be reduced to a mere dispute over territory and borders between two states, and not a national, religious or ideological confrontation. This means that the conflict would no longer center around important issues like Jerusalem, the holy sites, settlements, water and refugees.

Prior to going to New York Abbas met with his cabinet ministers, advisors and Arab leaders. Some of the people he spoke to said they feared the consequences of the UN bid.

According to unconfirmed reports Prime Minister Salam Fayyad doubted the wisdom of a unilateral step that might cause the US to cut off the $500 + million in annual aid to the Palestinian Authority.

European leaders sympathetic to the Palestinians and the two-state proposal told Abbas that his initiative would damage the peace process and further complicate the situation in the Middle East.

Abu Toameh quoted a report that King Abdullah II of Jordan advised Abbas to reconsider the statehood bid. Abdullah feared that UN recognition would result in the loss of the "right of return" for Palestinian refugees.

Like the rest of the Arab regimes, the Jordanians are afraid that a Palestinian state would mean that millions of refugees living in Jordan, Syria and Lebanon would stay in these countries. The refugees do not want to go to a Palestinian state in the 1967 territories. They want to go back to Israel, and this is what the Palestinian Liberation Organisation has been demanding. So if the PLO loses its legitimate representative status the refugees will have no one to plead their case.

Notwithstanding this Abbas went ahead with his UN bid and returned to Ramallah a conquering hero.

The Quartet's alternative proposal urging Israel and the Palestinians to renew negotiations was tentatively accepted by Prime Minister Netanyahu and tentatively rejected by Chairman Mahmoud Abbas.

It would seem that Bibi is an indefatigable pursuer of peace. In his UN speech he called on Abbas to negotiate, let's talk dugri (straight). So far the talking has been anything but straight. By the same token Mahmoud Abbas seems to be intransigent, unwilling to wheel and deal with Netanyahu.

On closer examination it appears that the situation is very different. Both sides have preconditioned themselves out of negotiations. As a result it would take more than another US special ambassador or European intercessor to kick-start the negotiations again.

Commenting on the negotiations impasse Thomas L. Friedman said, “A farsighted Israeli government would say to itself: ‘We have so much more to lose than the Palestinians if all this collapses. So let’s go the extra mile. Abbas says he will not come to peace talks without a freeze on settlement-building. We think that is bogus. We gave him a 10-month partial freeze and he did nothing with it. But you know what? There is so much at stake here, let’s test him again. Let’s offer him a six-month total freeze on settlement-building. What is six months in the history of 5,000-year-old people? We already have 300,000 settlers in place. It is a win-win strategy that in no way imperils our security. If the Palestinians still balk, they will be the ones isolated, not us. And, if they come, who knows? Maybe we cut a deal.’”

He’s right, so right!

So what does our government do? Barely a week after the UN speeches and the Quartet’s call to refrain from provocative actions, we announce the building of 1,100 units in Gilo. The announcement met with condemnation by the US, UK and the EU. They referred to Gilo as a settlement while an Israeli government spokesman referred to it as a suburb in the heart of Jerusalem.

Prior to 1967 Gilo was a hill on the Jordanian side of the 1949 armistice lines.

Now it is part of the greater Jerusalem municipal area annexed by Israel. It is in fact a Jewish suburb with a population of 40,000. Considering that the proposed addition is in the preliminary planning stage the announcement is indeed provocative.

According to an Israeli municipal planner, most Gilo land had been legally purchased by Jews before World War II, much of it during the 1930s. Jewish landowners had not relinquished their ownership of their land when the area was captured by the Jordanians in the 1948 War.

I doubt if it would be wise to table the land ownership deeds. If we do a host of displaced Arabs are likely to present ownership deeds for land in other suburbs in the “heart of Jerusalem.”

.

Describing the speeches at the UN Friedman said, “Honestly, it is hard to decide whose speech was worse. Netanyahu’s read like a pep rally to the Likud Central Committee. Abbas’s read like an address to an Arab League meeting. Obama’s read like an appeal to Jewish voters in Florida. The president meant well, but domestic politics required that he whisper where he once spoke bold truths to both sides.”

Surveying the moribund peace process and how any form of direct contact between the parties is once more perceived as a goal, a very elusive goal, Friedman said, “That is, indeed, where we are — questioning whether the two sides will even talk to each other anymore, let alone negotiate an implementable deal. Yet both sides act as if time is on their side. I beg to differ……

If clashes erupt between Israelis and Palestinians today, there is no President Hosni Mubarak of Egypt to absorb the flames. Now there is a Turkish prime minister, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, ready to fan them — toward Israel. It is not an exaggeration to say that if serious clashes erupted between Israelis and Palestinians, both the peace treaties between Egypt and Israel and Egypt and Jordan could be undermined.”

The Economist said, “The Israeli government, however, argues that the Palestinian bid is a huge and potentially tragic mistake. ‘The only way to achieve a Palestinian state and peace is through direct negotiations,’ stated an Israeli official, adding that the Palestinians have not ‘seriously’ engaged in talks for the past three years. The mistake would become ‘irrevocable’, he added, if a resolution passed in the General Assembly prescribes a Palestinian state within the 1967 borders.

Palestinians respond that Netanyahu is not ready to negotiate a two-state agreement. One of his demands, that the Palestinians must first recognise Israel as a Jewish state, seems intended merely to prevent talks restarting.

Many Europeans and Americans wonder whether Mr Netanyahu is himself a dyed-in-the-wool rejectionist, or is simply in thrall to the ultra-nationalists in his coalition.”

The “Conflict” viewed from any point outside the Middle East is difficult to comprehend. It’s hard to understand all this squabbling over a narrow sliver of arid coastline. On the other hand it’s difficult to equate Mark Twain’s uncomplimentary descriptions of the Holy Land he visited in the late 1860s with the landscapes tourists see today. The swamps and wastelands have been transformed. Admittedly the climate here is described as mainly arid, however the little water available has been distributed better. The National Water Carrier, a major engineering project brings water from the Sea of Galilee to arid areas in the south. Agriculture has been expanded to an enormous extent. This once backwater of the Ottoman Empire now exports agricultural and horticultural products.

The National Water Carrier project has its downside too. Pumping water from the Sea of Galilee has adversely affected the sea’s (lake) water quality. Furthermore, the Dead Sea deprived of a lot of water from the Jordan River is drying up.

Now this negative aspect of our water economy is about to undergo a fundamental change. It will cost a lot of money, but it will be money well spent.

Over the next forty years Israel will invest USD 54 billion in the development of water installations, but will also be in a position to do so without raising the cost of water to the consumer, according to the blueprint plan for water development recently approved by the Water Authority Council.

The plan also proposes the creation of desalination plants on offshore man-made islands because of the difficulty in finding land for building such plants on the beaches of our short coastline.

Based on the new plan, expanding the availability of water in Israel will focus on desalination plants. This will make it possible to draw less water from natural water sources, thereby allowing them to be restored to higher levels

The focus on desalination also lessens the risks posed by higher reliance on water resources like the Sea of Galilee.

The amount of water allocated to agriculture will not drop, however it will be based on purified sewage and non-potable water drawn from water holes. I hasten to add that our sewerage purification plants are among the most efficient in the world. Although the purified waste is used for irrigation it meets all the standards set for potable water.

According to the Water Authority Council’s calculations Israel will require an additional 1.5 billion cubic metres of water, in the coming years.

Since Israel controls the headwaters – the Yarmuk and Jordan rivers, it is obliged to supply water to the very dry Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan and the Palestinian Authority. In fact about a third of the additional water required will be supplied to Jordan and the Palestinian Authority.

As soon as some of the planned desalination plants are in production there will be a reduced reliance on the National Water Carrier. More water will flow in the Jordan River and the situation of both the Sea of Galilee and the Dead Sea will be much improved.

Maybe I should have added a wish for peace in the New Year wishes I sent to friends and family. On second thoughts I think that is too much to hope for.

Instead I’ll settle for an abundance of water.

Beni 29^th of September, 2011.

The Palestinian Ploy

Summer is drawing to a close and the tell-tale signs of Autumn are here.

Last night Channel 10's weather girl predicted rain for the weekend.

Not a vaguely worded forecast, but an emphatic promise backed by a synoptic map. With no tarot cards or goat's entrails to aid her she said, "A high pressure ridge is growing dominant in our region and low pressure over Greece is bringing stormy weather."

The Sea Squills, harbingers of the changing season, are in full bloom.

According to local folk tradition, when the Sea Squills grow to a height of more than 150 cm we can bank on a rainy winter.

Foresight, an innate ability to predict events, is a rare gift in this part of the world.

Rules of thumb, synoptic weather maps and even ancient omens were of no help predicting the outcome of the latest Palestinian ploy. It’s the most talked of topic everywhere in Israel. Academic think-tanks, social gatherings and all the self-appointed informal parliaments, including our breakfast table forum at the factory, have been debating the possible outcome of the Palestinian UN membership bid.

We had a full complement at breakfast this morning. Predictably, the lion’s share of the conversation related to the Palestinian application for U.N membership.

I quoted from Thomas L. Friedman's New York Times article -

"Israel: Adrift at Sea Alone." This prompted one of my breakfast table partners to summarily disqualify Friedman. “Let him tell his story to his Park Avenue friends, not to us."

I tried defending Tom Friedman listing his credits and merits. He has clocked up a lot of time in Israel and the Middle East as a journalist. Furthermore, he has many friends and admirers in this country. He deserves credit because he is a friend and an honest critic.

Last year, in a similar situation I wrote that Friedman knows that Israelis have had their fill of critics and admonishers. Instead he tries a constructive approach, “I know what world you are living in. I know the Middle East is a place where Sunnis massacre Shiites in Iraq, Iran kills its own voters, Syria allegedly kills the prime minister next door( and now Assad is killing his own people), Turkey hammers the Kurds, and Hamas engages in indiscriminate shelling and refuses to recognize Israel. I know all of that. But Israel’s behavior, at times, only makes matters worse — for Palestinians and Israelis. If you convey to Israelis that you understand the world they’re living in, and then criticize, they’ll listen.” Some may but I fear the people who are firmly entrenched mentally and territorially won’t spare him the time of day.

"I've never been more worried about Israel’s future.” He wrote last week.

“ The crumbling of key pillars of Israel’s security — the peace with Egypt, the stability of Syria and the friendship of Turkey and Jordan — coupled with the most diplomatically inept and strategically incompetent government in Israel’s history have put Israel in a very dangerous situation.

This has also left the U.S. government fed up with Israel’s leadership but a hostage to its ineptitude, because the powerful pro-Israel lobby in an election season can force the administration to defend Israel at the U.N., even when it knows Israel is pursuing policies not in its own interest or America’s.”

The present state of flux in the Arab world is not at all related to the Arab-Israel Conflict. Neither can Turkey’s leadership ambitions be attributed to so-called “Israeli aggression.” , Nevertheless, Friedman doesn’t completely absolve Netanyahu and his government from blame and responsibility for the present impasse. He claims Netanyahu, is responsible for failing to put forth a strategy to respond to the changes that are taking place in a way that protects Israel’s long-term interests.

Friedman corrects his sweeping no strategy claim. " OK Netanyahu has a strategy: Do nothing vis-à-vis the Palestinians or Turkey that will require him to go against his base, compromise his ideology or antagonize his key coalition partner, Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman, an extreme right-winger. Then, call on the U.S. to stop Iran’s nuclear program and help Israel out of every pickle, but make sure that President Obama can’t ask for anything in return — like halting Israeli settlements — by mobilizing Republicans in Congress to box in Obama and by encouraging Jewish leaders to suggest that Obama is hostile to Israel and is losing the Jewish vote. And meanwhile, get the Israel lobby to hammer anyone in the administration or Congress who says aloud that maybe Bibi has made some mistakes, not just Barack. There, who says Mr. Netanyahu doesn’t have a strategy?"

"I have great sympathy for Israel’s strategic dilemma" says Friedman, "and no illusions about its enemies. But Israel today is giving its friends — and President Obama’s one of them — nothing to defend it with. Israel can fight with everyone or it can choose not to surrender but to blunt these trends with a peace overture that fair-minded people would recognize as serious, and thereby reduce its isolation."

Lack of strategy is the very complaint Aaron David Miller made last week in Foreign Policy when he analysed the Palestinian dilemma in a piece he titled " Humpty Dumpty Palestine." - . ”Decentralized, dysfunctional, and divided, the Palestinian national movement has long lacked a coherent strategy for realizing its people's nationalist aspirations either through armed struggle or diplomacy. The Israeli occupation, the perfidy of the Arab states, and the Palestinians' own dysfunctional decision-making have left them adrift, without much hope of achieving meaningful statehood.”

Having said that Miller goes on to credit them for their determination.

“The Palestinians are a people with a compelling and just cause; their nationalism and attachment to Palestine cannot be easily broken or undermined.

Over the years, centrifugal forces and history itself have broken the Palestinians into five very uneasy pieces.” At this juncture where he explains the divisions and schisms Miller tends to exaggerate the splinter aspect. Admittedly the Palestinians lack cohesion, however their quest for statehood recognition seems to have unifying effect. Their leaders speak with determination and resolve, although some doubt (in private conversations) the wisdom of the UN bid.

Speaking to NBC's "Meet the Press" on Sunday, former president Clinton said that the United States must "contain the fallout" from the Palestinian UN bid.

After President Barack Obama's address to the General Assembly, widely interpreted as a pro-Israel and not at all supportive of the Palestinian membership bid, it's reasonable to expect considerable "fallout."

Obama took a calculated risk believing that the present state of disarray in the Arab world and the lack of genuine concern for the Palestinians wouldn’t

evoke violent anti-American reaction.

Clinton said he felt that above all the Palestinian bid was an "act of frustration by the Palestinians, and what I think we've all got to do is contain the negative fallout."

Writing a few days before President Obama’s address to the General Assembly Jeffrey Goldberg doubted the practical value of the Palestinian UN bid. “Abbas says he seeks a state for his people on the West Bank and in Gaza, with a capital in East Jerusalem. If that’s true, then there are only two member states of the UN that can bring it about: Israel and the U.S. Neither supports this resolution. Most Israelis view it as an attempt to limit their options in future negotiations, or to deny to them the holiest sites of the Jewish people and delegitimize the idea of a Jewish state.

Unlike Thomas L. Friedman, Yossi Klein Halevi a contributing editor to The New Republic and a fellow at the Shalom Hartman Institute in Jerusalem believes Israel isn’t to blame for Its growing isolation.

He claims, “The Palestinians were offered the equivalent of the 1967 borders by former Israeli prime ministers Ehud Barak and Ehud Olmert. Yet Palestinian leaders rejected the offers because they refused to concede the “sacred” right of return, as P.A. head Mahmoud Abbas calls it.

Today former Prime Minister Ehud Olmert wrote in the New York Times,

about his negotiations with the Palestinians “According to my offer, the territorial dispute would be solved by establishing a Palestinian state on territory equivalent in size to the pre-1967 West Bank and Gaza Strip with mutually agreed-upon land swaps that take into account the new realities on the ground.

The city of Jerusalem would be shared. Its Jewish areas would be the capital of Israel and its Arab neighborhoods would become the Palestinian capital. Neither side would declare sovereignty over the city’s holy places; they would be administered jointly with the assistance of Jordan, Saudi Arabia and the United States.

The Palestinian refugee problem would be addressed within the framework of the 2002 Arab Peace Initiative. The new Palestinian state would become the home of all the Palestinian refugees just as the state of Israel is the homeland of the Jewish people. Israel would, however, be prepared to absorb a small number of refugees on humanitarian grounds.

Because ensuring Israel’s security is vital to the implementation of any agreement, the Palestinian state would be demilitarized and it would not form military alliances with other nations. Both states would cooperate to fight terrorism and violence. “ Olmert disagrees with Yossi Klein Halevi on at least one important point.

“These parameters were never formally rejected by Mr. Abbas, and they should be put on the table again today. Both Mr. Abbas and Mr. Netanyahu must then make brave and difficult decisions.

We Israelis simply do not have the luxury of spending more time postponing a solution. A further delay will only help extremists on both sides who seek to sabotage any prospect of a peaceful, negotiated two-state solution.”

An editorial or lead article in the New York Times apportioned the blame equally to all the parties concerned. “The PA move to ask for statehood may be a mistake. The Israeli move to reject it may be a mistake. But if the UN votes to recognise statehood, the American rejection of that result will also be a mistake. It will severely damage America's aspirations to improve its standing in the perhaps-democratising Arab world. It will undercut America's ability to broker an eventual stable peace deal. It will delay Israel's necessary acknowledgment that it cannot hold out against the Palestinians forever. It may provoke a new intifada. It's conceivable that it could incite terrorist attacks and cost American lives. And if Congress does cut off American aid to the PA, it will yank the rug out from the president and State Department and call into question whether America can live up to its promises, or conduct a coherent foreign policy on this issue at all.”

There are more speeches scheduled for tomorrow at the UN. The Palestinians may opt to apply to both the Security Council and the General Assembly, or maybe accept the French compromise suggestion of observer non-member status. We will have to wait and see.

The final round of the Israeli Labour party primaries were held this week. Shelly Yachimovitich was elected chairwoman of the party. The first woman to be elected to lead the party (Golda Meir was appointed to the post). Journalist turned politician, Yachimovitch was elected chairwoman after only five years in the Knesset. She has boundless energy and drive (as you can probably guess she got my vote) and is already managing to resurrect the almost deceased Labour party. In a country where generals in politics are “a dime a dozen” some critics have failed her for her lack of battle-proven skills.

I’m sure she will find a general or two in the party to aid her. Public opinion polls are predicting a second lease of life for the Labour party under Shelly’s leadership.

Some observers claim that the US and the EU nations welcome a more favourable alternative to Netanyahu’s moribund coalition.

Next week is Rosh Hashanah. I wish everyone good health and happiness in the coming year – Shana Tova

Beni 22^nd of September

In splendid isolation

October 12, 2000 is day British photojournalist Mark Seager will always remember. He was in Ramallah that day and sensing something news worthy was about to happen he followed an agitated crowd of Palestinians heading towards the local police station. However he was completely unprepared for what he was about to witness. He described it later as “murder of the most barbaric kind.” A few hours earlier two IDF reservist drivers had taken a wrong turn and ended up at a PA roadblock outside Ramallah. From there they were taken to the local police station. A frenzied crowd that gathered outside stormed the building and brutally murdered the two drivers. One of the murderers Aziz Salha appeared at a window proudly showing his blood-stained hands to the cheering crowd below. Later one of the mutilated bodies was thrown out of the same window. Both the bodies were dragged through the streets to Al-Manara square in the centre of the town. Seager tried to photograph the lynching but the mob physically assaulted him and destroyed his camera. Recalling the horrific scene when he was interviewed later he said, “I know I'll have nightmares for the rest of my life.”

When scenes of Egyptian protesters storming the Israeli Embassy in Cairo on Friday, were shown on main channel TV newscasts, many shocked Israelis sensed a certain déjà vu. Once again the Ramallah nightmare scenario was unfolding before their eyes.

Egypt’s Minister of Defence and de facto head of state, Field Marshal Muhammad Hussein al-Tantawi couldn’t be reached when Prime Minister Netanyahu tried calling him. He wanted Tantawi to extricate the six Israeli security guards trapped inside the embassy. The much decorated field marshal was reluctant to intervene. Rescuing the Israelis might involve a clash with the protesters. And no doubt he would be held responsible for the deaths of any protesters killed in the rescue operation. He didn't want to end up in a Cairo courtroom cage like Mubarak.

How can this outburst of pure hatred be explained? Michael Birnbaum and Ingy Hassieb wrote in the Washington Post a few days ago, "The incident underlined the deeply altered relationship between Israel and Egypt, in which popular anti-Israeli sentiment, fueled by Israel’s policies toward the Palestinians, has threatened to undermine relations cemented in a 1979."

New York Times columnist Nick Kristof referenced the root causes of the attack, as he saw them: "Attacking the Israeli embassy doesn't help Gazans, doesn't bring back the dead. Instead it helps Israeli hardliners.”

The Christian Science Monitor quoted from an article by Ben Caspit in the Israeli daily Maariv, who in turn quoted Gidi Grinstein, president of the Reut Institute in Tel Aviv and a former peace negotiator during Ehud Barak's tenure as prime minister, who said, "A lot of what drives the frustration in Egypt and Turkey is the moribund negotiations with the Palestinians."

Washington Institute for Near East Policy researcher Eric Trager, disagreed. He said, "It was the standard response of armchair analysts, for whom all Middle Eastern current events -- and particularly the most outrageous ones -- are inextricably linked to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict."

Trager claims that," The assumption that the Egyptian protesters who attacked the Israeli Embassy in Cairo last Friday, tearing down a protective wall and ransacking the premises, were motivated by cosmopolitan, pro-Palestinian concerns is to completely ignore the sad truth that Egyptians overwhelmingly hate Israel for wholly Egyptian reasons.”

American writer Robert Satloff is the executive director of WINEP, the Washington Institute for Near East Policy . The New York Review of Books claims he is, “a neoconservative with very hawkish views on the Middle East.”

Just the same, he is very familiar with our region and his insights are often thought-provoking. After the attack on the embassy Robert Satloff wrote in the Jerusalem Report, “It’s the granddaddy of all American diplomatic achievements in the Middle East. It represents one of the greatest Western victories of the Cold War. It has prevented the drift toward a region-wide Arab-Israeli military confrontation for more than 30 years. It is the foundation both of Israel’s security doctrine and the Jewish state’s transformation from an economic basket case into a first world economic power. It has made possible every hopeful move toward Arab-Israeli peace for the past generation. And it – the Egypt-Israel peace treaty – is hanging on by a thread.”

Relations between the two countries were always very “low profile.” Satloff described it in more sombre tones, ”The entire relationship between these two neighbors had been whittled down to the sale of gas, the operation of several low-profile economic zones, measured security cooperation in constraining the activities of radical jihadists (especially those targeting Egypt) and an uneasy political ménage à trois with the United States.”

“Forget the Palestinian gambit at the United Nations.” Says Satloff, “Don’t lose sleep about Grad missiles from Hamas. Fear not the threats of Syria’s Assad, Hezbollah’s Nasrallah or al- Qaeda’s Zawahiri. Compared to the potential demise of Egypt-Israel peace, a huge bonanza to radicals of every stripe and a strategic calamity nearly on par with the acquisition of nuclear weapons by the Iranian mullahs, these are mere annoyances.”

A number of Israeli analysts have arguably stressed Egypt’s dependence on American aid. Some have claimed that without the annual US aid grant the Egyptian economy will collapse. Contradicting this claim another WINEP analyst David Schenker says, “Notwithstanding devoting more than 30 years and $50 billion to secure the peace and build a strong bilateral relationship, during this critical moment of transition, Washington today finds itself with precious little influence in Egypt. For now, U.S. access to Cairo West airbase, priority Suez Canal access for U.S. warships, and routine military over flights of Egyptian airspace are not at risk. Despite the storming of the Israeli embassy in Cairo, neither is the Egypt-Israel peace treaty. If the current trajectory isn't reversed and the next government in Cairo doesn't start to value the bilateral relationship, however, these U.S. equities may soon be in jeopardy.”

“Simply put,” says Schenker, “the $1.3 billion a year U.S. grant isn't what it used to be. When U.S. assistance started flowing back in 1981, the annual military grant equated to more than 5 percent of the state's GDP. In 2010, it stood at less than one-fourth of a percent. Given the relatively small amount of assistance, it is unlikely that U.S. attempts to condition this aid to politically difficult decisions would be successful. And Washington's influence in Cairo will become even more tenuous when (and if) the military eventually returns to the barracks.”

Nevertheless, the Egyptian economy has suffered losses due to a sharp decrease in the number of tourists visiting Egypt.

Our relationship with Egypt was exacerbated this week when Turkish premier

Recep Tayyip Erdogan, visited Egypt—the first visit at such a level for 15 years—to sign new military and economic agreements. The crowds in Cairo gave Erdogan a hero’s welcome. His downgrading of the Israeli embassy and his sabre-rattling rhetoric pleased the Egyptians. However his undisguised aspiration to fill the leadership vacuum in the Muslim world didn’t please the interim government. Nobody wants the Ottomans back.

Schenker mentioned another worrying aspect of the current mood in Egypt.

“In June this year Cairo turned down a $3 billion low-interest IMF loan with virtually no conditions attached, a decision seemingly predicated on a popular aversion to the United States: According to a Gallup Poll taken earlier this year, 75 percent of Egyptians oppose accepting U.S. economic assistance.”

“Unsurprisingly,” he says, “these anti-U.S. sentiments also carry over to the U.S.-brokered Camp David peace agreement between Egypt and Israel, a deal that Amr Moussa says ‘is over.’ Even the most ‘liberal’ presidential hopeful, Mohamed ElBaradei, says that Egypt should consider going to war with Israel to protect Palestinians in Gaza.”

Last week there were wild speculations about a possible naval confrontation with Turkey. I wondered if the Turks were concerned too. Journalist Ümit Enginsoy wrote in Hürriyet Daily News, one of Turkey’s two English language papers, “The possibility of a Turkish-Israeli military conflict is still small.” Enginsoy who lives in New York said, “The paradigm between Turkey and Israel has changed, but several defence experts still believe the chance of a physical confrontation between the militaries of the two countries is rather small.

The United States would not allow a new Turkish flotilla to approach Israel. It would seek to deter that kind of an aid flotilla from the start, before it sails.

Even in the case of a crisis, the United States, which holds a major military force in the Mediterranean, would try to separate the navies of the two countries,”

“Could Turkey and Israel Go to War? “ asked Soner Cagaptay Soner director of the Turkish Research Program at The Washington Institute.

“Not only is Ankara no longer a trusted friend of Israel, but it has also begun to emerge as the key regional actor opposing Israel.

This is the most important shift in Levantine politics since Camp David or even since 1949 when Turkey recognized Israel. This new balance is a serious threat for Israel, which must now consider an increasingly hostile Turkey and an ever colder and unfriendly Egypt when it evaluates its security environment.”

Foreign Minister Lieberman made oblique references to retaliatory action against Turkey.

The other Turkish English language paper Today's Zaman understood him well. “Israel's hawkish foreign minister is planning a series of measures to retaliate against Turkey in an apology row, including military aid to the terrorist Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK).
Other planned measures are cooperation with the Armenian lobby in the US in its efforts to win recognition for Armenian claims that 1.5 million Armenians were victims of a genocide campaign in the late Ottoman Empire during the First World War years and to issue a travel warning urging all Israeli military veterans to refrain from traveling to Turkey, according to the report in Yediot Ahranot. The travel advisory will also urge Israelis to refrain from boarding connections in Turkey,” the report said.

.”Turkey's demand for an apology has divided the Israeli government, with hawks such as Lieberman strictly opposing it while others insisting that a way must be found to restore ties because Turkey is an ally of critical importance for Israel.

On Thursday, Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak said Israel and Turkey will eventually mend fences rather than become foes, dismissing their apology dispute as ‘spilled milk.’ “

Our preoccupation with the Turkish and Egyptian embroilment has caused the news media to relegate a number of pressing domestic matters to a state of near oblivion. Admittedly we can't ignore Turkish premier Erdogan's bellicose statements, however neither can we gloss over the cottage cheese boycott that sparked off a mass social protest that brought over 400,000 Israelis to fill the city squares demonstrating for social justice.

The social protest has given rise to a number of dynamic young leaders.

Young students especially have taken on the tycoons, the people with deep-rooted financial clout. The latest boycott against Tnuva’s dairy products is beginning to show results.

Tnuva was founded in 1926 by the kibbutz movements as a cooperative for the processing and marketing of agricultural products. For many years its dairy division had a near monopoly. In 2006 foreign investors approached

Tnuva seeking to acquire a controlling share of the company. Many of the kibbutz shareholders sold out. Since we (Ein Harod Ihud) weren’t financially pressed we kept our shares. As a result I’m in an awkward position. I strongly support the social protest and the various boycotts designed to reduce consumer prices. On the other hand my kibbutz holds shares in Tnuva.

At breakfast this morning I considered not drinking milk with my coffee in support of the boycott. My capitalist instincts got the better of me.

To offset this I voted in the Labour party primaries held this week to choose a new party chairman. I’m hoping it will be a chairwoman. The only woman candidate Shelly Yachimovich won the first round of the primaries by a narrow majority. Next week we will go to the polls again, hopefully she will win this time too.

Have a good weekend.

Beni 15^th of September, 2011.

We won't go to Canossa

If you take the trouble to look for the Ottoman imprint, you will find it almost everywhere in this country. Every time I look out of our living room window I see the telltale signs of the old Turkish railroad in the valley below. The tracks and their sleepers have long since disappeared, recycled for some other purpose.

However, you can still see short lengths of railroad embankment, blending well with the Jezreel Valley landscape. Together with a few station buildings they are all that’s left of the railroad that brought passengers and goods from Haifa to Damascus,

The road from Afula to Beit Shean runs parallel to the course of the railroad. At the junction near the entrance to Beit Shean it crosses a bridge the Turks built on the foundations of an old Roman bridge. On the other side of the town near the new shopping mall, the “Saraya,” the Ottoman municipality building is undergoing renovations giving it a new lease of life.

Until recently I barely acknowledged the Ottoman imprint, now in the wake of the Palmer Report I am acutely aware of these old landmarks.

The UN appointed an investigative committee, to examine the circumstances surrounding the Israeli raid on the Turkish ship Mavi Marmara that took place last year. The committee was headed by former prime minister of New Zealand Sir Geoffrey Palmer, an expert on maritime law.

At that time a seven ship flotilla attempted to break the Israeli-Egyptian blockade of Gaza.The flotilla was intercepted by the Israeli navy seeking to escort the ships to the Ashdod port to inspect their goods. Clashes broke out on the Mavi Marmara after activists attacked Israeli commandos with baseball bats, steel bars, and live fire. Israeli commandos used both non-lethal weaponry and live fire to defend themselves. Nine activists were killed, and seven Israeli commandos were wounded.

The committee's report, better known as the Palmer report, stated unequivocally that: "Israel faces a real threat to its security from militant groups in Gaza. The naval blockade was imposed as a legitimate security measure in order to prevent weapons from entering Gaza by sea and its implementation complied with the requirements of international law."

The report urged that all future efforts to bring humanitarian aid to Gaza should be done "through established procedures and the designated land crossings in consultation with the government of Israel and the Palestinian Authority", thus discouraging future Gaza flotillas.

The report also questioned the motives of the flotilla organisers, in stating that: "Although people are entitled to express their political views, the flotilla acted recklessly in attempting to breach the naval blockade. The majority of the flotilla participants had no violent intentions, but there exists serious questions about the conduct, true nature and objectives of the flotilla organisers, particularly the IHH [Humanitarian Relief Foundation - the Turkish aid group that primarily organised the flotilla]. The actions of the flotilla needlessly carried the potential for escalation."

Israel has adopted the Palmer report, with the exception of some reservations in relation to the report's finding that Israel's decision to board the vessels in the manner it did was "excessive and unreasonable". Israel rejects that finding, arguing that repeated warnings were given to the vessels and that its soldiers boarding the Mavi Marmara were in immediate danger and therefore acted in self-defence.

In fact, the Palmer report was clear about this last reality, stating: "The Israeli Defence Force personnel faced significant, organised and violent resistance from a group of passengers when they boarded the Mavi Marmara requiring them to use force for their own protection. Three soldiers were captured, mistreated and placed at risk by those passengers. Several others were wounded."

Last year BBC1’s Panorama programme broadcasted an investigative documentary called “Death in the Med.” Anchorwoman-interviewer Jane Corbin was responsible for most of the production. The result was a remarkable piece of journalism. For once the BBC, or in this case Jane Corbin vindicated Israel. As expected a controversy raged after the broadcast which was resolved in April this year when the BBC Trust’s Editorial Standards Committee found that overall the programme was accurate and impartial.

One reviewer wrote, “I can scarcely think of a better piece of journalism on the flotilla raid than Jane Corbin’s in-depth investigation, which drew from eyewitness testimony from both passengers and commandos aboard the Mavi Marmara. Notable in this report was an unwillingness to gloss over crucial video footage showing people on the upper deck of the ship attacking abseiling Israeli forces, or to take the word of IHH officials at face value. The only thing missing, really, was IHH’s well-publicised role as both a fundraiser and ideological helpmeet of Hamas.”

Once again I’m including the hyperlink to the video here. In the context of the current controversy between Israel and Turkey the video is essential background material.

Right click on the link and select ‘open hyperlink.’

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SXrzF0IOQYE

Shortly after the Avi Marmara incident Greg Sheridan wrote in The Australian “Not until after 20 minutes of clubbing and stabbing by the wonderfully misnamed peace activists did the Israeli soldiers fire in defence of their own lives.

This was exactly what the protesters wanted and it has aroused the predictable storm of global protest.”

For the sake of emphasis I want to digress a little.

Every student of mediaeval history no doubt remembers the ignominious scene by the gates of Canossa .when in January 1077 the repentant Holy Roman Emperor Henry IV begged the Pope's mercy. A bitter disagreement between Henry and Pope Gregory VII led to the former's excommunication.

The traditional version of this event depicts a repentant Henry begging Gregory to reverse his expulsion from the Roman Catholic Church. The vindictive Pope made Henry and his entourage wait barefoot for three days by the gates of the fortress at Canossa before pardoning him.

Another version of the story claims Henry found it politically expedient to do penance. Furthermore, most of the three days at Canossa were spent in a nearby village by a warm fire and not freezing in the winter snow by the gates of the fortress. Gregory for his part, argues the new version, feared that Henry’s army was about to attack him so he sought refuge in Mathilda of Tuscany’s fortress at Canossa.

Eight hundred years later Otto von Bismarck also had a run in with the Roman Catholic Church. Bismarck was a Protestant so no threat of "bell, book and candle" could deter him. “I will not go to Canossa!” he said coining a phrase universally synonymous with a stubborn refusal to knuckle under.

Although he didn’t mention Bismarck I’m sure Bibi Netanyahu had him in mind when he refused to apologise for the deaths on the Avi Marmara..

The Palmer Report was preceded by independent reports conducted by both Turkey and Israel. The Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan demanded that Israel apologise and compensate the bereaved families.

Israel’s foreign minister, Avigdor Lieberman dismissed Turkey’s demand for an apology over the flotilla raid as “chutzpah”. This led Recep Tayyip Erdogan to describe Lieberman, in an interview with Al Jazeera, as “a curse for Israelis.” (Maybe he’s right).

It seems we have hit rock bottom in our relations with Turkey. Erdogan has issued veiled threats regarding Turkish naval escorts for Turkish ships in the Mediterranean and plans to sign a military pact with Egypt.

On Tuesday Turkey threatened Cyprus with naval action if it allows an Israeli company to drill an offshore exploratory well on the Cypriot side of an economic interest demarcation line with Israel.

On Wednesday the Israeli financial daily Globes reported that the Israeli owned Delek Group and its U.S. partner, Noble Energy Inc., are due to start drilling in the area later this month under the terms of a 2008 concession from the Cypriot government.

Most of Erdogan’s threats and demands are knee-jerk reactions to the Palmer Report. He’s making a lot of noise, however I doubt if he will take any really provocative action. Despite all the hue and cry a war between Israel and Turkey is not in the cards.

Turkey’s economy is generally regarded as solid, even buoyant.

Debka Files ( check other sources before you believe what they write) quoting an unnamed US source, begged to differ with this general assessment.

“Economically Turkey is no better than a paper tiger, hiding a galloping crisis behind its anti-Israel rhetoric:
Ankara's published impressive GDP growth rate of 11 percent is artificially inflated by out-of-control credit pumped out by its central bank to create a short-term bubble. In fact, Turkey is fast sliding into a deep economic slump. Its current account deficit has reached almost the same crisis level as those of Greece and Portugal and its currency faces devaluation.”

A quick check of the economic press didn’t confirm this negative outlook. One exception was Bloomberg News which was less enthusiastic about the Turkish boom.

“The probability that Turkey will enter a recession is almost half and half.

A market consensus growth forecast for next year of 4.5 percent is ‘way too optimistic," Bank of America Merrill Lynch economist Turker Hamzaoglu said yesterday.

Ahmet Akarli, a London-based economist for Goldman Sachs, wrote in an emailed report after markets closed on Tuesday. "Expectations for recession have risen across the board, and remain particularly elevated in South Africa and Turkey."

In 2010, Israeli exports to Turkey amounted to $1.3 billion, an increase of 20 percent compared with the previous year, while imports from Turkey stood at $1.8 billion, a 30 percent rise.
In the first half of 2011, imports from Turkey stood at $1.1 billion, a 14 percent rise compared with the same period in 2010.

In his column in the New York Times this week Roger Cohen quoted thePalmer Report's recommendation that Israel should issue “an appropriate statement of regret” and said, "Yes, Israel, increasingly isolated, should do just that. An apology is the right course and the smart course."

Netanyahu expressed regret but refused to apologise.

"Israel and Turkey were tossed a lifeline, and didn't take it," wrote Trudy Rubin in the Philadelphia Inquirer referring to the Palmer Report. As of midsummer, Turkish and Israeli diplomats had concocted language that appeared acceptable to both sides.

Ms Rubin wrote in July that Benjamin Netanyahu was considering an apology for unintentional "operational mistakes" during the raid. Defense Minister Ehud Barak endorsed this idea because he believed the Israeli-Turkish relationship was strategically vital.

“But on Sunday, “says Rubin, “After weeks of dithering, and after the report's contents were leaked, Netanyahu said Israel "need not apologise."

Alon Liel, a former Israeli ambassador to Turkey believes an apology should have been issued. "Diplomats had agreed on a formula, but the politicians rejected it," says Liel. Netanyahu apparently bowed to objections by foreign minister, Avigdor Lieberman, who vehemently lobbied against saying sorry.

"I think this was a mistake," Liel said. "Israeli-Turkish relations are entering a new era. Turkey will become a hostile country and will be active against Israeli interests in the Middle East." The Obama administration is still making efforts to paper things over, but Liel was pessimistic. "It's all over," he said. "There's no apology possible now."

Some Israelis argue that Erdogan wouldn't have accepted the compromise his own diplomats had agreed on. They note that the Turkish leader now calls for an end to the naval embargo in addition to his earlier demands.

Public opinion polls clearly indicate that most Israelis are against apologising to Turkey. Furthermore, analysts, specialising in Turkish politics claim that the disagreement with Turkey is motivated by interests.

Once Turkey understood that the European Union had all but rejected Ankara’s request to become a member of the EU it turned eastward and embarked on a policy of zero problems with its neighbours.

Looking back Erdogan and his foreign minister, Ahmet Davutoglu , realise that their new pragmatism has produced no tangible and lasting results.

Next week Israeli soccer team Maccabi Tel Aviv is due to play against the Turkish team Besiktas in Istanbul. In a TV interview ahead of the game Turkey’s sports minister Suat Kilic said everything will be done to assure the safety of the Israeli players.

I have just seen a video clip that showed how angry Turkish soccer fans behave. They make British soccer hooligans look like lily-livered choir boys.

Have a good weekend.

Beni 8^th of September, 2010

Targeted killings

Yediot Ahronot’s military correspondent Alex Fishman claims the IDF’s modus operandi in the Gaza Strip has changed. He says, "The political leadership has given the IDF and General Security Service (GSS) much more leeway and flexibility regarding ‘targeted killings’ of wanted terrorists.” Fishman prefers the term "pinpoint eliminations”, however he also mentioned, “surgical strikes."

Why do Fishman and other correspondents torment their readers by using oblique terminology? Perhaps they are simply articulating the same fondness military spokespeople have for bandying with words. Why do they avoid the word assassination? After all, the political leaders, "flak catchers," commentators and the actual “dispatchers" have few qualms about "doing the job," so why don't they call a spade a spade?

This is not a new dilemma, in fact nine years ago Professor Steven R. David, Associate Dean at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland clarified the matter in a paper he presented at the Begin-Sadat Center conference on democracy and limited war held in Tel Aviv. Under the heading - “Fatal choices: Israel's policy of targeted killing” he wrote, “Targeted killing is the intentional slaying of a specific individual or group of Individuals undertaken with explicit governmental approval. It is not ‘assassination’ for three reasons. First, assassination typically has a pejorative connotation of ‘murder by treacherous means.’ whether the Israeli killing of alleged Palestinian terrorists is ‘treacherous’ or not is a debatable proposition that should not be assumed a priori by employing loaded terms such as assassination.

Second, assassination usually refers to the killing of senior political officials. For the most part—though not exclusively—Israel has focused on killing Palestinian terrorists and those who plan the actual attacks. Finally, Israel itself does not use the term, ‘assassination’, and instead prefers ‘targeted thwarting’ or ‘interceptions.’

While it is not necessary to accept Israeli terminology for its actions, neither does it make sense to accept the terminology of its critics.

Targeted killing accurately refers to what the Israelis actually do, with a minimum of semantic baggage implying approval or disapproval of their actions.”

A few months ago The Economist tackled the problem in a lead article, “Moreover, celebrity legal eagle Alan Dershowitz correctly infers that ‘those who have opposed the very concept of targeted killings should be railing against the killing of Osama Bin Laden’. But they aren't.

Among others, these critics include officials in Britain, France, Italy, Russia, the EU, Jordan, and the United Nations. [Jack Straw, the former British foreign secretary] once said, ‘The British government has made it repeatedly clear that so-called targeted assassinations of this kind are unlawful, unjustified and counterproductive.’ The French foreign ministry has declared ‘that extrajudicial executions contravene international law and are unacceptable.’ The Italian Foreign Minister has said, ‘Italy, like the whole of the European Union, has always condemned the practice of targeted assassinations.’ The Russians have asserted that ‘Russia has repeatedly stressed the unacceptability of extrajudicial settling of scores and 'targeted killings.’ Javier Solana has noted that the ‘"European Union has consistently condemned extrajudicial killings.’ The Jordanians have said, ‘Jordan has always denounced this policy of assassination and its position on this has always been clear.’ And Kofi Annan has declared ‘that extrajudicial killings are violations of international law.’
Yet none of these nations, groups or individuals have criticized the targeted killing of Osama Bin Laden by the US. The reason is obvious. All the condemnations against targeted killing were directed at one country. Guess which one? Israel, of course.”

Well with the passage of time the abovementioned critics who once considered targeted killings unacceptable, extremely terrible and unhelpful have changed their minds. It's no secret that President Obama has sanctioned the killing of more suspected terrorists than his predecessors. His administration has increased the use of unmanned drone strikes and so-called kill/capture missions on al-Qaeda and Taliban leadership both on and off the traditional battlefield. While some analysts quote successes, like the U.S. Navy SEAL raid that killed Osama bin Laden, others say the strategy lacks proper legal boundaries.

Professor Dershowitz criticised the critics further, "These critics characterize such actions as 'extrajudicial executions' and demand that terrorist leaders and functionaries be treated as common criminals who must be arrested and brought to trial.

The operation that resulted in Bin Laden's death was a military action calculated to kill rather than to 'arrest' him. It is possible, though highly unlikely, that he could have been captured alive and brought to trial. The decision to employ military personnel with guns, rather than a drone firing rockets, was probably made by generals rather than lawyers.

Had it been militarily preferable to fire a rocket, that option would almost certainly have been selected."

Ilya Somin, a professor of law at George Mason University, has argued:

“In my view, targeting terrorist leaders is not only defensible, but actually more ethical than going after rank and file terrorists or trying to combat terrorism through purely defensive security measures. The rank and file have far less culpability for terrorist attacks than do their leaders, and killing them is less likely to impair terrorist operations. Purely defensive measures, meanwhile, often impose substantial costs on innocent people and may imperil civil liberties. Despite the possibility of collateral damage inflicted on civilians whom the terrorist leaders use as human shields, targeted assassination of terrorist leaders is less likely to harm innocents than most other strategies for combating terror and more likely to disrupt future terrorist operations.

That does not prove that it should be the only strategy we use, but it does mean that we should reject condemnations of it as somehow immoral.”

The author of the article in The Economist expressed his concern about this question, ”I think it underlies my discomfort with Mr Somin's sensible argument as well as the widespread official condemnation of ‘extrajudicial’ and ‘unlawful’ targeted killings. As Hobbes taught, if private reason is authoritative—if each of us is left to judge what is right—we are left with a chaos of conflicting claims. In that case it seems that ‘justice’ boils down to Thrasymachus' slogan : ‘Justice is nothing other than the advantage of the stronger’.

Because America is generally ‘the stronger’, many Americans are pretty satisfied with Thrasymachean international justice. In a Thrasymachean world, America's authority to declare, as Mr Obama did declare, that ‘justice has been done’ through American assassination is based ultimately upon America's superior strength. A civil global order would require that private reason be subordinated to public reason—that national judgment be subordinated to international law. The aspiration to an order of global public reason expressed in the quotations offered up by Mr Dershowitz often is, as Mr Dershowitz argues, cynically opportunistic. But it is just as often admirably authentic.”

Transposing this argument to our region we often hear criticism of Israel for its use of disproportionate force, too much “clout” in its various military confrontations. In our microcosm Israel is generally considered to be the strongest nation in the arena. Even now when the US president is more critical of the present Israeli government we can still eliminate terrorists whenever an opportunity arises.

Nevertheless there are limitations as Alan Dershowitz pointed out, ” Indeed, in Israel, the use of targeted killings has been closely regulated by its Supreme Court and permitted only against terrorists who are actively engaged in ongoing acts of terrorism. In the United States, on the other hand, the decisions to use this tactic is made by the President alone, without any form of judicial review. So let the world stop applying a double standard to Israel and let it start judging the merits and demerits of military tactics such as targeted killing. On balance, targeted killing, when used prudently against proper military targets, can be an effective, lawful, and moral tool in the war against terrorism.”

A distinction should be made between operations carried out or allegedly carried out by the Mossad such as the assassination of Mahmoud al-Mabhouh in Dubai and regular IDF actions against terrorists, both leaders and rank and file operatives.

The use of armed UAV’s (unmanned aerial vehicles) has also been criticised sometimes because only the stronger side has them while the freedom fighter/terrorist (you choose) moves helplessly exposed on the ground.

In a recent issue of Jane’s Defence Weekly the targeting mechanism of US Predator UAV was said to employ, ”High-precision zoom lens cameras, and video cameras with both electric optic and infrared capability that can see at night, can lock on a target for their two Hellfire missiles when they are so far away that the target can neither see them nor hear them.”

We all use similar targeting techniques. France has been deploying its medium altitude, long endurance ‘Harfang’ drones over Libya, operating from Sigonella air base in Sicily. They were transferred from Afghanistan to support the Libyan theatre of operation.

In March 2010, Department of State Legal Advisor Koh said: "U.S. targeting practices, including lethal operations conducted with the use of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), comply with all applicable law, including the laws of war ." He said the U.S. is in "an armed conflict with al-Qaeda, the Takiban, and the associated forces", and therefore has the lawful right to use lethal force to protect its citizens ‘consistent with its right to self-defense’ under international law.

In another issue of Jane’s Defence Weekly Frank Pace, the President of General Atomics Aeronautical Systems, the company that manufactures the Predator and the Reaper(UAVs) (very appropriate names) prophesied that “Almost everything will be unmanned in probably less than 100 years.”

The same issue of the magazine published an assessment of the total worldwide unmanned aerial vehicle market. Israel was ranked third after the US and China and ahead of Russia.

We too reserve the right to strike at our enemies using fair means and foul.

Aptly put by Shakespeare in Macbeth " Fair is foul, and foul is fair:/ Hover through the fog and filthy air," inspired by Saul’s visit to the witch at Ein Dor, sometimes written Endor. 1 Samuel 28:3-25.

After the death of his son in World War 1 Rudyard Kipling used the séance at Ein Dor as the theme of his poem En-Dor

Oh the road to En-dor is the oldest road
And the craziest road of all!
Straight it runs to the Witch’s abode,
As it did in the days of Saul,
And nothing has changed of the sorrow in store
For such as go down on the road to En-dor!

Looking out from the breakfast room/cafeteria in our factory I can see the road to Ein Dor. Not the miserable village described by Mark Twain in Innocents Abroad but a kibbutz built on the same site just 6km north of Ein Harod.

Have a good weekend

Beni 1^st of September, 2011.